Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/05/2002i i 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Toerge, Agaianian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker- All present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Patrick Alford, Senior Planner James Campbell, Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Minutes: Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to approve the minutes of November 7, 2002 as revised. Ayes: Toerge, Agaianian, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: None Public Comments: Postna of the Agenda: The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Wednesday, November 25, 2002. Minutes Approved None Posting of Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 SUBJECT: 500 Superior Avenue (Newport Technology Center) Concur with staff's opinion that an architectural use falls within the Industry, Research and Development use classification. Ms. Temple noted that a decision would be made tonight on this as it is a normal agenda item and may be discussed with public testimony taken. The Commission will make a motion to give staff the direction that you do or do not concur with the opinion that has been expressed in the report. Chairperson Kiser noted his concern having to do with other developments in the City if it was decided that architectural use is part of industry, research and development. Ms. Temple answered that a decision in favor of staff's opinion is only for this application at this address. We would look at other floor plan layouts for uses that might be of a similar nature and determine them in compliance if they hold similar characteristics to this particular use. It would not generally have citywide implications because in the M -1 -A District, and the General Land Use classification under the General Plan, offices are a permitted use. The controlling factor for this project is the reliance on a traffic study prepared for Hughes Aircraft, which was for industrial activities. That approval included the limitation that uses that could be found similar to uses covered by that traffic study would control some of the uses in the building. Commissioner Agajanion asked about the traffic and if there is anything that tells us what this type of architectural office use would generate? Ms. Temple answered that the Hughes traffic study was for a manufacturing facility that included a large component of supporting office uses of the manufacturing plant. It is very hard to characterize the traffic generated by Hughes generally as opposed to the component pieces of it. Fully complying uses such as software development firms would basically look, feel and act and have similar number of employees and similar hours of operation as this particular use. The floor plan as presented has component pieces within it that are very similar to other research and development type activities. If the Planning Commission concurs with staff's opinion, we will use the same criteria laid out in the report and apply to similar uses if they are not clearly covered by the use class. Commissioner Tucker noted that there was extensive discussion on what is research and development jR and D), which did not reach any type of conclusion when this item was first brought up. I concur with staff's conclusion that this is like a modern day research and development use based on today's technology. Public comment was opened. INDEX • PA2001 -042 Approved • 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 Carol Hoffman, Government Solutions, spoke representing the applicant. She noted that she had represented the St. Clair Company at the time the original approval was requested. The architectural firm who designed the building is the firm that wants these 30,000 square feet of leasable space that they are requesting. The development and production of their plans is characteristic of the original intent of the research and development design of the building: 100 spaces have been added to the parking over the original number that was provided by Hughes. At Commission inquiry she answered that the total complex is approximately 415,000 square feet with a parking ratio of 3 to 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. The use that is being requested is consistent with the intent of the original approval. Her applicant recognizes that as the market conditions change to the extent they would want to ask for other office type uses, it really would require a traffic analysis. The applicant is interested in pursuing that option as they do not know if it would allow flexibility in the office uses, and to the extent that becomes feasible, they would like to come back to the Commission with that study in the future. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Tucker noted that this project is approximately 7% of the total in terms of the square footage of the proposal. I support staff's position. If the • applicant wants that flexibility, I am not sure how many of these types of office uses will fall under this umbrella of research and development as this one happens to, I think it will be tough to fill up with these types of uses in this market place. The fact that this is not a bigger use, makes me all that much more comfortable with it. Chairperson Kiser noted he concurs with the statements. His only concern was that in supporting staff's interpretation tonight might cause problems in other projects. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford that the Planning Commission votes to concur with staff's opinion that an architectural office falls within the Industry, Research and Development use classification with this particular property (500 Superior Avenue). Ms. Temple noted that discussions have begun on the process of a traffic analysis study being done for this address. Hopefully a new Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study will come before the Commission before any other decisions of this nature need to be made. Public Comment was opened. Tom Hyans, resident of the peninsula noted the following: • The project was defined as a research and development building so that it could be used for those types of operations. . This particular property appears to be significantly impacted by the density of its occupancy. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 INDEX • The area is already impacted by traffic and parking. Residents in the neighborhood complain about these issues. • The intent of research and development definition, in his experience, was one where there was a significant amount of equipment, a few technicians, lots of floor space with a few parking spaces for people to come and go. • This application does not appear to me to be research and development. • If you are going to include this application, then maybe one of the criteria should be is how frequently people come and go. • This is a highly impacted office space and I don't think it meets the criteria of all the discussions that were ongoing when this project was originally discussed. • If you are going to pursue this particular item, I think there ought to be a public hearing so that the people who live in the neighborhood can address this issue. