Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/23/1998• Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 ?egular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. • ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Commissioners Fuller, Ridgeway, Selich, Gifford, Adams and Ashley - all present STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood - Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple - Planning Director Robin Clauson - Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston- Transportation and Services Manager Ginger Varin - Executive Secretary to Planning Commission Mrs. Genia Garcia - Associate Planner Marc Myers - Associate Planner Patrick Alford - Senior Planner Minutes of July 9, 1998: Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway, and voted on, to approve, as amended, the July 9, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes. Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Adams Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Commissioner Kranzley Presentation was made to Commissioner Kranzley for his work during the past year as chairman. Public Comments: none Postina of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, July 17, 1998 outside of City Hall. INDEX Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 • • Presentation by David L. Wieland, of Wieland Associates, regarding City noise standards and mitigation methodologies. Discussion by Commission included: • City has average noise level standards. • City Noise Ordinance does not contain any corrections for noise character. • Quantitative versus Qualitative Noise Ordinance Standards. • Average noise level limits versus tiered noise level limits. • Corrections for types of noise. • Audibility restrictions. • Suggested changes for mitigating restaurant noise impacts. • Requirement of acoustical study of new applicants. • Compliance required by City of Newport Beach. • Bayfront Restaurant Regulations Sub - committee recommendation c acoustical studies. • Cost of study from $1,200 to $1,600. • Application of noise regulations to off -site noise such as parking and patrc exiting. • Sound travels the same over water and land • Noise Ordinance update is not adequate YYY SUBJECT: Robert San Miguel Residence 221, 223 and 225 Camation Avenue Variance No. 1222 • Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 24 Variance request to permit the construction of a new duplex that will exceed the permitted height limit by approximately5 to 14 feet on the north side of the property and 1 to 5 feet on the south side of the property. Also included is a Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP) for the purpose of establishing project compliance pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to Low and Moderate Income Housing within the Coastal Zone, Mrs. Genic Garcia, Associate Planner noted that a meeting was held between the applicant and the homeowners in the area on Wednesday to discuss the project. Story poles were erected on the site Friday, and, there is an additional exhibit for presentation this evening by the architect. Commissioner Adams stated, for the record, that he attended that meeting between the architect and the homeowners. Commissioner Kranzley noted, for the record, that he was absent at the lost meeting but has read the minutes and listened to the tape. INDEX Item Item No. 1 V No. 1222 CRDP No. 24 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 Chairperson Selich granted a short break to allow the Commissioners time to review the story pole exhibits that were posted on the walls by the architect. At the resumption of the meeting, Chairperson Selich noted that this is a continued public hearing. The Councilmember for this district has brought forward an item to restrict the height limit in the MFR Zone to be discussed at the Council meeting on Monday, July 271h. The issue at hand tonight, is the variance on the property. He asked that the audience limit their comments to new information and not what was discussed at the last meeting. Any new information that have resulted from the meetings held is what Commission -is interested in hearing as additional testimony. Public comment was opened. Commissioner Fuller asked for and received from staff, confirmation that the building envelope of 33 feet represents the maximum height of the ridge element on a sloping roof in the MFR District. The height is at a ridge elevation in association With the sloping roof in this particular instance. Mr. Hal Woods, architect on the project, noted that at the request of the Planning Commission, they agreed to an additional meeting with residents to • explain the nature of the variance; the erection of story poles to show the allowable building envelope; and compose an exhibit showing the vantage points, seven in all, photos with the outline of the proposed residence and the requested variance on the rear of the property. Continuing, he noted that all three items were accomplished. There were two meetings, both on site and in City Council Chambers. A reduced series of drawings was presented at the neighborhood meeting explaining the story poles. The applicants have agreed to remove three feet of roof area on the slope on either side of the ridge for a total of six feet of flat roof. The photo exhibit posted on the wall, clearly shows that the flattening of the roof does not help the issue of bay view, in his opinion. Therefore, the applicant and I will leave it up to the better judgement of the Planning Commission as to whether that flat roof portion should be provided. As the architect of the project, he sees no benefit to the community as that portion of the roof to be flattened is a view up into the sky. An issue during discussion with the neighborhood was the future zone change in the area by Mr. Sansone and Councilmember O'Neil. An establishment of a bluff line so that certain residences could not go out further than others was also part of the discussion. He concluded noting that many compromises have been made and asked for the Variance to be granted. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Woods explained the depiction of the colored lines on the photos and explained the aerial photo with emphasis on bluff homes views. During his discussion, Mr. Woods passed out an additional photo depicting the bluff view projections. • Kent Moore, 2502 Ocean Boulevard - thanked Commissioner Adams and staff 3 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 for meeting with the residents. At the last meeting, the applicants offered to lower the height of the roof by three feet. Now, it appears that they are withdrawing this compromise. The development of this project has far reaching implications for the possible re- zoning of this area. The residents have come together to address this situation. Let the neighbors have this three foot concession as offered by the applicant at the meeting two weeks ago. Perhaps, it does not affect the neighbors right across the street, but the oblique views shown in the most recent exhibit pictures up and down the street is an entirely different matter. Commissioner Adams noting the exhibit with the yellow lines across the roof and asked if that was what was envisioned with the three foot reduction in height, to which Mr. Moore answered, yes. Mr. Moore affirmed that this small concession would not make much of a difference from the front of the building, but, it would help the oblique views. Peter Hagen, tenant of 231 Carnation - spoke in opposition to the Variance stating that his view would be significantly impacted. The current building extends eight feet past his building, but the extension of an additional fifteen feet will remove a significant amount of his view. At Commission inquiry, he • noted his residence on the aerial exhibit. Steven Gould, 227 Carnation- spoke in opposition to the Variance noting: • that his sunset and bay views will be lost • garages on Carnation are not used for parking, but used for storage • parking is a severe problem • a public parking spot will be lost Tim Stevens, owner of 2511 Seaview Avenue - thanked the Commission for continuing this item from two weeks ago, passed out a colored photo and spoke in opposition to the Variance noting: • the proposal should be re- designed with a flatter roof of at least three feet • current structure is seventeen feet above the street line and with current design would allow for a maximum of twenty -eight feet • referencing the photo, he noted the drawn lines depicting the outlines of the new construction with the impacts of lowering the roof line • most of the other residences in the area have flat roofs • lot re -zoned in 1990 from R3 to MFR - a matter of equity • bluff lots are allowed to go a higher level, however, inlet lots which have obstructed views have not been changed Commissioner Adams clarified that with regard to the equity comment, all of the bluff lots and those across the street never had the same zoning. Discussion then continued on the different interpretations of the three foot reduction in • the roof height as portrayed in the exhibits. 