Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/05/1996• • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes teptember 5, 1996 Adjourned Meeting - 4:30 p.m. Regular Meeting - 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Thomson, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Selich, Ashley Late: Gifford - arrived at 4:45 p.m. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager, Community and Economic Development Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Rich Edmonston, Development Services Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Minutes of Auaust 22, 1996: Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway and voted on to approve, as amended, the August 22, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes. Ayes: Thomson, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Noes: none Absent: none Abstain: none Public Comments none Posting of the Agenda: Ms. Temple stated that the Planning Commission Agendas were posted on Friday, August 30, 1996, outside of City Hall. INDEX Minutes Public Comments Posting of the Agenda City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 • 1. SUBJECT: Zoning Code Update • GPA 96 -1 • LCP A46 • A B34 • A 846 This is a continued discussion from August 22, 1996 on a set of amendments related to an update of the Zoning Code. Chairperson Adams stated that there are six copies of the draft zoning code dated 6/15/96 for use by members of the audience. These copies are intended for use during the meeting and are to be returned to the secretary following the proceedings. An attempt will be made to follow along in the text under discussion on the projected image on the screen. The last topic of discussion under this item involved Home Occupations, Accessory Outdoor Dining, and Bed and Breakfast Inns. As a result of the discussion and public testimony at the prior meeting, staff was asked to make changes to the text and address some issues. Also discussed to some extent were Eating and Drinking Establishments. Materials have been provided for that update in the staff report. Commission had no questions of staff on the materials provided. Public Hearing was opened. Ms. Temple introduced and distributed a chart regarding the comparison of the various provisions as it relates to all manner of eating and drinking establishments as prepared by Commissioner Selich. Ms. Temple then gave a brief outline of the chart. It encompasses regulation comparisons as they relate to the various ways that food service establishments establish themselves. In reviewing the chart, it has became evident that there is a circumstance occurring today for a potential problem which has arisen if and when the revised definitions for eating and drinking establishments would be adopted by the Commission. Ms. Temple then circulated a prepared memo for discussion. Chairperson Adams asked that this discussion be deferred to later during discussion of Bed and Breakfast Inns, and Home Occupations items that were updated in the staff report. Mr. Alford gave a brief summary of the revisions as continued in the staff report as Attachment #2. Included were revisions to Home Occupations: a. Revised definition of Home Occupation b. Business license requirement clarified and modified c. Issue of outside employees d. Noise level provision modified INDEX Item No. 1 GPA 96 -1 LCP A46 A 834 A 846 Continued to 7:30 p.m. City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 r� Revisions to Bed and Breakfast Inns: a. Distinctions made between residential and commercial areas b. Parking language c. Signage language d. Source of licenses and permits indicated as Revenue Manager Commissioner Ridgeway asked about item 13 relating to business licenses as required by Title 5 of the Municipal Code. Staff answered that this refers the applicant to the proper section of the Municipal Code where requirements are detailed. Commissioner Ashley expressed concerns regarding noise in the home occupation. The new noise standard would be roughly sixteen (16) times more restrictive than that of the Noise Ordinance. Staff answered that noise had to be quantified. This standard only refers to noises associated with the home occupation. Chairperson Adams clarified that discussion at the last meeting about noticing home owner associations and affected parties with regard to bed and breakfast being appropriate in the R 1.5 zones. Notices have been postponed until the entire code wrap up meeting that will be held at a later date. Comments from the public regarding Home Occupations and Bed and breakfast Inns was requested. No comments were made. Straw Vote on concurrence with the changes made at Commission request and contained in the staff report on issues of Home Occupations and Bed and Breakfast Inns: Ayes: Thomson, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich Noes: Ashley Chairperson Adams opened discussion on Eating and Drinking Establishments under the non - residential classification in the Land Use Regulations. The matrix introduced earlier by staff was discussed in detail by Commissioner Selich. Commissioner Selich explained that the matrix includes all the different classes of food service establishments as found throughout the Zoning Code. The operating characteristics are referenced with significant regulations relating to each. Commissioner Ridgeway asked for clarification of % Sales Alcohol as listed with "No Restriction" down through the document. He understands that all places in the City must serve or have no more than 50% of their sales in alcohol to avoid a bar classification. Is this in the city code or applied by the ABC? Staff answered that this is a new definition. If an establishment garners more than 50% of increased annual revenue from alcohol beverage sales, then it would be INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 classified as a bar. After discussion, it was noted that this "No be changed to " 50% or less." Commissioner Thomson asked for clarification of Accessory for Company & Hospital Cafeterias under Net Public area maximum allowed is listed as 5 %, is this correct? Staff answered that the accessory actually applies to uses that are at least 5,000 square feet then there can be up to 57o of that floor area up to a maximum of 1,500 square feet. There are certain provisions in other land uses, but this matrix addresses those that are part of more commercial establishments. Mr. Alford then referred to the definition on pg. 20.05 -7 of accessory and continued discussion on the cafeteria in Hoag hospital. Commissioner Kranzley asked about language that he suggested at the last meeting to be included regarding off- street parking for full- service, small scale establishments if an applicant asks for entertainment with beer and wine. Was this language included? Chairperson Adams requested that this discussion be addressed as Mr. Alford gives a summary of the eating and drinking establishments text provided in the staff report. Diagrams and the staff matrix will also be explained by Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford proceeded to describe the expansion of the number of proposed land • use categories from 2 (restaurants and specialty food service) to 8. These classifications have been based upon operational characteristics, specifically, traffic generation. He continued