Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/17/20020 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker and Kranzley- All present STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston - Transportation /Development Services Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner James Campbell, Senior Planner Todd Weber, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes: Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue the approval of the minutes of January 3, 2002, due to extensive editing, to February 7, 2002. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Public Comments: Mr. Bud Rosner, 2500 Ocean Boulevard spoke regarding the four primary areas of the MRF height limits in Corona del Mar. He noted it is not simply a matter of private view versus a public view issues. We have a signed petition that was given to staff and Councilmember Dennis O'Neil. He then noted historical precedence, public views, maintenance, construction of new properties with possible restrictions. He asked for and applauded that there All be hearings on this matter to determine the appropriate height limit for MFR. Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, January 11, 2002. Minutes Continued Public Comments Posting of Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17.2002 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Director's Interpretation 213 Coral Avenue (Van Cleve Property) • (PA 20024002) An appeal of the Planning Director's interpretation of Section 20.62.040 (Nonconforming Structures) of the Zoning Code. Chairperson Tucker asked staff for background information. Testimony will be received tonight and I am most interested in making sure the Commission has the issues framed so that we know exactly what it is that we are supposed to be deciding. Ms. Clauson stated that a court reporter is present for the purpose of taking minutes of this item hearing verbatim. In the past, if an issue comes up later and we needed to go back and hire somebody to come in and listen to the tapes and they don't know the voices, they are not familiar." It Kos been 'an' "additional problem for everybody, including the court reporter to try and figure out who is speaking. To avoid that issue and if this is needed in the future we thought we would have somebody here tonight. Chairperson Tucker clarified the procedures and asked staff to present the background. Ms. Temple outlined what staff has planned and the staff members available for information or questions in regards to this matter. She then introduced, Mr. Jay Bbettar, Building Director and Mr. Faisal Jurdi, Deputy Building Director who were prepared to go through some of the building plans as they relate to the appeal and the determinations. Also present, Ms. Marina Morrelli, who was the residential zoning plan checker on this project and Patrick Alford, who has prepared a detailed presentation including Power Point exhibits of all the building plans in relationship to the City's original issuance of the Building Permit. Continuing, Ms. Temple noted the background, the Section of the Code, administrative procedure and interpretation of the Planning Department and the Planning Director that have been appealed. The Nonconforming Structures and Uses Chapter, as it is currently written, was adopted in 1997. However. the 1997 version was a re- formatting and slight adjustment to the Nonconforming Uses Chapter, which was substantially changed in 1990, a couple of years after the 1988 General Plan update. After the 1988 General Plan was adopted, the Zoning Code was amended in order to bring the Zoning Code into conformity with the General Plan. Through those actions, many more properties were made legal non - conforming. A total re- drafting of the Nonconforming Uses Chapter was done to make sure that there were clear rules under which the Department would administer when a non - conforming building was just being remodeled or repaired and when a nonconforming building was being reconstructed and was required to be brought into conformity with the provisions, particularly as it may have related to numbers of dwelling units or floor area ratios. After that Chapter was adopted in 1990, the department INDEX Item No. 1 PA2002 -002 Continued to 02/07/2002 n LJ • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 needed to establish a routine procedure for the administration of those provisions. The ones in question, in this case, are how to calculate what percentage of structural elements were being altered in a non - conforming building upon which to base whether the remodel was a permitted by right, would require the approval of a modification permit, would require the approval of a use permit, or, would be required to be brought into conformity. If the alterations exceeded 75 %, then the structure would need to be brought into conformance unless a variance could be approved with the appropriate findings being made. Those procedures were established in 1990 by the Planning Director at the time, Mr. Hewicker, and have been consistently administered in that fashion since 1990. We have applied these Sections in the manner described in the staff report on a regular basis and we have never, until this time, been challenged as to the appropriateness of the means that we use to determine compliance with this provision. I have never before had anybody complain about the equitability of the procedure. We believe, as described in - - - - -- "'the staff - report- th'e'procedure'to be equitable and fair and that it has been consistently applied. It is a good way of determining compliance with this Chapter. The Building Department will present some of their analysis in relation to the procedure supporting the determination, that in this particular case, the non - conforming building has been repaired or replaced beyond the 75% limitation of structural elements. . Chairperson Tucker stated he would like to go through the presentation in particular to see the plans and all the other information. This is a serious matter, and an unusual one for the Planning Commission to get involved with a Code interpretation that could have some significant consequences for the appellant. It is important to go through these details to allow a full due process hearing. Mr. Patrick Alford then began a slide presentation, noting the following: Vicinity map with location. • Pictures of project site. • Slide with the first set of plans. Mr. Jay Elbettar, Building Department Director (continuing the slide presentation) stated that his role in this matter was to try to analyze the appellant's assertion that in fact the foundation represents 50% of the building structural elements in challenging the Planning Director's method of calculating the amount of alteration of the non - conforming structure. We took a look at the plans and we scanned the permit set, so what you see before you is the actual permit set. We have made notations on the plans to try and highlight our discovery of the issues. He then referenced the Foundation Plan where it was discovered a new foundation system as represented by the yellow highlighted area contrasted to the existing foundation system. Referencing the plans, he then noted the following: • Conflict of information. • 'Demo Plan' as represented by the architect as project plans showing • the area in question of an existing wall as part of the garage and stairs. • The portion of the wall does not match the existing foundation that was INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 shown on the 'Demo Plan'. New foundation is not consistent. Existing wall can not remain above a new foundation. The orange area as noted on the plan was the area where the existing wall must have been because it had to be on a foundation. Commissioner Kiser asked about the foundation by the garage, does the plan represent the architect affirming the yellow colored foundation area on the plan as existing? Ms. Temple answered that a Demolition Plan or drawing of this nature is typically asked for by the Planning Department for the purposes of making the lineal calculations as described in the staff report to determine how much of the non- conforming structure is being altered. This type of plan is not one typically used by the Building Department in the structural plan review. This was presented not with the original set but was prepared specifically for the Planning Depdrtmeht's needs to make their determinations in relationship to the Nonconforming Use Chapter. This page will end up being a part of the approved building plans and is prepared by their architect. Continuing, Mr. Elbettar, referencing the plans noted: • Existing walls to remain and the dotted lines representing those walls to be removed. This was the extent of the remodel to try to maintain the non - conforming right of the applicant. • New foundation and stair representing the inconsistent information. • Notations on the plans were made by the Building Department staff. • He then explained that they went to the records and found the Residential Building Report that is prepared during the sale of a property. This record shows two prior permits (1963 and 1978) with square footages. • We were unable to locate those records and could not find the hard copy in the permit packet, but we had them on microfiche. • He then depicted a slide showing the 1963 information that showed 1,815 square foot main area with a 352 square foot garage area. • He then showed a slide with the building permit issued in 1978 that showed 735 square feet addition to the main structure and 66 square foot addition to the garage. • He then presented a slide with the existing plan that the permit was issued in 1978 that confirms that the wall in question was not existing as well as the exterior stair leading next to the garage up to the balcony on the second floor. We did some comparative calculations of the walls. • Another slide was presented depicting the tabulation of the square footages as determined by our analysis and based on information presented to us by the applicant to date. • We have not received 'As Built Plans' from the applicant to represent the actual site conditions as requested on the September Stop Work Order and our July notice. INDEX • • is • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 He presented a slide depicting existing area per the records with a living space of 2,550 and a garage of 418 with a total of 2,968 square feet. • The existing area per Planning Department calculations on the plans were 3,145 square feet and the existing area per drawings prepared by the architect is 3,152 square feet. The difference representing what we think is in part to the location of that exterior wall that got shifted in the garage area. • The allowable area per Planning Department calculations and current Code is 2,720 square feet. • The allowable area per Drawing Table prepared by the architect is 2,520 square feet. • The proposed area per Drawing Table by the architect under which the permit was issued was 3,004 square feet. • The proposed area per our Planning Department calculations was . -- .