Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/2000• Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker: Commissioner Gifford was excused. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager Genia Garcia, Associate Planner Leticia Matlock, Planning Department Assistant • Minutes of October 5, 2000: Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser and voted on to approve, as amended, the minutes of October 5, 2000. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Gifford Public Comments: None Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, October 13, 2000. Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 MacArthur Boulevard /Jamboree Road Review of a General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Amendment to allow an additional 250,000 gross square feet of office use within Office Site B of the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community. The amendments will provide for the construction of a ten -story office tower. The applicant requests a continuance to November 9, 2000. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to continue item to November 9, 2000. Ayes: Agajanian, Kiser, Kranzley, McDaniel, Selich, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford SUBJECT- Go Rent -A -Van 4320 Campus Drive, John Saunders Trust, property owner . • Use Permit No. 3677 Review of sign program for the Go Rent -A -Van facility. Commissioner Kiser asked if there could be conditions on a review. For example, the amount of lighting from the neon sign. Planning Director, Ms. Temple indicated that the city's sign ordinance contains provisions regarding the illumination of signs, setting various standards given the lighting environment in the area and suggested that this sign comply with those provisions of the Municipal Code. Ms. Temple further indicated that this review was requested by the Planning Commission and she does not feel there is a necessity to add conditions unless approval of the sign program is contigent on changes required by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tucker requested a summary of their last discussion of the sign on the arch. Associate Planner, Ms. Garcia, responded by saying that at that meeting, the applicant had proposed some signage on the archway and had demonstrated a sample of what their sign would look like. Because nothing was actually submitted, the applicant was asked to return to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tucker & Commissioner Kranzley both requested a copy of the minutes. • INDEX Item No. 1 GPA 97 -3 (B), Zoning Amendment 905, Traffic Study No. 119, and OR No. 158 Continued to 11/09/00 Item No. 2 Use Permit No. 3677 Continued to 12/07/00 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 Ms. Temple responded to the request by quoting from the minutes, "Commissioner Tucker noted that he would prefer a monument sign but maybe we should have the applicant bring something back to the staff or the Planning Commission. This is a Use Permit and we want to look at aesthetic things connected with the Use Permit so I would like to see it brought back to the Planning Commission. On the block wall, I am fine with it being eliminated but I think we need to give the applicant more time in regards to this side property wall. Commissioner Gifford asked staff if the sign on the arch is a roof sign. She was answered that a structure constitutes something that has a roof. This is more in the character of a wall sign. Commissioner Gifford stated she would not be prepared to vote for a pole sign or any kind of monument sign with any significant height at all." Public comment was opened. Kaye Gitibin, President of Go Rent -A -Van, presented a 3-D drawing of the structure per the request of the Planning Commission. Mr. Gitibin also presented a drawing of the alternative sign. He indicated that the sign committee has approved the sign. • Chairperson Selich asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Kiser was concerned about the "G" in "GO" looking 4 feet when the letters "Rent A -Van" are 13 inches high. Mr. Gitibin clarified that the structure is 4 feet. The word "GO" is slightly larger than the rest of the words (9 inches). Chairperson Selich mentioned that one of the comments made by the Planning Commission at the last meeting was that the applicant considered making a monument sign? Chairperson Selich asked why the applicant chose not to do so. Mr. Gitibin answered by stating that he felt no one was in favor of a monument sign. Hence, the applicant designed the sign with this in mind. Mr. Gitibin asked that if the Planning Commission is in favor of such, he is opened to the idea and it would in fact be beneficial to his business. Commissioner Tucker recalled that the concern was having a sign that was 10 to 1 1 feet off the ground and that Commissioner Gifford had indicated that a sign of modest proportions was what was in mind. Commissioner Tucker would prefer to see a pole sign or a monument sign of modest proportion. Commissioner Kiser notes his concern of the arch sign setting precedence for future business owners. • Mr. Gitibin clarified that the arch is part of the structure of the showroom. It's not •1.111:1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 a billboard. It is designed for a sign. Commissioner Tucker then commented that if there were no structure, it wouldn't affect the operation of the business. Therefore, the purpose of the structure is a design element and not a functional element for which the applicant has chosen to hang a sign on. Mr. Gitibin then replies that the reason for creating the structure was because the building sits on the very end of the property whereby there is no visibility. The showroom was created to give some structure and visibility to the business. Commissioner Tucker stated that there was no problem with the arch. It's the sign on the arch. Chairperson Selich asked Mr. Gitibin if he was