Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/1996CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 Adjourned Meeting - 4:00 p.m. Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Kranzley, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Chairperson Adams was excused Commissioners Thomson and Ridgeway arrived late 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, Transportation and Development Services Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Minutes of September 5. 1996: Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway and voted on to approve, as amended, the September 5, 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, September 13, 1996, outside of City Hall. • Minutes Public Comments Posting of the Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 In Chairperson Adams absence, Commissioner Kranzley chaired the meeting. SUBJECT: Zoning Code Update • GPA 96 -1 • LCP A46 • A 834 • A 846 This is a continued discussion from September 5, 1996, on a set of amendments related to an update of the Zoning Code. Mr. Pat Alford summarized the staff report stating the report deals with revisions to the proposed provisions for eating and drinking establishments as well as some minor revisions to some residential property development regulations as directed by the Planning Commission. Staff has also provided a revised set of commercial land use regulations. The second part of the report contains information requested by the Planning Commission on live entertainment and on multiple land uses with respect to off - street parking. • The final part of the report deals with nonconforming structures and uses (Chapter 20.62). Draft revisions to the proposed Zoning Code are the parking requirement for full - service, small -scale establishments; changes in operational characteristics; accessory outdoor dining and take -out establishments, and residential property development regulations. Also, provided is additional information on the regulation of live entertainment outside of the Zoning Code. Public testimony was opened. Mr. Bob Calkins, 124 Crystal Ave., Balboa Island - spoke on the calculation basis of the following issues: covered parking space included as gross floor area, and spaces of uninhabitable rooms or spaces of a building. Mr. Alford answered that the covered parking spaces which are open on at least 2 sides, or open on one side and one end and which are not needed to meet off - street parking requirements for covered parking shall not be included in the calculation of the gross floor area. Mr. Alford continued on the issue of uninhabitable rooms or spaces of a building such as a garage which is an uninhabitable area of space and that, if above a certain height limit, it is presumed you have two levels and that two levels shall be calculated towards the maximum floor area limit. Public testimony was closed. • 2 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 19, 1996 At this point Chairperson Adams arrived. Commissioner Gifford asked staff for clarification of the wording in the Calculation paragraph. To make it easier to understand, the wording will be changed to, "...uninhabitable rooms and spaces of a building which measure more that 14 feet 6 inches ...... Chairperson Adams asked for comments by Commission on the staff report as included in Attachment #1. Commissioner Selich asked for clarification on the parking requirements for full - service, small -scale establishments. He asked if the proposed language would be appropriate for take -out restaurants. Staff answered that take -out restaurants were not included in this language due to the existing, fairly high parking standard. Chairperson Adams then asked staff for a report on nonconforming structures and uses. Mr. Alford summarized the significant revisions to the nonconforming structures chapter to the Code. The main points of the proposed language are: •applicability • determination of nonconformity • nonconforming structure issues of 1. maintenance and repairs 2. interior alterations 3. structural alterations • additions • exceptions required findings Also added is a provision dealing with the termination of nonconforming status where a use or structure lapses within six months and during that period the use or structure is inactive it would lose the nonconforming status. There is a provision for the Planning Director to grant an exception based on certain findings. The final area added deals with abatement including: initiation time periods • notice and public hearing • duties of the Planning Commission • action by the Planning Commission notice to owner Commissioner Ridgeway asked staff about a hypothetical situation that may arise with a three story, ocean front structure. 40 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 19,1996 Ms. Temple stated that the Zoning Code deals with height limits, not in floors or stories. In residential R -1, R -1.5 and R -2 districts, the height limit is an average of 24 feet, in the MFR district it is an average of 28 feet. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that there are a number of nonconforming residential units on the oceanfront that are condominiums. Discussion continued on the issues of what would be considered non - conforming and how the abatement procedure would work to abate the height violation. Issues included: • determination that particular location and non - conformity creates a definite hazard to public, etc. • hearing procedures • abatement period In the case of condominium development, property owners own a shared interest in the entire structure and that entire structure would be declared a non- conformity. Assistant City Attorney stated that this hypothetical situation could not be determined without a full analysis and working with the property owners on the . problem. If is not possible to determine whether someone would have to sacrifice. It would depend on all the circumstances. Commissioner Kranzley asked for the parameters of "..public health, safety, and general welfare..:.. Staff answered this is a discretionary term that the Planning Commission works within. The parameter is that substantial evidence exists which the Commission would use to make a determination. The proposed language in the code is to promote the health, safety and welfare and to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code and goals and policies of the General Plan. Its a broad based discretion contained in this language. At further questioning on a hypothetical goal of the Commission or City to limit all buildings to height limits as set by the code, Ms. Clauson stated that the way the language is drafted, after a public hearing on this issue, it is broad enough to do just that by whatever means that would be fair and equitable. Assistant City Manager, Sharon Wood stated that as a practical matter, if Commission is just talking about a building that Commissioner Ridgeway described as exceeding the height limit, but is well maintained, there exist a number of buildings in a similar situation in this area, then, even if the General Plan has changed, there would be no reason to even initiate the abatement action in this type of situation. If there is an individual case where a problem is created with a non - conforming use or structure, this provision is a good tool to have in the • 4 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 Ms. Temple stated that with the FARs being established in 1988, it is possible that there would be an otherwise fully conforming building that was non - conforming only as to floor area. In Newport Beach, there a large number of non - conforming structures. Typically, the nonconforming buildings, particularly in commercial districts, tend to have multiple nonconformities. It is important to reinforce the concept of both determination of nonconforming uses and the abatement procedures as being something that is not broadly applied or commenced in a city wide manner, but used to abate problem properties on an individual basis. Commissioner Kranzley asked if there is an unsafe building, under the current code now, does the city have any power to do anything about this building? Staff answered that under the provisions of the Uniform Building Code, if it had structural safety problems, there are provisions to handle the situation. Commissioner Selich stated that this proposed provision and section is not now in the Code, how many times would a section like this have been used, in staff's opinion, during the past twenty years? Staff answered that perhaps once or twice in the past twenty years the City may have considered use of this abatement tool. Commissioner