Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/05/1985COMMISSIONERS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: September 5, 1985 City of Beach Present I J x x x x Ix I Commissioner Winburn arrived at 7:35 p.m. Commissioner Absent Turner was absent. EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney * * x STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator Don Webb, City Engineer Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary s 11111111 * ** Use Permit No. 3070 (Amended)(COntinued Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit that permitted the establishment of a take -out ice cream shop and the waiver of all of the required off- street parking on property located in the C -1 District. The proposed amendment includes a request to expand the hours of operation so as to allow the facility to open at 7:00 a.m. to sell coffee and croissants (where the original use permit restricted the opening of the facility to 11:00 a.m. ) and a request to permit a 7 foot long bench in front of the ice cream shop, adja- cent to East Coast Highway (where the original use permit provided that there shall be no seating on the premises). LOCATION: Lot 5, Block M, Tract No. 323, located at 2756 East Coast Highway, on the northeasterly side of East Coast High- way, between Fernleaf Avenue and Golden- rod Avenue, in Corona del.Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Robert W. Forstrom, La Canada OWNER: Alex Pourgal, Huntington Beach MINUTES INDEX Item No.I UP3070 (Amended) Approved Condition- ally A F C o x _ v 9 m z c C m> m z a s a z r o x M M m 0 m D m Z a z a z M m REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: September 5, 1985 City of Beach Present I J x x x x Ix I Commissioner Winburn arrived at 7:35 p.m. Commissioner Absent Turner was absent. EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney * * x STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William R. Laycock, Current Planning Administrator Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator Don Webb, City Engineer Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary s 11111111 * ** Use Permit No. 3070 (Amended)(COntinued Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved use permit that permitted the establishment of a take -out ice cream shop and the waiver of all of the required off- street parking on property located in the C -1 District. The proposed amendment includes a request to expand the hours of operation so as to allow the facility to open at 7:00 a.m. to sell coffee and croissants (where the original use permit restricted the opening of the facility to 11:00 a.m. ) and a request to permit a 7 foot long bench in front of the ice cream shop, adja- cent to East Coast Highway (where the original use permit provided that there shall be no seating on the premises). LOCATION: Lot 5, Block M, Tract No. 323, located at 2756 East Coast Highway, on the northeasterly side of East Coast High- way, between Fernleaf Avenue and Golden- rod Avenue, in Corona del.Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Robert W. Forstrom, La Canada OWNER: Alex Pourgal, Huntington Beach MINUTES INDEX Item No.I UP3070 (Amended) Approved Condition- ally September 5, 1985 Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that during the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings of the adjacent take -out Mexican restaurant there were concerns regarding the litter in the neighborhood and specifically in the area surrounding the subject ice cream shop's bench in front of the store. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Robert W. Forstrom, 317 Amethyst Avenue, Balboa Island, owner, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Forstrom advised that the bench is located on the subject property, and not in the way of the pedestrian traffic on the public sidewalk. He opined that if the bench would be removed then the customers would be standing around on the sidewalk, creating congestion, or the customers would remain in the store. Mr. Forstrom confirmed that there has been a trash problem in the area: however, recently the applicant has been keeping the trash inside the store until the following morning awaiting trash pick -up, and . the employees have been cleaning the sidewalk each day in front of the store and adjacent to the neighboring businesses. According to Mr. Forstrom, the only trash recepticles in the area are in front of the subject ice cream store, and that by keeping the bench in front of the store there will be better control of the trash if the customers remain in front of the store instead of walking around the area and spilling ice cream elsewhere. Mr. Forstrom stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibits "A" and "B ". The public hearing was closed at this time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Forstrom replied that one of the trash recepticles is at the end of the bench, the second recepticle is near the curb, and there is a trash recepticle inside the store. Mr. Forstrom recommended additional ,trash recepticles for the surrounding area if the bench is not approved. I I I I I I I In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Forstrom replied that the business is currently open at 7:00 a.m. and that the City notified him that the condition needed to be changed in order to open at 7:00 a.m. Commissioner Koppelman stated that on the basis that ice cream is generally consumed on the premises, -2- MINUTES INDEX x x c o � x - v 7 m C z c m m z C x Z0 a = r ° ; 0 I °City W m o m s , of X a z z z r m September 5, 1985 Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that during the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings of the adjacent take -out Mexican restaurant there were concerns regarding the litter in the neighborhood and specifically in the area surrounding the subject ice cream shop's bench in front of the store. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Robert W. Forstrom, 317 Amethyst Avenue, Balboa Island, owner, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Forstrom advised that the bench is located on the subject property, and not in the way of the pedestrian traffic on the public sidewalk. He opined that if the bench would be removed then the customers would be standing around on the sidewalk, creating congestion, or the customers would remain in the store. Mr. Forstrom confirmed that there has been a trash problem in the area: however, recently the applicant has been keeping the trash inside the store until the following morning awaiting trash pick -up, and . the employees have been cleaning the sidewalk each day in front of the store and adjacent to the neighboring businesses. According to Mr. Forstrom, the only trash recepticles in the area are in front of the subject ice cream store, and that by keeping the bench in front of the store there will be better control of the trash if the customers remain in front of the store instead of walking around the area and spilling ice cream elsewhere. Mr. Forstrom stated that he concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibits "A" and "B ". The public hearing was closed at this time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Forstrom replied that one of the trash recepticles is at the end of the bench, the second recepticle is near the curb, and there is a trash recepticle inside the store. Mr. Forstrom recommended additional ,trash recepticles for the surrounding area if the bench is not approved. I I I I I I I In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Forstrom replied that the business is currently open at 7:00 a.m. and that the City notified him that the condition needed to be changed in order to open at 7:00 a.m. Commissioner Koppelman stated that on the basis that ice cream is generally consumed on the premises, -2- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS September 5, 1985 MINUTES X C O x y z c a m > q z m 2 G 2 9 N = p; A = O T O m City of Newport Beach a ROLL CALL INDEX it would be more practical for the customers to sit on the bench while eating their ice cream. Commissioner Motion x Koppelman made a motion to approve Use Permit No. 3070 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "B ". Commissioner Goff commented that he will approve the motion, but because he did have concerns regarding the congestion in front of the store, he referred the applicant to Condition No. 5 that states that the Planning Commission may modify the conditions of approval or revoke the use permit if the facility is detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Chairman Person stated that he will not support the motion because similar businesses in Corona del Mar may also desire benches along the sidewalk in front of their businesses. Ayes x x x x Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3070 x (Amended), MOTION CARRIED. t FINDINGS: 1. That the provision of a seating area for customers in conjunction with the take -out restaurant will not result in an intensification of the use of the site. Further, provision of such a seating area will encourage customers to consume the food items on the premises. 2. That the extension of the hours of operation so as to permit the sale of breakfast items does not represent an intensification of the use of the site or a significant change in the nature of the take -out restaurant. 3. The approval of this amendment to Use Permit No. 3070 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 and improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. . CONDITIONS: - 1. That all conditions of Use Permit No. 3070, as approved by the Planning Commission on November 10, 1983, shall remain in effect, except as noted in the following conditions. -3- COW WISSIONERS x x 00 � x Z c m> m z mp z zr cf z c 2 w p; O O 1z s o m> r m z y a September 5, 1985 City of Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I J i l l I INDEX 2. That the take -out restaurant shall only be open for business between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight. . 3. That one bench shall be permitted to provide seating on the premises for customers. Said bench shall be installed outdoors in front of the take -out restaurant facility, and shall not encroach onto the public sidewalk. 4. That the products served at the facility shall be limited to ice cream and related products, non- alcoholic beverages, and croissants. No cooking shall be permitted. 5. That the Planning Commission may add to and /or modify conditions of approval of this amended use permit upon a determination that the operation, which, is the subject of this use permit, causes injury is detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the community. * x Use Permit NO. 2099 (Revocation) (Public Hearing) Request to consider the revocation of Use Permit No. 2099 that permitted the establishment of a take -out ice cream shop (Haagen Dazs) on property located in the C -1 District. This public hearing is to determine whether said use permit should be revoked for failure to comply with the requirement that the facility be closed for business by 10:00 p.m. daily. LOCATION: Lot 15, Block A, Section 4, Balboa Island, located at 332 -A Marine Avenue, on the easterly side of Marine Avenue, between Balboa Avenue and the Balboa Island Bridge, on Balboa Island. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANTS: Stephen and Lynn G. Curtis, Balboa Island I* I I I I I I I I INITIATED BY: The City CityaoflNewport Beach -4- 24, F N September 5, 1985 Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that this is the fourth time since September, 1982, that the subject application has been before the Planning Commission. He said that the Use.Permit was approved in September, 1982, to operate the take -out ice cream shop between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. including the condition of a one year review of the operation. In September, 1983, and August, 1984, the applicant appeared before the Planning Commission to request that the establishment's hours of operation be expanded. These requests were denied by the Planning Commission. He said that the applicant appealed to the City Council in 1984, and in November, 1984, the City Council sustained the action taken by the Planning Commission. Mr. Hewicker advised that the City has received letters of complaint regarding the establishment's hours of operation, and upon recommendation from the City, the Planning Commission requested a public hearing to consider the revocation of the subject Use Permit. Mr. Hewicker referred to the staff report addendum which lists a total of 15 food establishments on Balboa Island. Six of these restaurants are fast food establishments, wherein seven of the restaurants close at or before 10:00 p.m. He said that of those seven restaurants, two of the establishments are controlled by use permits and are required to close at 10:00 p.m., and another establishment that has a use permit is required to close at 11:00 p.m. Mr. Hewicker further commented that one letter in support of the revocation and ten letters in opposition to the revocation have been received by the City. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mrs. Lynn Curtis, applicant, 327 Grand Canal, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Curtis advised that she received eight more letters in opposition to the revocation. Mrs. Curtis emphasized that the applicants understand the importance of closing the store at 10:00 p.m. and hereon the applicants will see that the employees are instructed to lock the doors in accordance with the use permit requirement. Mr. Howard Silver, 418 1/2 Orchid Avenue, President of • _ the Balboa Island Business Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Silver stated that during a previous public hearing, the Balboa Island Business Association had been misrepresented, and that the -5- MINUTES INDEX �C R C O O x z c m m z m y M m m O z r c ;° m> o x m °City of z s z a z * m September 5, 1985 Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that this is the fourth time since September, 1982, that the subject application has been before the Planning Commission. He said that the Use.Permit was approved in September, 1982, to operate the take -out ice cream shop between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. including the condition of a one year review of the operation. In September, 1983, and August, 1984, the applicant appeared before the Planning Commission to request that the establishment's hours of operation be expanded. These requests were denied by the Planning Commission. He said that the applicant appealed to the City Council in 1984, and in November, 1984, the City Council sustained the action taken by the Planning Commission. Mr. Hewicker advised that the City has received letters of complaint regarding the establishment's hours of operation, and upon recommendation from the City, the Planning Commission requested a public hearing to consider the revocation of the subject Use Permit. Mr. Hewicker referred to the staff report addendum which lists a total of 15 food establishments on Balboa Island. Six of these restaurants are fast food establishments, wherein seven of the restaurants close at or before 10:00 p.m. He said that of those seven restaurants, two of the establishments are controlled by use permits and are required to close at 10:00 p.m., and another establishment that has a use permit is required to close at 11:00 p.m. Mr. Hewicker further commented that one letter in support of the revocation and ten letters in opposition to the revocation have been received by the City. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mrs. Lynn Curtis, applicant, 327 Grand Canal, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Curtis advised that she received eight more letters in opposition to the revocation. Mrs. Curtis emphasized that the applicants understand the importance of closing the store at 10:00 p.m. and hereon the applicants will see that the employees are instructed to lock the doors in accordance with the use permit requirement. Mr. Howard Silver, 418 1/2 Orchid Avenue, President of • _ the Balboa Island Business Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Silver stated that during a previous public hearing, the Balboa Island Business Association had been misrepresented, and that the -5- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS) September 5, 1985 MINUTES Beach INDEX Association is in favor of the Haagen Daze establishment. Mr. Silver recommended that all of the Balboa Island fast food establishments maintain uniform operating hours. In - response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Silver replied that Mr. Bill Soder was a liasion between the Balboa Island Homeowner's Association and the Balboa Island Business Association; but not a member or representative of the Balboa Island Business Association. Commissioner Winburn explained that Mr. Soder has not appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Betty Felling, 309 Grand Canal, appeared before the Planning Commission, in favor of the revocation of the use permit. Mrs. Felling emphasized that Mr. and Mrs. Curtis are aware of the required closing hour, and that the residents are requesting that Haagen Daz lock the door at 10:00 p.m. and not allow new customers after that time. Mrs. Felling stated that the neighbors are concerned about the Curtis' attitude relative to the closing hour. xR c O � before the Planning Commission in favor of the z c m > z W a C m a Z r C I O m s * T!' City OI Z z aa ,� m Beach INDEX Association is in favor of the Haagen Daze establishment. Mr. Silver recommended that all of the Balboa Island fast food establishments maintain uniform operating hours. In - response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Silver replied that Mr. Bill Soder was a liasion between the Balboa Island Homeowner's Association and the Balboa Island Business Association; but not a member or representative of the Balboa Island Business Association. Commissioner Winburn explained that Mr. Soder has not appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Betty Felling, 309 Grand Canal, appeared before the Planning Commission, in favor of the revocation of the use permit. Mrs. Felling emphasized that Mr. and Mrs. Curtis are aware of the required closing hour, and that the residents are requesting that Haagen Daz lock the door at 10:00 p.m. and not allow new customers after that time. Mrs. Felling stated that the neighbors are concerned about the Curtis' attitude relative to the closing hour. Mrs. George Newton, 1407 North Bay Front, appeared before the Planning Commission in favor of the revocation of the use permit. Mrs. Newton read a letter she had written to the Planning Commission emphasizing that the applicant does not lock the business door at 10:00 p.m. as required, and she cited dates and times that the applicants have not observed the 10:00 p.m. closing hour. Mrs. Newton stated that she does not approve of a blanket closing hour for the Balboa Island restaurants, since the Planning Commission has the right to take action on each permit as the application pertains to the surrounding neighborhood. Mrs. Lamb, 124 Topaz Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the subject use permit, and stated that the applicants are currently locking the door at 10:00 p.m. • Mr. Chip Lamb, 124 Topaz Avenue, employee of Haagen Daz, appeared before the Planning Commission, in favor of the use permit. Mr. Lamb stated that Haagen Daz ME Mrs. Arthur Kramer, 1403 North Bay Front, appeared before the Planning Commission in favor of the revocation. Mrs. Kramer stated that the residents are opposed to the Haagen Daz business extending the hours beyond the 10:00 p.m. closing hour. Mrs. George Newton, 1407 North Bay Front, appeared before the Planning Commission in favor of the revocation of the use permit. Mrs. Newton read a letter she had written to the Planning Commission emphasizing that the applicant does not lock the business door at 10:00 p.m. as required, and she cited dates and times that the applicants have not observed the 10:00 p.m. closing hour. Mrs. Newton stated that she does not approve of a blanket closing hour for the Balboa Island restaurants, since the Planning Commission has the right to take action on each permit as the application pertains to the surrounding neighborhood. Mrs. Lamb, 124 Topaz Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the subject use permit, and stated that the applicants are currently locking the door at 10:00 p.m. • Mr. Chip Lamb, 124 Topaz Avenue, employee of Haagen Daz, appeared before the Planning Commission, in favor of the use permit. Mr. Lamb stated that Haagen Daz ME %AMISSIONERS September 5, 1985 �c R C O � Mr. Jerry Green, 209 Diamond Avenue, appeared before F a o the Planning Commission, in support of the use permit. C z c m z z z _= 0 o f O C Z D m Z a=� City of Newport Beach has been an asset to the Balboa Island community. Mr. Lamb responded to a question posed by Commissioner Goff stating that he has been employed by Haagen Daz since July. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Lamb replied that the door was previously locked as near 10:00 p.m. as possible, but the door is now locked at exactly 10:00 p.m. Mr. Brett Klyver, 120 Topaz Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, commenting that vacationers like to stop and have ice cream late in the evening after walking around Balboa Island. He further stated that Haagen Daz has added "class" to Marine Avenue. Mrs. Ann Van Genderen, 1401 North Bay Front, appeared before the Planning Commission, opposing the use permit. Mrs. van Genderen stated that many of the Haagen Daz customers litter in front of her home, and that her tenants have complained of noise. She suggested that the operation close at 9:00 p.m. so that the doors would definitely be locked at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Hugh Coffin, 2122 North Broadway, Santa Ana, attorney, representing the applicants, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Coffin stated that the applicants have tried to control the parking in the alley adjacent to the restaurant, and the applicants have recommended a one -way alley out towards Marine Avenue to eliminate parking problems, but the request was denied by the Traffic Affairs Committee and nearby residents. He said that the public is not aware that it is illegal to park in the alley even though the applicants have posted signs. Mr. Coffin stated that he observed the activity on Marine Avenue one recent Friday evening between 9:45 p.m. and 10:45 p.m. when the applicants closed and locked the door at 10:00 p.m. at which time many potential customers were attempting to purchase Haagen Daz ice cream. He said that four doors down from Haagen Daz there is an ice cream shop that serves customers through a pass- through window, and on that same evening during the aforementioned hour, there was a crowd on the sidewalk purchasing ice cream. Mr. Coffin opined the situation as being unreasonable that one ice cream shop has to lock its -7- MINUTES INDEX Mr. Jerry Green, 209 Diamond Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, in support of the use permit. Mr. Green stated that Balboa Island has been very busy this summer, and that any store on that site would create trash or noise. Mr. Hugh Coffin, 2122 North Broadway, Santa Ana, attorney, representing the applicants, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Coffin stated that the applicants have tried to control the parking in the alley adjacent to the restaurant, and the applicants have recommended a one -way alley out towards Marine Avenue to eliminate parking problems, but the request was denied by the Traffic Affairs Committee and nearby residents. He said that the public is not aware that it is illegal to park in the alley even though the applicants have posted signs. Mr. Coffin stated that he observed the activity on Marine Avenue one recent Friday evening between 9:45 p.m. and 10:45 p.m. when the applicants closed and locked the door at 10:00 p.m. at which time many potential customers were attempting to purchase Haagen Daz ice cream. He said that four doors down from Haagen Daz there is an ice cream shop that serves customers through a pass- through window, and on that same evening during the aforementioned hour, there was a crowd on the sidewalk purchasing ice cream. Mr. Coffin opined the situation as being unreasonable that one ice cream shop has to lock its -7- MINUTES INDEX COMMISSIONERS . ,t X o C o = E y v v 9 m z c m z m a a z r 0 x 'C 2 N p; O O v m O m > T E S = y a T T September 5, 1985 of Newaort Beach MINUTES '• M§00110- IIC� door at 10:00 p.m. and another ice cream shop is permitted to remain open. Mr. Coffin further stated that because Balboa Island is a resort area, the local residents living next to a commercial street will have noise at a late hour, and as automobiles accelerate up the Balboa Island bridge, there will be automobile fumes and noise. Mr. Coffin commented that the applicants had chosen to withdraw their City Council appeal request in November, 1984, and had misunderstood the proper procedures by assuming the matter would be taken off calendar; therefore, the applicants were operating under a misapprehension of fact. In reference to Findings No. 3 and 4 in Exhibit "A" stating that "the ice cream facility is not compatible with the adjoining residential uses" and that the application is "detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood ", Mr. Coffin I I I I I I concluded that on the previously stated Friday evening, after Haagen Daz closed, foot traffic continued to go unabated around the neighborhood and on Marine Avenue. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Coffin replied that the applicants contacted Mayor Pro -Tem Maurer before the applicants' appeal was to be heard at the City Council meeting in 1984, explaining to Mayor Pro -Tem Maurer that they were requesting to withdraw their appeal, and at that time the applicants assumed that the matter would be taken off calendar, and did not write a letter. Mr. Coffin commented that the applicants were aware that the ice cream shop closing hour of 10:00 p.m. was still in effect. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Coffin replied that even though Mayor Pro -Tem Maurer was aware that the applicants had requested to withdraw their appeal, during the City Council meeting Mayor Pro -Tem Maurer had requested a show of hands by those in the audience who were opposed to the change in hours, and on that basis Mayor Pro -Tem Maurer sustained the decision of the Planning Commission. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Coffin emphasized that the only assurance that he • 11111111 could give that Haagen Daz would be closed at 10:00 Q0 COMMISSIONERS1 September 5, 1985 MINUTES xR c O z c m i m C T N o r 0 M m o m> r 2 9 z M 2 of Newport Beach INDEX p.m. would be Mrs. Curtis' statement that the door will be closed and locked at 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Winburn commented that she had also observed much activity around the. Haagen Daz ice cream store on Marine Avenue; Labor Day week -end, after the 10:00 p.m. closing hour. Commissioner Winburn commented that the Planning Commission has applied a new condition on all use permits because of previous problems relating to Haagen Daz, and Commissioner Winburn asked Mr. Coffin what other assurances the applicant could give besides the verbal promises that they would close at 10:00 p.m. because during previous hearings the Curtis' also stated the door would be locked at 10:00 p.m. Chairman Person advised Mr. Coffin that the added condition that Commissioner Winburn was referring to is "that the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval of 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 ". Chairman Person stated that he would request that this condition be added to the Curtis' use permit, and suggested that they agree to this condition in writing. Chairman Person recommended that the revocation hearing be continued to the second meeting in July 1986. Mr. Fred Lowry, 111 Abalone Avenue, Balboa Island, appeared before the Planning Commission as a local resident and co- counsel. He emphatically stated that the applicants will close the Haagen Daz ice cream store at 10:00 p.m.; however, Mr. Lowry stated that there is a need for equality regarding business closing hours on Marine Avenue, specifically in the block that Haagen Daz is located. Mrs. Felling reappeared before the Planning Commission stating that the residents are aware that a use permit goes with the land and not the business. Mrs. Felling commented that the applicants originally requested the 10:00 p.m. closing time when they applied for their use permit in 1982 and 1983. The public hearing was closed at this time. • Chairman Person advised that the Planning Commission does not have the power to revoke a use permit; however, the Planning Commission can recommend the revocation of a use permit to the City Council. -9- COMMISSIONERS 7t A C O O 2 f y a L 9 m z c m Z z �= y 0Icoo M = p = M m September 5, 1985 MINUTES City f Newport Beach Y p ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Winburn asked what other actions could be taken against the applicants other than revocation? Mr. Hewicker replied that the Planning Commission could continue the revocation hearing to a future date, so that the applicants would know that they would have to return to the Planning Commission for a final determination. Assistant City Attorney Carol Korade replied that a notice to a change of hours of operation could be made to assure compliance of the 10:00 p.m. closing time; or an agreement could be made wherein the applicants would agree that the present evidence would be sufficient to deem a revocation, and any additional information would result in a revocation of the use permit to reinforce the decision of the Planning Commission; or it may be possible that any new evidence would require another hearing or due process claim. Chairman Person asked how the Planning Commission could modify the use permit because the conditions of approval do not contain the condition to add and/or modify said conditions of approval? Ms. Korade replied that there could not be a condition but an agreement could be made between the applicant and the City that • the premises could be closed at 9:00 p.m. in -lieu of recommendations for revocation. Commissioner Goff stated that he was the dissenting vote at the time of the original use permit on the basis that he did not believe that the Haagen Daz location was appropriate because of the proximity to residences, and he said that the last three years have confirmed that decision. Commissioner Goff made a Motion x motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to revoke Use Permit No. 2099 subject to the findings for the revocation in Exhibit "A ". . Commissioner Goff opined that after hearing the testimony of the applicant and their counsel, that he was concerned about how the on -going problems are going to be solved. He opined that there will continue to be problems with parking, noise and trash in the subject area, thereby a continuing detriment to the residences. Substitute Commissioner Winburn made a substitute motion to Motion x continue the revocation hearing for ten months, to include an agreement from the applicants to add Condition No. 14 stating "that the Planning Commission may add to and /or modify conditions of approval of this amended use permit upon a determination that the • operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the -10- COMMISSIONERS September 5, 1985 MINUTES x� c O - v a r v x m Z 10 C C c m z H M Z o z z O O r m City of Newport Beach a a z a ROLL CALL INDEX community." Commissioner Winburn opined that the Haagen Daz ice cream store is well maintained and an asset to Balboa Island. The public hearing was reopened in connection with this item, and Chairman Person asked the applicants' counsel if the applicants would agree to the recommended condition. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Fred Lowry, reappeared before the Planning Commission, on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Lowry advised that Mrs. Curtis agrees to the substitute motion to continue the revocation hearing for 10 months as proposed by Commissioner Winburn, including the amended Conditions of Approval by adding proposed Condition No. 14. Commissioner Goff cited that the applicants have been • given an alternative to the revocation; however, he opined that in the four years since the approval of the original use permit, the residents have had to deal with what has not been in the best interest of the community, and that this use permit has been detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood. Chairman Person stated that he will support the substitute motion on the basis that the applicant's agreement to the additional condition that the Planning Commission may call up, amend or modify the use permit at any time within the next ten months, which is the purpose of the additional condition. He cited that the evidence presented is on record and within the next ten months, the Planning Commission may continually observe this business. Chairman Person expressed his concerns regarding commercial uses adjacent to residential.uses. He stated that the public hearing will be posted in early July, 1986. He said that rather than recommend revocation to the City Council that the applicant should be given one last chance to remain in business by complying with the conditions in the use permit. Commissioner xoppelman cited that she was shocked at the applicants' total disregard of the closing hour rules, and that there is possibly sufficient evidence from the present public hearing to recommend revocation; however, she stated that the applicant has -11- "ANSSIONERS September 5, 1985 xx C O % y x > V V m z c m z z C a 0 p; 0 0 9 = m > T m City of Newport Beach 9 E _ shown that under pressure during the past month, that the business can be locked at 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Koppelman commented that if the applicant does not follow the rules and.if the business does not close at 10:00 p.m., the local residents will contact the Planning Commission and further action will have to be taken. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she will support the substitute motion. Chairman Person commented on the policing action and time that will be ncessary by the Planning Department and Planning Commission to observe the subject business. Commissioner Goff emphasized the fact that the Planning Commission has heard enough testimony at the previous and present public hearings to revoke the subject use permit. He commented that compromises are necessary when a commercial use is adjacent to a residential use. Commissioner Winburn explained that the purpose for • continuing the revocation hearing for ten months is that the summer season will be starting, and therefore, the applicants will be very careful that their door is locked by 10:00 p.m, in the forthcoming months. Ayes Absent lxlxl,,Ixlxlxlxl The substitute motion was voted on to continue the Noes public hearing to the Planning Commission meeting on July 24, 1986, including the additional Condition No. 14. Substitute Motion CARRIED. • CONDITIONS: 14. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval of 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. « x t -12- MINUTES COA/\/V\ISSIONERSI September 5, 1985 MINUTES t Beach Waiver of Parcel Map (Discussion) Request to waive the requirement of a parcel map for the combining of lots in conjunction with interior alterations of an existing commercial building located in the C -1 District. LOCATION: All of Lots 4 -20, and portions of Lots 2 and 3, Block 127, Lake Tract and Record of Survey 76 -46, located at 2727 Newport Boulevard, on property bounded by Newport Boulevard, 26th Street, West Balboa Boulevard and 28th Street, in Central Newport. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Independent Development Company, Irvine OWNERS: C & L Investments Co, and Mabel Thibodo, Irvine Inasmuch as there was no one in the audience that A x x x x x x wished to be heard, Chairman Person made a motion to Absent 31 approve the Waiver of the Parcel Map, motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the subject property is under two ownerships which prevents the applicant from combining the properties into a single building site. 2. That the applicant's estate in the real property is of sufficient length to guarantee that said property will be held as a single entity for the economic duration of the building improvement on the site. CONDITION: 1. Should the subject property ever be held under a single ownership, this waiver shall become null and void. -13- Item No.3' Waiver of Parcel Map Approved Condition- ally xx c O � x z c m o m t m a M M MM m z o z r a m 3C x City of = y= T m t Beach Waiver of Parcel Map (Discussion) Request to waive the requirement of a parcel map for the combining of lots in conjunction with interior alterations of an existing commercial building located in the C -1 District. LOCATION: All of Lots 4 -20, and portions of Lots 2 and 3, Block 127, Lake Tract and Record of Survey 76 -46, located at 2727 Newport Boulevard, on property bounded by Newport Boulevard, 26th Street, West Balboa Boulevard and 28th Street, in Central Newport. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Independent Development Company, Irvine OWNERS: C & L Investments Co, and Mabel Thibodo, Irvine Inasmuch as there was no one in the audience that A x x x x x x wished to be heard, Chairman Person made a motion to Absent 31 approve the Waiver of the Parcel Map, motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the subject property is under two ownerships which prevents the applicant from combining the properties into a single building site. 2. That the applicant's estate in the real property is of sufficient length to guarantee that said property will be held as a single entity for the economic duration of the building improvement on the site. CONDITION: 1. Should the subject property ever be held under a single ownership, this waiver shall become null and void. -13- Item No.3' Waiver of Parcel Map Approved Condition- ally September 5, 1985 Beach Citv's Traffic Mr. Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer, advised that the purpose for the discussion of proposed amendments to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance is to enable staff to make specific recommendations and come back to the Planning Commission with proposed changes in the text to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy S -1. MINUTES INDEX X � Item No.4 Proposed Amendments to the City's Traffic Phmasi lv Ordinance Commissioner Goff discussed Issue No. 1 of the Traffic Public Phasing Ordinance and in summary stated that he Hearing recommends an alternative be developed to induce for improvements to the traffic circulation through Corona Oct.10, del Mar as opposed to stating that the traffic will get 1985 worse. Commissioner Kurlander and Mr. Edmonston discussed Issue No. 6 of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Issue No. 7 of the Council Policy S -1 relating to the period of time the TPO project analysis would be effective. Commissioner Goff, Mr. Edmonston, and Mr. James Hewicker, Planning Director, discussed Issue No. 1 alternatives of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance relating to the planned deficiency in Corona del Mar, and the improvements that would be acceptable to the business and residential community of Corona del Mar. Commissioner Winburn suggested "to do nothing until Pelican Hills Road is built ". Commissioner Koppelman and Mr. Edmonston discussed Issues No. 3 and 4 relating to the ICU calculations for yellow time. Further discussion followed between the Planning Commission and staff relating to how the Planning Commission would make recommendations to staff in regard to alternatives to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy S -1, and the decision was that unless the Planning Commission requested specific alternatives to the Issues, staff would proceed with recommendations suggested. In reference to Issue No. 1 of the Traffic Phasing • Ordinance, recommending alternatives regarding traffic deficiencies through Corona del Mar, the Planning Commission recommended that no changes be made. -14- A A C O O '! Di x - y 9 m z c m z m z m A a m S x r O x O m s * r City of z a z a a* m September 5, 1985 Beach Citv's Traffic Mr. Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer, advised that the purpose for the discussion of proposed amendments to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance is to enable staff to make specific recommendations and come back to the Planning Commission with proposed changes in the text to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy S -1. MINUTES INDEX X � Item No.4 Proposed Amendments to the City's Traffic Phmasi lv Ordinance Commissioner Goff discussed Issue No. 1 of the Traffic Public Phasing Ordinance and in summary stated that he Hearing recommends an alternative be developed to induce for improvements to the traffic circulation through Corona Oct.10, del Mar as opposed to stating that the traffic will get 1985 worse. Commissioner Kurlander and Mr. Edmonston discussed Issue No. 6 of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Issue No. 7 of the Council Policy S -1 relating to the period of time the TPO project analysis would be effective. Commissioner Goff, Mr. Edmonston, and Mr. James Hewicker, Planning Director, discussed Issue No. 1 alternatives of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance relating to the planned deficiency in Corona del Mar, and the improvements that would be acceptable to the business and residential community of Corona del Mar. Commissioner Winburn suggested "to do nothing until Pelican Hills Road is built ". Commissioner Koppelman and Mr. Edmonston discussed Issues No. 3 and 4 relating to the ICU calculations for yellow time. Further discussion followed between the Planning Commission and staff relating to how the Planning Commission would make recommendations to staff in regard to alternatives to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy S -1, and the decision was that unless the Planning Commission requested specific alternatives to the Issues, staff would proceed with recommendations suggested. In reference to Issue No. 1 of the Traffic Phasing • Ordinance, recommending alternatives regarding traffic deficiencies through Corona del Mar, the Planning Commission recommended that no changes be made. -14- CONWISSIONERS1 September 5, 1985 MINUTES of Newport Beach [IRROVA In reference to Issue No. 2, relating to override a negative finding, Commissioner Kurlander recommended a 5 /7th majority, Commissioner Goff stated that he currently has no position, and Chairman Person opined that this issue is a policy decision. The Planning Commission recommended a no change policy on Issue No. 3, regarding raising the exempt project size, and Issue No. 4, the threshold factor, Issue No. 5, as recommended by staff to provide a 24 month sunset provision. In response to Commissioner Goff's inquiry, Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that Issue No. 6 of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, regarding the extension of the sunset period, is mainly set up for large developments wherein there would be substantial public improvements phased over a period of up to 10 years and that the developer would be assured that after the initial large scale improvements were completed that the developer would be able to finish up that • I I( I I I I development that was originally anticipated over a period of time. in response to a question posed by Commissioner winburn regarding Issue No. 7 regarding standard trip generation rates, Mr. Edmonston stated that the proposed recommendation be changed as follows: "alternate trip generation rates shall be allowed for non - typical projects. Such rates shall only be allowed based on adequate documentation satisfactory to the Traffic Engineer and shall be subject for review by the Planning Commission and City Council." Mr. Edmonston explained that rather than tying into a percentage for a project that has unique characteristics, and if there can be documentation of how the characteristics differ for the project, then the applicant may apply for a non - standard rate. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Edmonston replied that there is a small percentage of unique developments. The Planning Commission agreed to the recommendations for Issue No. 6 to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the Fair Share Ordinance. The Planning Commission recommended including morning traffic analysis after considering Issue No. 1 of Council Policy S -1. • Discussion followed regarding Issue No. 2, growth in regional traffic, related to Council Policy S -1. The Planning Commission and staff discussed the Newport Beach Sphere -of- Influence, and the projected growth as -15- 7 x 10 f a ♦ � � s r v 2 c m m a a = r P 2 = W o ! O O Z m O m s Z a z a s� m of Newport Beach [IRROVA In reference to Issue No. 2, relating to override a negative finding, Commissioner Kurlander recommended a 5 /7th majority, Commissioner Goff stated that he currently has no position, and Chairman Person opined that this issue is a policy decision. The Planning Commission recommended a no change policy on Issue No. 3, regarding raising the exempt project size, and Issue No. 4, the threshold factor, Issue No. 5, as recommended by staff to provide a 24 month sunset provision. In response to Commissioner Goff's inquiry, Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that Issue No. 6 of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, regarding the extension of the sunset period, is mainly set up for large developments wherein there would be substantial public improvements phased over a period of up to 10 years and that the developer would be assured that after the initial large scale improvements were completed that the developer would be able to finish up that • I I( I I I I development that was originally anticipated over a period of time. in response to a question posed by Commissioner winburn regarding Issue No. 7 regarding standard trip generation rates, Mr. Edmonston stated that the proposed recommendation be changed as follows: "alternate trip generation rates shall be allowed for non - typical projects. Such rates shall only be allowed based on adequate documentation satisfactory to the Traffic Engineer and shall be subject for review by the Planning Commission and City Council." Mr. Edmonston explained that rather than tying into a percentage for a project that has unique characteristics, and if there can be documentation of how the characteristics differ for the project, then the applicant may apply for a non - standard rate. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Edmonston replied that there is a small percentage of unique developments. The Planning Commission agreed to the recommendations for Issue No. 6 to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the Fair Share Ordinance. The Planning Commission recommended including morning traffic analysis after considering Issue No. 1 of Council Policy S -1. • Discussion followed regarding Issue No. 2, growth in regional traffic, related to Council Policy S -1. The Planning Commission and staff discussed the Newport Beach Sphere -of- Influence, and the projected growth as -15- September 5, 1985 MINUTES INDEX developed during the past five years. Commissioner Goff commented that Issue No. 2 would intend to include a portion of the Downcoast area specifically and the regional growth projection, would be based on the past five years actual growth as opposed to the Orange County population growth. The Planning Commission agreed with staff's recommendation. The Planning Commission recommended no change for Issue No. 3, capacity of a traffic lane, in Council Policy S -1. After discussion regarding Issue No. 4, the yellow time factor, Mr. Edmonston stated that staff will provide additional documentation in the staff report. In response to a question .posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Edmonston stated that traffic counts require a period of several months to complete, and that multiple counts at each location are not possible with current staffing. The Planning Commission supported the recommendation for Issue No. 5, to carry • I I I ! I I I ICU calculations to two decimal places, in Council I Policy S -1. No change was recommended for Issue No. 6. The Planning Commission recommended that the staff report clarify Issue No. 7 of the Council Policy S -1. Commissioner Winburn suggested that staff provide the trip generation rates in the staff report. Motion x Motion was made to set the City's Traffic Phasing Ayes x x x x x x Ordinance public hearing for October 10, 1985. Motion Absent x voted on, MOTION CARRIED. * * x Discussion of the Proposed Agenda for the Joint Item No.4 —1 n_—. - -. -- /ns �.. n— ......f 1 ea. —. 4.... ..f Cer.4 omi.un • Proposed The Planning Commission discussed various items. that Agenda for could be presented during the joint meeting; however, Joint CC Meeting the consensus was that there may not be enough time to 9 -23 -85 discuss more than the projected Planning Commission workload. No Action * * * Necessary -16- A A O so x C r 9 It z c A m It W ]o a = r 0 x S City Beach a= p a T m of Newport INDEX developed during the past five years. Commissioner Goff commented that Issue No. 2 would intend to include a portion of the Downcoast area specifically and the regional growth projection, would be based on the past five years actual growth as opposed to the Orange County population growth. The Planning Commission agreed with staff's recommendation. The Planning Commission recommended no change for Issue No. 3, capacity of a traffic lane, in Council Policy S -1. After discussion regarding Issue No. 4, the yellow time factor, Mr. Edmonston stated that staff will provide additional documentation in the staff report. In response to a question .posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Edmonston stated that traffic counts require a period of several months to complete, and that multiple counts at each location are not possible with current staffing. The Planning Commission supported the recommendation for Issue No. 5, to carry • I I I ! I I I ICU calculations to two decimal places, in Council I Policy S -1. No change was recommended for Issue No. 6. The Planning Commission recommended that the staff report clarify Issue No. 7 of the Council Policy S -1. Commissioner Winburn suggested that staff provide the trip generation rates in the staff report. Motion x Motion was made to set the City's Traffic Phasing Ayes x x x x x x Ordinance public hearing for October 10, 1985. Motion Absent x voted on, MOTION CARRIED. * * x Discussion of the Proposed Agenda for the Joint Item No.4 —1 n_—. - -. -- /ns �.. n— ......f 1 ea. —. 4.... ..f Cer.4 omi.un • Proposed The Planning Commission discussed various items. that Agenda for could be presented during the joint meeting; however, Joint CC Meeting the consensus was that there may not be enough time to 9 -23 -85 discuss more than the projected Planning Commission workload. No Action * * * Necessary -16- • COMMISSIONERS X x c o 0 A m z c m> m z m D a Z r O 2 1�cz m O i O Of�I} y of mm O m s r m ` z" Z a= T m September 5, 1985 Beach Discussion of Planning Commission Workload f Chairman Person commented that the Planning Commission workload as presented by the Planning Department has shown that there is a possibility that the proposed revisions to Newport Center and the Cannery Village/ - McFadden Square Specific Area Plan may appear on the same evening's agenda in November. James Hewicker, Planning Director, advised that the staff reports for Newport Center and the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan may be ready about the same time. Mr. Hewicker stated that staff does not intend to present the two items' first public hearings on the same evening's agenda, and he asked for the Planning Commission's preference of which item to be presented first. I I I I I It was the consensus of the Commissioners present that they would take each project as it came up. However, they did not wish to load the agenda with more than one major item at a time. Further, if the Cannery Village Specific Area Plan and the Newport Center General Plan Amendment were ready at the same time then preference would be to commence the hearings on the Specific Area Plan. first. Mr. Hewicker advised Commissioner Koppelman that the transfer of Fashion Island square footage item will be coming to the Planning Commission before the end of the year. A D D I T I O N A L B U S I N E S S: The Planning Commission discussed the parking and landscaping situation at Baxter's and Reuben's Restaurant property. -17- MINUTES • • CON\ September 5, 1985 Beach Commissioner Person was excused from the September 19, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. * x A D J 0 U R N M E N T: 10:40 P.M. r � PAT EICHENHOFER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES xx n e a v = y 9 r v z c m y m z z C z `Z 9 N Z r ° i 0 ° 2 °City M s o m of z n z z r m September 5, 1985 Beach Commissioner Person was excused from the September 19, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. * x A D J 0 U R N M E N T: 10:40 P.M. r � PAT EICHENHOFER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES