Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/07/2002• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker - AII present. Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney James Campbell, Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Minutes: Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the minutes of October 17, 2002 as written. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: None Public Comments: Ms. Temple presented a plaque to Commissioner Tucker in recognition of his recent tenure as Chairman of the Planning Commission. Postina of the Agenda: The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday, November 1, 2002. 0 Minutes Approved None Posting of Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 SUBJECT: Wetherholt Residence 217 30th Street A Variance No. 2002-005 requesting a proposed addition to an existing two-story residential structure. The Variance includes a request to exceed the floor area limit, to exceed the established maximum building height of 24 feet and to provide less than the minimum required open space (PA2002 -102). Public comment was opened. Brion Jeannette, project architect, representing the applicant noted that the elevations have been redesigned, the roof is pitched and some of the exterior materials have been changed as well. Some square footage has been removed from the upper level and the project is now 61 square feet from being in parity with other buildings in the area. This removal will result in more open area in the upper level. The automobile subterranean lift is depicted in the photos presented to staff and incorporated in the October 17th staff report. This project is a three - bedroom house that has been used as a family residence for nine years. It is not intended to be a rental. Referring to the staff report, he noted that on page 13 the photos show the car platform and suggested that the garage can be 14 feet 6 inch or less in total aggregate height in order to not have to count the lower level in the buildable area. The resulting proposal is 1,774 square feet. Commissioner McDaniel asked about the ground water level in this area. Mr. Jeannette answered that the water level along the boardwalk is about 4 to 7 feet below the surface of the ground. Testing has been done at this address and it runs between 6 to 7 feet below grade. The footing has been designed as a boat footing, so there can be water up to the top of it. At Commission inquiry, he added that this is a triangular lot that has setbacks that equal 32% of the lot. He proceeded to explain the request for the variance due to the shape of the land. Chairperson Kiser noted that there are two ways to look at irregularly shaped lots or small lots in the City. The method you outlined is not the method we are talking about; it is the total square footage of the lot and the total square footage of what is being built on the lot. That is the ratio that is 1.36 on typical lots on Balboa Peninsula and the proposed project is at 1.56. It is more square footage proposed to be built on the lot than is typical of building to lot square footage on the peninsula. Mr. Jeannette answered that more land is devoted to setbacks due to the triangular shape of the lot on an equivalency basis. Discussion continued on the parity of lots on the peninsula. Commissioner Toerge asked about the exhibits referencing the tandem parking. . Mr. Jeannette answered that the plans will not change. What changes is the INDEX Item 1 PA2002 -102 Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 section that is being created to have the lift go down instead of up so that the floor area and the plans themselves are identical except for the subterranean basement level. He distributed a diagram depicting the section of proposed garage and proposed 3rd floor. The second car space is being provided on the property. Commissioner Tucker asked staff if staff's objections to the project were eliminated due to the provision of two off - street parking spaces? Mr. Campbell answered yes. Continuing, Commissioner Tucker noted that the applicant has come back with as good a plan as possible on this very difficult lot. Chairperson Kiser noted that at the last meeting there was a number of speakers on this project in support of the application. Drew Wetherholt, applicant, asked that this project be approved. Public comment was closed. Chairman Kiser noted the following: • A lot of positive revisions to the original project have been made. • Getting the second parking space was important. • The square footage of the residence, applying the information in the staff report, is about 73 square feet greater than what is the floor area to lot area ratio for a typical structure on Balboa Peninsula with the garage pit less than 14 feet 6 inches (counts once not twice). • With that extra 73 square feet, I cannot support this application. If that extra 73 square feet was removed from the application, I could support the variance. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to adopt a Resolution of the Planning Commission approving Variance No. 2002-005 with the garage less than 14.5 feet In height for the property located at 217 30th Street, PA2002 -102. Commissioner McDaniel noted his support of the motion stating that the neighbors support this project. Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of the motion due to the configuration of the lot, the location next to Albertson's and support of the neighbors. Commissioner Toerge noted that the combination of height, excess floor area and less than desirable open space, render this project not approvable in his judgment. Ayes: Agajanian, McDaniel, Gifford, Selich, Tucker . Noes: Toerge, Kiser INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 SUBJECT: Great Legs Wine, Inc. (PA2002 -195) 2901 West Coast Highway, Suite 100 Request for a Use Permit pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance (ABO) to establish retail wine sales (Type 20 license) with ancillary wine tasting (Type 42 license). Mr. Campbell, Senior Planner, offered a change to condition 5 referencing the closing hour of 6:00 p.m. change to 7:00 p.m. The Police Department has given the approval of this hour change. Public comment was opened. Maureen Collins and Claire Gwinner, applicants, at Commission inquiry, answered that they have read the staff report and the conditions of approval and asked about condition 3 regarding the grease interceptor, noting that no food other than crackers or bread will be served and therefore see no need for an interceptor. Chairperson Kiser noted that this condition would be discussed during the meeting. . At Commission inquiry, Ms Collins noted: • No planned exterior operations, no tables on patio. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Kiser noted: • Condition 1 - remove, and elevations, as they were not part of the staff report. • Condition 3 - the last sentence refers to a grease interceptor. Mr. Campbell answered that when the building plans are checked, if the applicant plans on putting facilities that would have the potential to put grease into the system, the Building Department would make a determination that the grease interceptor would be required. If the facility is limited to sandwiches and cheese, it would not trigger that requirement. We would leave that up to the plan check and the Building Department. Ms. Temple noted that language could be added to the last sentence after the word, activities as required by the Building Code, to qualify it. Commissioner Gifford asked if may be could be inserted. Chairperson Kiser asked about the fourth sentence regarding adequate access and exiting and asked if this was applicable. Mr. Campbell answered it may not be and could be modified to say, 'adequate access and exiting must be provided in accordance to the Building Code. • Condition 5 - hours of closing change to 7:00 p.m. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to adopt Resolution No. 1578 approving the requested Use Permit No. 2002 -041 (PA2002 -195) with conditions as 4 INDEX Item 2 PA2002 -195 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 modified to say: • Condition 1 - ...... plot plan and floor plan dated September 16, 2002. • Condition 3 - '....adequate access and exiting must be provided under the Building Code.' The last sentence read, 'A grease interceptor of adequate size may be required in association with food preparation activities pursuant to the Building Code.' • Condition 5 - the two 6:00 p.m.'s changed to 7:00 p.m. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None The Planning Commission then heard Item 4 at the request of staff. SUBJECT: Overstreet's Wine Merchant & Wine Bar (PA2002 -167) 3400 Via Lido Request for an amendment to a previously- approved use permit to include the sale of distilled spirits (Type 47: beer, wine & spirits) for on -site consumption, to permit live entertainment, and to expand the hours of operation from 11:00 pm to 12:00 midnight on Fridays and Saturdays at an existing retail Alcoholic Beverage Outlet • located in Lido Village. Referencing the 3rd page of the staff report, Chairperson Kiser asked about the menu and staff's belief that the food service is supportive of the retail business and not classified as an eating and drinking establishment. Has staff concluded this is still a retail establishment and not changed Into an eating and drinking establishment? Mr. Campbell answered, yes. The menu is fairly extensive but we still believe these offerings are supportive of the retail use and we consider it a retail operation. At Commission inquiry, he added that there has been no check of the receipt records to determine compliance with the condition that the sale of distilled spirits shall not exceed 15 percent of gross receipts of all off site alcohol sales since the opening of the establishment. This type of check would be done if staff felt that the operation was in non - compliance. Chairperson Kiser noted that with this very extensive menu, perhaps it would be appropriate to making those checks. Commissioner Selich asked how you could consider a five - course $65 dinner with five and a half glasses of wine a retail sale? That seems to be stretching it. Ms. Temple answered that staff went through the menu and even though they are very complex and elaborate, they serve relatively small portions and seem to be coordinated with a function to actually taste wine. In staff's final evaluation, if you look at the percentage of this operation's business, which would be INDEX Item 3 PA2002 -167 Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 attributable to retail sales, even in light of this more elaborate food service then originally understood, this business does this activity for the purpose of selling retail wines probably in a per case mode. Commissioner Selich asked if this business was sold to someone else, and they decided to emphasize more of the restaurant aspect, how would we be able to control it? In this scenario it is somewhat limited in the total scheme of things. Ms. Temple noted that keeping it under consideration in this fashion, as a retail use is the safest thing to do because we are not approving a use permit for an eating and drinking establishment. They don't have a vested right to convert it into a restaurant without a new use permit. Commissioner Gifford asked if there was any consideration about giving the Commission this information about the percentages prior to considering this application? I have seen the menus and have heard about the portions being small. I have been there on several occasions and I find that the categorization of the menu, as staff has given, is inconsistent with my observations. Chairperson IGser noted that there is a concern of the conformance with the existing conditions. Ms. Clauson added for consideration the definition under the use categories of an eating and drinking establishment is businesses with the principal purpose to serve prepared food or beverages for consumption on or off the premises. There is a description of the different kinds of establishments. There Is also a provision in that use category for accessory eating and drinking establishments, which are establishments serving as an accessory use In a retail building with the gross floor area of 5,000 square feet or more, provided the establishment has no separate entrance; the hours of operation correspond to those of the principal use. If you have an eating and drinking establishment with the principal purpose, the one way to get out of that of being an eating and drinking establishment is that it qualifies as an accessory use. Commissioner Toerge noted that it was hard for him to read the plans. What is cold kitchen equipment, is there going to be a kitchen built in this new facility? Staff answered that the kitchen is already there and was built in conjunction with the use permit and the building permit issued subsequent to the Use Permit approval last year. Public comment was opened. Dennis and Christine Overstreet, 3400 Via Lido noted: • Referencing page 63 of the staff report, noted that there is a stainless steel refrigerator and convection oven in the kitchen. • Project is educational and retail as well with sampling of unique items, which is a more sophisticated venue than what would be the norm. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 • The food is complementary to the wine sampling and creates an atmosphere that isn't a restaurant or bar, but an experience of fine wines. • We have made an investment in this project and have the support of over 200 of our neighbors. • This proposal is a fine upgrade to the Lido Village area. • The menu in the staff report is quite elaborate. This menu is more than what we want to handle because we have such a tiny kitchen. The menu is evolving. • The wine bar percentage is lower than the retail. Since we have opened in total the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on premises amount is less than 20% of total sales. • The products that we sell average about $35 per item. • These records are available for review. Commissioner McDaniel, referencing the applicant's letter, asked about the need for full on- premise liquor need. Mr. Overstreet answered: • Our business has prime wines and spirits, and coming to our location is an experience. • Being in our business allows people to enjoy the wines and spirits and not everyone wants to have a glass of wine, sometimes they want to have a taste of 25 year old scotch. • It would be nice to be able to offer this choice to our customers. • We currently have an off -sale full liquor license. Commissioner Gifford then read the passage from the Police Department's letter, 'the changes in operational characteristics proposed by the applicant are significant. The existing location does not have a kitchen (there is a 'hot plate' and small refrigerator, etc.)'