Ashley stated that it appears that the proposed changes make a • more liberal provision for people who own a non - conforming use then what the current code would permit. It is possible for a person who occupies a nonconforming use to expand it, to enlarge it, to remodel it, and in no way be inhibited in the some sense then if it had a conforming use. The only time the nonconforming use becomes an issue is when there is something that could be structurally wrong with the establishment or it could be in some way a danger. At that point, it would come to the Planning Commissioner for review. If Commission decided it needed to be abated, there would be a public hearing on the matter, and the Commission would set a timeframe for abatement. Is this stated correctly? Staff referred to the first paragraph under Purpose of Chapter 20.62. These Procedures are for the continuance or the abatement of existing structures and uses which are nonconforming. The regulations establish the parameters under which nonconforming uses are continued and maintained, how they might be expanded or limited in their expansion. In addition there are new provisions which address the termination of use and abatement on non - conformities as tools for the city to have. Commissioner Ashley continued, when dealing with nonconforming uses, is the wording sufficient in terms to indicate to a banking loan officer that the nonconforming use is still a legal use and can be expanded under the code and there could be no reason for the bank to deny the loan necessary to do the expansion? • INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 Staff answered that one of the most important provisions is that we provide for reconstruction of the structure or reinstitution of the use if there is fire or natural disaster. Public testimony was opened. Mr. Royal S. Radtke, 330 Mayflower Dr., Newport Beach, President of the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce - spoke on the issue of establishing an equitable period on nonconforming properties. He expressed concerns with time periods, citing instances of local businesses. He recommends leaving the ordinance alone, and letting the system work with no time restraints. In Corona del Mar, most of the business district is nonconforming buildings. Financing for these buildings would be difficult if the building has to be made to conform within the time limit of 25 years. A 30 year loan would then be out of the question. He expressed his concern of buildings being vacant for a long period of time (more than six months). Staff stated what is being proposed is not an automatic abatement period. The time periods that are given in the proposed code, would not immediately be applied to every nonconforming use and structure. It gives the Commission the ability to initiate abatement proceedings including a public hearing, and if findings are made, then those abatement periods would then be applied. • Mr. Alford addressed the issue of a building being vacant as opposed to a use being vacant. If a use is vacant for six months, then it loses its nonconforming status, not the structure. Ms. Temple gave an example of a building in the Corona del Mar district that housed a small machine shop, which is a nonconforming use in the retail and service commercial district. If that business closed its doors, and was out of business and not reinstated for six months, it would be considered abandoned. Additionally, the Planning Director does have the discretion to not declare it abandoned in making the findings that the property owner has made a good faith effort to reestablish the use and has maintained the properly. This is the kind of nonconforming use that is being discussed, it could be a restaurant such as Lucy's BBG that does not have a use permit, and in that case, the abandonment would really mean, in order to reestablish themselves, they would have to come back and get a use permit in order to reinstate the business. That section is separate and different from the abatement of the building that is nonconforming. Commission asked what would have to transpire for abatement on a building that was nonconforming and vacant. Discussion ensued. Mr. Radtke stated that the language is cloudy, and, due to the number of nonconforming buildings and structures in the area, fears there will be a number of lawsuits against the City. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19,1996 Mr. Doug Hockett, Orange County Association of Realtors - spoke on the revisions of the purpose (20.62.010). Of particular concern is the issue of "..not to exceed 25 years time.. ", that is referenced in the abatement procedures. What would happen to a new owner that buys a building and then finds that it has been in nonconformance for 25 years? Chairperson Adams stated that the concern of a building being in nonconformance for twenty -five years, being sold, then the new owner loses his building, the answer is no. The abatement period would start only if a public hearing process was held to establish an abatement requirement. Staff referred to 20.62.090 paragraph 'A' where it describes the initiation of the process. Mr. Hockett asked if there is not a provision for mandatory 25 years abatement period now, why does it have to be added? Once this is put in, it seems that the person is always in jeopardy, because at any point in the future, this process could start. The time periods are less than a typical mortgage period. He summed up by saying that there is no need for this to be in the code. The maximum time limit should be excluded. • Commissioner Ridgeway asked staff it a building falls into disrepair and becomes a nuisance, under health, safety and welfare, the city can demolish that building? Correct? Ms. Clauson answered yes. There are health and safety requirements in the building code coupled with abatement procedures. Mr. Bob Calkins, 124 Crystal Ave., Balboa Island - asked why the Commission is trying to correct a problem that does not exist. No testimony has been given that there is a problem. This proposed issue is complicated, hard to understand and controversial. The proposal for the abatement would wipe out what is called 'grandfathering' because it would take away the absolute aspect of the 'grandfathering' part of things. There is no reason to implement the abatement procedures at all. He does not have a problem with the abatement of uses. Mr. Alford added that there are proposed revisions in the administration section dealing with use permits, site plan review, etc. If a use permit is granted and for some reason the rights granted by that permit are not exercised for six months, then that permit would lapse and a new permit would have to be applied for. Mr. Walt Boice, 2945 Catalpa Street, Newport Beach - spoke on the issue of nonconforming structures and redevelopment process. He stated that if there is a building that is a health and safety issue, 25 years is too long to abate it. It is a problem now and should be dealt with immediately. Additionally is the issue of long term leases and from a landlord's position, it is hard to get loose from the old • Ilk IF] City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 tenant to release the space to bring in a new tenant. Six months is not long enough to solve the problems involved in clearing it, getting it ready to lease, and then finding a new qualified tenant who is ready to move in. The landlord may have to go to court to legally prove the abandonment. Public testimony was closed. Commissioner Ridgeway expressed his personal concern and those of the audience on the long term issue of those people who will sit on the Commission and Council and how they will use /abuse this proposed provision. Discussion continued with hypothetical examples of a legal nonconforming structure. Commissioner Selich stated this issue is two -fold. One is the abatement of nonconforming structures and second, the determination of nonconformity uses. In reviewing language on these issues in the code, it is standard language in zoning ordinances throughout the state. We are not writing any new language in these provisions, it is standard termination of use and abatement procedures language. Ms. Clauson added that roughly every city in California has an abandonment of nonconforming use provisions of six months and a few have a year. • Mr. Alford stated that some cities do address structures and some do not. Chairperson Adams asked staff about the time period, is there one that is more frequent than the others as for as the duration for nonconforming uses. Staff answered that six months seemed to be the most normal period of time for the