4 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 Mr. Stevens affirmed that the reduction of three feet would not make a significant change in his view now, but that he is looking forward to the future when he may possibly renovate his residence in such a manner as to recapture some of the lost view. Therefore, every foot is significant in the reduction of the proposed variance height in his opinion. Richard Holub, 2511 Seaview Avenue - stated his opinion of the Variance issue noting that he has approached the applicants with it. In discussion with other homeowners, they have tentatively agreed to help augment the construction cost of the difference in the roof height. (He then presented the Commission with an exhibit of the new design element.) Lloyd Rasner, 208 Carnation - spoke in support of this variance with the proviso that the roof line be lowered, noted: • The project, with an increased building size from approximately 3,900 square feet to 5,500 square feet, is two feet under the absolute allowable MFR. • The proposed project will remove one public parking space off the street because of the curb cuts which will provide the owner with seven off- street parking spots. • The granting of this application is not necessary to preserve property rights but is desirous. • The project does not seem consistent with the zoning for the other taller buildings that have flat roofs, presumably to allow neighbors not fortunate enough to be on the bluff face, some view of the bay. • There may be some financial injury for the residences across the street opposite the bluff. • It is a well designed project. Commission re- called Mr. Woods to the podium. Commissioner Fuller asked about the three foot reduction mentioned during testimony. He confirmed that it was said that the applicants would like to delete that request, not necessarily that it would be deleted. Mr. Wood answered that the applicants have not reneged on their responsibility of making that concession from last week. He reiterated that having visited the neighborhood and spending almost two hours, his impression as the architect, lowering the height does not benefit the community. The San Miguels are prepared to go twenty -five feet tonight if the Commission desires. Mr. Wood then compared the exhibits and their correlations. He stated that the building could go to within ten feet to the rear of the property line. Currently, the proposed structure will be thirty to thirty five feet from the rear of the property line. The owner of the next door residence at 213 Carnation has • written a letter of support for this proposed project. S IIke*1 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 Colleen Jeffries, 216 Carnation - presenting pictures taken from her front terrace, spoke in opposition to this project stating that she would lose the bay view, lights and beyond to the Palisades Peninsula. Referencing the photo, she noted where the proposed project would remove her views. She asked that the variance not be granted unless the roof is made flat. Referencing the adjoining residences at 214 and 218 Carnation she noted that they would also benefit from a flat roof. Jack Mishkin, 2500 Seaview - noted he has the highest promontory view in the neighborhood and will have the greatest amount of view loss if this proposed project is built. Tod Schooler, former owner of 214 Carnation stated that the lowering of the roof by three feet will help the neighbors substantially. He clarified pictures that had been distributed to Commission with Commission Ashley. Gloria Esposti, 212 Carnation spoke in opposition to this project as she is concerned with privacy issues from her master bedroom and bathroom. To substantiate her concerns, she presented pictures taken from her bedroom. Carol Rudak, 307 Carnation - read letter from neighbor (307 Carnation) stating • opposition to construction due to lack of privacy. She stated that she understands the problems with this project. However, the neighbors have tentatively agreed to bear part of the construction costs in the lowering of the roof line by three feet, or, possibly to buy the building from the San Miguels for $1.1 million. Public Comment was closed. Public Comment was re- opened. Mr. Woods commented that trying to lower the building one foot would require a Coastal Commission review and would be against the General Plan. At Commission inquiry, he stated that the applicants are amenable to lowering the roof three feet which would result in a mansard type roof. Public Comment was re- closed. Commissioner Adams noted that the information provided by Ms. Rudak regarding the purchase or supplementation of costs are issues that are out of purview of the Commission and need to be negotiated by the parties involved. The issue tonight is a height variance for the back of the prismatic shaped property that does not affect the views other than the existing structure next door. That property owner has written a letter of support for this application. Ms. Jeffries photos portraying her small view of the bay, that view may be more affected if the adjacent neighbors build out their homes and may obliterate • her view anyway. The variance being asked for is not affecting anyone who 6 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 does not object to the project. The fact that a variance is being asked for, leads to a compromise by the applicants. The applicants have come in with a building height on Carnation that is less than what they are entitled to and, also agree to lower the roof height. They should live up to that agreement as everyone here has said that it would make a difference. Commissioner Kranzley concurring with Commissioner Adams noted his empathy for the neighbors, relating his own personal experiences with losing views. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve Variance No. 1222 and Coastal Residential Development permit No. 24 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the additional conditions to lower the height of the roof by three feet and formalizing the height of chimneys. Commissioner Fuller stated his support for this application with the three foot roof reduction in height. Commissioner Ridgeway stated his support for this application. Noting the testimony of Mr. Stevens, Commissioner Ridgeway stated that perhaps a re- zoning of the residences across the street on Carnation, could be done by the • City Council. Commissioner Ashley, stated his support for this application for similarly expressed reasons. He noted that the San Miguels have committed themselves to build to the kinds of limitations within the R -2 Zone even though they are in an MFR Zone which would have entitled them to more than what they have proposed. They are providing for more off - street parking. The site itself is worthy of a variance simply because it has a steep slope on the coastal side and an unusual sloping condition to a service road that had been constructed. The concession of a reduction of the building height of the roof of 3 feet is appropriate. Commissioner Adams worked with Ms. Temple regarding the chimney heights regulations. Commissioner Ashley asked the maker of the motion to accept a new condition regarding any landscape features put in place as a result of the new improvement. Following a brief discussion by Commission, he withdrew this request. Commissioner Ashley then made a SUBSTITUTE MOTION to approve the Variance with the additional condition that would provide some sort of landscape height limit and intrusion limit in side yards. Commissioner Adams noted that there was discussion during the previous • meeting regarding views along the side yards. He asked Commissioner Ashley 7 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 to withdraw this substitute motion. Chairperson Selich noted that later on in the agenda, there is a discussion on the zoning code amendments regarding landscaping along Ocean Boulevard. This addresses the problems with imposing these kinds of restrictions on an application. Commissioner Ashley withdrew his SUBSTITUTE MOTION. Commissioner Kronzley called for the question. Without objection and by show of hands, MOTION CARRIED. Findinas: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program and a duplex is a permitted use within the "Two Family Residential' land use designation. • 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). 