willing, if the Planning Commission so desired, to consider removing the sign from the arch and replacing it with a small pole sign. Mr. Gitibin agreed and commented on the comparison of his sign as opposed to other signs on his street; his being the nicest and classiest. . Commissioner Kronzley agreed with Commissioner Tucker's comment that there was no problem with the arch. It's the sign proposed to be placed on it. Commissioner Kiser asked staff where a monument sign could be placed? Ms. Temple responded that the APF Zoning District has a mandatory 15 -foot front yard setback and signs can be placed within that. Commissioner Kiser asked that it be taken into consideration whether the monument sign might prove to be more obtrusive than the sign on the arch. Commissioner McDaniel expressed that the applicant appears to be seeking some type of guidance from the Planning Commission. Chairperson Selich then asks staff to clarify the measurements as to the limitations of size of the monument sign. Ms. Temple responded that the size of the signs is limited per type and is similar in size per type. This particular sign is not as large as allowed by the sign ordinance. Commissioner Tucker suggested that given a choice of a monument sign or arches down the street, he would prefer to have a monument sign. If, however, there is a monument sign, Commissioner Tucker suggested that the traffic engineer might want to give his input as to safety issues. • Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager, addressed INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 Chairperson Selich by agreeing with Commissioner Tucker and clarified the technical issues. Commissioner Kiser questioned Mr. Gitibin as to whether he had given any thought as to how a monument sign might look. Mr. Gitibin commented that they had a similar sign on an arch at their location next to the Disneyland Resort, which was approved and voted the best sign in the Resort area. Also, Mr. Gitibin commented that a monument sign would not be visible in the southbound side due to the many bushes and trees. Commissioner Agajanian commented that there appears to be two alternatives: (1) Opt for an arch sign or (2) A future monument sign that is not feasible and can create difficulties with the front yard setback. He suggested not holding up the project and to proceed with the arch. Chairperson Selich asked Commissioner Agajanian what he thinks makes the monument sign not feasible? Commissioner Agajanian responded by saying that his impression is that the monument sign will not be allowed to be higher than 3 feet tall. Rich Edmonston commented on that it depended on where the sign was situated. Commissioner Agajanian responded that no research has been made as to where the monument sign might be situated or how tall it might be. His real question is would a monument sign fit and would it be acceptable. Commissioner Tucker suggested other alternatives, which would allow the applicant to have a sign high above the ground without creating an arch element. Both Commissioner Agajanian and Commissioner Tucker agreed that the objection is the sign on the arch. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to December 7, 2000. Commissioner Tucker suggested that the applicant be given the choice to remove the sign from the arch or propose a monument sign approved by the Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Kiser agreed with Commissioner Tucker's suggestion • Chairperson Selich asked the applicant to return with either a design study on a monument sign or to take the sign off the arch and place it on one side or the 5 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 other of the structure. Mr. Gitibin agreed. Ayes: Agajanian, Kiser, Kranzley, McDaniel, Selich, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: Coco's Bakery Restaurant 3446 East Coast Highway • Use Permit 3678 Commissioner Tucker requested to be recused. Request to amend condition Approval No. 32 of Use Permit 3678 as approved by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2000, which permitted a remodel and expansion of the interior dining area for a full- service restaurant. The request is to . modify the requirement to remodel the rear of the existing to establish the required 10 -foot alley setback, to allow retention of an existing utility panel. Associate Planner, Genia Garcia, presented a visual presentation on the proposed application noting the following points: • Indicated the back of the Coco's building from the alley and the area dotted in is the area within the 10 -foot rear yard setback that the applicant is asking to cut back. • Specified the area proposed to be retained along with the electric and gas utilities. • Indicated the west side of the building where the trash enclosure is located at the property line which backs up to the side property line. The trash enclosure is used by the Coco's building currently and will be incorporated into the building with the roll down door. ' • The ramp at the bottom ramps up to the back door where the deliveries are received. • The building on the adjacent property will have the area repaved and opened up once the trash enclosure on the left is removed. Ms. Temple commented on the slide that shows the new enclosure with the rolled door area. She spoke with the building official late that afternoon regarding the design of the new trash enclosure within the Coco's building. The building official could not make a firm determination with the information available at the time, but felt that there was a possibility that one of two things would happen in regards to the location of the new trash enclosure: (1) That due to its proximity to the side property line, the roll up door would have to be fire rated which would add cost to the installation. (2) Of a more serious nature, since he does not know INDEX Item No. 3 Use Permit No. 3678 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 