uses. The proposed language is drafted so as to allow for exceptions with certain findings. Commissioner Selich continued by asking if staff was familiar in general with Orange County, in particular with cities similar to Newport Beach, for example, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach and Seal Beach that have old downtown areas with a lot of old nonconforming structures and uses and what abatement and determination of procedures in their zoning codes and experiences they have had with them? Staff answered that they had not researched what adjoining communities are doing in this area. Chairperson Adams asked staff if we were treading on new ground with this abatement procedure for structures. He asked if this information could be included in the next staff report. This might speak to the issue of the impact of refinancing and leasing. Commissioner Selich stated that there seems to be a lot of concern with potential abuse of the procedures and if other cities have had these provisions in place for INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 many years, he would be interested to find out if they had any abuses and under what circumstances the provisions were used. It might alleviate some concerns that are being expressed here if we could show this is really not a problem. Ms. Clauson added that legally, amortization of nonconforming uses is a common concept and also can be for structures. However, a court may look at 25 year limitation as not legally long enough considering the financing involved in the building, or useful life, or existing leases which indicates a longer time frame. Commissioner Kranzley discussed hypothetically what if private views were taken into consideration. The structures on the waterfront that are higher than the height limits right now, could be abated so that other property owners might gain a view of the ocean. This proposed provision does create a 'cloud'. It would create a method where Commission or Council could start abating buildings that are too tall and are blocking private views. He supports the use abatement but does not support the building abatement. There are provisions in place now that will protect the public health and safety. Nonconforming structures should not be included in this process. Commissioner Ridgeway agreed with Commissioner Kranzley indicating that people could use this ordinance to force the then existing discretionary body to • create an abatement requirement. Commissioner Ashley stated that historically the abatement of a use happens with an isolated heavy industry use surrounded by low density residential housing. The abatement of uses is not so much of a problem so he concurs with what has been said. He continued, the abatement of structures, unless it is a health and safety factor, has no cause for being abated. He suggests removing the words welfare and well- being because it would lead to a lot of other devices by which people can say they wish to abate a structure, not for reasons of being substandard or a factor of insecurity to the people who could occupy it or be adjacent to it. This should be the only time to abate a structure, when it is unsafe. Commissioner Gifford stated she would be interested in hearing the genesis of this language. She assumes that discussion went on in the subcommittee that reviewed this and then staff had some basis either a survey of other ordinances or some models, how did this language come about in the proposal? Mr. Alford said that often surveys are made of what other communities had done to make sure we are on safe ground and not doing something that is unconventional. The language has been written specifically to fill gaps in what was perceived to be lacking in other code abatement sections. Some codes said simply that on a determination of nonconformity that a process of coming into conformance had to begin, it was automatic. The proposed language makes it • INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 clear that any abatement requirement is a conscience decision and that due process would be provided to the property owner. Commissioner Gifford stated that procedurally you attempted to put safeguards in, what about the amortization periods? Mr. Alford answered that the amortization periods were based on samplings of other communities. For example, there are three classifications, one could be terminated rather immediately so a period of one year was proposed. One could be terminated within 5 years and the other one could be terminated within 10 years. Most cases involving a structure, that would mean investment, the period did not exceed 25 years if a time period was given. A lot of codes are silent in regards to structures. Commissioner Gifford asked on the issue of structures, it Mr. Alford could recall some of the cities he looked at that had 25 years of less. Mr. Alford recalled Oceanside had 25 years and also Chula Vista. An exhaustive survey was not made. Commissioner Gifford suggested that Commission take a straw vote on the issue of • abatement of uses and ask for survey data with regard to other cities which may have had nonconforming structure provision in the zoning code with a specified time period. Find out if it has created problems or law suits with the cities. She listed the following cities as having similar characteristics in terms of property values and issues of use: Santa Monica, Santa Barbara, LaJolla, Montecito, Laguna Beach. Fear of the unknown or uncertain has been expressed tonight. It would be wise to gather data to determine if there is a basis for this fear. Chairperson Adams agreed with this suggestion and said it does not have to be exhaustive study but enough to give an idea of the range of the ways abatement are handled. The Commission can make comparisons. Commissioner Kranzley asked, based upon the comments of the Commission, whether there is a need to have a nonconforming structure abatement code in the new code. Whether it is done in other cities or not, is inconsequential. Commissioner Selich stated that on the nonconforming structures there are enough controls to prevent any horror from happening. However, if we put this proposed language in the code, what is the practical application of it in Newport Beach? Particularly if there has been no evidence if this could have been used in the recent past. Discussion continued on the need for this proposal. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that he is concerned with the basic protection of • 10 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 property rights and not what other cities do. The code section is one of the best written in terms of due process, but what is not required if a finding is made for an abatement is that no one's property will be taken away without just compensation. He is not prepared to establish provisions for the abatement of structures without some sort of just compensation. Chairperson Adams stated if there is consideration to not include abatement of structures, it may be worthwhile to reevaluate the changes to the allowances for nonconforming structures. More latitude is given to nonconforming structures to upgrade and make improvements. On the other side, an abatement clause was there in case there is a danger of perpetuating something that is clearly objectionable from the city's health and welfare point of view. If it is being considered to do away with the abatement provision for structures, we need to rethink the increased latitude we are giving to improvements on nonconforming structures. There is a natural abatement process where these structures reach the end of their life and become economically infeasible to keep them up. What we are doing by expanding the ability to make improvements to nonconforming structure is extending that kind of natural abatement period. Discussion continued on the need for a balance of nonconforming structures and improvements. •Chairperson Adams adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m., this item to be continued to regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. 1. SUBJECT: Revised Development Standards for Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island • A No. 851 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. The Balboa Island Improvement Association's Building Development Standards Committee has requested that this item be removed from calendar, to allow additional time to review the proposed ordinance and to meet with staff. Staff has 0 11 INDEX Item 1 Removed from Calendar . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 no objection to the request and recommends that this item be removed from calendar. Motion was made by Chairperson Adams and voted on to remove this item from the calendar. Ayes: Thomson, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Noes: none Absent: none Abstain: none 2. 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 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 stated that a full set of plans was distributed tonight for Commission's review. This is the same set of plans presented at the last hearing and were received yesterday afternoon. Since they have no alternative designs shown or proposed on these plans staff had no additional comments. Commissioner Thomson asked staff as it is proposed in these plans, are all the governing laws abided to? Staff answered that the reason for the application is a modification to the Zoning Code to permit the fence to enclose the accessory outdoor dining and the balance of the landscape area to encroach into the required front yard setback. It is not consistent with the setback requirements of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. Chairperson Adams stated, for the record, that he had visited the site with the applicant, Commissioners Kranzley and Thomson on Tuesday, September 17th. Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Jack Mau, 2800 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, applicant - spoke on his own behalf saying his architect was out of town and could not be present. He stated that Mr. Jerry King would be here to speak, but was not here at the present time. At commission inquiry, Mr. Mau sated that Mr., King helped with the exhibit and said he would speak. 0 12 INDEX Item No. 2 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 Mr. Mau put an exhibit on the wall and referenced it during his presentation. He pointed out that the landscape plan and the wall was lowered 6 ". The landscape is the same as before and the wall is now 2' 10 ", which the Commission had asked for. Chairperson Adams asked Mr. Mau if he would like this item to be continued to allow for the representation that Mr. Mau wanted. Mr. Mau declined. Mr. Mau further explained the 2' 10" wall to provide privacy for the ladies who sit on the patio. Commissioner Ridgeway noted that the detail shows 2' but on the next page, it shows 3'4" on the wall height. Commissioner Adams stated that the colored rendering on the wall shows the 2' 10" wall. He then asked staff if they had received a copy of the site line study the architect did that is on the wall. Staff answered that no copy was provided, and they only had five minutes to review it when Mr. Mau brought it in. Mr. Mau said he could not leave it because he had a meeting with some of the Commissioners the following day. Chairperson Adams stated that if this site plan was going to be entered into the • record, the Commissioners need the opportunity to review the exhibit. He also asked Mr. Mau to point out the additional landscape that is being proposed to be in addition to what is on site now. • Mr. Mau referencing the exhibit stated that the plant material to be in front of the wall will be mixed flowers with shrubs and additional palms put in the dining area. The dining area is supposed to be 550 square feet, if he was to use a concrete slab that size, he would double the amount of tables he is proposing to use. Now, he has only 8 tables. At Commission request, Mr. Mau then explained the site line exhibit. The wall was previously proposed as 3' 4 ", now the total is 2' 10 ". The eye level to Coast Highway is 4 feet. From this level, the eye will then see the grass and landscaped area. Commissioner Gifford asked if you follow the site line from the car into the property all the way, there is a slope with greenery, is that presently sloped or flat. Mr. Mau answered it is presently sloped. Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Kranzley asked staff for the definition of an encroachment permit. He was answered that an encroachment permit is required by the Public Works Department when construction has been requested within a city right of way or city easement area. Mr. Rich Edmonston added that the state right of way is the existing sidewalk. The 13 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 city issue is that Mr. Mau obtained his use permit and he dedicated his lease -hold interest and the additional footage to the city. This is why the encroachment permit would be from the city. Commissioner Selich inquired if the encroachment permit includes all of the landscaping and the sign that is in the right of way. Mr. Rich Edmonston answered that he is not sure what the permit would include and added Mr. Mau does not have an encroachment permit at the present. The property owner still has the underlying fee interest but, Mr. Mau as the leaseholder of the property, has dedicated all of his interest in that property. Because Mr. Mau now wants to use some of that area, that is the reason for the encroachment permit. Staff confirmed that the original use permit required the whole area be landscaped. Commissioner Ridgeway asked for clarification of the round concrete pads where the tables will go opposed to the exhibit that shows a concrete patio. He asked which one was correct. Mr. Mau said they are the same. • Commissioner Thomson asked staff about the square footage percentage determined for the 525 square feet used for the pad. • Staff answered the calculation was based on the amount of space where the tables could go that were not landscaped which represents 25% of the net public area. Public Hearing was opened. Commission asked the applicant whether the concrete path and pads are all one level? Mr. Mau answered by way of the exhibit, that they were on the same level and that the pad against the wall had a step down. Chairperson Adams stated that after visiting the site and considering the argument that was made at the last meeting about bringing the wall in mid - building, he tends to agree with the applicant. This would look for better if the wall was built as Mr. Mau proposes. With the glass between the bays in the front, it would not look very good it you brought the wall up to meet them. Commissioner Ridgeway respectfully disagreed pointing out that Mr. Mau is putting a door in the round, large element. Where that door is going is a very natural breakpoint. They have created their own breakpoint since they had to create access to the outdoor dining area. 14 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 Chairperson Adams stated he had not thought of that and agreed that was an interesting idea. Commissioner Selich supports Commissioner Ridgeway's statements. He continued stating the crux of the issue is that the applicant is seeking exception to the Zoning Code to put the wall out into this area. The wall is justified to surround the outside dining area, but the outdoor dining area could be reconfigured so that the wall can tie into the building architecturally. It seems that the outdoor dining area was laid out first and now the wall is trying to be done afterwards. He agrees with what staff has said and referenced page 5 in the staff report quoting "...the proposed wall along the entire West Coast Highway frontage is in direct opposition to the goals and the legislative intent of the Mariners' Mile Specific Area Plan, ..... ". To extend that wall along the frontage of Coast Highway within 2' of the right of way does not make sense. The area past the outdoor dining area, the landscaping is going to be tucked in between the wall and the building. Even though the wall is primarily glass, it is still a barrier. One of the intents of the Mariners' Mile Specific Area Plan is pedestrian orientation. You don't want to take the wall and just push it to the street to the maximum up against the sidewalk. It would be much better to have the landscaping outside the wall, having it inside the wall does absolutely nothing for the building at all. There are ways that it could be reconfigured. • Commissioner Gifford asked staff about the additional landscaping and beautification of the streetscape and thinks it would contribute to making it pedestrian friendly. She is concerned if there is a way of using this plan and is there something else staff would need such as a specific landscape plan calling out the number of palm trees being added in the center, etc. What would be needed to nail this down? • Staff suggested an additional condition that would require, as part of the wall approval, to submit a landscape plan that was substantially similar to the exhibit. Staff then could review and determine that it met the intent of what is represented here tonight. Commissioner Ashley stated he had visited the property and thinks that there is a better reason to extend the wall the length of the property than it is to try to bring it back into the middle of the building. He objects the notion that the wall should be 3' 4 ", it should not be so high as to prevent anyone from being able to see the lawn that presently exists. Shrubs put in front of the lower wall be in the vicinity of 2', no higher than the concrete wall. He has no objection to the wall being extended. But conditions of approval need to be attached to this property because of concerns that there may be a future effort to expand the amount of seating that could be out there. Particularly if the wall is extended to the westerly end of the property. Code Enforcement is not a very inexpensive thing. We need to prevent any surreptitious outdoor dining expansion. 