. Ms. Overstreet answered that she provided the digital pictures of the kitchen and store and mailed them to Susan Seviane of the Police Department. Commissioner Gifford stated that when the applicants first came to the Planning Commission, the proposal was very specific and very definite about a wine bar. It was based on their experience of the Los Angeles store, which had been operated for a number of years. I am puzzled why, if it is part of the normal experience, for a consumer to want to sample some scotch or such, that had never come to your attention before in the years you had operated the wine bar in Los Angeles, which is what I understood you were going to replicate here. Mr. Overstreet answered that our Beverly Hills operation did have the full liquor license. My deep concern when we bought this property and improved It, I did not think the audience here in Newport Beach would be prepared for such a high- ticket sophistication. Since we were residents here, I was reluctant to go for the full alcohol experience. Based upon what some of the stores in the area offered, it didn't seem that the situation for Lafitte Rothschild, etc at $150 per INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 bottle would be a real demand. It didn't seem that for alcoholic beverages there would be a demand for specialty vodkas and high -end scotch and such. Commissioner Gifford noted that the comments were inconsistent with her recollection of the presentation at the first hearing where you spoke about the extreme array of very fine wines and that was your intent to bring them here and you felt there was a market for them. Mr. Overstreet noted that you go into business with very high hopes. Those hopes have been satisfied along the enthusiasm of our clientele to support us in this new venture. Commissioner Gifford noted that in spite of a condition that there would be no live entertainment, you began to have live entertainment. Mrs. Overstreet answered this was done with a permit by the City. Commissioner Gifford asked staff that the live entertainment that the City took action on was this done with a permit? Mr. Campbell answered that when the establishment initially opened there were three weekends during July they were authorized for live entertainment, which is similar to what the applicant is now requesting. There was an Instance of an advertisement that went out for live entertainment that would not have been authorized and we were alerted to that fact. The applicant did not conduct that live entertainment. Commissioner Tucker asked what percentage for on site consumption, if we approve of a full liquor license, would you estimate would happen? Wine and beer versus hard liquor? Mr. Overstreet answered that we do not sell beer. Wine versus hard liquor, I would imagine that we are probably looking at the on site sales of 25 %, if that. It is just a specialty thing that if we have a customer that would like one we could serve a cocktail. Commissioner Tucker asked if we put a condition limiting the on site sale for other than wine or beer not exceed 25 %, would that be something you could live with? He was answered, yes. Continuing, Commissioner Tucker noted we do not want this to change Into a bar. I would like to add to condition 5 with a maximum occupancy of 29 people. That way I can be comfortable with the fact that there could be hard liquor served there but if it doesn't exceed 25% of the total liquor sales and only 29 people can occupy the room at one time it will not turn into something that we did not anticipate. Commissioner Gifford asked for clarification that when you say 25% of on -site liquor sales are you speaking about the non -wine alcohol would not be more than 25% of the on site wine sales? RID10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 Commissioner Tucker replied that you take the total on -site consumption, wine, beer, hard liquor, the hard liquor segment would not exceed 25% of the total of on -sale consumption. Commissioner Gifford noted that the Overstreets are not selling a lot of $15 or $20 bottles of wine and so the grand total of the retail sales allowing for 25% could be quite high. Commissioner Tucker noted that it is what is consumed on site, not what is being carried away. The percentage should be lower because the wine sales will be a higher price number. Maybe that number could be 20%. Chairperson Kiser noted the following: • How important live entertainment is to the applicant. • Concern about this facility not becoming a nightspot or bar. • Heavy concentration of bars in the area. • Most concerned about the entertainment drawing the wrong crowd. • Business seems to be moving towards becoming a nightclub. The Overstreet replied at Commission inquiry: • Acoustical background is very soothing. Music will increase the ambiance of the facility. • Want the option to have live music although It Is very expensive and will not happen all the time. • Expensive to get a permit three weeks in advance every time to book a special act. • We have a few entertainers that we like. • There is a small piano against the kitchen wall off to the side. Windows are all fixed and cannot be opened. No drums. The musician had a small microphone with small amplification. It has to be small because the store is so small. John Alterton spoke in favor of this application as a patron of the Beverly Hills site as well as the store here. The average pour is $10. This is not a package store and they are not serving tall liquors. They serve expensive pours; this is a high -end wine and high -end alcohol that will cost $10 to $15 a drink. You will not be getting people who will get drunk or rowdy. There will not be an increase in the alcohol related incidents; it is not that type of crowd. There is no room for a band. Their main thing is to try to educate people about wines. They have spent a lot of money furnishing this place. Chairperson Kiser noted that what we approve here tonight goes with the property. If this were sold, then we could have another operator with a different agenda and at that point someone could use the conditions and operate the facility in a very different way. The following speakers spoke in support of the application for similar reasons: I0t7 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 John Worlman, no address given Craig Bartow, 110 Via Trieste David Bradburn, 235 Via Ithaca Public comment was closed. Chairperson Kiser noted his overall support of the application due to the nature of the business and the way it is being run. He clarified condition 4 with staff on the sale of distilled spirits for off -site consumption shall not exceed 15 percent of gross receipts of all off -site alcohol sales. Mr. Campbell answered that this is to limit the percentage of distilled spirits to all alcohol sales off site. So this would be in comparison to beer and wine, and limits off site sale. If this license were to be used for some other purpose this condition is disincentive to become more of a liquor store in the future and is proactive. Commissioner Agajanian noted: • The proposed changes that have been made from the original application seem to be moving away from an incidental use. • Supports changes to a number of conditions: put a condition that the seats be limited to 29 in the A2 section; the proposed live entertainment is for 2 -3 nights; no beer; and the amplification of the music is to be low key or eliminated due to the small facility. Chairperson Kiser noted that he agrees with the no drums, no beer, no amplified music, maximum three nights per week on the live entertainment and the maximum occupancy of 29 people In the A2 unit space. Mrs, Overstreet noted that in the conditions, It Is 29 guests and 6 employees because you have to have people to service the customers. The amendment to the use permit is just for the A2 area. There is no seating in the retail space. Chairperson Kiser noted that he wanted to bring the old condition 14 forward into the new