what the rating of the actual construction of that part of the building is he was concerned that there might be a possibility that another opening could not be created at all that close to the property line since it is within 5 feet of the property line. Therefore, depending on the outcome of the Planning Commission's discussion tonight, she would suggest that the final conditions be worded in such a way that the redesign could be accommodated within whatever perimeters set forth by the Planning Commission or that should Uniform Building Code issues present challenges, which could not be overcome, that the original conditions remain in effect in regards to the location of the enclosure. Public comment was opened. Cora Newman, representing Coco's Restaurant, stated that she appreciates the efforts of staff and the Planning Commission. Ms. Newman indicated that she has read the conditions as proposed by staff and agrees with them all, with the exception of Condition No. 35. because Coco's does not wish to move the utility panel. She suggested slightly modifying it to say " the utility panel shall be integrated within the rear building wall ". And that the rest of the conditions remain but to delete the words "and shall not project from the face of the building ". Coco's is proposing to enclose those and make them part of the . architecture in the back of the building and not move them. This is Coco's suggestion if it is agreeable with the Planning Commission. Ms. Newman asked if there were any technical questions, the architect and representatives of Coco's were present. Chairperson Selich asks Ms. Newman if the main reason for this request is for the cost of relocating those utilities? Ms. Newman responded that that is correct. Chairperson Selich asks what the amount would be? Ms. Newman responded that the amount would be approximately $30,000.00. Public comment closed. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve the request to amend Condition of Approval No. 35 with Modification as suggested by Ms. Newman and inclusion of the wording by Ms. Temple regarding the trash enclosures. Ayes: Agajonion, Kiser, Kranzley, McDaniel, Selich, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford • INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No. 3678 Outdoor Dining Permit No. 72 Off -Site Parking Agreement Waiver of Combining Requirement (REVISED) Findings: The Land Use Element of the General Plan and designates the site for "Retail Service and Commercial" uses and the existing restaurant is a permitted use within this designation, and the off -site parking lots in a residential district is not in conflict with the General Plan. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). The request of Use Permit No. 3678 to modify the parking requirement, the Off -Site Parking Agreement, and the waiver of the combining of lots requirement may be approved for the following reasons: • The physical design characteristics of the restaurant are for dining purposes only and the alcoholic beverage service for the facility is incidental to the primary service of food. • The operational characteristics of the restaurant do not include do not include areas designated for solely for cocktails, dancing, live entertainment or other attractions, which would require additional parking. • The restaurant closes nightly at 10:00 p.m. • The restaurant serves primarily the local residents who either walk or bike to the restaurant establishment. • The existing on -site and off -site parking, and circulation system, is adequate to accommodate the proposed dining areas. • The restaurant facility is located in a commercial area that is comprised of uses whose parking demand does not occur simultaneously, particularly in the evening. • The off -site parking lot located at 411, 413 Narcissus Avenue and 3436 East Coast Highway is currently being used to meet the parking requirement of the restaurant facility and is located so as to be useful in conjunction with the existing restaurant uses. • Parking on the off -site lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. • The existing on -site and off -site parking, and circulation system, is adequate to accommodate the proposed dining areas, which have been used for parking for the subject restaurant since the commercial building was constructed. • The off -site parking lots to the rear, across the alley, are owned by the same owner as the restaurant site and will be maintained as an off - street parking lot for the duration of the restaurant use. • The restaurant is operating under a lease with both property owners, which is of sufficient length to guarantee that the parking will be provided for the restaurant facility. • A condition of approval is included, requiring the provision of 33 parking spaces in the three off -site lots and that the off -site parking agreement be recorded in the County Recorder's Office. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 • The waiver of the requirement to combine the two commercial lots into one lot or parcel is appropriate in this case, because the lots are under separate ownership with a long -term lease that is of sufficient length to guarantee that the lots will be held as a single entity for the duration of the restaurant use. The approval of Use Permit No. 3678, Off -Site Parking Agreement, and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 72 will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, for the following reasons: • The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses since, restaurant uses are typically allowed in commercial districts and conditions of approval have been incorporated, which will minimize noise impacts. • The restrictions on the use of outdoor - amplified sound and patio speakers and compliance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Community Noise Ordinance, should limit potential noise impacts on the neighboring commercial businesses