outlining the proposed items specifying: • parking and permit requirements, • allowing some uses to be approved by the Planning Director, some uses permitted by right and the remainder of uses through the current practice of requiring use permit through the Planning Commission. Discussion ensued on additional information on sub - issues associated with Eating and Drinking Establishments: accessory outdoor dining; alcoholic beverages and live entertainment; and parking requirements for shopping centers. Mr. Alford addressed Commissioner Kranzley's concern of specific parking language referencing an analysis of steps to be taken as outlined on page 5 of the staff report. The recommended conditions of the Police Department were noted during this presentation as Attachment 8. Additional information requested for parking requirements for shopping centers as linked to eating and drinking establishments was referenced in an analysis presented in the staff report on Page 6. Commission had also requested from earlier staff reports, information on proposed floor area and seating limits for full- service, small scale establishments and potential seating capacities of full- service, small -scale establishments as shown in diagrams on Attachment Nos. 5 and 6. Commissioner Gifford referenced the matrix under food and beverage sales 20% • INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commisslon Minutes September 5, 1996 onsite. She questioned how a food service operation largely a catering operation having a small front door operation of 19 -20 %, permitted by right, would fit in. This operation has deliveries but not the some issues as a restaurant, but have people coming back at night with trays. Staff answered that there is a separate category for catering services on page 20.05 -5 in the use classification chapter of the proposed zoning code. Staff explained that catering services allow for preparation and delivery of food and beverages for off -site consumption, without provision for on -site pickup or consumption. Commissioner Gifford noted that some of the catering services do have a small food operation, would they go out of the catering category and come into the food and beverage sales 20% on site and be permitted by right? Staff answered that food and beverage sales is meant to address essentially grocery stores, super markets and similar establishments. At further commission inquiry, it was established that anytime there are retail on -site food sales, it would put the classification into the restaurant category in one of the 8 spots. It is possible to have more than one land use classification per site. Assistant City Attorney Clauson suggested perhaps it may be appropriate that a catering operation would only be permitted a right if the sole purpose of a provision of services is catering. If not, it would also have to abide by the rules for • eating and drinking establishments. Mr. Alford answered that a cross reference to Eating and Drinking Establishments is made in the definition of catering services. These classifications are tight enough to address the main issues associated with the use, but are generalized enough to be able to establish the use classification. Language is in the code giving the Planning Director discretion to make these distinctions and with the appropriate references to other land use classifications there would be problems interpreting the requirements and definitions. Chairperson Adams proposed to take this issue up after the public testimony. Commissioner Ashley asked staff about the requirement of 1 parking stall for every for each 30 to 50 square feet of net public area. Staff answered this is a direct translation of the language in the current code, which allows the Commission to make the determination of the proper ratio parking. There are a number of factors that the Commission would consider in setting the appropriate ratio. Commissioner Ashley continued by asking about allowances made for the parking requirements of an eating and drinking establishment when it is located in an integrated shopping center (shared parking). Staff answered this is addressed through the Use Permit process, through provisions for parking as proposed in the code, through waiver process, or through provision of parking management districts. n t,J INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 Public testimony was opened regarding eating and drinking establishments. Mr. Bob Calkins, 124 Crystal Ave., Balboa Island - questioned how this would affect the Balboa Island Business areas of eating and drinking establishments. Chairperson Adams answered that many of the food establishments on Balboa Island are under the specialty food category which is undergoing a change. All of the existing restaurants would continue in their operation, these proposed changes would apply to any new businesses or new use permits only or any proposed changes to a use permit. Mr. Alford continued by saying the parking requirements for most of the proposed classifications would remain unchanged. There will be no substantive change to the existing parking requirements. Dan Marchiano, president of the Newport Beach Restaurant Association - spoke on behalf of the board of directors stating they approve these proposed changes. He questioned the full service high turnover versus the full service low turnover restaurants determination of people seating less than one hour. Mr. Alford answered that the full service low turnover classifies as the base FAR up to 0.5 and the full service high turnover is classified with a reduced FAR up to 0.3. • The intent is to have the default classification be full service high turnover unless there is evidence indicating the full service low turnover classification would be more appropriate. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show provisions either in the design of the operations or conditions under which they will work which would make them fall into the other classification. Chairman Adams added that if parking problems or any other problems occurred, the city would have a vehicle to call up a permit to reevaluate. Mr. Marchiano then questioned the hotel restaurants including coffee shops and dining rooms /restaurants. Outdoor dining in the private or public area is listed as not permitted. Staff answered that this references the category of accessory outdoor dining which is a very specific entitlement. It does not prohibit dining outside, but it would not fall under that provision in the eating and drinking establishments chapter. Commissioner Gifford stated the Commission's appreciation of the Restaurant Association's input on these proposals and any future input. Commissioner Kranzley asked for Mr. Marchiano's opinion regarding the entertainment aspect on a full service small scale establishment and if we should require more stringent parking requirements. • INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 Mr. Marchiano answered that in his opinion, parking was not the major problem. The major problem with entertainment is "what does it do to the neighborhood ?" Each establishment needs to be looked at on an individual basis with regards to adding entertainment addressing the noise issues in residential areas as opposed to other areas within the city. Public testimony was closed regarding Eating