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Hoffman noted that the buildings have recently been completed and they are in the leasing phase now. This is the first tenant. When we went through the hearing before, we discussed means to protect the adjoining community. There is more parking than is required, there was a parking structure on the property at the time, and these are not buildings that had low occupancy. There were a variety of technology activities at Raytheon and Hughes both conducted in the buildings, which is why they built the parking structure. We provided improved landscaping to screen the site from adjoining neighbors. The parking concerns that exist in the vicinity are really on the basis of some of those uses that are closer to Hoag Hospital and are not adjacent to this use. Commissioner Tucker noted that the Code gives us no guidance for the interpretation of research and development. We looked at what the use was on the property previously and there were plenty of office uses. How do you know at what point to cut off the office use and say it needs to be more research and development? I think, at this point, 30,000 out of 415,000 square feet fits in the category and is consistent with what was there before. This particular use under this scenario is one that we should approve. Ms. Clouson then gave a brief discussion on the Brown Act provisions for public comment on any item on an agenda. Ms. Temple noted that the Zoning Code has specific provisions about Planning Commission consideration of staff level approvals. The Code empowers the Planning Director to make these determinations and also allows him /her to refer that to the Planning Commission, but no public hearing is required for the Planning Director's initial consideration and therefore no public hearing formally noticed is required for this consideration. However, it is still an item on the agenda on which the public may comment. • is • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 Vote on the motion was called: INDEX Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None s >. SUBJECT: Lamkone Restaurants, Inc. dBA Wahoo's Fish Taco Item 2 1091 Newport Center Drive PA2002 -220 Request for a Use Permit pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance Approved (ABO) to authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages for on -site consumption (Type 41 ABC License) at a proposed restaurant to be located within Fashion Island. (PA2002- 220) Chairperson Kiser clarified the hours of 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily per the request of the applicant. Public comment was opened. Michael Cho of Bernard Associates at 3991 MacArthur Blvd., representing the • applicant, noted that they have reviewed the conditions and concur with the recommendations of staff and asked for support of this application. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Kiser noted a change to the resolution on page 10, the reference to the activity number. Commissioner Agajanian noted that conditions 10 and 17 were similar. Staff noted that one of them would be eliminated. He then asked about condition 13, reference to sidewalks. Staff answered that since this is a carry out restaurant, as well, this condition is intended to keep the area free of debris. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to adopt Resolution No. 1582 approving the requested Use Permit No. 2002 -045 (PA2002 -220) subject to the findings and conditions included within the attached draft resolution as modified. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None tar SUBJECT: Fashion Island Planned Community (PC -35) Development Item 3 Plan and District Regulations (PA2002 -192) PA2002 -192 r1 U City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes is December 5, 2002 INDEX Request to amend the Fashion Island Planned Community (PC -35) Development Plan and District Regulations pertaining to signage. The applicant proposes modified signage development regulations that would allow additional shopping center identification monument signs, vehicular and pedestrian directional signs and restaurant monument signs. Ms. Temple noted that the applicant's representative indicated that they wish to withdraw the portion of their request for the sign on the parking structure. Commissioner Selich noted the pedestrian monument signs (two) for each of the pedestrian entries do not show up on page LP2 in the staff report. Staff answered that the applicant had requested two, but it was staff's opinion that one sign at each of the locations would be adequate. The applicant has not indicated where they would be located. Public comment was opened. Mr. Tim Paone, Manatt /Phelps /Phillips LLP, 650 Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa spoke on behalf of the Irvine Company. He clarified that the applicant is looking for one sign at each pedestrian entry for a total of two signs. The applicant has read the staff report and have withdrawn the restaurant tenant signs proposed to be on the parking structure, and they concur with staff on all other modifications as suggested by staff. This is a PC text change as opposed to examining individual signs, but the designs you have are a reflection of what the intent is on the signs that would be designed pursuant to these changes. Commissioner Agajanian asked about the restaurant monument sign behind the parking structure, is there an existing movie monument sign? Amy Owen, of Manatt Advisors, answered that there is a movie marquis on the ring road and this would be a sign similar in size and shape and content to that sign. They will be consistent in design. A study had been done on the rate of travel around the ring road and determined how far apart they needed to be for both signs to be readable and they have been placed at that distance. They are permanent signs. Chairperson Kiser noted his concern about the lighting of the signs along the ring road. Lighting from an external source at ground level, is there another way to light these or a way to restrict this so that we don't end up with a huge amount of light being thrown up on to those monument signs. Is it possible to light them with channel letters, backlit so it is a soft light? Ms. Own answered that the top portion of the monument sign is a halo lit or reverse channel type lettering. The floodlight on the ground is intended as a soft wash on the front of the sign, not a harsh spotlight. It is similar to the signs existing at the entrance points to the Fashion Island properties at the inside of the ring road. They are lit from the ground. • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 Ms. Temple added that in addition to the regulations in the Planned Community, that regulations not addressed in it defer to the Zoning Code, and the Sign Chapter of the Zoning Code has a specific provision that the Planning Director may require modifications and the lowering of lighting levels if the lighting of the signs become objectionable or is out of context with the surrounding environment. Because there are no lighting provisions in the PC text, the lighting requirements within the sign code would apply. Discussion followed on the size, scale and design of the lettering on the monument sign, consistency with existing monument signs, and readability of the lettering when cars are traveling. Commissioner Toerge asked about the vehicular directional signs. He was answered that they are not intended to be illuminated, as they are reflective. He asked that they be removed from this section that allows for illumination. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Kiser asked for discussion on reducing the size of the restaurant monument signs that are covered in section 3 of the staff report. I don't see the need to have an approval of up to 16 feet. Reducing the height and mass of the • second sign to go up would reduce visual clutter so that one sign does not compete with the other sign. I am satisfied with the lighting as the Planning Director has the ability to modify it if necessary and I am in favor of this application. Commissioner McDaniel agreed that the monument sign, as proposed, is too tall and suggests that it be lowered without changing the lettering heights. Commissioner Selich noted the size and scale of the development accommodates that size of a monument sign. There is a lot of parking and building setback and you have to look at how this sign fits into the scale of the setting. I don't think it is that large a sign when you look at the copy beginning below the copy area of the sign. It would not be all that objectionable. Commissioner Tucker noted that the sign guidelines for Mariner's Mile approves a 25 -foot height limit compared to 16 feet in Newport Center. I agree with Commissioner Selich, this is in scale. I suggest that the lettering height might be limited to one foot. Commissioner Gifford noted she agrees with what has been proposed and suggests that the language be changed to not exceed one foot as opposed to two feet. Commissioner Agajanian asked if the text change is being approved as well as the drawings attached in the staff report. • Ms. Temple answered it was text change only as there are no design guidelines in INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 INDEX the Fashion Island Planned Community. This would set the standards for the signs the applicant wants to currently install and also in time when they may want to change them, they will fall under the some guidelines. Typically, the applicant provides the information regarding proposed signs and that is generally what they install. Commissioner Agajanian noted he concurs with the one foot height restaurant name lettering and recommended edits to staff's recommendation that the restaurant monument sign should be one (1) foot high and eight (8) feet wide and the elimination of the illumination permitted for the vehicular signs. He then asked if the shopping center identification signs would be illuminated. He then noted his support of the application. Ms. Temple answered that is not a change to the current provisions and is in the text now. Commissioner Toerge noted that considering the scale of the development and the setbacks of the building from the sides of the parking lot, I think the height of restaurant monument is acceptable to me. I support the one -foot size of the lettering and I would eliminate illumination of the vehicular directional signs as the applicant did not request it and there is no design of it. Commissioner McDaniel noted that he would not vote against this. • Chairperson Kiser noted his support with the change in the restaurant monument sign language recommended by staff on page 7 to show the individual letters for the sign heading shall not exceed one (1) feet in height and the individual restaurants names letters shall be no more than one (1) foot high even though the letters are only proposed to be 7 inches maximum; that would allow more flexibility in case there were fewer restaurants to be shown. Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian to adopt Resolution No. 1583 approving the Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. 2002 -002 (PA2002 -192) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit A with the following changes: • Change in the restaurant monument sign language recommended by staff on page 7 to show the individual letters for the sign heading shall not exceed one (1) feet in height and the individual restaurants names letters shall be no more than one (1) foot high. • Eliminate sign illumination on vehicular signs. • Change the individual restaurant identification lettering height signs to be no more than one (1) foot high and eight (8) feet wide. Public comment was opened. Mr. Poone noted his agreement with the suggested changes. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 Noes: None SUBJECT: Zoning Code Amendment CA2002 -007 (PA2002 -218) Landmark Buildings Amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to designate' certain types of buildings as "Landmark Buildings" and modify restrictions on nonconforming uses in Landmark buildings. Chairperson Kiser asked about the date criteria referred to on page 2 of the staff report. Where did the 300 seating criteria derive from? Mr. Patrick Alford answered that was the effective date of the 1950 Zoning Code, which is the basis for the current Code. The 300 seating recommendation came from the City Attorney's office and was intended to describe the common characteristics of the landmark theaters. Commissioner Tucker 'asked where this proposal came from, how did staff become involved with this? Ms. Temple answered that over the past couple of years there has been several • discussions about a couple of the structures that would fall under this code provision in regards to ways to encourage their adaptive re -use, those being the Balboa Pavilion and the Port Theater. It was thought that in order to encourage their preservation, that some relief of the procedural requirements might encourage an applicant to look at improvements and upgrades to the structures to ensure their preservation. Commissioner Agajanion asked about the Crystal Cove Historic District in Crystal Cove State Park. Do we have any jurisdiction over that and why are we dealing with it? Mr. Alford answered that the City really does not have any jurisdiction over the State Department of Parks. They may not fall under this provision, as they may not be non - conforming. Commissioner Gifford asked about the