and residential uses. • The proposed outdoor dining is consistent with the land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. • The existing on -site and off -site parking, and circulation system, is adequate to accommodate the proposed exterior dining areas. • • That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls and landscaping will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties because the site is already developed, and has been in existence for many years. • The proposed exterior changes to the restaurant facility will be an aesthetic improvement to the property. • The limited hours of the outdoor dining areas should prevent noise from adversely impacting the residential uses in the neighborhood. • The proposed accessory outdoor dining expansion will not be located so as to result in a reduction of existing parking spaces because there is adequate parking available, on both off - site lots. • The restrictions on the use of solid roof structures as applied to this approval are consistent with the intent and purpose of the accessory outdoor dining to provide outdoor dining opportunities. • The proposal will not add a new liquor license to an over - concentrated area, providing only for the operational change of an existing restaurant with an existing alcoholic beverage license. Conditions: 1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. The interior net public area of the restaurant shall be limited to 1,650 square feet. 3. Nine (9) on -site parking spaces shall be provided for the restaurant on the adjacent lot located at 3436 East Coast Highway, and twenty-four (24) off -site parking spaces shall be provided in . the off -site lot located at 411 and 413 Narcissus Avenue. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 INDEX 4. The on -site parking plan, the parking plan for the off -site lot located at 411, 413 Narcissus Avenue and 3436 East Coast Highway, and the vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 5. The owner or owners and the City shall execute a written instrument or instruments, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney, providing for the maintenance of the required off - street parking on such lots for the duration of the proposed use or uses on the building site or sites. Should a change in use or additional use be proposed, the off - street parking regulations applicable at the time shall apply. Such instruments shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder. 6. Grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 7. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 8. The existing boundary wall between the off -site parking lot and the adjoining residential lot shall be maintained in accordance with Section 20.82.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, specifically, the wall shall be a maximum 3 foot high masonry wall along the front 5 feet of the side property and 6 feet high for the remaining portion of the side property line. • 9. The existing 2 foot wide landscape planter adjacent to the boundary wall between the offsite parking lot and the adjoining residential lot shall be maintained with a groundcover that shall not exceed 3 inches above a 6 inch high curb so as not to obstruct the front overhang of parked vehicles. Plantings shall be planted in areas between parking stalls to screen the boundary wall. 10. Trees, shrubs, or vines shall be planted in the 5 foot wide planter areas along the front property line, and along the side property line on the comer commercial property, to screen the off -site parking lot and the on -site parking from Narcissus Avenue. A landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning, Public Works and General Services Departments 11. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department through an encroachment permit or agreement if required. 12. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided as required by Ordinance, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department through an encroachment permit or agreement (if required). 13. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare onto adjacent properties or uses, including minimizing the number of light sources. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, IN • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. 14. The accessory outdoor dining for the restaurant shall be used in conjunction with the related adjacent food establishment and shall be limited to 382 sq. ft. maximum of dining area. 15. The area outside of the food establishment shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 16. The outdoor dining area associated with the restaurant uses shall be limited to the area as delineated on the approved site plan only. 17. For sunshade purposes, coverings shall be limited to the use of umbrellas or retractable awnings with a minimum vertical clearance of 7 feet measured from the floor of the dining is area to the lowest portion of the shade structure. The use of solid, permanent roof coverings or patio covers shall be prohibited. 18. Alcoholic beverage service shall be prohibited in the outdoor dining areas, unless the approval of the Police Department and the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board are first obtained. Any substantial physical changes required (as determined by the Planning Department) to accommodate alcoholic beverage service shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this Outdoor Dining Permit. 19. The hours of operation of the outdoor dining area are limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., daily; and that any increase in the hours of operation shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this application. 20. No amplified music or entertainment is permitted in the outdoor dining area. 21. Outside paging systems shall be prohibited. 