__ _ ....................... . 3, 70 square ee . • As measured in the field, the total square footage is 3,118 plus a 498 roof deck. • There is a difference of the area between the Building records as shown at 2,968 and as was shown by the architect of 150 square feet plus 498 for the roof deck and the area as claimed by the architect as existing, and the allowable area is 398 square feet. These calculations are based on the Permit documentation and field measurements. There is no exact information because there are no 'As Built' plans provided by the applicant. Chairperson Tucker noted that the threshold issue before the Planning Commission is, even if we assume that the applicant's calculations were correct, whether so much of the structure was taken out that the applicant needs to comply with the current Codes. We have to get by that issue before we worry about 3,100 feet versus 2,900 square feet, don't we? Mr. Elbettar answered that is correct, and we wanted to show you what we are finding and to put it on record. Chairperson Tucker said the issue is: is there a non - conforming structure or should there be a structure that starts from scratch? Ms. Temple answered the progression is that we need to understand that the structure was non - conforming 'because if it is conforming, the rest of the question is not relevant. So, the answer to your question is, yes. The real issue before the Planning Commission is this, the means of determining how much of this structure has been altered per Code and the procedures under which we make that calculation. Chairperson Tucker noted that the appellant has not raised an issue as to • whether it is non - conforming or not. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Ms. Clauson answered that the appellant has raised the issue with the different interpretation of the Code. This is just providing background information regarding the Planning Director's determination that the building is non- conforming. The applicant is acknowledging that the structure is non- conforming by challenging the Section 20.62.040 (Nonconforming Structures) of the Zoning Code. Mr. Elbettar then stated that above the square footage issue, the intent is to show that there is new foundation constructed along with 'pop outs' in the building above and beyond what the existing building was that may have not been accounted for in the calculations. This building was completely demolished and replaced except for the chimney, although the Permit documents show it as a 'remodel'. Continuing, referencing slides he noted: • Foundation Plan as drawn by the project engineer with areas representing new foundation system. The reason this was highlighted by staff was to analyze and see if in fact the assertion of Mr. Yaghi, the engineer of the project, that the existing foundation represents. 50% of the structure elements of the building. • He then pointed out all the new foundation systems stating this is the first time this type of situation has come up. • He does not agree with this interpretation and supports that every element of the structure is critical and important to the structural system. If we attempt to try to quantify that claim of 50 %, it is not possible to do because just as in any remodel or addition engineers do avoid using the existing foundation by building pad footings and post and beam systems because they do not want to get into the existing foundation and perform destructive testing and analyses to determine how good these foundations are. What they do is to try and create a system independent of the existing foundation. • Referring to the exhibit, he pointed out the pad footings supporting columns that support beams that will support the framing of certain areas as well as the steel beams. • He noted it is difficult to determine the contribution, if ever, that remains of the portion of the 'existing' footing and the significance of the structural system. At Commission inquiry, he then referred to the Foundation Plan and explained how the columns were constructed with new pad footings below the slab and details of posts sitting on reinforced new portion of foundation with the raised stem wall. Some portions are relying on new foundations and some portions are not. It is very difficult to quantify that and may be why the Planning Department did not include the foundation systems in their calculations for nonconforming structures to determine the extent. He then discussed the new beam supporting portions of the framework and contributions of the foundation to the significance of the structural support. Commissioner McDaniel confirmed that the new posts and such that are being put in there are the mainstay of what is being relied upon for the new structure. INDEX • 0 • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 If they built on the old structure they would not have put these in at all and would not have been required? Mr. Elbettar stated that most engineers, when they design a major remodel or addition, would try to introduce new independent structural system because they are not certain what the existing foundation system is capable of supporting unless they go in and do destructive testing. They would perform an independent structural system to try and envelop the existing system and not rely on it to support major framing components. Commissioner McDaniel stated that if the applicant had done 25 %, they would not have needed to do all the other foundation repair in the front. They would have just taken off 25% and added to it and all the stuff in the front would not have been necessary. Mr. Elbettar answered that is correct bufif -they c osh eta replace the "flo'o'ring' system and they changed the floor beam scheme, that is what they have done whether they intended to demolish it from the start is hard to tell. What I am trying to point out is in fact the contribution of the new foundation system is very significant, a lot more than just a little bit here. Commissioner Kiser, referring to the Foundation Plan, asked how much in linear feet of the foundation as presently built what it represents as a percentage of the entire foundation of the home as presently built? Are the yellowed colored footings new? Mr. Elbettar answered that is hard to quantify. In my opinion, the line footings would be about 25% to 30%, but again I want to point out that the pad footings contribute a significant amount to the structural integrity and support of the building. The yellowed colored footings are new and the footings not colored are the old footings that remain or are abandoned and not used. Commissioner Selich noted that the first thing we are to do is to determine whether the Planning Director's methodology of using the linear footage of wall or the methodology defined by the appellant, which gets into the footings and foundation systems and what it contributes to the structural element. Isn't that the issue we have to determine first and then if we find in favor of the Planning Director then we get into all.this stuff as to what is being and not being contributed here? Ms. Clauson answered that the determination supporting the Planning Director, the purpose of this information is to show you the difficulty of taking that type of interpretation. In other words, counting the footings as one of the elements. Mr. Elbettar added that in his professional opinion, he supports the Planning Director's determination and the procedure to calculate and use linear walls as • the methodology for determining the nonconforming structure because again, it is very difficult to ascertain what portions of the footings in this case would City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes INDEX • have been if the structure would have remained the way it was proposed to be, would have been still contributing to the support of the structure and secondly, this is all below grade or at eye level. In my opinion, nonconforming deals with massing and walls and not for things buried below grade. Chairperson Tucker then noted footings are structural portion of the building and ultimately is what ties the structure into the ground. However, there is a lot more than that supporting the structure. Mr. Elbettar added that the footings are structural components of the building. He added that the definition of a structure for the purpose of certain procedure, may be a little different in this case. In the Building Code, the definition of a structure talks about things above, or up, or edifices or things built up. If it is a grade beam or caisson that is exposed, then maybe it becomes more of a definition of a structural component. A typical, continuous footing below grade has never been thought of or dealt with as a significant structural component that would require even design. It is always a boiler plate standard design available in any Building Code. A contractor or a homeowner can come in and draw a continuous footing and build a wall on it. If this is a structural element that would count towards this procedure or not, or how significant this element is, it is a structural element. Chairperson Tucker asked staff about the procedure itself. The issue of public health and safety, were you ever contacted to make a decision in terms of the necessity for removing basically the whole above ground structure? Mr. Elbettar answered that he had not been contacted. When the dry rot came up, we did not find out about it. We did