extent of what could happen on one of these sites? For example, could the Balboa Pavilion be turned into a food court? Ms. Temple noted that with the Balboa Pavilion they currently have no outdoor dining. They are interested in implementing that because it would be a great enhancement and encourage the existing restaurant to improve and stay in business. The way the building is designed, the size of that outdoor dining would not fall under the provisions of accessory outdoor dining and therefore would require full parking because it is intensification. However, if that is done in concert with elimination or reduction of parking demand from other uses on the property, • which is what they are considering, then the parking requirement would not be changed and it would allow staff to approve the outdoor dining without a use INDEX Item 4 PA2002 -218 Continued to 01/09/2003 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes . December 5.2002 INDEX permit. Commissioner Gifford asked about a 'worse case scenario.' For example, a food court, could that happen under this regulation? Ms. Temple answered only if the parking demand of the total property was not being increased and there was already a food use on the property. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple added that there is no parking at the Pavilion. We would assess the building and the variety of uses within it, use today's Code to determine what is required and compare that to the proposed new use(s). Public comment was opened. Lou Von Dial, resident of the peninsula asked: Two of the theaters are complete and one is not. Must it be completed before it is landmarked? - No, it would be designated landmark now if this were approved. • There has been talk about the property being bought next door or leased and put together with this. Would that become part of the landmark? - No. • How long do they have to complete? - An indefinite amount of time, there is no restriction on the amount of time to complete if this issue is approved. • • Can landmark properties receive grants? - Ms. Temple noted that term landmark does not carry an official designation as it relates to historic properties. We are not talking about an action that would designate something as historic that would necessarily bring into the process any of the state requirements for structures that could happen for historic buildings. This is set up for uses within certain properties that the City is considering defining as a landmark structure. Novella Hendrickson, Harbor View Homes noted: • Property rights - this should not be invoked without the approval of the affected property owners. • Just because a building is old, is not sufficient to retain it and give it the designation of landmark. • She then read into the record the state's definition of landmark building. • Why would we put these restrictions on our own property when it is possible the current theater project may not go to fruition? • Why limit potential use of a site when something might come along that would be pedestrian traffic generator? • In the case of the Port Theater, which many consider a 'white elephant', a well designed retail building in that location might be a far better project for the Corona del Mar village. To allow assembly type uses only in these three existing buildings with no restriction on parking, hours of use, etc. precluding neighbors from having any say in the use, I don't believe is practical. • 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 INDEX • Under the assembly type building, couldn't the building be used as a teen age nightclub or other enterprise for musical groups? • This type of proposal could meet the landmark theater requirements under consideration tonight. • What are the building code and property tax ramifications under this zoning amendment? • The taxpayers in Newport Beach should be concerned about not having the protection of a use permit on these non - conforming properties. 1 ask that you consider this at a later date. Chairperson Kiser noted that if this was approved, it would not be limiting or restricting any further the uses of these buildings. It also wouldn't be affecting the parking rules of the buildings or surrounding neighborhoods. In fact, there could not be a change in the operational characteristics of these buildings unless there is either no net increase in the number of required off street parking spaces or, the required number of off street parking spaces is provided by the owner of the structure. What we would be doing tonight if this was approved also would have no affect on building code standards for any of these historic properties or on the property taxes paid by these properties. This historic designation is not a state or federal designation, it is defined to have just the affects noted in the staff report . and the proposed amendment on page 6 of the staff report. Ms. Temple clarified that this establishes a definition for landmark structures which would allow an owner to consider alternative uses within the building should he choose to maintain the building. There is nothing in the provision that would preclude an owner from demolishing one of these buildings and building a new one with a different use. Don Glasgow, spoke on behalf of the Corona del Mar Improvement Business District in support of this issue. He noted that the business in Corona del Mar are in support of anything that can happen that will facilitate the improvement of the Port Theater as it is centered in the village. Property owners are doing all they can to make things look better. He asked for the support of this proposal, as it will help their situation in regards to the Port Theater. He then noted that he had a call from B..J. Johnson, chairperson of the Corona del Mar Residents Association who is unable to attend. She reported that her group did vote to support this idea tonight. At Commission inquiry, he stated that the best situation would be to leave the theater there, improve the interior and exterior and hope that the operator is a good one. Showing movies there and hopefully some type of performing arts as many of the schools in the area say they do not have facilities for that type of endeavor. Maybe this would help them as well as the residents and businesses in Corona del Mar. Lavina Heyton, resident of Corona del Mar representing the Corona del Mar Chamber noted their support of this project, as the Port Theater is an important aspect of the village. 