22. Should problems arise with regard to tables, chairs or stools encroaching into the public right - of -way, private property pedestrian access or walkways, the Planning Department reserves the right to require the removal of all or a portion of the outdoor dining area seating. 23. The operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 1026 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code that provides, in part, that the sound shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time • periods. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 hours of Between the hours of Between the 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 10:00 o.m. and 7:00 a.m. Measured at the property line of Commercially zoned property: 65 dBA 60 dBA Measured at the property line of Residentially zoned property: 60 dBA 50 dBA 24. The patio shall be closed for the evening upon verification of non - compliance with any conditions of this Use Permit or Outdoor Dining Permit and, if the patio is not closed, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Department for action on the Use Permit and/or Outdoor Dining Permit. • 25. The area of the outdoor dining shall be delineated with physical barriers designed, installed and maintained around the patio area to insure compliance with the Community Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code). • 26. The approval is for the establishment of outdoor dining for an existing full service restaurant facilities as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, with the principal purpose for the sale or service of food and beverages with sale and service of alcoholic beverages incidental to the food use during the specified restaurant hours of operation. 27. This approval is non - transferable by the permittee or property owner; and should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current owner or the leasing company, that this approval does not transfer and that a new application must be approved by the Planning Department. 28. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure, or otherwise screened from the view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. That the trash dumpsters shall be fully enclosed and the top shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 29. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors which may include the provision of fully self - contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 INDEX 30. Storage outside of the building shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure and existing storage structures. 31. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code. 32. The rear of the building shall be altered to reinstate the required 10 -foot alley setback, with the exception of approximately 18 -feet of the width of the building starting from the northwest corner in order to accommodate existing electrical and gas utilities connections. Prior to issuance of building permits, the revised construction plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning director to determine substantial conformance with is condition. 33. A trash enclosure shall be established on the property to serve the restaurant. It shall be located in an alcove at the rear of the building and shall be located within the building in the area retained for the utilities. The trash enclosure shall be enclosed with a roll -up door. 34. The owner of the property shall record an easement agreement, or equivalent . instrument, for access to the trash enclosure for the subject property, the form and content of the agreement to be approved by the City Attorney. 35. The utility panels shall be inset integrated within the rear building wall. sndshaN -not projeet from the face of the wall The utilities shall be covered with panels or other similar material to incorporate the utilities into the wall of the building. 36. No parking or storage shall be permitted within the required 10 -foot alley setback. Standard Conditions: 1. The proposed restaurant facility shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 2. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 3. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. • 4. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code. 13 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 174 5. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or Outdoor Dining Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit or Outdoor Dining Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 6. This Use Permit and Outdoor Dining Permits shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code xsx SUBJECT: Billy's at the Beach and The Charthouse Restaurant 2751 West Coast Highway and 2801 West Coast Highway • Use Permit No. 3674, Off -site Parking Agreement, Accessory Request to add accessory outdoor dining to two existing full service restaurants, a 768 sq. ft. outdoor dining area for the existing Chart House Restaurant and a 515 sq. ft. outdoor dining area with a 220 square foot service area, for the existing Billy's At The Beach restaurant. A use permit is required for Billy's At The Beach because the proposed area of the outdoor dining area will. exceed the permitted 25% of the net public area of the interior of the restaurant. The proposal includes a request to approve an off -site parking agreement for one additional required parking space for the dining area and for the elimination of one on -site parking space and relocation to the off -site lot. SUBJECT: Balboa Peninsula Revitalization Status Report Chairperson Selich noted that Commissioner Tucker has returned to the dias. Chairperson Selich asked Commissioner Kranzley for background on this item. Commissioner Kranzley explained the reasons for discussing this item. He indicated that he had asked staff for an update on what has been done on 14 INDEX Item No. 4 UP No. 3626 Continued to 11/09/2000 Item No. 5 Report received and filed City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 INDEX the Peninsula. He commented on the circumstances that