conditions. Were the former conditions read to be sure that we picked up every special condition? Mr. Campbell noted that new condition 18 could be modified to reflect the old condition 14. Ms. Temple noted that we could also add a new condition to say that all conditions of the original use permit remain In effect unless modified by this approval. Everything will come over in place. Chairperson Kiser noted he supports the application with: • The additional condition that all old conditions remain in place except as modified by this approval. • Additionally would like to see condition 8 edited, All windows will remain 10 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 closed at all times. Doors will be used as patrons enter and leave the premises during any live entertainment. The need to talk about the sale of the distilled spirits for consumption on site and possibly limiting that as a percent of total on site consumption of alcohol. Commissioner Tucker noted: • Disappointed that the conditions are not tracking. In other situations there have been use permits upon use permits and after several years there is a lot of confusion as opposed to an amended and restated use permit, which is distinctly my preference. That way everything is in one document and we are not trying to figure out inconsistencies in language between serial amendments to use permits. • Concerned about condition 8, since Lido Marina Village in its current iteration will not be that way forever. It has not been a terribly successful place, the City has ownership of some of the property in there and it would not shock me if it turns residential in some measure. I don't know, but I think we need to zero In on the potentiality of noise in the event we have residential across the street. Keeping the doors closed is an important aspect and I think we need to talk about the amplification. The drums and base are what we find to be problematic. • The 29 people for Unit A2 limit works. • I would not want the restriction on beer. • As for as the number of nights for the entertainment, looking into the future, I am concerned so there should be some restriction. • The percentage of distilled spirits on sale consumption versus all other on sale consumption should be addressed with the price points considered. Commissioner Gifford noted: • Enjoys the premises, it is a nice space. • Music would be a lovely addition. • Concerned about the service of alcohol. • The enthusiasm of the Commission with the original application was to approve a wine bar and for someone to be able to offer a customer a glass of cognac as something to offer, I would never have voted for a full liquor license in the Lido Balboa area because of the problems that we have had as the permit runs with the land. Motion was made by Commission Gifford to adopt Resolution No. 1579 approving the requested amendment to Use Permit No. 2001 -005 (PA2002 -167) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit A with the following changes: • The use permit amended and restated to incorporate all the previous conditions. • Limitation of 29 seats in Unit A2 and no seating in Unit Al. • Modification to condition 18 regarding special events. • Modification to condition 8 regarding the windows being closed at all times during live entertainment. Doors will remain closed and be used only as patrons enter and leave the premises during any live 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 entertainment. No beer • No drums • No base • Sale of distilled spirits for on -site consumption be 10% of the total sales of on -site alcohol consumption. Chairperson Kiser clarified other conditions and asked that old condition 14 be carried forward verbatim in the new conditions. Commissioner Tucker noted that old condition 14 says a special event permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the norm, 29 people is tied into a special event permit. What I was suggesting was 29 people in Unit A2. They may end up having people wander in on the retail side and have a full house on the other side. I don't have a problem with that. It is the area where there will be drinking and drinks served that I am concerned with. Following a brief discussion it was decided that the floor plan is tied in with this vote. Public comment was opened. Ms. Overstreet noted that in the retail area there are two chairs as sometimes customers spend an hour there referring to books, checking ratings and comparing prices. It's a process that goes on and the patrons need to be able to sit down. Commissioner Tucker explained that you have a condition that says that the on- site consumption is only going to be 20% of the business. Most of the 20% of the on sale consumption will be wine. The price points on the wines are probably higher than the typical cocktail. What Commissioner Gifford was suggesting was that of the total amount of on -site consumption sales that occur, she would like to see that number for distilled spirits not exceed 10% (dollar volume). Commissioner Gifford added that the original 20% of the gross sales, if you are selling the kind of wines you are talking about, generates a big number to have 20% of. Chairperson Kiser added that this is not on a nightly basis. It is only when the receipts are reviewed by the City reflecting the on site consumption as well as the 10% was distilled spirits. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Kiser withdrew the suggestion to incorporate old condition 14 as it was only for special events outside the normal operation characteristics. Commissioner Gifford noted that there is no food service in Al and I proposed a condition that there be no seating, but I would propose that there could be up to three seats in Al for customer use. 12 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 Commissioner Toerge noted that there are often times that acoustic bases are appropriate. I would not want to hamstring an entertainer's ability to create some dynamics at low volumes with some amplification. My experience, even in a solo presentation, it is often times reasonable to amplify either the voice or the instrument to create proper dynamics in a small venue. I don't know if there is a way to allow some amplification but limit it so that it doesn't create the problem that we are addressing here. Commissioner Gifford noted that a compromise would be no base and the windows closed. I would suggest that amplification could be allowed within those restrictions. Ms. Temple suggested that limiting effects of entertainment venues on the live entertainment process rather than getting real specific in the use permit might be an option for the Commission. We know the issues, no base and drums is interesting but the issue is noise exiting or being heard outside the facility. 1 think that the idea is that you do not want the music heard nor felt outside the facility and that through the review that the Revenue Manager does with live entertainment permits, we are starting to get better managing that with real specific conditions on those licensing permits. Maybe to really express that is the goal that the music is not to be heard or felt outside the facility as provided in Title 5 and let us regulate it at the staff level. Additionally, it is a licensing permit not a use permit and therefore does not vest and run with the property. This is different than a special event permit, It is a continuing permit but it can be revoked if the standards of Title 5 are not met. The live entertainment permit Is needed regardless of how specific or general your conditions are. Commissioner Gifford added that if we made a condition that said live entertainment is permitted subject to a live entertainment permit, we would be covering our concerns. Ms. Temple answered yes. Ms. Clauson added that you could limit the number of days per week pursuant to Chapter 5.28 of the Municipal Code. For the most recent determination on the Village Inn, staff worked out a procedure for having them submit as part of the live entertainment permit application what their amplification is going to be. The Commission can regulate the impact of that amplification based upon settings of the amplification. It is much better because it is specific to the applicant. Chairperson Kiser noted that based on that and staff's comment and the ability to actually control the entertainment and the sound vibrations outside the premises, would be willing to back off the no amplified music so long as the motion did add a maximum three days per week for live entertainment and subject to obtaining a live entertainment permit. isStraw vote getting away from the no drums, no amplification and subject to 13 11017 :1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 obtaining the live entertainment permit for only maximum of 3 days per week: Commissioner Toerge - (no testimony recorded) Commissioner Agajanian - yes. Commissioner McDaniel - yes Commissioner Tucker - should new condition 8 appear at all? If the purpose of the use permit grants a right that runs with the property and I think what we are attempting to do is not grant any right that runs with the property but not preclude the applicant from coming in for a live entertainment permit. Should we not have anything here at all? Mr. Campbell answered that this condition was based on the applicant's request asking for three entertainers. We needed to change one of the original conditions that prohibited live entertainment so what we did was turn that condition around to permit it. It could be achieved by eliminating the condition. Ms. Wood added that could be done except it does not cover the limitation on three nights. Ms. Clauson suggested that one way to look at this is the live entertainment is an operational characteristic of the use the applicant is proposing. You can't automatically take the position that anybody who wanted live entertainment just has to get a live entertainment permit. The decision could be made by the Commission but should be made as part of the regulations because live entertainment is an operational characteristic; it is just a matter of giving them the ability to have it if you want to limit the number of days they can have it; all I was suggesting is that the live entertainment permit as far as controlling the noise and the sound and what type of musicians. In other words they would make an application if they want to have it. Commissioner Selich noted that the Commission should be as general as we can be in the conditions and only put those gross limitations on, whether it is the number of nights, etc., and leave the rest of it in the live entertainment permit. It does us no good to sit here and try to micro manage it. We look at the number of days or nights, that's all and leave the rest up to staff. The live entertainment permit can handle this. I don't have a problem in this location and the type of business it is to limit the number of nights; there will be enough controls over It. Commissioner Gifford continued with her motion and edited new condition 8 to read, live entertainment shall be permitted pursuant to a live entertainment permit. The experiences we have had over the years and the processes we have gone through, have given us confidence in this live entertainment permit process. would be happy to leave it at that. Ms. Temple stated that the way to monitor the limitation of the percentages is if the cash registering system is set up to ring alcohol sales that are wine as a different category from other distilled spirits unless they have a system that is capable of doing that, otherwise there is not a real valid way of monitoring it. Additionally, there was some conversation about the monitoring requirements, we 14 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 should mention that the percentages are either on a gross sales per monthly basis, quarterly basis or annual basis, just so we know what the monitoring periods are. Commissioner Gifford answered that a six -month basis would be appropriate for the 10%. Chairperson Kiser clarified item 8, as restated with the live entertainment being subject to obtaining a live entertainment permit. That is, still with the windows to remain closed at all times and doors to remain closed during the live entertainment except when customers enter and /or leave. Mr. Campbell noted that there is a standard condition for the windows and doors closure. The provisions of the Chapter provide that sound not escape the building. Ms. Wood clarified that this is annual for the 20% and 6 months for the 10% on site, what about the 15% standard for all off -site alcohol sales? Following a brief discussion, it was decided that the City would look at the ABC report on an annual basis for the 20 %; and the 15% and 10% reviews will be done on a half yearly basis. Chairperson Kiser stated he would like to keep the reference about the windows and doors being closed during live entertainment as well as the maximum three days per week. These are matters that would be assurances that if another operator picked up this business, it would be much more difficult to move this thing towards being a nightclub. Commissioner Gifford noted she would prefer to let the live entertainment permit be the vehicle to handle all of those matters because the live entertainment permit can be reviewed if there is any problem, I don't see the reason to limit the number of nights. Straw vote was taken: Commissioner Tucker supports the three days per week and leaving the windows and doors closed as part of the motion. Commissioner Selich supports Commissioner Gifford Commissioner McDaniel supports the three days per week because the more we manage it now, the less it causes us trouble when we see it later. Commissioner Agajanian supports the three -day limitation as well as the doors and windows being closed. Commissioner Toerge stated he would like to put in that live entertainment shall be limited to three musicians, three nights a week subject to the provisions of the live entertainment permit. Chairperson Kiser stated he would remove his support for the three entertainers . limit. 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 Commissioner Gifford clarified that her understanding was that the doors and windows would be Incorporated into the live entertainment permit so that we would not have reference to it in other places. Since this is the document we control, she amended her motion in terms of condition 8 to keep the language that was suggested earlier and add, during live entertainment, doors and windows shall remain closed at all times and live entertainment shall be limited to three nights per week subject to obtaining a live entertainment permit. Another condition shall read, 'If staff's review of the percentages find that the applicant is not in compliance, this application will be brought forward to the Planning Commission for review'. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Sellch, Tucker Noes: None *s* SUBJECT: Yokoyoma Residence (PA2002 -173) 6705 Seashore Drive Call for review of the approval of Modification Permit No. 2002 -088 (PA 2002 -173) Chairperson Kiser noted that this item was called up at the request of the Public Works Department. The Modifications Committee voted 2 to 1 to approve the referenced permit. The Public Works representative voted against. The application requests a 2nd floor addition and alteration to an existing single - family dwelling with multiple nonconformities. Ms. Temple noted that the Public Works Director was in the audience and here to respond to questions. Nathan Lentz, representing the applicant noted the following: Most of the alterations on the ground floor are reflective of the Planning Code requirements accommodating the required setbacks and providing the additional parking space, since the existing house has only one space. • The house is being pushed over 3 -4 feet because the house Is on the eastern lot line. • The modification requested is for the parking and has nothing to do with what the homeowner wants to do in the house. • Once these modifications were approved we are trying to move this project forward. • The concern of backing out onto the street given the bike path and traffic are the some for other residences on the street. • The encroachment in the alley of 2 feet is to accommodate the garage. The rest of the building has been held to the 5-foot alley setback. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Lentz added: • The depth along the garage along the alley is 18.6 inches to the inside of 16 INDEX Item 4 PA2002 -173 Decision modified with additional conditions City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 garage door. Steve Badum, Public Works Director noted the following: • The main issue is the bike trail on Seashore Drive. The policy of the City is that whenever there is an ability to have access off an alley, we require it. This particular issue is important because of the bike trail that is used quite heavily. • Comparing the floor plans on the first floor the home is 70 to 80 years old that is going to be remodeled. Looking at the plans, quite a bit is being changed on the first floor even though not a lot of walls are being moved. The interior walls are being replaced to accommodate the structure to build the second story. • We are going to make permanent for quite a long time, a situation where the Public Works Department has a safety concern. The Modifications Committee did not address this in their review of the project. • The alley setback areas are important for access. Typically most cars today require a 20 -foot area in order to turn into their garages. We have a 15 -foot alley and a 5 -foot setback. There is approximately the right amount of space to maneuver. We can't count on the fact that the homeowner on the other side may or may not have something in their setback they may be able to park a car • in their setback. The homeowner needs to provide for their own setback in order to provide adequate access. • Every time we encroach into these alley setbacks, we are really hurting ourselves in the long run. Especially in recent times with the larger vehicles that we are all seeming to want to have. Access is getting tighter and tighter in these alleys. It is not good policy to continue on giving encroachments into these alleys. • There is a better way to handle this project to make it more conforming. • One corner of the house is 4.5 and another corner of the house is 6.4 set back off the alley. The new garage space would encroach 2.6 feet. Commissioner Selich asked Mr. Lentz: • What would be involved to make that a tandem space and excavating the portion that is higher and make it all one level? Mr. Lentz answered, we would actually have to raise the level of the garage on Seashore by about 16 inches. The garage has to be re -built anyway because of the setback change, so the ceiling height would be something we could live with. • Could you make it a tandem garage? Yes, we had discussed it during the Modifications hearing and that would allow us to tighten the garage door onto the property line on Seashore, probably lessen the alley encroachment by doing so. Commissioner Selich noted that if the applicant is willing to go along with it than a good compromise would be to go along with the tandem garage and get the access off the alley. It seems a bit burdensome to have the architect reconfigure 17 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 the whole downstairs to provide two side -by -side spaces off the alley. Commissioner Tucker noted by doing the tandem spaces, the alley encroachment is lessened. Chairperson Kiser asked if this was to be approved with the modified tandem parking and lessening of the encroachment Into the alley as much as possible procedurally would we have to bring this back to review plans? Ms. Temple answered they would not have to come back to the Planning Commission and suggested language that would show the process where undrawn changes would be approved. An additional condition could read, That the garage be reconfigured into tandem garage with access from the alley. The encroachment into the alley setback shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible as approved by the Planning Director. Chairperson Kiser noted his support of the application with the addition of the condition. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to uphold the decision of the Modifications Committee with an additional condition regarding tandem parking and garage access. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that in the event the remodeling process is started and they find that more structural elements will need to be remodeled than is currently anticipated and they go beyond 50 %, then they will need a use permit issued by the Planning Director. Above 75% is not allowed by Code, so if the house is in much worst condition than they currently anticipate, and they have to start from scratch then they would have to design to the Code from scratch as well. Chairperson Kiser moved up the 6m item to be heard next. SUBJECT: Eckert Residence (PA2002 -194) 1601 Balboa Avenue Request for a Variance to allow a proposed residence to exceed the established floor area limit. Included is a request for a Modification Permit to encroach into the required 20-foot front yard setback adjacent to Balboa Avenue; encroach into the required 10 -foot rear yard setback; encroach into the required 5 -foot right side yard setback adjacent to Abalone Avenue; and permit an interior garage depth of 18- feet where the Municipal Code requires a minimum depth of 19 -feet. Mr. Gregg Ramirez. Associate Planner presented an overview of the project site with 18 INDEX Item 5 PA2002 -194 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 photographs taken from various Public comment was opened. points in the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Ian Harrison, architect representing the applicant, noted the following: • This is a difficult lot that Is 25 feet by 60 feet with a default front setback of 20 feet. • We are asking for 1,717 square feet for floor area with this variance. • The garage will stay in the some location as the existing garage and be 18 feet in depth. • The height of the building is in conformance with other buildings, no variance is being asked. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Harrison stated: • They had met with the neighbors who expressed concern about the closeness of their garage side to our building. (rear yard encroachments) • I was trying to fit in this house and put in a minimal amount of encroachment on the second floor with just a portion of the building projecting towards their side yard. • They were concerned about the light and air and height of the building. • We agreed that the outside fireplace would be flush with the rest of the building. • The gable end on the roof that projects towards their house will be made into a hip roof instead to cut down on the height of the wall. • The existing garage fascia is about even with the property line and that will be pulled back. • The freestanding fireplace on the balcony meets the requirements of the Building Code. Commissioner Tucker noted that the floor area variance is based on staff's recommendation using the reasonable setback method. Discussion followed with the amount of footage and where it could go using the reasonable setback methodology. Using this reasonable setback method leaves 1,625 square feet instead of 1,717 square feet that is proposed. Mr. Harrison answered that across the street the front setback is 3 feet and takes exception to using a 5 -foot front setback in the analysis. Ms. Temple noted that front yard setbacks on Balboa Island range from 0 to 15 feet. We look at the most common condition in the area, you can always point to a section of the block or around the block where it might be greater or lesser, but you just try to take the most predominate, and that is what we did. Commissioner McDaniel, any special reason why this needs to be three stories tall? Mr. Harrison answered that they are trying to get a useable house on a 19 -foot wide buildable lot and add to the house getting some outdoor space, which is the 19 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 outdoor deck with access up to it. Commissioner Toerge asked if the second floor elements proposed within the rear yard could be moved toward the center of the house to give more rear yard setback on the second floor? Mr. Harrison answered yes; he looked at putting the deck on that comer to alleviate some of that mass on that end of the building. I did not take it all the way across that side. Cutting out that corner and creating a void would let more light into that side yard for the neighbor. Jim Madison, 222 Abalone Avenue homeowner adjacent to the subject properly, noted the following: • He met with the applicant. • Only opposition is the second floor encroachment over the garage that is the encroachment into the rear yard setback. • It encroaches 7 feet and with the fireplace it may be a little more. • His preference would be pulling back the second story above the garage to the full 10 -foot rear yard setback. • The typical house on the lot with apartments in the back is approximately 1,200 or 1,400 square feet with two bedrooms and two baths. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Tucker noted: • Supports the reasonable setback approach as nothing has been said that this approach should not be used. Therefore, supports the variance for the suggested amount of 1,625 square feet. • The question Is where do you put the footage? If the setback on the rear is changed, that means the footage will go someplace else on the lot. • That would probably change some other setback requirement because it has to end up somewhere. • Eliminating 92 square feet will not make much of a design difference in terms of mitigating the problems with the adjacent neighbor. Commissioner Selich noted: • The reasonable setback approach is good, but I don't think we should get locked into it for all instances. • Applying the typical lot In the block floor area to land area ratio of 1.137 we come up with a house of 1707 square feet which is not that much different than the 1,717 square feet that is proposed. • Looking at the comparisons to the three adjacent properties, taking the 1.126 they would be allowed 1689 square feet. • The design of the house and site plan with the encroachments into the side yards is a good job with a lot of articulation. • The suggestion of taking the fireplace and making it even with the sidewall is a good one as is the suggestion to take the gable roof and turn it into a hip roof. 20 UND] *4 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 These two changes make it a reasonable solution for this piece of property. Commissioner Agajanian noted: • The allowable buildable area for the lot as is, Is 1,025 square feet. This seems small with an FAR of .683. • Concerned with using the typical lot In the block technique by trying to attribute to smaller lots those benefits that accrue to the larger lots. I don't think they are comparable. • Would like to see the overall square footage reduced from the 1,717 square feet down closer to 1,300 or 1,400 square feet. That is what is suitable for a parcel of this size. • Discussion that we are currently having with the General Plan Update Committee is the issue of mansionization of the homes. To me, this strikes me as being exactly that, ballooning out the property encroaching into the setbacks in order to benefit the property owner. • I would not support the proposal as it is currently. • I would move the rear yard setback further back, reducing the overall size of the structure. If they need to add additional square footage on the third story, I might be amendable to that, but generally speaking I would not support a Floor Area Umit (FAR) of more than 1.0 on this parcel. • I like the suggestions of making the fireplace flush and the hip roof. Commissioner Toerge noted: • The three -foot Issue with the garage is reasonable. • Makes sense to pull back the second floor to either an additional five feet or seven feet to honor the existing rear yard setback and give more light and open area. At the same time, that would reduce the square footage by potentially the amount referred to by Commissioner Tucker. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern that these ore his neighbors. This location is one or two houses beyond his area of conflict of interest. I want to be fair so I told the applicant to go to the Uttle Island Association and see if they approve it. I would not oppose it if they approved of It. He expressed his concerns that most people even on full lots live in houses that are 1,200 or 1,400 square feet and have apartments and landscaping. So, 1,700 square feet is plenty of square footage and I am not going to suggest what they do with that, but I do know that this will be an example for others. Whatever we decide this evening, recognize this will be an example for the next one, and the next one, etc. I may have to abstain from voting. Chairperson Kiser noted that there should be some reduction in square footage and would have difficulty approving this variance at the 1,717 square feet. The average is 1,706 square feet and the rear yard setback as designed now, encroaches 7 feet and only leaves a three -foot rear yard setback. We need to move that to 5 feet at a minimum at the second floor. Otherwise the compromise discussion about the fireplace being pulled back flush with the building and the hip roof instead of the gable roof satisfies the nelghbor. It seems like there are quite a few unusual lots within the City. As I look at this particular lot, even though it is oriented north /south 21 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 instead of east /west, the same as the two lots next to it are, and with no alley behind it, 1 do not consider this an unusual lot at all. It happens to be a corner lot that is rectangular and happens to be a small lot. I can not go in the direction that a house can be built as large as the other homes on the area. If it is a small lot, it gets a small house. Because there have been variances given to the two immediate neighboring lots with a lot of similarities, it makes sense to increase the buildable over the .683. 