15 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 Chairperson Adams admitted that Commissioner Ridgeway has swayed his opinion. It is a good point about the break in the building being done for the doorway may indeed provide a good opportunity to bring this wall back in. He continued by saying the wall should be limited to the seating area. In looking at the plan, he was trying to envision this wall coming back to the building where it was suggested by staff and thought it would be more unsightly than having the wall the whole length of the building. He concluded by saying he would support the Modification Committee's finding that the wall be brought back to the building and would like to see it conditioned to be brought back to this landing area. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to uphold the action of the Modification Committee on Modification No. 4464 amending that the wall be modified in its location with a 2' 10" height and the breakpoint be at the doorway. The wall should enclose only the outdoor dining area and nothing greater. While, he understands Mr. Mau's reasons, Mr. Ridgeway can not support that position. He does not agree that this could not be architecturally attractive and by sustaining the action, the Commission maintains a landscape area that should be maintained consistent with the intent of the Mariners' Mile Specific Area Plan. He continued by saying that at the last meeting, Commissioner Gifford had suggested that the landscape area be raised up inside the wall in order for is everybody to see it. There has been no attempt to do that here on these plans. The way to do that of course would be to maintain a 2' 10" high wall with glass on top. The site lines are draw right next to the property which is not an appropriate place. The site lines should have been drawn from a distance away and that would give a different perspective. • Staff proposed the following language. A modification to condition number 2 that the wall shall be redesigned so as to return to the building at the westerly side of the stairway access and the concrete pad for outdoor dining be redesigned within that area as approved in Outdoor Dining Permit No. 6. An additional condition that states that the wall be redesigned so that the solid portion of the wall be no higher than 2 feet 10 inches high. (New condition #6). Commissioner Kranzley offered that staff stated was a concerned with the encroachment into the setback. If that is the concern it seems to be inconsistent to allow any encroachment into the setback. Chairperson Adams clarified that this would be an encroachment into the set aside area for future widening, but the encroachment is given with the express understanding that when the widening is exercised, the applicant will have to remove all of this. m INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 • Substitute motion was made by Commissioner Ashley that the wall be allowed to extend into the setback area, as shown on the plan but the solid portion not exceed 2' 4" in height and the glass above it not exceed 3' and the area behind the wall where the tables will be located be placed on perimeter hardscape circles as identically shown on the plans that have been submitted. This will ensure that the entire area does not become hardscape. Commissioner Gifford asked Commissioner Ashley if he would add that the applicant submit a landscape plan to staff that would be in substantial confomance with the rendering and that any landscaping outside or immediately inside the wall be maintained at a level that does not exceed the solid portion of the wall. Commissioner Ashley said he would add these two conditions. Substitute motion now reads, that the wall extending into the setback area be as shown on the plan but the solid portion not exceed 2' 4" in height and the glass above it not exceed 3% the area behind the wall where the tables will be located will be placed on perimeter hardscape circles as identically shown on the plans that have been submitted; the applicant will submit a landscape plan to staff that would be in substantial conformance with the rendering, and that any landscaping outside or immediately inside the wall be maintained at a level that does not exceed the solid portion of the wall. Commissioner Gifford then addressed the issue of the placement of the sign. The rendering does not show the placement and she asks that the remaining portion of the wall enclosure would not be used for other tables. Commissioner Thomson then asked for clarification of the substitute motion as to the point where the wall on the outside touches the building and what point it veers from the furthest point from the building on the street side. Commissioner Adams stated in the original motion the wall would be coming back perpendicular or diagonal to the building and touching the westerly corner of the landing. The substitute motion is to have the plan for the wall identical to as proposed by the applicant. Substitute motion was voted on and passed. Ayes: Thomson, Kranzley, Gifford, Ashley Noes: Ridgeway, Adams, Selich Absent: none Abstain: none Commissioner Thomson stated that it was his understanding in asking about the substitute motion in concurrence with Commissioner Ridgeway's motion was that where the wall touched the building at the shortened spot, not at the end of the building. 17 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 Chairperson Adams stated that the substitute motion that Commission voted on was to have the plan of the wall identical to as proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Thomson said he thought it referred to the heights of the wall and said as he voted yes for the substitute motion, he would like to reconsider the vote. Motion to reconsider was made by Commissioner Thomson: Ayes: Thomson, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Noes: none Absent: none Abstain: none Chairperson Adams then addressed Mr. Mau stating that one of the Commissioners misunderstood the substitute motion. Substitute motion made by Commissioner Ashley was reconsidered and voted on: Ayes: Kronzley, Gifford, Ashley Noes: Thomson, Ridgeway, Adams, Selich Absent: none Abstain: none • Motion made by Commissioner Ridgeway was then voted on Ayes: Thomson, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich Noes: Ashley Absent: none Abstain: none Chairperson Adams addressed Mr. Mau stating that the motion that was passed allows for the wall but it must come back and meet the building at the pedestrian landing. Findinas: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, and as approved, is compatiblewith the surrounding neighborhood. 2. That 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 Structures).and Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). 3. That the proposal, as approved, will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general • 18 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 • welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City; and further, that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code, and, specifically, the Mariners' Mile Specific Area Plan for the following reasons: it will maintain and cumulatively serve to enhance the integrity of the subject thoroughfare by providing visual relief and interest from the highway since it does not span the entire frontage of the subject property • it will encourage pedestrian orientation and usage of the area because: • the wall is limited to the extent of the outdoor dining area, thereby preserving the majority of "openness" currently enjoyed by pedestrians along this particular stretch of West Coast Highway. • there is adequate space to provide landscaping between the proposed wall, itself, and the sidewalk, which will soften the effect of the 6 foot high structure on passersby. • the upper 3 feet of the proposed wall is glass, thereby lending itself to the preservation of the "openness" which currently exists on the frontage of the subject property. 