the Balboa Peninsula Advisory Committee (BPAC) had identified. For example, the deterioration of the commercial and multi - family residential areas, traffic congestion, etc. BPAC was formed for the purpose of addressing these matters. Commissioner Kranzley then requested staff present their update. Assistant City Manger, Ms. Wood, responded by commenting that the progress to date was described in the staff report. She added that the Peninsula program is approaching the 75% design completion stage, and should commence at the end of summer 2001. Commissioner Kranzley asked if there were any recommendations for rezoning Central Balboa, McFadden Square and Lido Village because of too much commercial zoning. Ms. Wood responded by saying that staff responded to this issue by meeting with business owners and residential owners. However, BPAC initially wanted to resolve the parking issue first. Commissioner Kranzley commented on the past history of the peninsula; poor • parking management and how BPAC has made some progress by implementing the smart meters as well as encouraging people and beach goers to park in the appropriate places. Commissioner Tucker asks how much has the city allocated in the way of funds to accomplish public improvements that are going to be needed in the area. Ms. Wood indicated that the estimated budget for the Balboa Pier parking lot and the Balboa Village streetscape improvement project together is $7,500,000 dispersed over a period of years, and would probably include the city borrowing against its Community Development Block grant funds because the city is allocated a little under $500,000 a year. Commissioner Kranzley commented that public money needs to be followed by a lot of private money for the success of this project. Ms. Woods agreed and stated that that is the hope of the city. Commissioner Kranzley commented that he is aware of a significant amount of private investment, close to $1,500,000 that is intended for the Balboa Theatre and that there are rumors that The Pavilion is going to do a pretty extensive remodel of the historic building. Chairperson Selich commented that the goal is to get more private investment • to upgrade the area. 15 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 Commissioner Kranzley commented that you have to have the infrastructure in place to be able to do so and feels the city has done that. Ms. Wood commented to The Commission that the city is currently looking at some other incentives and assistance programs to help businesses and /or private property owners invest in the area. One being the amortization program that has been included in the sign regulations for the Peninsula. Also, the city has placed into the capital budget some of the Community Development Block grant funds to do some kind of assistance for fa(;ade improvements for the private properties. Ron Baers, the architect responsible for the streetscape design for the city, is working on a study of some design guidelines because the city feels that if it's going to put money into fagade improvements then it ought to have some influence as to what those improvements are going to look like. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported • that at *the meeting of October 10th, the City Council dealt with three Planning Commission issues. Natural Nails was overturned. They felt that there was sufficient public parking in the area. The Council approved, on the first reading, the prezoning of the annexation areas. They adopted the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision & Design Framework and approved that zoning amendment on first reading. Both ordinances will be back on October 24th for final approval. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. C.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Tucker requested that The Commission be notified of any environmental impact reports that come in to the city for projects that are outside of our jurisdiction. Commissioner Kranzley asked what the status was on the Banning Ranch process. Ms. Temple indicated that the EIR is still in screen check review. It is not in public circulation yet. Commissioner Agajanian requested reports regarding the General Plan Update. Commissioner Kiser requested a status report on removing the bucket from the Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant. Chairperson Selich requested information on the public notification process, particularly relating to timing. Commissioner Agajanian said he received a fax from a property owner, Jessica Johnson, regarding variances and modifications permitted by the city that are in conflict with the CC &R's of Homeowners Associations. He asked how the staff stands on this issue. Assistant City Attorney, Robin Clauson responded that the city does not enforce CC &R's and therefore • cannot become involved. Ms. Temple added that the Planning 16 INDEX Additional Business • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 0 Department does stamp each plan with a notification indicating that the city's approval does not constitute compliance with any private CC &'R's and that if any CC'R's exist on their property, they should take steps to make sure they are in compliance. Ms. Clauson offered to contact the homeowner to clarify. d.) Matters that a Planning commissioner wishes to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - None e.) Status Reports on Commission Requests - Planning Commission reviewed the new report prepared by staff on Commission requests. The format was found acceptable, but items should be numbered. A number of items were removed from the request list, and further information on driveway parking in West Newport was requested by Commissioner Kranzley. f.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Tucker requests to be excused on November 7, 2000. ADJOURNMENT: 8:30 p.m. STEVEN KISER , SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 17 INDEX Adjournment