Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 - 28 - 333 Old Newport Boulevard (PA2009-059)RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 2009 -014 TO WAIVE THE ADDITIONAL OFF - STREET PARKING REQUIRED FOR THE CONVERSION OF 2,600 SQUARE -FEET OF RETAIL TO MEDICAL OFFICE IN AN EXISTING MULTI - TENANT BUILDING LOCATED AT 333 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD (PA2009 -059) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The applicant proposes to convert a 2,600 square -foot retail space to medical office in an existing multi- tenant building located at 333 Old Newport Boulevard, and legally described as Tract 27 Lot 24 Block 9 Triangular Lot in Lot — including portion of abandoned streets adjacent on northwest and southwest NW & SE in the City of Newport Beach, California. Based upon the minimum required parking ratios of the Zoning Code specified in Section 20.66.030, two additional spaces are required. The subject property does not provide any off - street parking and the site cannot be modified to provide additional parking without demolition of the existing multi- tenant building. 2. In accordance with Section 20.66.100 and Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code, an application for a use permit requesting the waiver of 2 parking spaces was filed by Ann Ong Hung. 3. This project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. The existing building will remain with no additional square footage; the scope of the physical construction is limited to minor interior alterations and restriping of existing parking spaces. 4. At a public hearing held on January 21, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1796 approving a use permit application to waive the additional off - street parking spaces required for the conversion of 3,061 square -feet of retail to medical office subject to conditions of approval. The resolution contains facts supporting findings pursuant to Section 20.91.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Commission included Condition No. 12 to relinquish the rights of Use Permit No. 2006 -017, which allows for a small, but currently vacant, restaurant in the first floor of the building at 333 Old Newport Boulevard. Abandoning the use permit would reduce the overall parking demand for the building to off -set the increased parking demand associated with the intensification of the use (retail to medical office). 5. During the January 21, 2010, hearing, the Planning Commission considered an alternative request suggested by the applicant to convert a smaller retail space to medical office (2600 sq. ft.) and to delete Condition No. 12 to retain the rights of Use Permit No. 2006 -017. Although the overall parking waiver would have been reduced from 3 spaces to 2 spaces, the Commission denied the alternative proposal because e2of5 peak parking demand times for the restaurant are likely to vary and be more unpredictable than other retail uses and could impact the availability of parking. 6. On February 4, 2010, Council Member Rosansky appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 20.95.050. The case, including the approved project and the rejected alternative proposal, was requested to be reviewed by the City Council. 7. A public hearing was held on March 23, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this meeting. 8. In accordance with Section 20.66.100 and Chapter 20.91, the City Council found the following: A. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. Facts in Support of Findino: A -1. The site is located in the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan District in an area designated as Retail and Service Commercial. Medical office is a permitted use within this district. B. That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. Facts in Support of Finding: B -1. The proposed medical office is consistent with the General Commercial Office (CO -G) land use designation. The waiver of two parking spaces will not be detrimental to the adjoining properties as there are municipal parking spaces conveniently located adjacent to the subject site. B -2. Although parking demand for restaurants can be more unpredictable, elimination of the restaurant is not necessary given its small size and a long side with the reduction of medical office proposed, which reduces parking demand, and the sufficient availability of public parking in the immediate vicinity based upon the parking surveys prepared by Traffic Safety Engineers (TSE). C. That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. 3 of 5 Facts in Support of Finding: C -1. In accordance with Section 20.66.100, a waiver of the required parking may be allowed as municipal parking spaces are conveniently located adjacent to the subject site. These spaces are located as to be useful in connection with the conversion of retail space to medical office use as they provide sufficient parking based upon the November 15, 2009, parking study prepared by Traffic Safety Engineers. C -2. Compliance with all other applicable regulations of the Municipal Code will be required and enforced. Finding: D. If the use is proposed within a Residential District (Chapter 20.10) or in an area where residential uses are provided for in Planned Community Districts or Specific Plan Districts, the use is consistent with the purposes specified in Chapter 20.91A and conforms to all requirements of that Chapter. Facts in Su000rt of Findina: D -1. The proposed use is not located within a Residential District NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the appeal and modifies the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Use Permit No. UP2009 -014 based upon the recitals and findings above and incorporated by reference and subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the March 23, 2010. ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR Page 4 of 5 i EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan stamped and dated March 23, 2010. (Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval.) 2. Use Permit No. 2009 -014 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 3. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 4. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 5. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 6. This Use Permit may be modified or revoked by the City Council or Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 7. Any change in operational characteristics, expansion in area, or other modification to the approved plans, shall require an amendment to this Use Permit or the processing of a new Use Permit. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Department. 9. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 10. The medical office shall be limited to a maximum of 2,600 gross square feet. 11. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing the striping of three additional parallel parking spaces between the subject property and adjacent municipal lot and the restriping of the existing parking spaces fronting the building to accommodate one additional disabled parking space within the public right -of -way. The plan shall be 5 reviewed by the Public Works Department and Building Department for compliance with applicable requirements. Implementation of these improvements shall be subject to the approval of an encroachment permit/agreement and inspection by the Public Works and Building Department inspectors. The encroachment permit/agreement shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit or establishment of the proposed medical office use. STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } as. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2010 -28 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 23rd day of March, 2010, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Selich, Rosansky, Henn, Webb, Gardner, Daigle, Mayor Curry Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 24th day of March, 2010. �- City Clerk Newport Beach, California (Seal)