11 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 INDEX Dick Nichols, resident of Corona del Mar spoke representing the Community Alliance noted that the Port Theater has not been open for a long time. The small amount of parking it had behind the adjacent commercial building is probably not available any more, which was 12 spots for 300 people. He noted his concern of making this a landmark theater without having a use permit for it; it means the City has no control. The way I interpret your regulation, as long as I don't need additional parking and I have up to 300 people I can put in that place, I can put anything I want in there. If I did that, there is nothing to say that wouldn't be amplified sound music and there are residents adjacent to these properties. I am definitely against this not having a use permit and as far as the landmark property, I think it should at least stay in the same architectural mode. The question is, does it have some architectural beauty to it? Several neighbors have called me that basically they don't think it should be there. Give it the additional zoning, allow it to have the 'grandfathered' parking, make it such that it can be developed into something but to stay as a theater or to transfer that more likely into some kind of theater that would have amplified music and such problems, is not appropriate for that location. The other properties involved generally do not have residential anywhere near them and are quite different in that the Lido Theater has its own parking. In those areas, there is more leeway, but certainly you need to have that use permit. Without the use permit there is no control of the property. Chairperson Kiser asked staff - if the Port theater reopened as a theater just the way it was operating before it was closed, would it need to have a use permit to • do so? Mr. Alford answered that normally a use loses its rights aft er it has been closed for six months. If there is evidence they have continued operation during that period even for a limited amount of time, then that nonconformity can continue per current regulations. If it was to reopen today, it could do so without a use permit. Chairperson Kiser noted his understanding by this action tonight is that by including these buildings by considering them to be historic buildings, under this ordinance it would only require a use permit if there was an intensification of the non - conforming use. If it went back to essentially the same use it had been used before, I don't believe what we are doing tonight would have any effect on that. Ms. Temple answered that so long as they had operated it from time to time so as to maintain there nonconforming right. Any intensified use, some form of that use had to have occurred on the property previously. You couldn't convert it to a nightclub for instance. At Commission inquiry, she added that there may be some distinction between film and live performances. Chairperson Kiser noted that we have the noise ordinances, all of which can be applied to this property. What we are doing tonight would not have any affect on their ability to create noise that would go beyond the property. Ms. Temple added that no more than what would be allowed by Code if it were to be live performances, they would also need a Live Entertainment Permit. 12 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 Jon Loper, Vice President of the California Division of the Fritz Duda Company, manager and owners of the Lido Theater and the Via Lido shopping center next door at 3425 Via Lido. He noted that they are the second owners of a theater that was built in 1939 and seats about 700 people so they would fall under the landmark designation proposed. As one of only two operators of a single screen theater in Orange County, last year they renovated their theater. They are in support of this proposal as this is an unusual structure that has difficulty being economically viable and finding operators to run it. This designation would give staff the flexibility that is needed for minor changes in operation and run a theater. They support the change and note it would support his theater to become viable tax paying entities and put them to some use and let them fall into different ways to market the building. One of the things they do at the Lido Theater is to be one of the participants of the Newport Film Festival. Because their theater has a stage, they have events where there are people speaking in addition to showing films. Having the flexibility of allowing staff to review parking implications if there are none, then not going fora full public process and expense and difficulty involved, we think is beneficial and appropriate for these types of uses. We support this issue. Dick Nichols noted that the wording of the document states that as long as there . is no additional parking required, a venue would not have to apply for a use permit. No use permit is required if the zoning of the building allows that use. As these buildings are all in commercial areas, that means liquor could be served and no permit from the city is required at all for any use up to the parking of the 300 or whatever the limit of the theater is. Is this correct? Public comment was closed. Chairperson Kiser noted his understanding is if the examples given amount to intensification to the use of the property, then a use permit would be required. Mr. Alford answered that approval of this designation does not exempt them from any other requirements. For example, in the case of alcoholic beverage service, it would require a use permit under the Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance, which is a separate chapter of the Zoning Code. The exception that is being proposed pertains to the non- conforming use. Essentially, the use itself, which would normally be permitted either by right or with a use permit in itself and for whatever reason such as in the case of the theaters they do not have a use permit that makes them nonconforming. As long as that use and the ancillary uses within that use meet those criteria, then they could be intensified. It means they could change their operational characteristics, expand or be modified and would not need a use permit. Commissioner Tucker noted that the confusion in the language he saw was that it did not state that an owner who is changing the use characteristics isn't • exonerated from any other use permit that may be required associated with that changed use, such as the alcohol beverage license. I think we need some 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 INDEX language in there that makes it clear because it can be confusing. Commissioner Gifford clarified that any kind of live performance would require a live entertainment permit. In response to public comment any proposed service of alcoholic beverages would require a use permit and any live entertainment would require a live entertainment permit. The City would have control and the ABC would have control in that way. This does not allow new uses in and of themselves, perhaps the language might state that the nonconforming use may be modified so that it is clear that we are talking about the modification of the essential present use. Commissioner Selich clarified that under the existing land use classifications, under entertainment we have cinemas, live theater, nightclubs