3. The following exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the land and building referred to in this application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, building and /or uses in the same District: • The topography of the lot inhibits the property owner from designing a dwelling that meets the height requirement because the slope of the lot is steep. • The lot is constrained by the alteration of the natural grade on one side of the lot due to the cutting away of a portion of the bluff for a service road which contributes to one side of lot higher than the other. • The lot is constrained by a shorter buildable depth on one side of the lot due to the steep slope and coastal cliff at the water side, which restricts the siting options of the structure on the lot. 4. The existing retaining wall is consistent with the Policy "D" of the Land Use Element of the General Plan with the interpretation requiring that the siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of is unique natural resources, and the alteration of natural landforms along 8 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 bluffs and cliffs has been minimized to the greatest extent practical, given the fact that the subject property is constrained by the vertical bluff which narrows the lot's buildable area and which would necessitate a relocation of the existing retaining wall. 5. The approval of Variance No. 1222 is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant since the proposed project is generally proportional or smaller in size, bulk and height than other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and strict application of the height requirements would result in a dwelling that is substantially smaller in size and height than other dwellings in the neighborhood. The granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district since the subject property has incurred a major alteration to the natural grade with the old service road that was cut across the bluff and will minimize further alteration to the face of the bluff by utilizing existing retaining walls. 7. The granting of a variance to allow the structure to exceed the permitted • height limit will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood because the proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the property and enhance the overall neighborhood because the portion of the roof and deck that exceeds the permitted height limit is located on the bluff side and cannot be viewed from the public street. 8. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development since conditions have been included in regards to development within the public right -of -way. Conditions: 1. Development shall be insubstantial conformance with the approved site plan, roof plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. The guardrails on the decks located on the cliff -side of the property be constructed of clear glass material or open material that is a minimum of 60% open. 3. An Encroachment Agreement /Permitshall be obtained through the Public Works Department for proposed work or private encroachments (walls, • 9 III • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 stairs, electrical, planters, etc.) located within the public right -of -way on Carnation Avenue. An Encroachment Agreement /Permit shall be executed prior to issuance of building or grading permits for the proposed building. 4. A geologic study be provided to identify areas of potential slope instability and be reviewed by the Building Department prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. 5. The ridge of the roof shall be lowered by 3 feet. 6. Height of chimneys shall be no higher than required by the Uniform Building Code. Standard City Requirements: 7. All public improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 8. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement • of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 9. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 10. Each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Building Department. 11. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this variance upon a determination that this variance causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 12. This variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 Findings for Coastal Develooment Residential Permit: The proposed project meets the requirements of Chapter 20.86 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code relative to the Low and Moderate Income Housing provisions within the Coastal Zone. •.N SUBJECT: Suzanne Finamore(applicant) 417 and 419 31st Street • Off -Site Parking Agreement • Modification No. 4749 Request to approve an Off -site Parking Agreement in conjunction with the construction of a new, mixed -use commercial project. Also requested is a modification to the Zoning Code to permit tandem parking spaces for commercial use. Mrs. Garcia noted that the applicant has indicated to staff that she would like to be able to utilize the converted commercial space on the off -site lot for the residential parking. The conditions that are in Exhibit A, (9, '10, 11 and • 12) pertain to the use of those parking spaces as commercial spaces. It is staff's opinion that two parking spaces on that site, where currently there are no parking spaces, would not be a problem whether they were residential or commercial. If the applicant would like to use those spaces as residential only, than in staff's opinion that would be acceptable. Public comment was opened. Buzz Person, 507 29 +h Street spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that they have read, understand and concur with the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit "A" with the deletion of items 10 thru 12 and the additional language that has been proposed by staff in condition number 9. Condition No. 6 requires the applicant to move the parking portion of the building back six feet towards 30th Street. (pictures were presented showing the electrical panel on the wall on that area) An estimate of $10,000 from an electrician to move the electrical service in addition to the structural setback over that area would be too costly. With the insertion of garage doors there would be two usable parking spaces in the building. He continued saying that the applicant is proposing to construct a building with 2,000 sq. ft of residential over 1,000 sq. ft of commercial. Due to recent developments in terms of the American Disabilities Act, (ADA) the applicant is required to provide one handicap space on the project regardless of the size of the project. The requirement of this handicap space would detract from the commercial space. Given the fact that the mixed use is the best use of this property, and more development is needed, he asks that Condition No. 6 be • removed. 11 121.70 Item No. 2 Off -Site Prkng Agrmnt Modification No. 4749 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 Commissioner Ridgeway asked if it is an option to waive one parking space? Mr. Person answered that there will still be enough space to park two cars where the one handicap space is going to be. But, because of the fact that the applicant owns the property next door and can use some side yard as additional space, she is willing to do that. There is no way to get around the requirements of the ADA, but if there is some way to be more creative with the size of the lots in the Cannery area, that would be appreciated. Commissioner Ridgeway commented that it has been a problem for some of the older buildings to comply with the ADA requirements. Commissioner Kranzley noted that he would like to direct staff to look at various alternatives with regard to Coastal Commission and the waiving of parking. It is a viable issue in the Cannery area that needs to be addressed during the future expanded development. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if there is an ability to waive the ADA requirement? • Mr. Rich Edmonton stated that the ADA requirement has to be adhered to. There is a provision in smaller lots, maybe 10 spaces or less, to provide at least one space that is large enough for handicap but it does not have to be signed and reserved. The City enforces the state handicap regulations (Title 24) which can be different than ADA, but, the property owner still has the burden of complying to ADA or they are subject to law suits. Roger Lockhart, 204 Via Quito spoke in support of this application noting: • Applicant is providing all the requisite parking spaces through taking over from the side yard on the adjacent building that she also owns. • Applicant is also providing two additional parking spaces for a total of eight spaces. • If parking requirements are modified in the future, the applicant should be given the option to vacate the portion of the adjacent property that she is willing to give up now. • The applicant is willing to give up the back portion of the building, construct a garage door on the back to allow for two additional spaces. In total, there will be eight parking spaces. Commission Fuller asked if that back portion was a garage and that it has a garage door on it. Mr. Lockhart answered that it is not a garage and has never been used as a garage. It is used by a business. • 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 Mr. Buzz Person commented that there has never been a car near those garage doors. It