find out about the complete removal from our inspector who discovered it on July 6th. At Commission inquiry he noted while referring to the Permit record: • Issue of the removal of the structure came about when a notice was issued by the Building Inspector on July 6th, on a framing inspection. The notice reads, 'Prior to next inspection, all plan changes, i.e., the existing floor and new wall to be reflected on plans and to be approved by the Planning Department and City Plan Checker.' This was issued to the applicant the first time the inspector realized the extent of removal was above and beyond the approved plans. • This inspection was for the sub - flooring. He came out July 2nd and saw an extent of walls being removed above and beyond what he saw the first time when he was doing the foundation inspection. • The foundation inspection was done in May. • July 2nd he signed off the sub floor but put a note pending plan revision. • July 6th, he issued a correction notice to say that the plans must be revised. Chairperson Tucker asked about the plans from the architect, there are notes that say 'wall demolition not to exceed 25% of existing residence'. The • foundation and the framing plan and structural plans look like it will be more • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 extensive than that. They seem to be inconsistent. How does the get flagged at that point? Mr. dbettar answered that is true and we can show the extent of the inconsistency, if you wish. The extent of the removal of the walls, based on the plans alone, would not have been impossible to be less than 25 %. There is even a note on the plan that states 23% of the roof will be removed and the structural framing plan shows complete new framing of the roof members. There is no way any percent of the roof would have remained. The only reason.-it was an oversight by my plan checking staff even though the attempt was made to coordinate with Planning staff because they did not look at the structural plans as they only look at the plans showing the walls to remain. The architect did not see it also, another point in referring to the demo plan, he showed the walls that were to remain and count as credit toward this calculation. However, the floor framing plan is all new, so it is impossible to keep these walls in place when you intended on removing the floor framings. If you reconcile" tFi "e' stri�cf "u "ral and' architectural plans and try to come up with a well coordinated set of plans, you'll be able to determine that the percentages that are stated would not have been met. Commissioner Kranzley, referring to page 3 of the staff report, asked about the • - discussion of meetings of February and March of 2001. Who was in attendance? Ms. Temple answered those meetings would have been held with Marina Marrelli, the plan checker who is here this evening and can respond to questions. Mr. Elbettar continued with the chronology: • After July 6th there was no action as far as the inspectors were concerned, the applicant did submit the revised framing plan but not the architectural floor plans showing the walls and extent of revising the scope of work. • The floor framing plan was approved in August. • The inspector went back and issued a 'Stop Work Order' September 11 th to stop work on the project because we realized the magnitude of the situation. Chairperson Tucker noted that with the approval of the plan in August there would have been an opportunity at that point to halt the work rather than approving that plan because -it arguably fell outside of a nonconforming structure. Mr. Elbettar answered it was an opportunity by the applicant because the City does not refuse any approvals that the applicant seeks, whether partial approval or complete approvals. If you intend to work on this project piecemeal and you come in and do the structural and come back again later on with a completely drawn architecturally plan clarifying the scope, that is your prerogative. It was merely structural revisions to show some members that were INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 supposed to have remained existing, they became new. To try to match the field conditions structurally, we stilt have not received to date those revised floor plans showing 'as built' conditions with the new scope of removing all the walls, etc. At Commission inquiry, he noted that the inspector issued a correction notice initially in July 6m to require the plans be revised to reflect the scope as built on site. In July the existing structure was erected but may not have been at its present stage as depicted in the photo because work continued. Sometime between May and July, the structure was torn down completely and the new structure was erected and the work may have continued until the September Stop Work Notice. The original structure was two story with a balcony deck on the second floor. Marina Marrelli, Assistant Planner at Commission inquiry noted: • At the March 2001 meeting had indicated that more than 25% of the structural elements were being altered. It looked as if it was a new house on the plans that I reviewed on the second time I saw the plans. Mr. Van Cleve and I went over the plans and I showed him how I came up with the calculations. We agreed to the methodology of the calculations, I recall that he wanted to add height to it even though I was mainly concerned with the linear rather than the whole area of the wall. • The applicant submitted a revised plan, which represented that the alteration would be limited to 25 % or less of the structural elements not too long after this meeting. • We had discussed the fact that if he were to exceed 25% he would need a modification permit or a Planning Director's Use Permit. We also had a meeting with Jay Garcia, Senior Planner on this matter. Roger Grable, attorney at Buchalter, Nemer, Fields & Younger at 895 Dove Street spoke representing the applicant. irY this matter. He distributed packets of exhibits to reference during his presentation: • He stated he had not seen the exhibits as presented by staff. • The initial calculations were prepared by our architect based on what was actually on site. • The foundations were pier foundations and had no full footings underneath them. • The wall existed that staff is saying did not. • An independent architect measured what is there on site and his calculations show that there are about 3, 018 square feet. We are only talking about 40 feet difference, which we can fix if we need to at such time this is resolved. • The project was applied for in January 2001, and was characterized as a major remodel. • Several meetings were held with staff to review the plans and how to make the calculations that were put on the plans that ended up being less than 25% of the alterations of the structural elements of the building. • Chronology of the Plan Check, Inspections and Construction from 10 f OTU 0 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 January 5, 2001 through September 19, 2001. Chairperson Tucker asked the speaker if when it was decided that so much of the existing house and foundation had to be altered wouldn't it have been the case, no matter which interpretation you had, it was more than 25% of the existing residence? He was answered, no. Continuing, Mr. Grable noted: • Nothing was done differently than the demolition plan showed at that point. • Extensive damage was uncovered and the contractor was told that it needed to be replaced on a 'board for board' basis in April. • May 2001 revised structural plans were submitted to City. Commissioner Kranzley clarified that the revised plans included demolition of all the dry rot, etc.? He was answered, no. It just addressed the structural elements that were being replaced, basically the floor joists. Continuing, Mr. Grable noted: • Inspections for footings and foundations - all existing foundations remain, none were removed. New foundations were added in order to address structural issues. • May 31st building areas were deemed unsafe by termites, dry rot and where had been penetrated by previous construction and were then replaced. This amounted to a replacement of everything above ground except for the chimney. Commissioner Kranzley stated that even the builder's understanding of'25 %was violated at that point in time. The builder had an understanding of what it was and then if you tear down those walls, clearly that is over the 25 %. He had at least a basic understanding of where the limit was. Mr. Grable answered not really. The contractor who did the work has had about 20 years of experience doing remodel. Their custom was when you went through and did a demolition, if you found damaged material, you replaced it. These boards were being replaced on a 'board for board' basis, there was no change in the wall. In his opinion, he did not think he was changing anything because the walls were going back up in exactly the same configuration as they had been existing and as shown on the plans. In hind sight, we should have done something, but we didn't. Discussion then touched on the following: • 'Board for board' replacement. • Roof not part of the calculation of structural alteration. • What may or may not have happened during inspections. • Interpretation of structural elements that were repaired and relevancy. • Applicant's request to have the footings determined to be 50% of the structural elements of the building would then allow them to apply for a 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 use permit and consideration under that. Ms. Clauson stated this is a Zoning matter and is hard to determine with regards to the structural alterations. The Building Department inspectors are looking at the Uniform Building Code applications. To the extent that the Planning Department staff has indicated that that is the way they have interpreted the Code and the methodology they have used in the past, Mr. Grable is making a claim that that is not, that might be relevant to your determination. Commissioner Selich asked if the claim is that staff has not interpreted consistently in the past or is his point that their method that is submitted of calculating the 2507o is the proper method as opposed to the linear footage? What is the issue here? What is the basis