1 support a reduction to 1,625 square feet with a five -foot rear yard setback and the other suggested changes. Commissioner Selich stated he could go with reducing the square footage and moving the second story back. Looking at the 2w floor plan, if you reoriented the elements from the elevator and the stairwell down to the tub /shower and water closet so that there was an open air balcony going down the rear yard of the property, you could accomplish the objective that the neighbor has requested. The second story would be in the setback area and still allow a lot of the elements to remain in play and reduce the square footage somewhat. It would be a shame to try to shove that garage closer to the street; it takes too much square footage out of the bottom floor. Commissioner Agajanian stated he supports the reduction In the square footage and supports a 10 -foot setback on the second level over the garage. Commissioner Tucker noted he would like to leave it up to the architect where to take off the footage, as he is reluctant to mandate what the design should be; maybe 5 feet from the second floor with 1,625 square feet total. Commissioner Agajanian noted he would be willing to go with less than a 10 -toot setback on the rear yard setback on the second floor if we conditioned that no roof element be on the patio or open area. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to adopt Resolution No. 1580 approving Variance No. 2002 -007 and Modification Permit No. 2002 -103 subject to the findings and Conditions of approval within the draft resolution including the following: • The second floor building setback a minimum of 5 feet. • Square footage is limited to 1,625 square feet. • The second story element shall not have a roof over it. Commissioner Agajanlan asked if the maker of the motion would change the rear yard setback to 7 feet? Straw vote was taken on the rear yard setback: Commissioner Tucker - 5 feet Commissioner Selich - 5 feet Commissioner Gifford - 5 feet Chairperson Kiser - 5 feet • Commissioner McDaniel - 5 feet Commissioner Toerge - 5 feet 22 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 Public comment was opened. Mr. Ian Harrison noted he would like more than 1,625 square feet. Mr. Madison noted that 5 feet would be fine along with the balcony without a roof structure. Straw vote was taken on the 1,625 square feet: Commissioner Tucker - yes Chairperson Kiser - yes Commissioner McDaniel - yes Commissioner Selich - no Commissioner Gifford - no Commissioner Agajanian - yes Commissioner Toerge - no Vote was taken on main motion: Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None • SUBJECT: Beacon Bay Car Wash 4200 Birch Street Review of revised building elevation for substantial conformance with the plan approved by Planning Commission. Chairman Kiser noted that this issue had been reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 3, 2002. Plan revisions to comply with Fire Codes has resulted in a new design for the canopy. It has been brought back by staff to assure that we are comfortable with what is being done and what was originally approved. Ms. Temple added that as a means, when these issues come up, to have a simple process to bring them back up and include an oral staff report. I provided a brief paragraph on this. Because of certain Building and Fire Code requirements, the Building Department could not approve the original proposal for a continuous canopy bridging the two buildings and over the gasoline service area. A central canopy separate from the two buildings was required. In association with that it was felt that the originally designed canopy with the bit of architectural variation in the roofilne couldn't be maintained in the project design so a more conventional canopy design is before us. It was that particular change that warranted a final review by the Planning Commission. • 23 INDEX Item 6 PA2001 -200 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 We received a question on the relative heights. The proposed canopy is 18 feet high and, based on the prior plans; we estimate that the original canopy was 17 feet 6 inches. The staff report discussed that it would not exceed 18 feet. Another difference is that the garage doors for the detailing area are now solid. In the prior approval, they were shown with windows across the top. I felt that solid doors were fine. Chairperson Kiser noted that on page 21 and 22 are the new elevations that depict the changes. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to find that the revised plans are in substantial conformance with what was approved on January 3, 2002. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None • SUBJECT: CA Initiation for Heritage Theaters PA 2002 -218 Various Addresses Initiation of an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code that would designate certain types of buildings as "Landmark Buildings" and modify restrictions on nonconforming uses in Landmark Buildings. Commissioner Tucker asked about the zone text change, is that exception only for 20.62.050? Are they exempt from getting any use permit if they are changing their operational characteristics? Mr. Alford answered: • It would be for Chapter 20.62 only. • The properties subject to this are non - conforming because they do not have use permits. A use permit would be the vehicle In which they could do the intensification. This is not meant to circumvent any other land use regulation. Commissioner Gifford noted her concern that there was no notice of this Item. We are changing the characteristics of very few properties but this affects the property owner who has had no notice. Ms. Temple noted that they would be noticed for the public hearings, and that this is just an initiation. Given your concern we can notify the property owners and residences within 300 feet of when the public hearing might occur. The property owners are the City, Lido Theater and the Balboa Pavilion. 24 INDEX Item 7 PA2002 -218 Initiated • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to adopt a Resolution of Intent to initiate Landmark Buildings PA 2002 -218. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood reported that at the last Council meeting a revised Planning Department fee schedule was brought forward. Two categories of fees are proposed; one for more complicated matters such as zone changes will be billing applicants on an hourly basis for the time of all the staff involved, for the more routine cases, they will be charged a fixed fee. The Code Amendment for the Balboa Design Guidelines was approved on first reading, and the preliminary results of the General Plan Update telephone survey was distributed to the City Council, more detailed results were sent to the two General Plan Committees. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich reported that there was no meeting. C) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Toerge reported that the questionnaire had been discussed; the next step is the Visioning Summit on November 16th. d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - no meeting. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Chairperson Kiser asked for a report on the integration of the live entertainment permit conditions with use permit conditions. Commissioner Selich asked for background and history on floor area ratio, garage area, and lot area. f) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. g) Status report on Planning Commission requests - none. h) Project status - none. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 11:15 p.m. • 25 INDEX Additional Business Adjournment • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2002 0 SHANT AGAJANIAN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 26 INDEX