appears it was a garage at one point in time. Looking at this building that is being utilized, it does not have a long life ahead of it anyway. It's commercial use is somewhat limited and will at some point in time will probably be re- developed. Chairperson Selich asked staff if that garage was boot - legged. Ms. Temple answered that there are no records for this particular building and that it appears that it was a garage. If it was required at the time of construction, no matter how long ago it was converted, it could be an illegal conversion. Many decades ago, there were no parking standards, so there is no way to tell when it ceased being a garage and whether at that time it was required parking or not. Tony Sheperdeson, 421 31 st Street having reviewed the plans, spoke in support of this application. During the last fifteen years that he has lived there, the area in question that may have been a garage, has never been used as a garage. There have been two different builders and antique dealers using that property. Concluding, he supports this three story building project and stated that the carport parking has always been adequate. • Claire Schneider, 300 East Coast Highway - spoke to the Commission on the problem of the ADA. She asked if credits or requirements can be shared for the ADA throughout the entire City? Maybe this building project could be used as a test case? Public comment was closed. Commissioner Ridgeway noted that he has a problem supporting this application as item no. 6 that was requested to be removed needs discussion. He asked if it is a design issue? Re- opened public comment. Mr. Buzz Person answered that it is a cost issue. In order to put parking in the space back there, all that needs to be done is cut a hole in the back wall and put a door back there. The Public Works Department, because of the design and location of the alley believes it would be better to have it back by five feet which would mean cutting the building off. Chairperson Selich stated that it is also the applicant's contention that the age of the structure is relevant with the cost of the improvement versus the age of the structure. Mr. Person stated that the cost of the electrical alone is over $10,000 not to mention the structural. Taking half the building down and back five feet and • 13 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 cantilevering over is too costly. The building is on the property line. Commissioner Ridgeway asked about the width of the alley. Mr. Edmonston answered that the alley width in Cannery Village is either 10 or 14 feet. This is the wider width. The concern is to the extent that the garage was an important aspect of this approval, we did not want to see it approved in a fashion that it was not readily usable. Mr. Person commented that the applicant is offering to provide some parking spaces in this area. If the City can not show, beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a garage at some point in time and required, therefore, it is not a garage. She is doing something on her own, so the request to setback a five feet requirement is unreasonable. Chairperson Selich asked how far the jog in the building was (as shown on a picture provided by Mr. Person)? How for back is the electrical panel? Mr. Person answered that it goes back two feet and the electrical panel is right in the front where a car would go on the facing wall. This would also remove an additional five to eight feet of existing offices which is occupied • by the residential tenants. Discussion continued on the following: • Removal of wall with a five foot setback maintained from the alley, the electrical panel would have to be removed and recessed by five feet which would add cost to the owner, plus delete another five feet of office space. • Looking at the picture of the exterior building, the second level would have to be cantilevered over the five feet that would be set back. • The age of the building is 40 to 50 years old. Suzanne Finamore, 363 Via Lido (applicant) stated that the building also has a bathroom behind the electrical which is for the commercial space that is rented. Therefore, would it not be feasible to take the electrical, behind the bathroom is the door that goes into the office. On the other side of the proposed garage, is the electrical sub -panel for the other office. There is more than one electrical panel. Public comment was re- closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to approve the Off -Site Parking Agreement and Modification No. 4749 subject to the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "A" with the deletion of condition no.6, revision of condition no. 9 and the deletion of items 10 thru 12. • 14 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 Commissioner Gifford asked for clarification of what was on the other side of the alley opposite the garage and if it is something that has a wall along the property line? What condition is being created? Mrs. Garcia answered that across the alley -way is the property that has debris and junk which enclosed by a fence set further back than the property line. Chairperson Selich called for the motion. Without objection and by show of hands, MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program designate the site for "Multi- Family Residential' land use. The proposed mixed -use commercial building is a permitted use within that designation. 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categoricallyexempt from the requirements of the Calif omia Environmental Quality Act under Class 5 (Minor Alteration in Land Use Limitations). • 3. The proposed off -site parking area is so located as to be useful in connection with the proposed office building since the lots are contiguous. 4. The two parcels are in common ownership. 5. The approval of the Off -Site Parking Agreement and Modification No. 4749 will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: The project will provide the required parking plus 2 additional spaces in the off -site lot. The access is proposed from the alley, which will reduce traffic congestion on 31 st Street and will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. The project and parking configuration is compatible with surrounding uses and parking plans. Conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, and elevations, except as noted below. • 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 2. The owners or owners and the City, shall execute a written instrument or instruments, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney, providing for the maintenance of the required off - street parking on the lot at 417 31st Street for the duration of the proposed use or uses on the subject site. Should a change in use or additional use be proposed, the off - street parking regulations applicable at the time shall apply. Such instruments shall be recorded in the office of the county Recorder and copies thereof filed with the Planning Department. 3. A minimum of 4 commercial off - street parking spaces and 2 residential parking spaces shall be maintained for the proposed project. 4. The final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer. 5. All vehicular access to the property shall be from the adjacent alley unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 6. • ;L 6. The existing unused drive approach and curb drain shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the 31st Street frontage. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 9: 7. That a building permit to convert the commercial area at 417 31 sl Street be approved concurrently with the building permit for the commercial building at 419 31 st Street. 8. That 2 enclosed parking spaces shall be provided on the off -site lot located at 417 31st Street. 13. 9. That Coastal Commission approval is obtained prior to the issuance of • building permits. 