of the appeal? Ms. Clauson answered that the issue that Mr. Grable is raising is that they are challenging the us6of fihisdr footage.. —.... Commissioner Selich stated that maybe there are two issues, one the method that was used and then the fact that it has not always been applied that way. Is that correct? I find a lot of the information that Mr. Grable is giving interesting, but I would like to get to the heart of what the appeal is and I would be interested in hearing what the arguments are for the Planning Director's methodology being invalid. Your method may be valid as well, but why is hers invalid? Mr. Grable answered that the inspection practices that have occurred on Balboa Island, where you make these kinds of change out, (dry rot, termites, sub- standard construction) these are just considered routinely part of the construction and there is no re- calculation of the percent of the remodel based on that. Continuing, he noted: • July inspection of sub -floor on the property. • Notations by building inspectors. • Dates of inspections. • Timing of removal of old structural elements. • Possible complete tear down and removal of slab. • Removing 400± from existing building and then the building would be conforming. Ms. Clauson added that an option that was discussed during meetings with the appellant and counsel was the remodel of the building and submittal of new plans that would show conforming with regards to the floor area. There were other issues involved with regards to the flood plain and liquefaction and some determinations originally made that they would need a variance to be able to do that and that is where he is referencing that they would have to pull out the whole slab. With regards to the determination tonight, I had suggested that we hold that off to see where we go with this. The flood plain issue is something that can be addressed in an application once we get past this point. Because this was a remodel, the applicant did not know there was a flood plain issue with 12 INDEX 0 0 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 regard to the location of the slab. If it is not a remodel, there are certain provisions in Title 15 that describe under what circumstances you have to come into compliance with the FEMA flood plain regulations. Mr. Grable-stated that is the. problem. If we exceeded the remodel requirements, then we have to come in for a new structure. If we need to come in fora new structure, then the foundation has got to come up. Chairperson Tucker asked Mr. Grable to address the real issue, tell us why the footings are a structural element that constitutes 25 %, 50%, or 75% of the structural elements of the house. Mr. Grable answered that the issue is not whether you are modifying the whole building, it is to the extent you are altering the structural elements of the building. The Code does not define structural elements, it does define structure. Structure is a broad definition. The Code contains the definition of 'alteration, structural' as any change or replacement in the supporting members of a building such as bearing walls, columns, beams or girders. Discussion followed on definitions of structural elements and measurements of building perimeter. We are in a situation of having to tear down the building. There is no option of reducing the size, if we are not conforming, we are going to have to tear the . building down and raise the footings. We are entitled to a close scrutiny. Commissioner Selich asked what prevents the Planning Director from using a convention of linear footage to make that analysis? Mr. Grable answered because it does not include the specific elements of the Code that are in that definition of what a structural alteration is, it ignores them. Only under certain circumstances does it pick up a few extras. We are entitled to have all of the structural elements included because the Code talks about structural alterations of 25% of the structural elements. Commissioner Selich noted that many times in Zoning as opposed to Building Codes, conventions like this are used, again do you have anything else other than that as to why it is not proper? Mr. Grable answered that used conventions are not adopted by anyone this is just an interpretation. The interpretation has to meet the Code line. If it doesn't, that's why we are here. Commissioner Selich noted that there are many things that the Planning Director and staff interpret, we don't have everything covered by the Zoning Code. Just the two elements highlighted under tabs 3 and 4, that is the extent of your documentation? Mr. Grable answered that is the provisions of the Code that relate to it and behind that are the engineering certificates, which the engineers have certified that these are structural elements. If it is structural element, it has to be counted. 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 INDEX That is where the argument comes from. From there, we have asked the engineers to identify what those structural elements are. Chairperson Tucker asked if this interpretation, I can see on the old buildings on Balboa Island where the footings are a fairly consistent construction and what happened, wouldn't all of them be entitled to be knocked over and re -built as nonconforming structure just based upon the footings being there? Mr. Grable answered that is the way it is in most jurisdictions. These Code provisions are different from other jurisdictions that I am familiar with. In most jurisdictions, if you leave the footings and chimney, you can remodel. If that is not the policy you want, the answer is not to punish Mr. Van Cleve for that, the answer is to change the Code. Commissioner Kranzley asked the speaker if he believed that scraping the entire house except for the chimney represents feWthan 25% alteration? - - Mr. Grable answered he did not know what the percentage would be. All we have to do is get 25% of the structural elements being this slab, and then we are in the ball park of being able to get a permit to complete the building. The Code provides that you have 25% by right, if you have 251/o to 50% you can get a Modification Permit, and between 50% to 75% you can get a Planning Director's Use Permit, which is what we are trying to get. • Discussion followed on: Narrow lots. • Circumventing the floor area ratio. • Alterations as being a change to something that exists and not an addition of something else making the existing thing non - functional. • Alterations versus addition or alterations versus replacement with something else. • Contention that no function remains, replacing something with a new thing with a new thing that did not alter the old one would not be an alteration. • Abandoned but not touched that would not constitute an alteration. Commissioner Kranzley suggested that we continue this item to the next meeting since we have been presented a book of information tonight by the applicant's lawyer and have discussed this for over an hour and a half. Discussion followed on continuing this item to later in the evening and /or at the next scheduled meeting; issue of whether or not the footings are a structural element under our Code and if they are what percentage they represent; procedures. Commissioner Kiser noted that Mr. Grable has given a 45 minute presentation, since he has been here. • 14 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Mr. Grable addressed Section 20.62.040 (E -3), the Section that permits modification or repair of the structural elements of the building if it is determined that such modification or repair is immediately necessary to protect the health and safety of the public or occupants of the nonconforming structure, or adjacent property and the cost does not exceed 5017. of the replacement cost of the legal nonconforming structure as determined by the Building Director. Staff has declined to consider this exemption on the ground that we did not ask them to do that before we removed the materials. We did not know we needed to and secondly there is nothing in the Code that says it has to be made on a prospective basis. There is nothing that would: prevent this Commission from taking evidence that we could have presented to the Building Department, but they declined to hear it. There is a safety issue that meets the requirement of the Code, and therefore those modifications ought to be excluded from the calculation. - Chairperson-Tucker stated that when there are Codes the general rule is that you follow the Code and if there is an exception to the general rule, that exception is usually fairly, strictly construed in terms of the interpretation issue on the structural elements. Mr. Grable answered that is not necessarily so, you need to read the language of the Code and apply it literally. This is one of the reasons we wanted to go through the chronology of the work done. Discussion continued. Commissioner Gifford asked for information to be provided at the next meeting as to whether there are cases or opinions about whether conventions can be used and are used, i.e., equivalent with the UBC custom and practice. Ms. Clauson stated that part of the interpretation in looking at the structural alterations was also intended to be in the context of 20.62.040(A), which says no structural alterations shall be made which would prolong the life of the supporting members of a structure, except as provided in this Section. That was part of the context of the interpretation that staff made in looking at the certification that the footings were 5017o and also of the concept of the 'board for board' change -out of the structure. Another thing as far as convention, the plans are stamped on the front that basically says, 'approval of the plans does not constitute express or implied authorization to construct any building in violation or in inconsistent with the ordinances, plans and policies of the City of Newport Beach. This approval does not guarantee that these plans are in all respects, in compliance with the City Building and Zoning Ordinances, plans and policies. The City of Newport Beach reserves the right to require any permitee to revise the building structure improvement authorized by these plans before, during or after construction if necessary to comply with the Ordinances, Plans and Policies of the City.' That information is stamped on the plans when the permit is issued. Another point for consideration is that when the note that Mr. Sobek wrote to get Planning Department approval, it is my understanding 15 IN1061 " City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 INDEX that when they came back with a request for the approval in the change of the floor joists, they went to the Building Department and got them to sign off, but they did not go to the Planning Department or ask a Planning employee to sign off on those changes or that they had Planning Department approval of the change in the walls. Discussions then ensued on: • Equitable relief of misunderstandings. • Interpretation of the Code. • Written submission of Engineer's information. • Additional arguments. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to February 7, 2002. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker Gifford, Noes: None SUBJECT: La Salsa; Milestone Management Item No. 2 4341 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite F PA2001 -086 • • (PA2001 -086) Request to approve a use permit to expand the seating of an existing specialty Denied Without food establishment from 21 seats with no increase in net public area. The Prejudice increased seating changes the use classification from specialty food to full service, high turnover, and increases the parking requirement by 7 to 17 spaces. The item was continued from the meetings of August 23, September 20, October 18, and November 8, 2001. Chairperson Tucker recused himself from this matter. Ms. Temple noted that the principle decision for the Planning Commission is whether the denial is with or without prejudice. Public comment was opened then closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to deny Use Permit No. 2001 -018 without prejudice. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Recused: Tucker The Planning Commission took a five- minute break. ••• 16 0 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Zinc Cafe and Market 3222 East Coast Highway • Use Permit No. 2001- 040(PA2001.221) Request for a Use Permit to authorize the opening of an eating and drinking establishment called Zinc Cafe & Market at an existing commercial site in Corona del Mar. The Use Permit application includes a request to waive a portion of the off - street parking requirements. Mr. Todd Weber, Associate Planner then made a slide presentation and noted the following: • Vicinity Map with locations of Bandero's and Quiet Woman. • Proposed project is a conversion of an existing 2,945 square foot retail building to a restaurant and market. • There is 1,453 square feet of net public area (NPA) including a 437 square o. Plans show 11 parking spaces provided on site. • A new access from East Coast Highway with the existing curb cut to be removed and placed in center of parking lot, and routing off the highway and exiting to the rear alley • Application does not involve any live entertainment. • Proposed hours of operation 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. with predominant amount of activity occurring from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. • Parking waiver requested. • Site plan of existing building with parking lots to the north. • Patio area is 437 square feet excluding planter and /or bus station areas. • Diagram of the floor plan broken down by areas. • Pictures taken from south side of East Coast Highway and from various vantages of the rear alley. • Discussed calculations of net public area resulting in a parking waiver of anywhere between 18 to 37 for the plans as proposed and the conditions to allow a waiver. • Landscape area standards. • Existing supply storage to be removed. • Trash enclosure to have self - locking gates. • Parking issue. Ms. Temple then presented an alternate scenario to consider floor area and parking for Zinc Cafe Market. She noted that looking at the floor plan and layout it is difficult to draw clear lines as to what is fully a restaurant and what might be used as only containing retail. There were aspects of siting the various facilities that made it difficult to draw a distinct boundary line. However, we have identified a way to look at that. Referencing the slide of the floor plan, two of the five areas of the building are more exclusively utilized for retail uses and are identified as areas 'D' and 'E' listed on the plan. Most of the facilities and services to customers in these areas are retail in nature and they are separated from the . other parts of the eating and drinking establishment by closing doors, which should be a psychological barrier to people filtering into the market while they are 17 INDEX Hem No. 3 PA2001 -221 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 still partaking of their lunch or beverage. I looked at some prior actions of the Planning Commission and staff in two areas. One is the relevance of the City's Accessory Outdoor Dining provisions that allow up to 2517o of the interior net public area to be implemented as outdoor dining without the provision of additional parking. The other is the ability to identify specific areas as retail space and assign them a retail parking rate as opposed to an eating and drinking establishment. The calculations you see on the first page of the handout does both these things as well as an additional thing and that is, it uses the parking ratio for the eating and drinking establishment at 1 parking space for each 50 square feet. There is a rationale in the staff report to use the lower parking factor due to the unique nature of this operation, which has a very high amount of walk -in trade. The applicant has given us information that at both his other operations in Laguna Beach and Solana Beach that approximately 407* of his business is walk -in. If we apply the same accommodation that the Accessory Outdoor Dining Chapter provides for smaller size patios, if we use a 1 parking space for each 50 square feet of net public area as opposed to the 40 square feet recommended in the-staff report, and if we allow 272 square feet of the floor area to be calculated at the retail parking factor, the project's requirement would be 18. Since 1l parking spaces would be provided on site, this would require a waiver of 7 parking spaces. If the Commission wishes to give consideration to this alternative scenario, we have prepared revised conditions of approval that would implement this program. You received the resolution and findings for the staff recommendation that was distributed to you on Monday. Commissioner Kranzley asked if the restaurant and dining area were closed off at 7 p.m., the parking requirement for the store would then be different. I see this as a bifurcated use with retail /restaurant and then strictly retail. Wouldn't the parking have a requirement for one parking space for retail only? Ms. Temple answered it would be two. Commissioner Gifford asked to look at the revised conditions of approval as they may address some of her concerns. Ms. Temple read the additional conditions: • The exterior patio shall not exceed 250 square feet in total area. • The total interior net public area as identified as Areas 'A', 'B' and 'C' on the floor plan exhibit prepared by staff dated January 17, 2002 shall not exceed 745 square feet. The areas identified as Areas 'D' and 'E' on the floor plan exhibit prepared by staff dated January 17, 2002 shall be devoted to retail use and shall not exceed 272 square feet. • The parking ratio for the restaurant portion of the project shall be 1 space for every 50 square feet of net public area. The parking ratio for the retail portion of the project shall be 1 space for every 250 square feet. Eleven parking spaces shall be provided on -site at all times. Continuing, she noted the idea is to reduce the patio size, reduce the size of the interior net public area to 745 square feet, which is the sum of areas 'A', 'B' and 18 INDEX • • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 'C'. Using the 745 we would multiply that by 257o and come up with a patio credit as implemented in Accessory Outdoor Dining of 186 square feet. The 809 square feet would be calculated at 1 space for each 50 square feet NPA and the 272 retail square feet would be calculated at 1 space for every 250 square feet. These two factors result in a requirement of 18 spaces and a waiver of 7 spaces. Mr. John Secretan, owner and operator of Zinc Cafe and Market noted, and answered at Commission inquiry: • Cafe experience in Laguna Beach with community support and patronage. • Sidewalk cafe concept with amenities and qualities. • Parking issues in Laguna Beach and in Corona del Mar. • Convenience to local businesses. • Hours of restaurant operation 7 in the morning seven days a week serving breakfasts; lunch begins around 11:45 and continues to about 3 p.m.; coffee and desert —s are sei e after 3 and -close about 6 p.m. • No dinner service is provided, only take out from the market. • The extension after hours from 6 to 10p.m. would be for a take out dessert. The dessert service is an experiment. • Referencing the floor plan he noted areas he would rope off during that extended duration. (Areas 'A', 'B', and 'C') It would be strictly a two • • person operation; no outdoor seating will be available. Parking lot can be made available for anybody to use (would agree to this or chaining the parking lot as a condition). • Wants to keep this simple and easy. • Possibility of purchasing parking permits for employees (8) to park in the Municipal lots. This would remove them from his lot. (agrees to as a condition) • Signage to ask customers to utilize the across street Municipal lot. • Percentage of walk in would be about 40 %, the same as in Laguna Beach, as the communities are similar. • Demographics are different, but both are considered villages. • Locations of both are near residential as well as commercial. • Smaller outdoor dining area is something that he is willing to change as he would still be able to maintain what he needs to make this venture work. • Concerns with traffic and parking demands. • The espresso bar has no seats. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Clauson stated that you can put a condition about chaining the parking lot since the applicant has agreed do it. However, as for as placing the condition on it, the question is how would that relate to your approval? After closing, the business does not need parking. Commissioner Tucker noted that in that area having 11 more spaces created for use after 6 p.m. would be looked on favorably. • Ms. Clauson stated if it is part of your finding for approval, you can condition it. 19 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Commissioner Gifford noted her - concern with restricting the hours and not chaining it. Chairperson Tucker noted his concern of this becoming a night time restaurant With alcohol service. The conditions must be very tightly worded. Commissioner Kiser asked about the power pole by the exit on the alley. Is there a plan to change the location? He was answered, no. Mr. Edmonston, at Commission inquiry stated that he does not see any direct concerns, there are other establishments with parking off the rear that are shared by residential use. With the kind of business that is being proposed here now, that is not having people leave at 2 in the morning and some of the other concerns expressed with other types of restaurants. In this particular instance, 1 don't see it as a big issue. There is a grade difference that I will look at upon project development. Public comment was opened. The following speakers appeared in support of the application, all for similar reasons: • Laurie Kellog, 3309 Ocean Boulevard stated she is very excited for this project and is looking forward to it. • Don Glasgow, Chairman of the Business Improvement District of Corona del Mar stated this project fits very well with what the members had envisioned for the area of Corona del Mar. There is a lot of parking in the area. The District is very emphatic about welcoming this cafe project into the area and look forward to receiving it into the village. • Paul Blank, 273 Seaview Avenue stated his support for similar reasons expressed. • Mia Ziegler, a local Corona del Mar employee stated she is looking forward to this caf6 for her lunch hour. It is a charming business and asked for approval. • Beryl Magnason, 313 Poppy Avenue supports this project. • Don Jacobs, 309 Poppy Avenue noted that he and his wife are so looking forward to having this cafe in the middle of town. Bandera's across the street has open parking during the breakfast hours so maybe some type of parking trade could occur. He asked for approval of the project. • Alex Sobrosky, Laguna - Beach noted that perhaps residential permits would be the answer to the parking problems. It is a great idea to have the Zinc Cafe in Corona del Mar. The following people appeared in opposition to the project: Robert Green, owner of the building at 427•Marguerite on the comer of the entrance to the alley access. He stated that his experience with the street parking on 2nd Street and Marguerite is horrendous. The vision of 20 INDEX Ll 0 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Corona del Mar is an ideal concept but we must consider the immediate impact on the residents: Everyone who has spoken before me, lives some considerable ways away from the project site. The main issue I have experienced, is when driving down the alley when delivery trucks that service the Quiet Woman, block the alley for a considerable amount of time. Zinc Caf6 proposes to use their parking lot for delivery, as there is no loading dock, I expect the parking lot to be full. That will force the delivery trucks to park in the alley and I see a problem with the access and egress for the residents. A very significant safety problem could occur. I have seen employees park in front of the residences. The public parking lot is used by the open air market on the weekend, so there is a flaw in the parking wavier provision. • Pamela Ray, 3201 and 3211 Second Street, resident homeowner on the adjacent alley noted that there is a lot of parking in front of the homes. She agreed that the cafe is. lovely, but she expressed her concern for the residents in the general area — People do not choose-lo - park - at Bandera's or Rite Aid and then walk across the busy highway, they choose to park in front of the residences. • Mike Franklin, 505 Narcissus and the owner of the property at 415 Marguerite and 416 Larkspur stated he had talked to the applicant. He noted his concern with the trash. The property on Larkspur has no alley, • no separation between commercial and residential. Having restaurant trash, which is a daily full bin with the flies and odors should be relocated somewhere closer to the building away from my property. I am concerned with the lighting of the parking lot and how it will affect my tenants; Mr. Secretan indicated he had low wattage, and I don't want it shining into the units at night. I think the parking lot should be chained at night because I don't want commercial people going in there at 3 in the morning opening doors, slamming them and waking my tenants up who are 3 feet away from the parking lot. • Doug Ashton, 418'/2 Larkspur asked that this project be denied because there is not enough parking for either patrons or employees; enforcement issues; does not agree with any waiver due to the added burden to the surrounding commercial and residential area; delivery trucks block alley and force patrons out onto Marguerite; there will be parking in front of residential garages; two way alley will necessitate drivers pulling onto private property for oncoming vehicles to pass; noise of the delivery trucks; and if the parking lot is left open after 10 p.m. the bar patrons will use it until all hours of the morning, is the owner willing to assume the liability for the parking lot after hours? • Debbie Ashton, 418 '/2 Larkspur stated her support of the previous speaker. • Howard Ashton, 308 Orchid stated that he has a problem with the parking. Public comment was closed. • Commissioner Kranzley, referring to the site map, asked if the trash could be 21 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes . January 17, 2002 INDEX moved down closer to the building and away from the property owner? Ms. Temple answered that with confirmation it could be moved down but no further than what the traffic engineering division determines is necessary for that gateway access. Commissioner Selich noted that he has been involved with the Visioning plan for the past two years and this is exactly the kind of use that was envisioned and hoped to get more of in Corona del Mar, including community serving uses that rely heavily on pedestrian oriented traffic as well as having the outdoor dining and things that contribute to the village atmosphere. He is concerned with the parking. Businesses do not want to impact the residential areas. One of the top priorities of the Vision 2004 Plan once the highway issue is resolved is to develop a parking plan where we can get more off - street parking distributed properly throughout the area because we feel the parking problem will never be solved on a lot by lot basis. I would not be in favor of any use that .1 felt had a heavy impact upon the residential area. Looking at this proposal, one of the benefits I see, we have a pool of parking and this is an opportunity to share some of the parking. I am referring to the City parking lot across the street. The times this businesses is open and operating, not withstanding the Farmers' Market issue, are the times the City parking lot is underutilized. I think there is a great benefit there if we condition that the employees park there as well and the operator encourages patrons to park there too. There is a benefit to having 11 additional parking spaces added • to the parking pool in Corona del Mar. The owner of the property called me up before he started talking to Zinc Cafe about how to reuse the building, and he was talking at that time about putting in a Harley Davidson Motorcycle dealership in the old garage where the restaurant is going and taking the lot next to it and building as much office and retail on it and have all the parking exiting off the alley. I believe this is a far superior alternative to that because of the addition to the parking pool, helping to alleviate an evening parking condition. I share the concern about the hours of operation and if we were to approve this, I would suggest an additional finding dealing with that: The Planning Commission finds that the operational characteristics of the proposed use and the plans as conditioned, particularly the hours of operation, are the reasons for granting the parking waiver. Any change in the operational characteristics, particularly a change in the hours of operafion, would require an amendment to the Use Permit reviewed by the Planning Commission with the parking waiver reconsidered. Although this restates a lot of what is in the Code and would be something that someone would be required, I think it is important to get into the findings so it's clear what the Commission's intent was. If it goes to another use or the hours were extended, we would come back and reconsider this parking waiver issue. In addition to the conditions that staff put forth I suggest additional conditions that require: The project owner Is required to purchase employee parking permits for the lot across the street; signage to be used encouraging the patrons to use the lot across the street, project owner agrees to the 11 spaces being available to the public offer closing. The problem with the delivery trucks in Corona del Mar is a problem everywhere and is endemic to the residential and commercial interface. • 22 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 One last point is the viability of the employees parking in the public parking lot, that is _a condition that we put on Albertson's Supermarket when they had their expansion a couple of years ago. As far as I know, I talked to staff and they are purchasing the employee parking permits and though we have no way of knowing for sure that is being used, I think if the employer is spending the money to buy the permits, he is probably staying on top of the issue. Commissioner Agajonian asked about the new curb cut along the highway? Mr. Edmonton answered that it was less of an impact then if it was someone trying to parallel park probably because