and cabarets. In regard to the three portions of this item, they are classified as cinemas and theaters and not as nightclubs and cabarets. There is no way that under this they could be turned into nightclubs or rock halls, etc. Staff concurred. Commissioner McDaniel noted that everyone who is on this list was notified. Staff noted that the City is the owner of Balboa, Port Theater has been notified, Lido Theater spoke and staff has spoken with the Balboa Pavilion ownership as well. Public notice has gone out to all residences within 300 feet of each of the four properties. The residential property noted, is not nonconforming so it does not • fall under the definition. Mr. Alford noted that what was done in the previous staff report was to list all of the properties that are on the national registry of historic places. We said in the report that of all of those, only the Balboa Pavilion is currently a nonconforming use. The Balboa Inn was recently made conforming by its recent approval for their expansion. In the case of the Lovell Beach House it is a residential use in a residential area, so it is conforming. Chairperson Kiser suggested some language change to the exception in 20.62.050 to take care of the issue of this change not being read to say that no use permit would be necessary for change in operational characteristics of these buildings, but rather that this exception is only saying that no use permit would be required for the change itself. The proposed revision is: `.....use permit for the change in operational characteristics, provided..... Public comment was reopened. B. J. Johnson, chairperson of the Corona del Mar Residents Association presented a letter from the association stating they support the landmark theater zoning code amendment and urge the Commission to approve this amendment. Tom Hyans, resident of the peninsula noted that this item is very confusing. He asked if the Lido Theater has snack bar, and someone decided to make a . 14 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 restaurant out of the ground floor of the building and retain the balcony for the showing of the movies is that something that is permitted without a use permit. Public comment was closed. Ms. Temple answered yes, so long as the parking requirement was not being changed and alcohol was not being added to the operation. The parking demand would be analyzed and they could not exceed the requirement of the existing operation. If it was determined that additional parking was required and was not being provided, then they would need to get a use permit. Commissioner Tucker noted that language needs to be added to clarify under what circumstances existing requirements go along. I would like to give this time for the language and see if there is any feedback. It sounds like for two theaters there is no objection, for one theater, the Business Improvement District and the Chamber of Commerce and the residents want it and the Councilmember for the District is not enthused about it. I think we should continue this item and come up with language so that when we do adopt it, it will be clear. Ms. Temple noted that this item was requested at a Council meeting, and was initiated by the Planning Commission. • Commissioners Selich noted his concurrence with continuing this item. We received direction from the Council to move ahead on this item, albeit came from Councilmember O'Neil and now there will be a different Councilmember from that District. Unless the Council gives us a change in direction, we should clean this up and work on it as best we can. If the Council has a change in heart, they will let us know. Commissioner Gifford noted that when the Balboa Theater was still operating and had applied for a use permit to become sort of a luxury theater offering special amenities. One was a limited area where there could be some tables and hors d'oeuvres served and would be a more comprehensive movie experience. Based on my sense, that is the direction these theaters want to go and that is why my concern is that we preclude any worse case scenarios. For example, the way the resolution is worded now, the use of the landmark building may be modified. One of things I would include is the existing nonconforming use may be modified and then go on to talk about the fact specifically saying it does not excuse the necessity for any other types of use permits that may be required. Chairperson Kiser noted this item should be continued to allow time for clarification language in the exception portion. Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian to continue this matter to January 9, 2003. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 Noes: None SUBJECT: McDonald's Corporation, Use Permit No. 2001 -029 and Development Plan No. 2002.001(PA2001 -155) 700 West Coast Highway Use Permit and Development Plan to redevelop the existing McDonald's restaurant. The existing 3,045 sq. ff. restaurant will be demolished and a new 3,113 sq. ft. restaurant building will be constructed With a reconfigured drive -thru. The application also requests a partial waiver of parking. Jim Campbell gave an overview noting: • Existing building to be replaced with a new building located further to the west. • The entire site will be re- worked per the plans included in packet. • Public Works memo requests further conditions of approval. • Letter regarding lighting issues (attached). • Then gave a slide presentation of the site noting driveways, retaining wall, trash enclosure, transformer, elevation drawings (needing to be edited by applicant), • References to Mariners Mile Design Guidelines, roof screening, colors, landscaping. • Coast Highway widening aspects. Light standard of 20 feet height and removal of light bands on roof structure. • Lighting plan and slope re- vegetation was discussed. • Photo simulation of block wall to be placed in front of the retaining wall. • Parking proposed for facility is adequate and is based on the amount of drive -thru business expected. Commissioner Selich verified that the Mariner's Mile Design Guidelines fall under the purview of the Commission's review of the use permit. The applicant has not made much of an effort to adhere to the Mariner's Mile Guidelines. He then noted the following concerns as this is the first major project to come since the Guidelines were adopted: • Site PlanCI - the split driveway in the back where the orders are taken, I presume there to facilitate a fast moving of traffic through the driveway. would be interested in why that is necessary and if the applicant can quantitatively tell us how much the efficiency of the operation is increased. • I would rather see a single lane of traffic back there and the building slid back with more landscaping in front of the building, particularly with the prospect of losing twelve feet of the landscaping in front at some point in the future. Speaker box location. Presently it is on the highway side of the property. I am curious why it is proposed to be moved to the back and what kind of sound problems that might create for the residents up above, if any. 16 INDEX Item 5 PA2001 -155 Continued to 02/06/2003 • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5. 2002 • Landscape plan Ll - applicant ignored guidelines and they need to be incorporated into the project, particularly along the highway. Additionally, more street trees should be added. • Traffic circulation around the building - if building is moved back, it would be desirable to screen those cars exiting along the building from the street and could be done either creating a landscape mound with retaining wall behind it or doing a tiered landscaping affect. • Slope - supports what staff has recommended. There is nothing on the landscape plan depicting what the applicant is going to do on the slope. I would like to see a landscape plan showing the plantings to be saved and new plant material to be introduced. • Wall - picture depiction is more in line with the guidelines as opposed to what is shown on page C 1. • Landscape strip between the drive- through area adjacent to the main body of the parking area appears to be seven feet wide. I would think that could be narrowed down to have a minimal amount of landscaping and include trees that are required by the guidelines and take that extra landscape area out onto the street where it would be much more beneficial on the street as opposed to the back part of the property. • The guidelines require one canopy shade tree for the parking area for every four parking spaces. They meet the number of required trees, the problem . is rather than using the carot wood or equivalent trees suggested in the guidelines, they elected to go with all palm trees, which don't provide shade or reflections of the parking lot areas to the homes above. • Architecture of the building - these elevations do not accurately represent what the building will look like. I don't think this is a creative design. The City should seek to get a higher quality of building here. There needs to be some re- design and we have to give these people some direction: nautical theme, screen roof equipment, a design sheet with specific material to be used, complete specifications, color and materials board, no red on the building, use muted neutral colors. • Signs - elevations noted are incorrect. • Rework with building and sign program in one package. Lighting needs to conform to the Mariners Mile guidelines. Lighting should be considered with residential above and across and getting rid of glaring fixtures and use low profile fixtures that can provide safety lighting as well. The applicant needs to redesign this and come back with a resubmittal. Commissioner Tucker noted that he would love to have this site redeveloped. We are talking about getting something of better quality. Our goal is not to thwart something happening on the property, but we want to follow the design framework and promote thoughtful and tasteful design while allowing creative flexibility. I am not concerned with the parking facilities, it would be nice to shift the building to the north, the sound may not reach the residents over the din of the traffic, project should become less visible to the residents above if the building is shifted over as proposed. Lighting on the property that exists should be removed and replaced • with the suggested lighting from the guidelines framework. Concerned with both horizontal and vertical elements on the facade of the building, which over time 17 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • December 5, 2002 INDEX would separate and become a maintenance item especially close to the ocean. I agree about the colors being muted, as bright colors do not fade well. Commissioner Gifford noted her agreement with the previous comments on architecture, landscaping and lighting and that the applicant would be responsive to these comments and come back with a redesign. Chairperson Kiser commented: • The roof screening and how it would look from the top. What has been suggested is a redesign on the project with how the total roof screening would appear, from up above as well as from the street level. He added that he did not have a problem with the parking waiver issue; it happens that I am familiar with the property and I have never seen that lot full. • More thought needs to be given to the slope vegetation and how it will look. • I concur with the previous statements and agree that a lot of things need to be done. Commissioner Toerge noted: • Inconsistent exhibits for the staff report provided by the applicant is inexcusable. • Loudspeaker - should be some management system in place so that as the . highway noise levels quite down, the loudspeakers can be regulated. • Landscaping of the slope - irrigate the landscaping, maintain its lush appeal, comply with the Mariners Mile Design Guidelines. Dining room should stay closed from 11:30 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. instead of 2:00 a.m. as noted in the staff report. • Agrees with comments of Commissioner Selich. Public comment was opened. Don Eichler, project manager for McDonald's Corporation, 11682 El Camino Real representing the applicant noted the following: • Apologized for the inconsistencies of the exhibits he provided to staff. • Elevations should have been addressed properly. • The side -by -side drive through facilitates the ordering. - At Commission inquiry stated that he thought it increases efficiency by approximately 10% to 2076, and would provide studies depicting the efficiency of this method. • Speaker box - It was re- positioned to the back and the volume can be lowered by a technician. • Landscape plan - we will comply with the Mariner's Mile Guidelines, we don't have a problem with that; it is a non -issue as well as the street trees. • Screening the cars from the drive- through - we will provide shrubs to screen those as well. • The back wall is going to be more than 20 feet tall and we hope not to touch the slope very much, especially not any irrigation because there is drainage from up above that is problematic. From a safety standpoint, we 18 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 The Commission further suggested: • Use of marine nautical theme for building design, use of muted colors, no red. Looking for a quality building with quality windows. • Design within the intent of the Mariner's Mile Design Guidelines. Mr. Edmonston noted: • The recommendation of making the westerly driveway an exit only came out of a concern of people entering that driveway and try to get into the drive - through line at that point that would create a great deal of congestion that would back out onto the highway very quickly. To the left of that island is disabled parking but someone could use that to cut into the drive- through lane. 1 appreciate the comment that the easterly driveway does come up quickly because the building is at the other end of the lot and you may have passed the first driveway. If the cutting in line problem was solved, then he would not have a problem • with two directional driveways. The back up must not obstruct either of the driveways. 