4. That the perimeter wall, as approved, will not interfere with sight distance from any street or driveway, specifically, the intersection of West Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue, since it is subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department for conformance with City Standard 1 10 -L. 5. That a perimeter wall is necessary and appropriate for the shielding of noise and wind from West Coast Highway to the approved outdoor dining area for the China Palace restaurant; and, as approved, it meets the intent of the Accessory Outdoor Dining Ordinance which recognizes the need for walls which help define and /or protect ancillary outdoor dining areas. Conditions: That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, elevations and sections, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That the wall shall be redesigned so as to return to the building at the westerly side of the stairway access and that the concrete pad for outdoor dining be redesigned within that area as approved in Outdoor Dining Permit No. 6. 3. That the perimeter wall shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department for conformancewith City Standard 110-L for sight distance. 19 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 4. That the perimeter wall shall be subject to the approval of an encroachment agreement and related permit for the placement of the wall within the area for the proposed future widening of West Coast Highway. 5. That this Modification 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. 6. That the wall shall be redesigned so that the solid portion of the wall is no higher than 2 feet 10 inches high above the sidewalk grade elevation along West Coast Highway (as depicted in the Section A exhibit approved by the Planning Commission on September 19, 1996). A copy of the revised plans shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review prior to issuance of building permits; to determine compliance with the Commission's intent and approval. ••• 3. SUBJECT: Zoning Code Update • GPA 96 -1 • • LCP A46 • A 834 • A 846 This is a continued discussion from the adjourned September 19th meeting earlier this afternoon. Chairperson Adams announced that copies of the current draft of the Zoning Code are available for public use. He then summed up the earlier meeting saying the topic of discussion was the nonconforming structures and uses. There were no further comments from Commission, however, there was a request for staff to do some research of similar cities in the area of abatement of nonconforming structures. Also to be considered, two alternative proposals with appropriate language changes in the code for: • abatement provision that did not contain the 25 year maximum abatement period, • and complete omission of the abatement section with regard to structures Commissioner Ridgeway asked why Commission is sending this back to staff. There was enough sentiment on the Commission to take a straw vote. He was answered that a straw vote could be taken but Chairperson Adams wants staff's perspective on the ramifications of eliminating the abatement section or modifying it to address some of the issues. There may be a need for an abatement section to balance the additional opportunities to upgrade a nonconforming structure. It may be a 20 INDEX Hem No. 3 Zoning Code Update GPA 96 -1 LCP A46 A 834 A 846 Continued to 10/10/96 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 reasonable tool to try to, over time, realize the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the zoning in the city. Commissioner Selich stated that the staff has spent a lot of time putting this section together and there has been a lot of work in the committee on this, he suggested another level of discussion is warranted. This is too important to dismiss on a straw vote. Chairperson Adams agreed. Commissioner Ashley suggested that the abatement structure be done for the purpose of health and safety. If it is done for some other reason, he suggests that there should be a proviso forjust compensation. Assistant City Attorney Clauson offered that if a use is truly amortized for its useful life and the value for a period of time, it has a zero value at the end of the amortization period. Chairperson Adams stated that if there was no 25 years it would give Commission an infinite time to determine the amortization period, then the compensation issue would be moot. Ms. Clauson continued, that the problem comes up with compensation if you try and make an abatement on a property before the factor that would be considered as to what that amortization period is, . then you might be looking at compensation. Twenty -five years in some cases may not result in a zero value. • Chairperson Adams then suggested that this argument be articulated in the staff report in the discussion of that option. Commission can read it and think about it and discuss it at the hearing next time. Mr. Alford stated that it is not intended to amortize the total investment, actually it is written to allow a reasonable amortization period to minimize the loss. Commissioners Ridgeway and Thomson stated that they agree with the way the proposed language is for the abatement of nonconforming uses, but not for the abatement of nonconforming structures. Commissioner Thomson suggested to drop abatement of nonconforming structures altogether, stating the Commission should not be put in the position to tell people how much their structure is worth and how it's being amortized. He suggested a straw vote to generally approve the provision of the nonconforming structures and uses component of Title 20 with the elimination of the abatement provisions for structures. Chairman Adams stated that the purpose of abatement is not to take property. He affirmed that a no vote does not necessarily mean you are in favor of the abatement of buildings but would like to have more information come back at the next meeting. Ms. Temple clarified with Commission that if the motion passes the straw vote would be to approve the section as written with the exception of the deletion of item 3 21 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 B under the Abatement Procedures. Mr. Alford said that there might be some references to structures in some of the procedures which would need to be stricken. Commission agreed. Straw vote was taken: Ayes: Thomson, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Ashley Noes: Adams, Gifford, Selich Absent: none Abstain: none Mr. Alford stated that there is another item that staff has not received any comment on and that is the revised commercial land use regulations. Chairperson Adams stated that at the last hearing, he raised the staff report issue to Commission and they had no questions on those. Staff answered that this actually goes back to comments of the August 28th meeting. The issue is the commercial districts land use tables. Upon reevaluation, staff found some inconstancies. What has been done is minor changes dealing with • Convalescent Facilities, Religious Assembly, Schools, Animal Sales and Services, Marine Sales and Services, Visitor Accommodations, Warehousing and Storage, and Storage and Distribution. In most cases, the changes involve going from a use that was permitted by right to one which requires a use permit either by the Planning Director or Commission or cases where a use permit was required by the Planning Director but then was changed back to the Planning Commission. Two tables have been provided which shows how the new, revised regulation compares with current code, June 15th draft, and what is proposed tonight.. A clean copy of the old commercial district land use regulation is also provided. is Commission had no questions. Public testimony was opened and closed. Mr. Alford then presented and summarized the Zoning Code Section on Administration. The basic change involves consolidation of a number of administrative procedures that are scattered throughout the current code and placing them in one section and to specific chapters. A number of information gaps are provided to resolve some minor conflicts. There are four areas: • use permit - new is authority for the Planning Director to approve use permits for certain uses site plan reviews and modification permits - new is a provision dealing with discontinuance or basically a lapse of approval; it states that if the use has 22 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 discontinued the rights granted by that