they can get into the driveway fairly quickly. The design of the lot has the first spaces far enough into the lot that cars should be able to get off the highway. The existing curb cut that is there was mainly used when it was a car dealership to get cars into and out of the showroom, which was a low intensity use. It will introduce a new point where more people will be slowing down and making that turn into the driveway than is there today or if it were only a parallel parking space. The closest spaces in the municipal lot for parking would be closest to Marguerite and close to the comer. The parking lot revenue is low and most of the demand is at night time with restaurant patronage and employees. It is typically over 80% vacant. Ms. Temple, at Commission inquiry, stated that the Farmer's Market operates from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturdays. Commissioner Gifford stated that the style of the operations is terrific for Corona del Mar. The outdoor areas is a draw for patrons and I hate to see us cut that down. If we waive 7 spaces, what would happen if we waived 9 spaces? Under the method of calculation outlined in the memo, what would happen if the patio had the benefit of parking spaces 8 and 10, what would be the parking requirement and how many would we have to waive? My experience is that the parking problems on the side street would not diminish if this project did not open. My inclination is to consider allowing a larger patio and I thought a suggestion about exploring a possible reciprocal agreement with Bandera might be good. Additionally, I am concerned with the idea of chaining the parking lot at night. I think it would be a dramatic impact on the residents if the Quiet Woman patrons adopted that parking lot. I suggest that perhaps we require the parking lot to be chained but permit that the applicant could have a parking agreement with another business provided that these were utilized by them through a valet parking program spaces to minimize noise and commotion of the public that might otherwise use the spaces. Commissioner Kiser asked about the alleyway and the issue of two -way traffic without going onto private property. Mr. Edmonston answered it is a problem and it this was being developed today, the Code would require a 20 foot wide alley. Throughout Corona del Mar, 14 feet • is the standard. In other parts of the City it is as low as 9 and 10 feet. The alleys are used for loading per the Municipal Code up to 20 minutes, but that is difficult to 23 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 enforce. If this is 13 feet because of the power pole and across the alley there is a 5 foot setback, then that would give a total of 18 feet using the public and private areas. Commissioner Kiser asked about condition 8 that all delivery trucks are required to service the restaurant from on -site and prohibited from Coast Highway or the public alley service locations. What about the normal enforcement, would this work? Mr. Edmonston answered it is a low priority for enforcement and is difficult to control. This would be a requirement on the Use Permit, not necessarily a violation of the Municipal Code or the California Vehicle Code to park in the alley and do it. Ms. Temple answered Commissioner Gifford's suggestion regarding the patio. The calculations would increase the parking requirement, using the one space per 50 standard for the alternate analysis by 7 to 8 spaces so the waiver would increase to either 17 or 18, as opposed to 10. Commissioner McDaniel noted that there will be impact on the neighborhood with this project. The chaining or not chaining is a significant concern. I agree that this will be an overflow for other institutions in the area with all the noise associated with its use. I am in favor of chaining the parking lot to make sure there is as much protection as possible for the use. Commissioner Kiser stated he would like to see this use, the outdoor patio should stay within the 250 square feet so that it is within the Accessory Outdoor Dining allocation. The business will work with it and the applicant has agreed to it as well. I am concerned about the parking issues and the public lot is important to this use. Staff's recommendation of the signage both inside and outside the restaurant asking patrons to use the lot as well as the applicant's suggestion for his patrons to be good neighbors by doing that has some impact. I would like to see a condition on this signage. Commissioner Selich noted that it would not be practical to get an agreement with either Quiet Woman or Bandera's regarding the parking. One way to deal with it is to give the option of working out an agreement and close it off at the alley, but if the applicant is unable to get one then I think having a place for people to park that is out of the residential area and on Coast Highway that is better. I prefer to see the lot open after hours. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to approve Use Permit No. 2001 -040 (PA2001 -221) with the altemative floor area calculations as submitted by staff today; with the findings as initially submitted by staff but adding the additional finding. The Planning Commission finds that the operational characteristics of the proposed use and the plans as conditioned, particularly the hours of operation are the reasons for granting the parking waiver. Any change in the operational characteristics, particularly a change in the hours of operation, would require an 24 INDEX • • 0 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 amendment to the Use Permit reviewed by the Planning Commission with the parking waiver reconsidered, with the additional three conditions suggested by staff and adding my following conditions that: • Operator is required to purchase employee parking permits and they are required to park in the Municipal lot across Coast Highway. • Post signage In a prominent location directing and encouraging his patrons to use the Municipal lot across the street. • The 11 spaces be available to the public after closing in either of two forms. (a) enter into agreements with adjacent businesses to use the lot on a valet parking basis in which the alley entrance would be closed off, or (b) Use the lot as indicated on the plans. • Relocate the trash enclosure to the maximum degree possible as approved by the City's Traffic Engineer towards the driveway entrance off the alley. Chairperson Tucker then asked the maker of the motion to clean up some of the changes on the conditions. • Condition 1 - change site plan to plot plan, the floor plan should be dated. • Condition 4 - the last sentence delete the last two words, is reefeiFed. • Condition 8 - roll back the time frame for the deliveries to 10 p.m. as it • • closes at that time. Condition 10 - eliminate this condition. It is assumed that the limited net public area will limit the number of the seats. • Condition 12 - the rear door usage by employees, roll back time to 10:30 p.m. • Condition 14 - insert water fight before trash containers and add a sentence that says, 'Trash shall be picked up from the ground of the hash enclosure on a daily basis by employees of the premises. • Condition 20 - add after hours of operation, (for either restaurant or retail and espresso bar); after floor plan add (Including patio dining area). • Condition 21 -change the last word, 'company' to agent. • Condition 22 - change the word 'outside' to audible. Commissioner Selich agreed to these changes. Commissioner Kiser added: • Condition 23- change wording to specified time periods. • Resolution - delete the word, DOES. Ms. Temple added the following conditions to address the Commission's concerns: • That the exhibit dated January 17, 2002 with the specific areas listed by letter shall be Incorporated as part of the findings. • That the reduction in the patio area shall be used for landscaping • purposes. 25 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 • Commissioner Selich agreed with- these additional changes and discussed his condition regarding the agreements. Commissioner Kiser stated he has concerns about the ability of valets to park cars in that particular lot and get them back out onto Coast Highway. Mr. Edmonston answered the concern really is how the valets will be able to keep other people from coming into the lot. It is problematic; valets do not particularly follow the striping on the ground, they follow a pattern that works best to get the most cars in and leave maneuver space. The valets would establish a pattern and you could have them submit a plan that would show how it would be operated. I have not looked at this project with exiting onto Coast Highway, only entering from Coast Highway. Continuing; -- Commissioner -Kiser -statedzanother - concem about forcing the applicant to turn this into a public lot that is open at night. It is great to have the extra parking in town, I don't think we should restrict this owner /user from chaining off that lot at night if they want to. Commissioner McDaniel expressed his concern of having the eleven parking space noise generation concentrated in that area and disturbing those few residences. Additionally, it is a target for people to come visit after hours, just to stand around shooting the breeze, etc. I think it would be minimized if they were disbursed. Mr. Edmonton answered that as Commissioner Selich noted, it is a trade off. If it is open late and introduces parking in an area that has not had it next to residences as opposed to street parking being used. I don't know if there are more bedrooms on the alley or more on the street, there could be a number of things that play into which would be least burdensome for the neighborhood. Commissioner Agajanian stated that if the facility is going to be opened until 10 at night, I am not sure who will valet park after 10:00 p.m. I think it is a moot point and I would just as soon not put the requirement on it at all. Commissioner Gifford noted her goal was to have findings supported by potential use of the parking spaces beyond this business but to minimize the impact on the neighbors by not having it create problems for nearby residents. The problems we could have here are people coming out of the bars at 2 in the morning, slamming doors, radio blaring. I don't know whether you take parking away from where people are already parking or get 11 more people who drove on by who could not find a place to park before. I feel we should require that it be chained but give the owner the option to allow it be used for valet. After considering public testimony, Chairperson Tucker noted that he wasn't sure whether it was better to require the lot to remain open after hours or to chain the lot. Accordingly, he would like to see this come back in a few months to see • 26 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 if leaving the lot open was creating more problems then it was solving. It is a choice of the best of two evils but I'm not sure we have made the correct choice. To make sure we haven't made a mistake, I would like the moffer of the parking lot remaining open after hours to come back to the Commission for review in six months. Commissioner Agajanian asked to add a condition, No seating at the espresso bar. Commissioner Selich agreed. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford. Kranbey Selich Noes: None ... Commissioner Kranzley excused himself from the proceedings. Chairperson Tucker then noted that according to the Planning Commission Procedures, we are not to start on an item after 10:30 p.m. unless we vote to do so. I would like a motion so that we con go ahead and consider the Regent Newport Beach. • Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to hear the next item. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford. Kranbey Selich Noes: None Excused: Kranzley SUBJECT: Regent Newport Beach (PA 2002 -005) • 1700 West Balboa Boulevard Initiation of an amendment to the Land Use Element and Recreation and Open Space Bement of the General Plan and the initiation of a Planned Community Development Plan to allow the development of a 147 -room hotel resort complex. Chairperson Tucker noted this item is an initiation of a general plan amendment, it is not the general plan amendment itself. The actual plan, assuming that the Council decides to concur with any positive action we take, will be back when it will be the actual plan, with the related environmental documents, and that will be before us at a later date. Historically in the past we have spent very little time on initiations, if it is something that looks like it is within the realm of something that might be acceptable and the applicant wants to spend the time, effort and money to bring back the actual plan to us we generally accord him that right. In this particular case, this is also a property that is owned by the City. The City Council has been heavily involved in this process so I think that we will take very brief public comments, limit everybody to a minute on this . because there is no actual plan for us to review tonight. We will decide on the wisdom of the initiation. Is there any other information from staff? 27 Introduce an item after 10:30 Approved Item No. 4 PA2002 -005 Recommended for Initiation City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 INDEX Mrs. Wood noted a correction with the description of 147 rooms. Public comment was opened. Steve Barnard, resident of Balboa Peninsula speaking for the Central Newport Beach, Community Association (700 members) asked if there were any results from the Vision Conference that was held this past Saturday. Chairperson Tucker answered it will be a long haul before those results really culminate in anything. No decisions have been made. Mr. Barnard then asked why we are proceeding tonight to try to go into a General Plan Amendment when we just asked the citizens what they feel and we don't have any response yet? Secondly, we have a meeting coming up with the City Council having to do with other parks nextweelc.—lYis ajoint PB and R and City Council meeting, and it seems to me that if we are going to take away a park use and convert it to a commercial use, perhaps it ought to be considered with that. Thirdly, we have had quite a bit from the Coastal Commission recently and certainly the LA times claiming public land for the public use. Now, we are taking it away from public use and putting it into a .private use and I would suggest that we wait until we have some of these other answers before we try to move ahead with this expeditiously at 11 at night. Tom Rossi, 1801 West Bay next to the proposed project stated that: • The proposed project was favored largely by the City based upon its economic benefit to the citizens of Newport Beach. • Recent tragic events have rocked our nation; the economic impact on spending and travel shifts appear to be wide spread, long term and not clearly defined. • Five year old study forming the basis that the Planning Department made its recommendation on may not be valid, is questionable at best and probably obsolete. • The recommended use may simply add to the apparently long term serious flood of hotel space. • The developer used a study by PKF that showed an absorption part of a hotel units. I believe this study is no longer valid and is probably heavily flawed. • 1 believe it is only prudent to base a decision on current data and sound reasoning. • The Committee that you formed to study the City's future to see whether or not we are going to have positive economic impact or a negative one; whether we are going to overload the glut that we already have in hotel space with a project due to changes that we don't even have knowledge of today because of the shifts that have happened in our country and in our community are probably very serious. • I request that you consider further study and an update on the study that • 28 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 you already have. Steven Sutherland, partner with Sutherland, Talla Hospitality and the proponent for the Regent Newport Beach Resort. I am here to ask that you make a recommendation to the City Council to initiate the general plan amendment. This is public land that is almost totally in private use today as a residential use. A hotel or resort is defined by the State Lands Commission and also the California Coastal Commission as being a public use. So this is taking public property and making it available to the public and giving the public benefit from this property. The other issue concerning the economy and the future of our nation, I have more faith in it than some people. I think our economy is going to rebound stronger than it ever was before the attacks of September 1 l th. The PKF study is about a year old now and probably by the time this hotel gets up and running, the economy will be much stronger. PKF is recognized as the leading consultant in hospitality in this country. They have done studies for the City of Newport °Beach,,which is one of the reasons I selected them. Their study came back with 107% market share for the hotels that I would be competing against, the Ritz Carlton, St. Regis, Shutters Hotel in Santa Monica, all luxury resort type properties. There is no glut for hotels of this type, especially when they are small as this one is with a total of 147 guest rooms. The market study does need to be re -done and will be as part of the process. Christine Dabs, lives across the street from the Newport Harbor Yacht Club. She has listened to both sides and would like to see it given a chance. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Tucker noted that this is an initiation of a general plan amendment. The General Plan Update process is not a moratorium so the City is not restrained from doing business, but ultimately it is the City Council's say -so on this one. We do the planning types of decisions and assistance and the Council will decide whether there is something that will be planned or not be planned on this property and when that comes back then all of your comments in particular critiques of the property will be considered. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to adopt Resolution No. 1548 recommending initiation of the General Plan amendment (GPI 2002 -001) and the Planned Community Development Plan (PC 2002 -001) to City Council. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Excused: Kranzley ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: • a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood stated that at the City Council meeting 29 11:11* 1 Additional Business City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • January 17, 2002 INDEX of January 8m, the Design Standards for Mobile Homes on individual lots was introduced; the Council upheld the Planning Commission on the Quick appeal, the request to retain the patio cover that encroaches on Balboa Blvd.; the Council approved the Camco Pacific General Plan Amendment and the Council established the committee to work on the LCP Certification and appointed Commissioners Selich, Kranzley and McDaniel. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich distributed a report on Fletcher Jones Motorcars Revenue and Assistance Analysis prepared by staff. The agreement is 5 years old and the report shows that it has provided a net benefit to the City of $6.6 million dollars. This is something that the EDC was instrumental in getting started and this report shows that in this particular instance it was a success. The Planning Commission has been somewhat vindicated on the bluffs issue, since I have been informed that one of the houses that went 'down-the "' hill "arid- stayed- under the Variance was shot down at the Coastal Commission. Ms. Temple added that another one was denied by the Coastal Commission for the same reason. a_ C) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Mrs. Wood reported that there were over 400 people at the Vision Festival on Saturday and have received over 80 • applications to serve on the General Plan Advisory Committee and have received another 100 requests for applications and have extended the deadline to deal with those requests. d) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - None. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - None. f) Status report on Planning Commission requests -. None. g) Project status - None. h) Requests for excused absences - None. ADJOURNMENT: 11:05 p.m. Adjournment EARL MCDANIEL, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 30