16 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 44: 10. This modification shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SUBJECT. Bluewater Grill Restaurant (Richard Staunton, applicant) 630 Lido Park Drive • Use Permit No. 3418 (Amended) • Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 47 (Amended) Request to amend Use Permit No. 3418 and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 47 to extend the hours of operation of the existing outdoor patio dining area from closing at sunset, to closing at 10:30 p.m., Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday. The existing hours of operation of the outdoor dining area is 9:00 a.m. to sunset, daily. Marc Myers, Associate Planner noted that this is the first time for a requirement that a recommendation of the Bayfront Restaurant Regulations Committee to require an acoustical study be prepared and provide recommendations for the • plans to insure noise ordinance compliance. Public comment was opened. Richard Staunton, one of the principal owners of the Bluewater Grill Restaurant stated that he has read, understands and agrees to the recommendations contained therein. He presented eighteen letters of support from residents who live across the restaurant on Lido Park Drive. Theresa Lockerback, 633 Lido Park Drive, B -1 - spoke in opposition to the proposed extra outside seating due to the extreme noise. She and her husband have talked to the owner several times as well as having called the Police Department. There is loud noise in the bar and loud patron noise in the form of speech as well as fighting in the parking lot. This has caused a great deal of frustration. The owners have worked on the live music issue by keeping the windows closed during performances. However, a patron would then open them. She had then asked that the windows be fixed in a locked position to which the owners had agreed. The noise from the patrons exiting is still very loud with the yelling and screaming. If the hours are expanded for the outdoor dining, that noise will be doubled. Commissioner Kranzley asked staff if a police report was received. He also noted that there is a citation ordinance in place so if the police are called and the business is in violation, citations can be issued. Ms. Temple answered that there were reports received in the past and that she • 17 INDEX Item No. 3 Up No. 3418 A AODP No. 47 A • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 had been worked to bring the business into compliance with Title 5 in terms of the live entertainment and the sound leakage onto the public sidewalk. Continuing, Ms. Temple noted that the Administrative Citation Ordinance would more than likely require calling out a Code Enforcement Officer rather than a police officer. She also clarified that the applicant is not expanding their premises so they don't require any new license or actions by the ABC, so they would not be subject to the new Alcohol Beverage Ordinance. The following people spoke in opposition to this application for similar reasons previously stated. Susan Russell, 633 Lido Park Drive, #F 2 Jack Kitwilder, 633 Lido Park Drive Commissioner Ashley asked staff about the closure of outdoor dining in relation to proximity of residential. Ms. Temple answered that 10:00 p.m. had been established for Windows on the Bay, however, in terms of outdoor dining both on the bay and other places, it is on a case by case basis and often some cases are allowed much later closing hours. There is no one consistent application of closing hours limitations. • Richard Staunton, applicant - stated he is very concerned with being a good neighbor. They have tried to address noise problems by keeping the windows in the bar closed and posting on the doors for patrons when leaving the establishmentto be quiet. When the acoustical study is done they will abide by the recommendations proposed. Commissioner Fuller asked that this is strictly a dining area that is being proposed, to which Mr. Staunton replied, yes. Referencing the Exhibit on the wall, Mr. Staunton pointed out the placement of windows, doors and the band. At Commission inquiry, he agreed to a closure of the dining area on the patio to 10:30 p.m. on Friday and Saturdays and 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday. Commissioner Ridgeway in referencing Condition 3 under the Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 47 A listing verified that the applicant understands. Mr. Staunton re- iterated his understanding and agreement. Commissioner Ridgeway then stated to staff that he felt the condition does not quite say that the applicant has to complywith the recommendations. Commissioner Adams stated that he also has a concern with this condition since it asks the application to look at the requirements that are ineffectual for restaurantsas was demonstrated earlier in the evening. • 18 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 Commissioner Ridgeway stated that this is a weak condition. It makes recommendations but does not make for the enforcement of these recommendations on the applicant or the person who is preparing the acoustical study. Ms. Temple agreed that Condition No. 3 of the Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 47 A should be amended to include a requirement that the recommendationsbe implemented as conditions of approval of this permit. Mr. Staunton stated that when he read the staff report, he was under the impression that the study would provide recommendations for compliance and shall be subject to the review and final approval of the Planning Department. Commissioner Ridgeway noted that a continuing problem with restaurants particularly in the Cannery Village is there is no mechanism for the control of noise of patrons once they are off site. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Staunton stated that during the live entertainment, his staff assures that the windows are closed. Additionally, there are wooden blinds that are closed over the dual pane windows. • Ms. Temple stated that the acoustical study will provide professional assistance in defining what operational limitations will create compliance with City codes. Rather than guessing as to what should be in place, we'll have a professional come in to make recommendations that will work. The applicant will be required to adhere to these recommendations. Mrs. Wood stated that with this condition staff can design some sort of improvements for each particular restaurant's type of operation and physical situation. Staff will know what needs to be done up front. I Commissioner Gifford expressed her confusion and concern about compliance with the existing noise ordinance by this applicant. This condition is talking about an acoustical study that would enforce the existing noise ordinance or create conditions that would result in compliance. If this business is not in compliance currently, why is the applicant coming before us for an additional use. If the idea is to comply with the noise ordinance, we don't make people do studies for conditions and tell them how to do it. They are either meeting the requirementsor not. If not, they have to do whateverto meet it. Ms. Temple added that the enforcement she was referring to earlier was the enforcement related to Title S requirements for the live entertainment relating to the window issue and not to compliance with community noise generally as it relates to the patio. Commissioner Gifford stated that if the applicant is out of compliance with anything that they should be in compliance with, this is not the time to come in • 19 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 and ask for any expansion. Ms. Temple answered that the applicant is in compliance with the Title 5 requirements since they are requiring their windows on that side to be closed while the live entertainment is in progress. There was one meeting several months ago that accomplished this. There are no outstanding issues at this time. Discussion then centered on possible mitigation measures suggested by the acoustical study, possibly: • Double paned windows • Fixed windows in a certain thickness to accommodate compliance • Noise leakage from the building Public comment was closed. Commissioner Adams stated that the applicant is asking for an expansion of a privilege. His behavior and ability to conform to the existing noise requirements is applicable to this discussion. Since this business is so close to residences, lets start out with lesser hours and consider lengthening them at a later hearing. For the people who live there, there is some level of peace and quiet that is to be • expected. However, as a resident in this area in Cannery Village on the channel with boat traffic and the night life, an expectation for dead quiet is unreasonable. There is some level of activity that is to be expected in a mixed use area like this. On the other hand, the applicant does need to conform with the noise requirements and Planning Commission needs to balance the two. Having outdoor dining by the water provides for an ambiance and character for Newport and to the extent that the Commission can provide for that it benefits the City. Commissioner Gifford stated that the issue of noise and compliance is linked with the request of longer hours. The status of compliance or non - compliance, providing that this condition has some teeth, becomes a requirement. The residents will benefit from having a study done and having experts look at this to see how the noise impacts can be mitigated. Some very positive scientific recommendations could result from such a study and if those recommendations, if reasonable, are imposed as conditions, then everyone will benefit. I support the idea of proceeding, but the question remains, what are reasonable operating hours on the patio? Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley for approval of Use Permit No. 3418 A and accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 47 A with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the following changes: Condition No. 3 of Use Permit No. 3418 A, so that the hours of operation on the patio should be limited between to 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Condition No. 3 of • 20 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 the Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 47A shall be amended to read, "An acoustical study shall be prepared which addresses noise from activities associated....... Therecommendationsof the study shall be implemented prior to establishmentof the amended hours of operation." Without objection and by show of hands, MOTION CARRIED. A. Use Permit No. 3418 (Amended) Findinas: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program designate the site for "Recreational and Marine Commercial' land use. The existing outdoor dining area is accessory to an existing restaurant, which is a permitted use within that designation. 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3418 (Amended) will not, under the • circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: Hours of operation are consistent with other outdoor dining in the area and should not create problems if operated consistent with the conditions of approval. Conditions of approval have been included in the Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit which will minimize the level of noise generated from the outdoordining area. Conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. All applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3418 and any subsequent amendments shall apply to the use and remain in force, except as noted below. 3. The hours of operation for the patio shall be limited between 9:00 a.m. and 19;39 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 9:00 a.m. t o l l ;89 10:30 p.m. Friday and Saturday. The interior restaurant operation shall be governed by • 21 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 the hours specified in conjunction with the approval of Use Permit No. 3418 and its amendments. 4. The noise generated by the restaurant operation including the outdoor dining area shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 6. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. B. Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 47 (Amended) Findings: • 1. The approval of an Amendment to Outdoor Dining Permit No. 47 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the city for the following reasons: • The use is accessory to the existing restaurant use and subject to all the findings and conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3418 and any amendments, except as limited by this approval and is not an independent use. • The proposed outdoor dining area, as conditioned, is compatible with the surrounding land uses and its limited hours should prevent noise from adversely impacting the nearby residential uses since the proposal does not include any noise generating activities outside of the facility (i.e., entertainment) which are prohibited in the outdoor dining area. • The use is accessory to and an extension of the existing restaurant use. • The proposed accessory outdoor dining increase of hours will not otherwise change any operational characteristics in the existing restaurant use. Conditions: Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan except as noted and modified in the following • 22 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 conditions. 2. All applicable conditions of approval of Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 47 and subsequent amendments shall remain in force, except as noted below. 3. An acoustical study shall be prepared which shall address noise from activities associated with the restaurant operation including surrounding atmospheric and topographic characteristics and their effect on noise in nearby residential areas. The study shall provide recommendations for compliance with Newport Beach noise regulations and shall be subject to the review and final approval of the Planning Department. The recommendations of the study shag be implemented prior to establishment of the amended hours of operation. 4. Light sources within the outdoor dining area shall be designed or altered to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the exterior lighting system has been designed and directed in such a manner as to conceal the light source • and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. Any additional exterior lighting installed subsequent to the Certificate of Occupancy is subject to review by the Planning Department for compliance with this condition. SUBJECT: Park Newport Apartments, (Edwin Hsu,) applicant 1 Park Newport • Use Permit No. 1412 (Amended) To amend Use Permit No. 1412 (A) to permit the replacement of sign copy on an existing monument sign and add amenity information to the sign. The sign is located at the corner of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road. Ms. Temple noted that this item has been removed from calendar as staff has determined that a use permit is not necessary. • 23 INDEX Item 4 UP No. 1412 A Removed from Calendar • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 SUBJECT'. Zubie's Chicken Coop 414 Old Newport Boulevard • UP 1053 A An appeal of the Planning Director's interpretation regarding the term of an off - street parking agreement. Ms. Clauson stated that in determining requirements for the off -site parking agreement, there is also a provision in the Code that requires that it be recorded. She told the applicant that in addition to the concerns that the City has about getting the Planning Commission to approve the time period for the lease, that the lease also needs to be recorded against the property. One of the terms of the lease is that it can not be recorded. Therefore, that is a problem for the City as it is an interpretation that is contrary to the requirement to the Code. One of the benefits of recordation, is that if the property owner decides to sell, the City is put on notice as well as the lessee. This is one element that needs to be worked out. Commissioner Fuller questioned if a nexus can be developed between the approval and the lease. For instance, if the lease is for a year, than could the approval be for a year? • Ms. Clauson answered that the provisions state that the lease is supposed to be for the duration of the project, and some uses can go on forever. If the Commission can say for purposes of this particular use, a year is sufficient. The lease has a year to year extension on it with the knowledge if for some reason it is cancelled at the end of the year, then the applicant would be back to the Planning Commission to either change the use or to provide parking on another site. Commissioner Kranzley stated that if the applicant has, only a one year lease and the lease is cancelled at the end of the year, he is not in compliance with the use permit. The onus is on the applicant to extend that lease. If he doesn't have the lease, he will have to adjust the uses on the property accordingly. The City is not at a risk here. Ms. Clauson answered that it is just an enforcement issue, getting the applicant to close down the use or find another parking arrangement. Chairperson Selich asked for the applicant, who was not in attendance. Ms. Clauson stated that the shorter the period of time that the applicant has a lease, the shorter period of time he has to potentially lose the parking and be in a situation where he no longer gets to have his expanded use. Somebody might be making such financial investments into the project, that if they had only a year, it might not be sufficient for the Commission to feel • confident that in a year they might lose the parking. Then the applicant 24 INDEX UP 1053 A • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 could come in and say, look at the investment I've made on this particular project. This one does not have a duration of the project financially, it is just adding some tables. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Clauson stated that off -site agreements are supposed to be approved by the City Attorney's office. To the best of her recollection, the City has never approved a one year lease as a sufficient duration. Most of the agreements required a five year lease. This applicant is saying he can not get a five year lease, then the Planning Commission needs to understand this in consideration of an approval. Commissioner Gifford noted that during the six or seven years she has served on the Commission, applicants could not go through with their project because they did not have a parking agreement in place or for a long enough duration. If we have traditionally used five years and have been pretty consistent about it, that is a sensible number, and, we have the additional problem that this can not be recorded. I am in concurrence that the fact should be that it should be a requirement that the applicant gets a parking agreement for five years, or, maybe he is not able to do what it is he wants to do. • Chairperson Selich, agreeing with Commissioner Gifford, stated that this could set a precedence. Anytime an applicant could not get an off -site agreement this will be brought up. He is inclined to re -visit the application and look at the possible waiver of the parking. He concluded stating this is just bad policy. Commissioner Kranzley asked staff if the one year lease is not sufficient, then the applicant would not be able to put pool tables in and that the it would revert back to the old use. The City would have the Zubie's the way it was before with live entertainment and dancing. During the public hearing, Zubie's gave up live entertainment and dancing in exchange for five pool tables. Commissioner Kranzley stated he would rather have a one year lease on off- site parking than Zubie's as it currently stands with live entertainment and dancing in an area that is about ready to start redevelopment with mixed use with residential. There will be the same issues as we have in Cannery Village. The applicant wants to remove the live entertainment and dancing in exchange for five pool tables and a one year lease for off -site parking. Chairperson Selich asked if this lease has to be recordable, and this lease is not, why are we even discussing this issue. Ms. Clauson answered that she does not know. She brought this up to the applicant before. She does not know if the applicant talked to the Board of Realtors and whether they would approve if they knew this was a • 25 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 requirement agreed to or not. If the Commission is concerned about this being precedent setting, there may be some points about this particular waiver that we could add some findings to the conditions, i.e., not a substantial investment, an exchange of live entertainment and dancing for pool tables. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to support the Planning Director's interpretation regarding the term of an off - street parking agreement. By show of hands, MOTION FAILED. Gifford and Selich - Yes Fuller, Ridgeway, Ashley, Adams, Kranzley - No Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley that a twelve month lease would be acceptable for compliance with the required conditions in this case and that it be recorded with notice provision to the City of Newport Beach. By show of hands, MOTION CARRIED. • Gifford and Selich - No Fuller, Ridgeway, Adams, Kranzley - Yes Findings regarding the Appeal of the Planning Director's Interpretation (Zubie's Chicken Coop) The Planning Commission finds that due to the unique circumstances of this application, the one year Off -site parking Agreement with a month to month extension thereafter is sufficient to provide for maintenance of parking spaces for the duration of the proposed use based upon the following findings: a.) The proposed use is to convert approximately 360 square feet of office space to a game room with pool tables. b.) There is a very small cost of conversion to the pool table use with relatively minor alterations to an existing building. C.) The relatively small conversion requires providing only nine (9) parking spaces, and as a condition of the approval, the use will operate without live entertainment, thereby reducing the demand for parking. • 26 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 SUBJECT: Minor Amendments to the City of Newport Beach Amendment No. 874 Code (Continued from June 18, 1998 and July 9, 1998) (All items with the exception of Item #17 were Continued to the July 23, 1998 meeting.) An amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Code to make several minor revisions to the Zoning Code. These revisions relate to the definition of terms, land use classifications, land use regulations, nonconforming structures, the regulation of signs, public notification requirements, appeal and call for review procedures, and the removal of obsolete, redundant, and conflicting language. Chairperson Selich stated that after public comment, he would ask each of the Commissioners for the items they wish to discuss. Public comment was opened and closed. Chairperson Selich then asked each of the Commissioners for any items to be pulled for discussion. • Commissioner Adams pulled items nos. 8, 9, 22,30 and 31. Motion was made by Commissioner Giff ord to recommend approval of Amendment 874 to the City Council for items other than 8, 9, 22,30 and 31. Commissioner Ridgeway commented as to the notice provision excluding water, he does not feel it is appropriate for residential or administrative hearings to exclude water. He has no problem excluding water for notice provision for all commercial uses, especially since they are probably adjacent to residential. These notification lists are expensive and there is no reason for a residential project to provide them excluding water. Ms. Temple noted that item 25 may offer an alternative to the Commission. Following a brief discussion, items 3 and 5 were added to the list. Without objection, and by acclamation, MOTION CARRIED. Item No. 3 - Commissioner Adams - Section 20.10.040 (B -1) should the area be designated as Old Corona del Mar? Ms. Temple noted, that particular Section has a specific legal description in it that defines Old Corona del Mar. • 27 Item 6 A 874 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to recommend approval. Without objection, and by acclamation, MOTION CARRIED. Item No. 5 - Commissioner Adams - Section 20.50.030 should it read ....up to or at? Mrs. Wood answered that the verbiage is standard zoning. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to recommend approval. Without objection, and by acclamation, MOTION CARRIED. Item No. 8 Commissioner Adams - Section 20.62.090 (13-1) what kicks this off, how many properties will this effect? At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple commented that staff tried to clarify in this particular section is that the abatement proceedings are not automatic. They require due process and hearings at the Planning Commission level. All this language is intending to clarify is related to non - conforming uses and • non- conforming buildings. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to recommend approval. Without objection, and by acclamation, MOTION CARRIED. Item No. 9 Commissioner Adams - Chapter 20.63 - maybe both FAR and building bulk applications should come to the Planning Commission. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that the existing code as adopted last year, allows the Planning Director, through the Planning Directors Use Permit, to approve projects in excess of their base floor area limits within certain peramiters. The building bulk is a design feature issue and staff felt that a similar path would be appropriate since all approvals of the Planning Director can be called for review or appealed to the Planning Commission in any case. That particular threshold is within the overall floor area limits established for the statistical area. It does not actually increase the floor area limits for the statistical area within which the project is located. There are other capacity restraints on any property such as the requirement to provide parking and height limits, so these types of adjustments are usually relatively modest in nature when all factors are combined. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to recommend approval. • Without objection, and by acclamation, MOTION CARRIED. 28 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 Item No. 22 Commissioner Adams - Section 20.91.035 (B -1) questioned the language, the ability of the property to enjoy something. Ms. Clauson stated that is the verbiage from the state law. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to recommend approval. Without objection, and by acclamation, MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to consider item no. 21. Without objection, and by acclamation, MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the some issue of notice excluding water that applies to use permits and variance asked that the same language apply to other permits. Ms. Temple, noting that it is the intent of Commissioner Ridgeway to make the notice verbiage consistent to all, suggested that this can be done to all notice requirements through a motion since they are all in the subject matter • being discussed. The language from Item 25 regarding notification of projects in nonresidential districts shall apply to items 21, 23 and 24. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to re -open and recommend approval of these items with the added language. Without objection, and by acclamation, MOTION CARRIED. Item No. 30 Commissioner Kranzley stated that this items seems to take the Planning Commission out of the loop by not having the Commission as part of the process. Commissioner Adams stated that the City Council will hear the items, but his concerns is that the planning decision could be made without hearing by the Planning Commission. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to recommend against item 30. Commissioner Gifford asked if this recommendation could inform City Council that we feel it helps us to do our job in the larger sense to follow each issue all the way through? Mrs. Wood noted that she thought the City Council felt that if they are calling • 29 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 something up, they understand the reason for the call up. If it gets referred to the Planning Commission instead of having the Council review it, then the Planning Commission is unaware of the specific reason for the review. Discussion followed regarding the review and call up process procedures. Chairperson Selich called for the vote. Without objection, and by acclamation, MOTION CARRIED. Item No. 31 Ms. Temple explained that this is an item where there are two alternatives. The initial alternative included in the initiation resolution puts the Planning Commission and City Council on an equal basis in terms of call up by one member rather than a majority vote. The second alternative is giving the individual the ability to bring it to the level of a vote. This one again attempts to put the Planning Commission and City Council on an equal basis, allowing an individual to extend the appeal period until such time as a vote can be taken at either Planning Commission or City Council. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to recommend approval of item • 31 as stated in C. By acclamation, MOTION CARRIED. Ridgeway - No Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Adams, Kranzley - Yes Upon completion of the votes, the following Zoning Code sections were recommended for approval: Section 20.03.030, add new definition. Section 20.05.080 (F & H), replace with new land use classification. Section 20.10.040 (B -1), remove unneeded language and revise to clarify. Section 20.20.020 (Table), delete conflicting row. Section 20.50.030, add missing provision from the old code. Chapter 20.60, add new section on personal property sales in residential districts. Revise Section 20.62.060 (A -3) to remove R1.5 District and All Other Residential Districts. • 30 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 Section 20.62.090 (13-1), revise to include all buildings. Revise Section 20.63.060 regarding Building Bulk. Revise Section 20.65.030 (B -2), to clarify language. Section 20.65.060, delete obsolete language. Reformat Section 20.65.050 (B) as a separate section regarding height limits. Revise Section 20.66.040 (A -1) to include the R -1.5 District: Revise Section 20.66.050 (6-4) to provide the correct reference. Revise Section 20.67.020 (J -3), regarding luminous tube signs.: Revise Section 20.67.025 (1), add new sections regarding vehicle signs and changeable copy signs. Revise Section 20.67.035 (B) regarding signs. Revise Section 20.82.050, regarding required notice. • Revise Section 20.86.070 regarding required notice. Revise Section 20.91.025 (A), regarding authority. Revise Section 20.91.030, regarding required notice. Revise Section 20.91.035 (13-1) wording regarding application. Revise Section 20.92.050, regarding required notice. Revise Section 20.92.060 (A), regarding an exception. Section 20.93.030 (B), regarding required notice. Section 20.93.050, revise to correct error. Section 20.94.030 (B -1), revise to match state law: Section 20.94.030 (B -4), revise to provide for business organizations. Section 20.94.050 (A) requires to maintain language consistency with other sections of the Zoning Code: Section 20.95.040 (C), revise calls for review. • 31 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 Section 20.96.040 (E -3), change 6 months to 180 days." SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 98 -2 (B) An amendment to the Development Policy G of the Land Use Element of General Plan relating to time - shares projects. Commissioner Ridgeway commented about item 4 which states, time -share projects shall provide mitigation for any loss of tax revenues as a pretty onerous statement. Ms. Temple noted that this came about During the staff review of the applications for the Newport Dunes project. Staff noticed that the General Plan policy regarding time share development was not consistent with the Zoning Code revisions approved in 1996. This amendment will correct this oversight. Ms. Clauson stated there is talk about converting hotel rooms to time shares and that there is a provision in state law that restricts the ability to impose transient occupancy taxes on time shares. Staff has changed the ordinance to allow for time shares with the intent to protect in some form of another through a development agreement. So however it is going to be worked out, it would be worked out in a development agreement. The mitigation might be some other form of providing an equal type of a tax as a transient occupancy tax revenue. Commissioner Ridgeway noted that the original state law was concerned with conversion. We do not have conversions, we have new projects. That is why I am bothered. I do not have a problem with conversions, I do have a problem with that language as it relates to a new development project. I see this as abusive. Ms. Clauson stated that the Newporter Inn is what prompted this whole change a couple of years ago. They were going to convert. Commissioner Ashley added that the City of Anaheim has applied the TOT tax to time share uses both new and converted. It is onerous, because what they asked the developer to do is figure out what his over night occupancy rate would be and he has to collect the City's TOT from each person that occupies it for night. Ms. Clauson stated that our provisions are for some sort of equivalent and it would be through a negotiated document such as a development agreement. • 32 INDEX Item 7 GPA 98 -2 (B) • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 Chairperson Selich asked it this is also in place to help offset the loss of TOT for the time shares in Newport Coast? Ms. Clauson noted that this is part of the whole ordinance and this policy is being adopted to compliment or be the same as the ordinance. Commissioner Ashley stated that this could possibly kill the goose. Anaheim has only one time share project because the application of that particular ordinance to the use has killed it. That is because for the people who have bought a time share unit, the only additional cost is the maintenance cost that is assigned. Now if you start saddling people with nightly room tax, and they have come from some other part of the United States to vacation and they have not experienced this anywhere else, they don't want to pay it and that may result in them not using the time share. Mrs. Wood stated that the TOT is not done on a nightly bases. Staff has been looking at some kind of an up front fee by the developer that based on the present value of what we would have gotten in TOT had it been hotel development rather than time share. Staff is not talking about doing it on a nightly basis. Commissioner Ashley said we need to know this before we vote on it. Commissioner Gifford asked if we would have a bigger problem if we have an ordinance and we have a policy that contradicts it if we don't approve it for new developments? Ms. Temple answered that we would have to amend the ordinance to be consistent with the general plan. Ms. Clauson noted that the idea is to do it through a development agreement which is a negotiated mitigation. Mrs. Wood then red from the Newport Municipal Code from Chapter 15 regarding the amount of tax payable to the City by any time share owner for the right of occupancy. Public comment was opened and then closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to continue this item to August 6th to allow staff time to develop this issue. Without objection, and by acclamation, MOTION CARRIED. 0 33 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1998 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Oral report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City Council actions related to planning- Mrs. Wood reported that the City Council meeting of July 13th introduced amendments to the Zoning Code to the Newport Place Planned Community District; and setbacks for Broad Street; and the recommendations from the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee to consider an update to the General Plan which led Council to direct staff to come back with a plan to do a future update to the General Plan on a limited basis. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. c.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - the ADA issue in Cannery Village d.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none g.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Gifford will not be in attendance during the month of August ADJOURNMENT: 11:30 p.m. RICHARD FULLER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 0 34 INDEX Additional Business Adjournment