and Drinking Establishments. Chairperson Adams then brought up the item of catering that also provides take out as a minor part of the business. Commissioner Selich. commented that under the use classification definitions on 20.05 -5 Section G there is a section on catering services. Additionally, 20.05 -8 continues the definition of food and beverage sales, which includes establishments at which 20% or more of the transactions are sales of prepared food for on -site or take -out consumption. Between these two definitions, this type of business can be permitted. Discussion continued on definitions and how to address two permitted uses coming together, common uses, separate classifications, use permits with hybrid uses, no restriction to combining classifications and /or regulations, etc. • Commissioner Gifford stated that she wants to be able to address the growth of operations as they change so the city does not get caught in some combination of permitted uses turning into a conglomerate that was not foreseen. Does Commission have something to control this from happening or should we be thinking about language that says that when there is a combination of uses it is subject to review to determine if it has a greater impact as a whole then the pieces would have individually? Commissioner Ridgeway commented this is a cumulative impact argument. The cumulative impact of these new uses could impact parking. Perhaps staff could study this prior to the next meeting. Staff was directed to study this cumulative impact effect and provide additional language if needed. Commissioner Ridgeway then brought up the issue of catering trucks and how they fit into the proposed changes. Staff answered that the zoning code does not cover public right of way. Commissioner Ashley asked for explanation of how private clubs are not permitted to have accessory outdoor dining. Staff answered that this is not the issue of outdoor dining but rather the issue of outdoor dining under a very specific provisions in the current zoning code. In the proposed code, there is a provision that allows a certain amount of accessory outdoor dining that is limited to the internal floor area and does not require any additional parking. It is a very specific • INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September S, 1996 form of outdoor dining. An Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit is through staff approval. Commissioner Kranzley questioned if a new full service low turnover or full service high turnover establishment could have live entertainment with 3 or fewer musicians by simply having a Live Entertainment permit or is a special condition allowing live entertainment required in a Use Permit? Mr. Alford proceeded to explain language under the current code that has been translated in the proposed changes dealing with modifications and minor changes. Also discussed was the potential for live entertainment as allowed under most of the proposed classifications. If this is not addressed at the time of application then it must be applied for as a minor or major change depending on circumstances. Chairperson Adams asked if it would be reasonable to have included in the code a requirement that live entertainment is prohibited unless applied for and granted under a use permit. Staff answered that if this is not clear in the current code, that language could be included. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that a use permit that allows live entertainment runs with the land. There are provisions in the Municipal Code now • for a live entertainment permit that has separate provisions. If a live entertainment permit is issued exclusively pursuant to the provisions of Title 5, the permit would be issued to each operator, and would not attach to and run with the land, as is the case if live entertainment is authorized as part of a Use Permit. Chairman Adams stated it might be better if all live entertainment is allowed only under the Title 5 Section. Staff pointed out that in that case, the condition on a use permit would say live entertainment may be permitted pursuant to Title 5. The Commission should understand that the permit would then be issued under those parameters in Title 5 and the Commission would not have the ability to impose conditions. Discussion continued about the differences in Title 5 and the zoning code regarding language, regulations and restrictions. Staff referenced page 20.82 -7 and the section that sets forth what constitutes major and minor changes to a use permit. Discussion continued and resulted in the following direction to staff regarding revisions to page 20.82 -7 in the next staff report: a. Move from major changes - "The introduction of live entertainment consisting of more than 3 individuals or live entertainment performing with amplified sound or dancing, or a significant change in the character of the live entertainment." And place under minor changes LJ INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 b. Add reference language to Title 5 c. Include Title 5 language in the staff report Commissioner Gifford asked if live entertainment permits for eating and drinking establishments could be issued through the Planning Director's office. Staff answered that this should be consistent and come out of one office and that is the City Manager's office. Typically, the Planning Department is consulted during the process. Public testimony was opened regarding regulations relating to live entertainment. Mr. Dan Marchiano - asked if a restaurant such as his wants to have a guitar player on a Sunday night is a permit needed? Commission answered that if it was a new restaurant entertainment would be dealt with under the use permit process. It it's an existing restaurant that wanted to introduce entertainment, under the code as written, it would be considered a minor change and the Planning Director could approve a minor change to the use. If it was more significant, it would be a major change and would have to come to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Marchiano was given a copy of the code for the review of the Restaurant Association, to be returned after the review. • Public testimony was closed. Ms. Temple proceeded to introduce and explain her memo on accessory outdoor dining /take out and fast food establishments which raises issues to be resolved. Her summary included reference to provisions of existing code and practice on accessory outdoor dining. This issue will be included in the next staff report. Commissioner Ridgeway commented on the full service small scale in the matrix and disagrees about entertainment's impact. Because of the possible parking problems arising with this, he recommends that entertainment be prohibited. Commissioner Kranzley proposed to have "...at the discretion of the Planning Director have a more stringent parking requirement if the applicant comes in and applies for live entertainment...." A parking requirement similar to a full service low turnover may be required. Commissioner Selich requested information on cost of fees to the applicant for a minor change. Staff answered that currently there is no fee for the director's approval, but the proposal fee adjustments has been sent to the Administrative Service for these new processes. The proposed fee for Director's Permit is $100.00. • INDEX City of Newport Beach • . Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 A summary of issues to be included in the next staff report: a. Discussion and language of Title 5 for live entertainment. b. Language that clarifies if live entertainment is not specifically approved as part of a use permit, either a new use permit or amendment is required. c. Discussion pertaining to accessory outdoor dining as it relates to take out establishments. d. Changes to conditions which constitute an amendment, i.e. change on operational characteristic effects a specific condition. e. Information on the cost of live entertainment permits. f. Application of a higher parking requirement when live entertainment Is added to a full service small scale restaurant. g. Discussion of additional review when there are multiple uses. Commissioner Gifford stated the Commission could benefit from additional input from the Restaurant Association through Mr. Marchiano on these proposed changes. Commissioner Selich commented on the outdoor dining issue. As a result of going through the code, it is apparent that if an applicant was to come in today and apply for outdoor dining as part of the use permit, it would be part of that use • permit and would be conditioned for the parking. The way this is structured, it would be to the applicant's advantage not to get outdoor dining at the onset and come in after and apply for a separate permit. Most people will come in and try to take advantage of this. Staff then commented that as a result of the number of comments from Commission on the non - residential land use regulations, a revised matrix will be included in the next packet to address some of these concerns. Additional changes to insure consistency and logic in the application of the regulations will also be proposed. Commissioner Selich asked for the definition of adult oriented business to be included in the next staff report. Chairperson Adams adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m., this item to be continued to regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. SUBJECT: China Palace Restaurant 2800 Coast Highway, West • Modification No. 4464 Request to consider an appeal of the Modifications Committee's action concerning the proposed construction of a 6 foot 4 inch high fence to enclose an 0 10 INDEX Item 1 M. No. 4464 Continued to 9/19/96 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 outdoor dining area along West Coast Highway. The lower 3 foot 4 inch portion of this wall is solid, topped by 3 feet of glass, and will encroach to within 2 feet of the front property line along West Coast Highway. Staff had no additional information to add. Commissioner Ridgeway requested information about the mature palm trees in front of the establishment, and whether they would be affected by the proposal. Commissioner Thomson asked if the proposal is within the guideline of 25% of the indoor space allowed as outdoor dining. Staff reported the project complies with the outdoor dining limits. Public Hearing was opened. Dan Johnston, 1033 Bangor St., San Diego, architect for Jack Mau, owner of the China Palace - passed a handout to the Commission. He stated that the trees will remain as shown on the site plan in the staff report. Discussion then followed as to the location of the tables around the five (5) mature trees. Mr. Johnston contended that the wall is not illegal and is in conformance with all city codes, is needed for security to the area, protection of the diners, and for the aesthetic concerns of diners near a street. He explained that the architecture of this restaurant is • innovative and not like a traditional dining facade. Mr. Johnston then proceeded to explain the design of the pods that will have tables on them and how this conforms to the square footage allotment allowed. The issue that is being debated is to what extent the wall and glass should be permitted. His concern, as the architect, is to make this work with the design of the existing building. He proceeded to explain that the design of the wall needs to be as proposed and referred to the exhibit introduced. Discussion continued on the height, size, and design of the glass wall. He finished by saying that he has been given the idea that this wall as proposed does not meet the intent of the new ordinance allowing dining outside, he has not been shown that it doesn't, and has not been given any reason that this is the wrong way to go. He stated that this is the right way to go, it will be an improvement for the city, for the street, pedestrian element and aesthetics of the street corridor. Chairperson Adams asked if an elevation sketch had been done that conforms to the suggested plan staff provided. He was answered by Mr. Johnston that he did not see that plan until this evening. Chairperson Adams clarified that Mr. Johnston did not see hand written page 17 until this evening. Chairperson Adams explained that staff's suggestion is to bring the fence to midway between a couple of the window sections. He asked the architect why this would be inappropriate? Mr. Johnston answered that he has not brought a sketch to show. He reiterated 40 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 earlier design concepts. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that it was unfortunate Mr. Mau did not send the plan to Mr. Johnston as the plan had been processed twice by the Modifications Committee and mailed to the applicant. He asked if shortening the area with the three half round windows had been analyzed? Discussion continued regarding the space below the dining area and the ingress and egress of patrons and employees in that area. Discussion ended by Commissioner Ridgeway stating the staff report is accurate in what they don't want to allow, that larger area to be enclosed. Chairperson Adams asked of the intent for the portion of the fenced in area that is not occupied by dining. Mr. Johnston answered that it would remain in its current state. grass. Commissioner Thomson asked of the portion around the serving areas, will that remain grass? He was answered that it will get torn up during the construction, whether grass or low shrubs is put in is undecided now. Commissioner Thomson stated then the 25% outdoor dining is calculated just on that concrete portion. Mr. Jack Mau, 425 Redlands, Newport Heights owner of the China Palace - spoke in • answer to Commission query. He stated that beside the round pads everything else will be grass and flowers. He further explained the dynamics of the door going out into this area and how to regulate the flow as not to interfere with the dining area inside the dining room. He explained that he had planted the palm trees 10 years ago on his private property. Commissioner Gifford stated that the landscaping done is appreciated. The whole objective for Mariners' Mile is to make it more pedestrian friendly, more pleasing. If the wall was to be extended she questioned if any planting could be done to come up above the wall? Discussion ensued about the possibilities. Commissioner Kranzley stated that when the 25% additional outdoor dining by definition affects the landscaping. He stated that requiring landscaping inside the wall in the dining area would preclude adding more tables. Chairperson Adams stated that the outdoor dining area is restricted by the outdoor dining permit. In response to Commission inquiry, Mr. Jack Mau, applicant and owner stated that he understands and with the exception of the location of the wall and the recommended terminus of the wall, agrees with all the other conditions of the Modification No. 4464. Mr. Mau stated that the original building landscape areas in question are not a landscape city required area, this is a setback in case of Coast Highway widening. The setback is 18 feet for future widening. In the meantime he put in the palm trees is 12 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 and landscape. Commissioner Gifford suggested that Mr. Mau come back at the next meeting with a proposal for landscaping in the area that would not have tables in it. The Planning Commission could then determine if this was an offset to the negative placement of the wall. Mr. Mau answered that he is open to the idea and welcomes suggestions. Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Ridgeway spoke in opposition to Commissioner Gifford's suggestion, stating it would be an expense and waste of time for Mr. Mau. Commissioner Ridgeway agrees with what the staff has said and that the project as proposed does not meet the legislative intent of the Mariners' Mile Plan. It would degrade the integrity of the street and the pedestrians. Putting hardscape to hardscape is not something to take lightly and effectively a two toot landscape area is really not sufficient. Commissioner Selich supported Commissioner Ridgeway stating that the applicant stresses the aesthetics consideration. • Motions was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to sustain the action of the Modifications Committee of Modification No. 4464 with the attached findings and conditions. Commissioner Thomson asked staff about the maximum point of the highway easement. Staff answered that Mr. Mau was required to dedicate his leasehold interest to a point 18 feet back of the current curb. That would provide an actual 6 foot widening of the street and to allow for a 12 foot sidewalk area along the frontage. If a 12 foot sidewalk is constructed, no landscape setback would be maintained. Commissioner Thomson stated that in the future, the portion we are approving or might approve where the wall is will actually be highway or right of way for the highway. He then asked about the legality of a permanent structure being allowed in the highway right of way. He then stated his opposition to this for the following reasons: • sidewalk area would be much too small • proximity to highway too short • sight line would be jeopardized on the east side • subjugate the spirit and idea of the 2517o outside dining He ended by recommending possible moon shape configuration of the outdoor dining but stated that would still be too close to the highway. Commissioner Gifford stated that the additional 25% outdoor dining should not • 13 `11.101�_I City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 affect the landscape requirement, there should be landscaping within the outdoor dining area that continues to meet the overall percentage requirement. She does agrees that the Modification Committee's decision was correct. She is willing to give the applicant an opportunity to develop a landscape plan which will allow an aesthetic view and meet the spirit of the ordinance. Commissioner Kranzley supported Commissioner Gifford. Substitute motion was made by Commissioner Gifford that this item be continued to the next meeting in order to give the applicant an opportunity to present a plan which would allow the wall to be extended to the end of the building as requested but which would provide greenery visible above the solid area of the wall. This would give the Commission assurance that there would be no intention to encroach with tables beyond the space that is presently allocated. Chairperson Adams observed that he supports the Modifications Committee's recommendation because the purpose of the fenced in area is to enclose the dining area and going to the end of the building is more than necessary. On the other hand he appreciates the aesthetic concerns and is not as worried about the intent of the Mariners' Mile plan since this wall is predominately glass and can be seen through and over by the pedestrian. He supports giving the applicant an • opportunity to address the stated concerns. Commissioner Selich expressed opposition to the substitute motion stating it would be a waste of time and expense to develop a plan which, in his opinion, should not be approved. Commissioner Ashley supported the substitute motion stating the opportunity should be given to the applicant to address the Commission's concerns. Commissioner Ridgeway stated he opposes the substitute motion. He commented to the applicant and the architect that what was prepared for Commission tonight was very inadequate due to the following reasons: • site plan should have been the same size as the elevation • alternate studies should have been made regarding the Modification Committee's suggestions • it is a waste of time and money to redo plans If the applicant does not choose to prepare new plans, the ruling of the Modification Committee is still in effect and the applicant can build the wall according to the adopted conditions of approval. • 14 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 was voted on: Ayes: Thomson, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Ashley Noes: Ridgeway, Selich Absent: none Abstain: none 2. SUBJECT: Action Marine Center, Inc. 100 -200 Coast Highway, West • Use Permit No. 3592 To establish an outdoor sales facility involving the sale of boats. Staff pointed out that Condition No. 6 specifically limits this outdoor display to boats and marine recreational vehicles only. If this particular property wished to convert to the general retail outdoor sales that previously existed, a new use permit application would be required. Public Hearing was opened. •Mr. Jim Kuklish, 10901 Nicetta Drive, Shadow Hills, applicant - spoke of his work experience of 23 years. He stated that at this marine sales outlet there will be no service, no parts /accessory department. The outside display area and the sales office will be inside. The signs will be changed, lot cleaned up and painted white and blue. The two lines of boats he will carry are for family recreational boating. Chairperson Adams stated that the staff report contains Exhibit A findings and conditions of approval. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Kuklish stated that he understands and agrees to the findings and conditions of the Use Permit No. 3592. In response to a boat stacking question posed to staff, Mr. Kuklish stated that his intent is not to stack boats. They come on trailers and the maximum is 15 ft in height. Mr. Kuklish stated that the colors he will paint will be blue and white. The blue conforms to the shirt color of the salesmen and is related to the product line. Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Ridgeway made a motion for approval of Use Permit No. 3592 pursuant to the conditions and findings attached. Commissioner Kranzley asked about the stacking issue. Staff answered that there are no specific provisions within the code that address the nature of how one does outdoor display. On that basis, it would be in order for an additional condition to be imposed which would limit or preclude the use of racks or other stacking • 15 INDEX Item No. 2 UP No. 3592 Approved City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 devices as a means of display. Commissioner Ridgeway amended his motion to include the following condition: That the use of racks or other stacking devices for display purposes are not allowed unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. Ayes: Thomson, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Noes: none Absent: none Abstain: none Findinas: That the proposed development is consistentwith the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land uses for the following reason: • Boat sales are a compatible use along this section of West Coast Highway and in the adjacent Recreation and Marine Commercial areas. • 2. That the project will not have any environmental impact. 3. That adequate on -site parking is available for the proposed uses for the following reason:. • There are the required number (7) of parking spaces available for the employees and customers, and seven additional spaces are available. 4. That the proposed outdoor sales area, as limited by the following conditions of approval, will not impede pedestrian or traffic circulation within the subject property. 5. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 6. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 7. That adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being made for the boat sales facility for the following reason: • The two driveways on Dover Drive and West Coast Highway located closest to the intersection of these two streets, have been closed with wrought iron fencing and planters placed in front of said fencing. This • 16 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 will minimize traffic impacts by redirecting vehicles to the westerly drivewaywhich is furthest from the streets intersection. 8. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3562 will not, under the circumstances of this case,, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. Conditions: That development shall be in substantial conf ormonce with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapters 20.06 of the Municipal Code. Said signs shall be approved by the Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 3. That no banners (except as allowed by code), pennants, balloons, wind signs, moving signs, or flashing or animated electricalsigns shall be displayed. 4. That no temporary "sandwich" signs or similar temporary signs shall be • permitted, eitheron -site or off -site, to advertise the retail establishment. 5. That no outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation unless otherwise approved by the Planning Department. 6. That the outdoor displayarea shall be limited to a maximum of 5,000 sq. ft. (as proposed). Outdoor display shall be limited to boats and marine recreational vehicles. The existing planter areas shall be used only for landscape purposes and no display items or merchandise for sale shall be permitted in said areas. 7. That the proposed outdoor display area shall be designed to provide sight distance for vehicles backing from the adjacent parking spaces and exiting the subject property, and that the final location shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 8. The use of tents, canopies or other non - permanent temporary shade structures shall be subject to an amendment to this use permit. 9. That restrooms within the existing commercial building shall be available for use by the customers and employees of the proposed businesses during operating hours. 10. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation • 17 `1.107:1 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. Vehicular access to the subject site shall be limited to right -in and right -out only and shall be properly posted with signs approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 11. That employees shall park their vehicles on -site at all times. 12. That a minimum of 14 independently accessible parking spaces shall be provided on -site for the customers and employees of the proposed business. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self - parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 13. That the intersection of the private drive and West Coast Highway provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls, boats and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non - critical locations, subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer. • 14. That the wrought iron fencing located at the property's driveways be kept closed at all times with the exception of the driveway at the west end of the property used for ingress and egress. 15. That all unloading and loading of vehicles shall be done on -site using the driveway at the west end of the property. 16. Boat displays shall not encroach into required parking or aisleway areas. 17. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 18. That the applicant shall obtain an encroachment agreement and encroachment permit as required by the Public Works Department for all landscaping, plantings, and planter boxes located in the public right -of -way. 19. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from West Coast Highway and adjoining properties. The site shall also be maintained in a clean and orderly manner from debris associated with the proposed use. 20. That site illumination of the parking and outdoor display areas shall be maintained in such a manner as to eliminate light spillage and glare on adjacent properties and across West Coast Highway. 21. That the approval of this application is for boat sales only. No servicing or • 18 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 major repairs of boats shall be permitted on -site, unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 22. That the hours of operation shall be limited between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., daily. No deliveries shall be permitted between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 23. That adequate landscaping shall be provided including the retention of all existing landscape planters on the Dover Drive and West Coast Highway frontages of the subject property. The applicant shall maintain the display area and landscape area in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding vicinity. 24. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation 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. 25. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach • MunicipalCode. 