particular entitlement that application is considered to have lapsed and if in order for this to be reestablished, a new permit would have to be applied for appeals and calls for review - new is the ability for a single Planning Commissioner to call up an item for review; presently it takes the action of the entire body • standardize the revocation of discretionary permits Chairperson Adams asked for review of these areas, the first being where the Planning Director approves a use permit. Ms. Temple added that there was one staff recommended change contained in the staff report some time ago where staff proposed changes to the section regarding the use permit approval of the Planning Director. Ms. Temple directed Commission's attention to the staff report of August 22nd, hand - written page 14, attachment #2, Section 20.91.035 (C) and (D). It is recommended that not only is there a review and call up procedure by the Planning Commission and City Council, there is also prenotification of the decision to affected members of the public. This allows a member of the public to contact the Director with concerns • prior to the issuance of the use permit by the Planning Director. The Planning Director would then have public input to help make the decision. Commissioner Selich asked Ms. Temple under the proposed Zoning Code now, no longer have any application where the property owners are notified after the fact. Ms. Temple answered that no procedural changes have been proposed. Accessory Outdoor Dining is the only permit that has no prenotification requirements, but that as well as all others, can be called up. Commission discussed the issue of accessory dining pre- notification. Since this affects neighborhoods, might we change this and have pre - notice? Mrs. Wood indicated that this does take more time and this is one of the processes that Planning Department tries to move through quickly to assist businesses. Commissioner Gifford asked for clarification of the use permits that the Planning Director could issue. Referring to the matrix, full service small scale restaurants appear to be approved by the Planning Director. Mr. Alford referencing hand - written page 48 in the current staff report, noted the use permits in commercial districts including those that are proposed to be issued by the Planning Director. • convalescent facilities • animal grooming • 23 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 • animal retail sales • full service, small scale restaurants • marine service station • personal improvement services • health /fitness clubs • second hand applicants /clothing • commercial parking facility • vehicle /equipment sales - limited • bed and breakfast inns • storage and distribution Commissioner Ridgeway stated that on all food services there is a use permit requirement, except for full service, small scale. Why is this exception made? Staff answered that the full service, small scale meant to cover the larger version of the specialty food that is in the current code. Those are approved by a specialty food permit, the use permit issued by the Planning Director is roughly equivalent. This maintains the current procedure. There are no call up provisions for specialty food. Public testimony was opened. • Mr. Calkins, 124 Crystal Ave., Balboa, referenced 20.95.050 and asked for clarification of, "....notice of public hearings shall be given in the manner required for the decision being appealed or reviewed..." Staff answered this language references the language procedures for appeals and calls for review. It requires a public notice be given for all these hearings. n Mr. Calkins then asked about 20.62.070 B 2 wording. It seems like use permits and structural things are tied together. Staff answered that the term use permit is a vehicle in which that approval is made. It does not refer to a particular land use. Ms. Temple answered Commissioner Ridgeway's concern on specialty food, stating that it is a permit which has no call up provision for either the Planning Commission or City Council. The only entity eligible to appeal the decision of the Planning Director is the applicant. This proposed language will provide additional due process for any interested party in this action. Commissioner Kranzley asked how we know about discontinued uses? Is there a listing of conditional use permits? Discussion ensued with regards to the use permit, execution of the use permits, intermittent use, etc. With this new provision in the code, staff will be devising a method of tracking uses that are vacant. The burden will be on staff to show non -use for more than six months. Utilities connections, for sale signs and tracking when a building or property has been put on the market are some ways that staff will use. Discussion continued 24 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 on 20.91.055. It was recommended to put additional language designating a tolling for certain use permits where construction or remodeling is being done. Commission and staff then discussed 20.96.040 and agreed that item E 3 will be removed to avoid confusion. When a use permit is granted now, there is no time specified that if not invoked, the use permit is void. Under the new proposal there Will be 24 months in which to initially exercise and establish the use. After that. point, any time it lapses for a period of six consecutive months, then the approval would lapse. It would not effect the initial time to set up the operations. The exercising period appears in 20.91.055. Commissioner Selich, citing example, asked that language be added to allow time for initializing the use permit to start after possible litigation. Staff answered they have never considered a use permit to become effective (for example) until a Coastal Permit was received. This has been done on an interpretive basis. It was agreed to include language that would say the conclusion of any other discretionary action would commence the 24 month period. Staff was directed to draft appropriate language to deal with these types of possible situations. • Mr. Bob Calkins, 124 Crystal Ave., Balboa Island, asked for and received clarification on the time schedule for use permits. • Commissioner Gifford added that the earlier discussion was on nonconforming uses that may or may not be nonconforming uses based on zoning. They might or might not, as another characteristic, happen to have a use permit and now the talk is about use permits and when they might be discontinued or ended because of various factors. Staff continued stating that use permits run with the land. Currently, there is no provision when that use is considered to be discontinued. What is proposed is that a period of time be set that if the use permit activity is discontinued for a designated length of time, then the entitlement received for that use permit is lapsed. Re- establishment of that use will require a new use permit. Staff continued saying that it Commission deemed 180 days was too short a period of time, we could consider a longer period of time. It is important to set a time frame within which these permits are deemed terminated. Mr. Calkins concluded that it seems to be an infringement on property rights if the use permit gives some value to that property for a new leasee, and to limit the time for them to establish a new leasee would be a mistake. The City Council and Planning Commission in the papers and by public statement has purported to try to be more business friendly in this environment. Certainly this would not be business friendly. 25 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19,1996 Mr. Doug Hockett, Orange County Association of Realtors, agreeing with Mr. Calkins statement, gave example stating that six months is not enough time to re- tenant a building. This may become an issue with the tenant as a negotiating ploy. Commissioner Kranzley asked about the issue of permits running with the land, where a terrific applicant comes in with a beautiful plan, it is approved but unfortunately, a year later he is out of business. Another applicant comes in who is not as user friendly, with a similar use and it becomes a detriment. Do you hove an idea to help us solve this issue? Mr. Doug Hockett stated that if it was subject to review, this could be a way to mitigate. He continued, stating that 2 years would be an adequate time period for the use permit unless the market is completely down. Commissioner Gifford added that as codes and conditions change over time. Adjustments may need to be made to update conditions to make a level playing field. As a negotiating ploy, a prospective tenant would feel it was appropriate to hang back and wait until some period of time had expired, to get property cheaper. How is this a good negotiating ploy if in fact they might not be able to get a permit to have that use at all or they might have one that was conditioned in • a way that would be economically feasible. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that a lapse of a use permit does not really jeopardize the value of the property. Contracts can be worded in a manner that could allow for a purchase price or rental rate be subject to approval of a certain permit. Properties have an intrinsic value and a basic rent structure. \J Commissioner Selich pointed out that this provision actually is a way to avoid some of problems that have been talked about in the nonconforming use sections. Chairperson Adams then asked to step through a Planning Director approval and what would take place as far as notification and appeal process. Mr. Alford answered the requirement is to communicate the information at the next available Planning Commission meeting or if it exceeds that 14 day period, directly to the Commissioners. The Commission and Council will be notified within a sufficiently short period of time allowing for consideration and call up if deemed necessary. Ms. Temple added that there will be a review by Commission on the notification process before it is enacted by the Planning Director. All discretionary permits as contained in the administrative procedures are able to be called up by the Planning Commission. Chairperson Adams stated if accessory outdoor dining does not have prior notification, it needs to be subject to call up. Discussion continued on this subject. 26 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 Commissioner Gifford asked how long someone had to implement the outdoor dining permit after they have obtained it? She was answered that there are no provisions or limitations in the code today. She continued, Commission has talked about the fact that sometimes it takes a while to get things set up, if there is no prior notice and a permit is obtained and the use does not begin for 45 days, which would be the first time the neighbors would be aware of it, the period for call up has already expired. Commissioner Kranzley stated that there needs to be a 10 day prior notification to properties within 300 feet for accessory outdoor dining. In the new code, accessory outdoor dining is the only permit that does not require prior noticing. Commissioner Gifford proposed as an alternative for a recommendation to City Council to suggest that the call up period would not commence until the operation had commenced. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Kranzley suggested a list of other alternatives including: • change in call up period • waive fee to dispute the accessory dining if there is no prior notice • Ms. Temple stated that in this particular permit, accessory outdoor dining, the primary recourse is that the Planning Director has the ability to bring a permit back for additional conditions if the original conditions under which it was issued are deemed insufficient. The issue on appeal fee is irrelevant, because this particular permit can be called up by the Planning Commission or City Council, but there is no other appeal mechanism. • Ms. Temple at Commission request explained that this notification would add to the time frame. The way staff has dealt with accessory outdoor dining is to deal with them as they come in. Typically, the conditions are formed and delivered to the applicant within five days. They are informed that the permit does not become effective until fourteen days, within which staff reports their action to the Planning Commission. There is a brief application form, but there is no set time frame. With the notification, this process will have to be formalized and once again hear them in a set time during the week and this will probably add two weeks to the overall processing. It would go from fifteen days to thirty days. Mrs. Wood added that Planning Department is criticized for the amount of time as it is. Ms. Temple suggested that staff could look into some alternatives which may reduce some of these repercussions. For example, notification exemption if there is no residential within 300 feet. Straw vote on 10 day prior to issuance of permit by Planning Director notice within 300 feet notification exemption if there is no residential within 300 feet: 27 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 Ayes: Thomson, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Ashley Noes: Selich Absent: none Abstain: none Chairperson Adams asked if there was any further discussion on Administrative Section. Commissioner Selich asked about the conditions of approval under 20.91.045., There is no reference that in applying conditions of approval on a use permit were neither prohibited nor permitted to put a condition limiting the use permit to a time certain. If the case arises, the Planning Commission does have the ability to put a time certain for a use permit to expire if conditions warrant. Is that correct? Staff referenced 20.91.055 which states that the Planning Director may specify a different expiration date at the time of approval. Commission discussed how it tried to limit use permits in the past. Can a use permit be approved for a specified period of time? • Ms. Clauson responded that she was not aware of a legal prohibition from having a use permit terminate after a certain period of time. It is done with identified temporary use permits provided in the code. To say a use permit is only good for five or ten years in a way is contrary to the legal concept that they run with the land. You can not make a use permit non - transferable, but to say regardless who the owner is at the end of five years it terminates, staff will have to research this question. She stated that the Planning Commission has reviewed use permits after six or twelve months to see how they are doing and to see if Commission wants to change conditions, but it has not meant that the termination of a use permit is ,under consideration. 0 Chairperson Adams stated that at the next meeting Commission should be prepared to act on all of these items. The public notice as well as a press release should indicate that it is expected this is to be the final hearing with a recommendation to City Council. Commission opened discussion on the proposed General Plan Amendment. Staff stated that the amendments proposed are to support the changes in the code particularly the changes to the FAR chapter. The General Plan policies have been reviewed to assure that the General Plan and Zoning Code are internally consistent. At Commission request, pages of the July 18th staff report as well as an attachment on all of the items of the straw vote issues will be attached to the staff report. The Homeowners' Associations will be noticed. With the next staff report there will be a cumulative addendum to the draft of June 15 draft. F'3: INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1996 M M R 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 Council adopted the Ordinance regarding Report of Residential Building Records with change for owner to approve inspection of property, and the provisions to be moved from Title 20 to Title 15, an amendment to provide for this transition will be considered at the next meeting; Newport Place Planned Community change approved with dance instruction for adults added as a use permitted. with a Use Permit in retail commercial section, and the Use Permit for Avant Garde Ballroom was upheld. 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 Modification 4479 for 2542 Vista Drive, Modification No. 4486 for 3309 Clay Street, Modification No. 4487 for 2 Collins Island and Modification No. 4488 for 170 Shorecliff Rd were all approved. C.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic • Development Committee- -none d.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee- Ms. Gifford reported that BPPAC met yesterday to receive the draft report from Urban Design. The report, when finalized, will be used as a source along with other reports, for recommendations to City Council to adopt a plan that would improve some of the business zones and address overall issues. e.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting — Commissioner Ashley asked for a report on what is being done at the intersection of Riverside Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. 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 -- none. ADJOURNMENT: 9:40 p.m. srr ED SELICH, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 29 INDEX Additional Business