26. That the use of racks or other stacking devices for display purposes are not allowed unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission 3. SUBJECT: Revised Development Standards for Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island Amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Code to revise development standards for Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island to: require 2 enclosed parking spaces for each new dwelling unit; establish an open space requirement for the front and rear yards of new residences on abutting streets or alleys only; and increase the permitted floor area to 1.5 times the buildable (as defined by Section 20.14) plus 200 square feet or exclude a portion of the required parking from the calculation. At staff request, this item was continued to September 19, 1996, in order to correct the Notice of Public Hearing, and re- notice the hearing. Ayes: Thomson, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich ,Ashley • 19 INDEX Item No. 3. Revised Development Standards for Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island Continued to 9/19/96 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 noes: none Absent: none Abstain: none 4. SUBJECT: Zoning Code Update • GPA 96 -1 • LCP A46 A 834 • A 846 This is a continued discussion from the adjourned September 5th meeting earlier this afternoon. Public Hearing is still opened. Discussion on Non Residential Land Use Regulationswas completed. Commissioner Kranzley requested information pertaining to parking requirements for outdoor display. • Mr. Alford answered that there were different types of outdoor sales and they have different parking requirements. There is probably not one standard that could be used in all cases. Finally, that the Planning Director would have the authority to set a parking standard for uses not addressed in the Zoning Code. Chairperson Adams then referred to the discussion outline in the staff report. He then asked staff for a presentation on the Property Development Regulations pertaining to residential. Mr. Alford then gave an overview of the property development regulations: a. regulations cover fundamental zoning regulations such as lot size, width, setbacks and height b. no substantial changes are being proposed to either the residential nor commercial basic requirements c. areas that represent a significant change in standards or introduction of new standards, i.e., outdoor storage and display, off - street parking, and floor area ratio Reference was made to sketches of bay windows, etc., which fall under the residential category. These are provided as part of the update to clarify the setbacks and other code requirements. He continued by expanding the discussion on the above subject matter: • 20 INDEX Item No. 4 Zoning Code Update GPA 96 -1 LCP A46 A 834 A 846 Continued to 9/19/96 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 Outdoor storage and disolav currentzoning code requires Use Permit, no provisions for outdoorstorage of items not for sale Proposed changes found on page 20.60.105 are 1. Planning Director (PD) authorized to issue Use Permit 2. PD may impose conditions such as setbacks and screening 3. PD can deny if impacts the surrounding properties or the visual character of the area 4. Vehicle and equipment sales, nurseries, boat sales, boat yards, boat storage exempt Also allows outdoorstorage and display on a temporary basis 72 hours per quarter of a calendaryear for occasional special promotions, grand openings, and holiday sales periods. The above proposed changes would not exempt any use that requires a Use Permit from the need to obtain that Use Permit for that use. Off - Street parking • Updated parking and loading standards (Chapter 20.66) • • Shopping center parking requirement (Section 20.66.090) Intended parking to accommodate various potential tenant mixes. 1 space for each two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area. Limited to centers 100,00 square feet or less, no more than 15% of the gross floor area by eating and drinking establishments. • Planning Commission modification or waiver of parking requirements (Section 20.66.100) Currently only for restaurants and recommendations for modification or waiver to City Council for other land uses. Allows PC modify or waive off - street parking requirements for any land use: Must demonstrate that there is public parking nearby, or Opportunityfor shared use of parking spaces, or Actual parking demand for that use will be less than required by the Zoning Code. • Proposed PM Overlay District (Chapter 20.54) Addresses parking issues on an area -wide basis. Requires a program to serve the parking needs of the area. Used in place of citywide off - street parking regulations. Commissioner Ridgeway asked about paragraph C on pg. 20.66 -14. Off -sheet parking for Small -Scale Eating and Drinking Establishments which shall be 1 parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area, and f loading space for each 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. Why is this not 1 parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area. After discussion by the Commission it was determined • 21 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 that this italicized C should be stricken because there are new parking standards proposed for this. Floor Area Ratios • A new provision allows the variable FAR's to be implemented at the statistical area level rather than by parcel (Chapter20.63). • Planning Director authorized to approve use permits to allow projects which exceed their base FAR limits, provided the base FAR limit for the statistical area is notexceeded. • FAR's on individual properties may increase, the FAR for the statistical area would remain the same. • Process to allow a project to exceed the base FAR limit for statistical area requires findings focus on a project's design rather than land use. • Expands the range of potential findings to include those relating to the ability to mitigate any potential traffic impacts through the project's physical design. Public testimony was opened on Property Development Regulations provisions, both residential and non - residential. Mr. Bob Calkins, 124 Crystal Avenue asked for clarification on page 20.10 -6 under the • yard size where it says feet, is this setback or width? This refers to the depth. Staff answered these are minimum setback requirements and do not relate to the width or depth of the lot. Distances shown on the Districting Maps are to measured from the front property line, unless a different line is shown on the Districting Map.. At CommissionerSelich's direction, the word depth will replace width in this section for a clearer understanding. Ms. Temple stated that while a large portion of Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island have an established 5 foot front yard setback, there are streets that have 10 or 15 feet. It would be misleading to indicate the default setback at something less than what the Districting Map would represent in selected blocks of Balboa Island. Mr. Alford referred to handwritten page 26 under (G), which shows the actual language that would appear in the new code. The next point Mr. Calkins talked about was referenced on page 20.10 -8 under the listing (N) 1 in the determination of the gross floor area. It says "...including basements, garages and carports, as provided below... ... Comparing that to (N) 2 ...area of the one covered parking space that is required for each dwelling unit shall be included in the gross floor area. However, the following areas need not be included in the gross floor area: Other parking spaces which are open on at least 2 sides, or open on one side and one end; and ...... ... This describes a carport. It contradicts the paragraph above. Staff answered that this includes only a certain type of carport, those that are open • 22 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 on at least 2 sides, or open on one side and one end. This is a policy that has evolved over time and is meant to include specific types of carports. For a matter of clarification language could be added, "....except as provided in subsection 2 below... ". Commissioner Ashley brought up and discussed on page 20.10 -5 under Residential Districts; Property Development Regulations minimum lot area (sq. Ft.) for R -1.5 is 5,000. There are no lots that big on the island. Staff answered it is annotated with (A) which states see Section 20.60.040: Development on Substandard Lots and Across Property Lines. Mr. Calkins requested clarification of the language regarding the calculation on pg. 20.10 -9. It was agreed that this language could be clear and staff will provide revised language in the next staff report. Public testimony was closed. Chairperson Adams asked for summary of action items brought up, they were: • clarification in Section 20.10.040 under (G) regarding "depth" • clarification on the language dealing with open space requirement (P) • clarification on the language dealing with calculation of gross I loor area 20.65 (N) • • under parking, delete language that should have been deleted (C) wording of span Commissioner Kranzley asked about the outdoor storage and display. Staff answered the issue is either the display or storage of materials on the property. The impact is the same. Parking is a separate issue related to land use. Discussion continued on the off - street parking issues. There is no generic provision for parking based on a square footage of land. Concern was expressed for the parking requirement for outdoor nursery space. Discussion continued on the exempted issues and those have required parking standards. Giving the Planning Director the authority to determine parking problems on undefined establishments is appropriate to answer these concerns. Straw vote on the balance of the balance of the provisions, with staff being to bring back clarification of several items, was taken. Ayes: Thomson, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Noes: none Absent: none Abstain: none Staff then made a presentation on: Deletion of older zoning districts: • 23 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 RSC, APF, RMC, and MFR were intended to ultimately replace the R -A, R -3, R -4, A -P, C -N, C -O, C -1, and C -2. -Began in late 1992, most commercial properties were reclassified to the new zoning districts. - Amendment 846 would complete this process. -No need to keep these zoning districts on the books U District - Intended for areas "not precisely zoned or included in any zone or district" - Allows "all uses not prohibited by law" with the approval of a use permit. - Inadequate Conveys little in the way of land use or property development entitlement Contains no provisions for implementing the General Plan H and Z Overlay Districts - Modify off - street parking requirements for commercial uses -No properties currently modified by the H and Z Overlay Districts -No need to keep these overlay districts on the books - Proposed PM Overlay District serves this function New Zoning Districts: Industrial Business Park (IBP) District (Chapter 20.20 - Intended to accommodate commercial uses in industrial areas • Those which support industrial uses Require large outdoor or indoor spaces Have characteristicswhich are not suitable for standard commercial districts • Interim Study (IS) Overlay District (Chapter 20.53) - Allows discretionary review of development proposals in areas where changes in land use designations and /or zoning regulations are contemplated or under study. -Study plan must be approved that identifies the problems and issues to be resolved -New or expanded uses would require a use permit, unless otherwise addressed within the study plan. - Remain in effect for a period of 1 to 5 years -At the end of this period, they would automatically terminate and revert back • Parking Management (PM) Overlay District (Chapter 20.54) - Addresses parking issues on an area -wide basis - Parking management district plan Approved at adoption of overlay Identifies parking facilities Establishes a program to serve the parking needs of the area Used in place of citywide off - street parking regulations Nonconformina Structures and Uses: • Current Zoning Code • 24 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 - Addresses nonconforming structures by categorizing specific types of alterations Confusing and inflexible Proposed (Chapter 20.62) Simplifiesthese procedures by establishing general types of alterations Interior, structural, and additions, etc. Establishes the extent of alteration permitted It was recommended that Nonconforming Use discussion be noticed for the next meeting on 9/19/96 to allow more people to attend. It was proposed that at the 4:00 p.m. meeting, address the Nonconforming Structures and Uses and address the Administration at the 7:00 p.m. meeting. Public testimonywas opened and closed. Ayes: Thomson, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Noes: none Absent: none Abstain: none • Meeting was adjourned to 4:00 p.m. on September 19, 1996. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a. City Council Follow -up - An oral report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City Council actions related to planning - Mrs. Wood reported that expansion for Temple Bat Yahm was approved; called up the Use Permit for the Avant Garde Ballroom due to their consideration on the Amendment to the PC text; committee for the Airport Area Rezoning Study was appointed; a citizen and business advisory committee was appointed for Mariners Mile Study, and Interim Emergency Ordinance prohibiting for 45 days approval of drive -thru, drive -in and take -out restaurants was adopted. b. Oral report by the Planning Director regarding Outdoor Dining Permits, Specialty Food Permits, Modification Permits and Temporary Use Permit approvals.- Ms. Temple reported that Modifications were approved for 1401 -1421 Bayside Drive, 2250 Channel Road and 1 101 Ebbtide Road. No items were called up tonight. C. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee. Chairperson Adams stated that it was nice to receive the minutes of the EDC Committee, Commissioner Gifford asked about the bus parking designation in the Municipal lot to which Mrs. Wood replied that they were in the Balboa Pier lot. She explained that actually 3 or 4 spaces were designated, but the arrangement with the businesses is that if they know they will be having more buses 25 V T Additional Business City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 INDEX coming in on a day, then temporary barricades reserving the additional spaces (up to 7 or 8) will be erected. This information will be noted on the BPPAC agenda per Commissioner Giff ord's request - no report was given d. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee - Commissioner Gifford stated that the scheduled review meeting has been deferred to September 18th. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Ashley noted the scheduled meeting of October 10th as well as a Planning Commission Forum on that some day. Chairperson Adams stated they will not have an early meeting that day. f. 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 requested an excused absence from the meeting of October 24th. • ADJOURNMENT: 10:05 p.m. ED SELICH, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 26