19 INDEX don't want to touch the slope by regrading it. • The wall material presented tonight will be applied by a shotcrete method and will be similar to wall on the 'Taco Bell' property nearby. • Moving the landscape island on the north side is not a problem. • The use of palm trees was at the request of staff to use the existing type of trees. We have a lot of palm trees that we would like to retain and reuse. If you want different trees, we can do that as well. The architectural elevations are not complete: the roof structure is a big concern and how to address that because of the mechanical nature and the Uniform Building Code venting requirements. Two roof structures are depicted in the exhibits. No all the mechanical equipment can be under a screening but because of the number of fryers it is not truly representative of the number of stacks that would stick through the roof structure. We have about 3 vents from the grease fryers that are two feet in diameter plus vents from the restrooms (4-5) and the vents from the air conditioning. - Commissioner Selich noted that if you asked an architect to design the building as a five dimensional object and to be concerned with how it looks from above, he could come up with something. • The signs were submitted for the Commission to look at. We can show all the signs on the site at the next meeting. • There is a condition that requires only one ingress point. We request two access points as people coming in would have a second chance to make the turn in because it does come up quickly on the site. • The lot lighting issue we can comply with. The plan sheets will be dated consistently. The size of the existing building is larger than what is being proposed by approximately 40 square feet. We are proposing a building about 3, 113 square feet. The Commission further suggested: • Use of marine nautical theme for building design, use of muted colors, no red. Looking for a quality building with quality windows. • Design within the intent of the Mariner's Mile Design Guidelines. Mr. Edmonston noted: • The recommendation of making the westerly driveway an exit only came out of a concern of people entering that driveway and try to get into the drive - through line at that point that would create a great deal of congestion that would back out onto the highway very quickly. To the left of that island is disabled parking but someone could use that to cut into the drive- through lane. 1 appreciate the comment that the easterly driveway does come up quickly because the building is at the other end of the lot and you may have passed the first driveway. If the cutting in line problem was solved, then he would not have a problem • with two directional driveways. The back up must not obstruct either of the driveways. 19 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 In the main parking lot itself, the drive aisle is five feet wider than our minimum. Perhaps that is an area where the applicant can gain some additional landscaping along the Coast Highway frontage by narrowing three feet of that surplus. Alex Dijon, 615 Kings Road noted that he agrees that there should be a better looking facility there and noted that he lives directly above the project site. He noted the following: • Speaker on the slope side - noise will carry up the hill. • Trash cans location - currently there is a lot of glass being dumped around 3:00 a.m. and that disturbs his sleep. Could the enclosure be relocated somewhere else or something done to prevent that from happening? Vegetation on the slope is lush and stays green all year around. He remodeled his home about three years ago. Some color with bougainvillea would be nice, but not strip all of the existing greenery. • The retaining wall is dilapidated. If you just build another wall in front of it, and seal the new wall and place it against this dilapidated wall, that wall is still against the hillside. Eventually, that dilapidated wall will crumble will that affect the hillside? What will that do to my property's stability? • The city trees that are about 40 feet tall need to be removed or tended as they obstruct my view. • The number of accidents in front of this establishment is quite high. There needs to be some consideration for the egress and ingress onto the highway. Hours of operation extending to 2:00 a.m., why is that? Commissioner Tucker noted that the trash enclosure elevations need to be seen at the next meeting. He suggested that the speaker write his concerns regarding street trees, traffic safety and retaining wall designs and send them along to the Planning staff as well as to the City Manager to be sent to the responsible department. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Selich noted that the applicant's response is in accord with accommodating what has been brought up. With regard to the split order board situation, the applicant states that having that increases the efficiency of that lane by 10 to 207o. My suggestion to move the building back and get at least an additional ten feet of landscaping whether that takes a higher priority or increasing the efficiency of the operation is the question. I think the building should be moved back because I think it is more important to have the additional landscaping in front of the building to give more flexibility to screen the cars as well as if there is a dedication of land to Coast Highway, there would be no landscaping. I think there should be a single order lane through there. Commissioner Tucker agreed that the building should be moved back. The applicant has a potential design solution that would accomplish both. They can do what we ask for. 20 INDEX • • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 Chairperson Kiser noted similar thoughts on the retaining wall. The building should be moved back. There could be the split drive - through with some redesign. Commissioner Gifford noted that with the building moved back, the trash enclosure could be moved closer to the highway. Don Eichler noted that there is no glass trash from the establishment. Chairperson Kiser asked about the problem of trash dumping at 3 in the morning. Ms. Temple noted that dealing with it through a use permit would make it an enforceable thing. We have in the past limited the hours that the employees can dispose of the trash. If the property owner complies with the condition, then it works. We will have to work on some options to address the concerns expressed by the Commission. Don Eichler asked that this item be continued to February 6, 2003. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to continued this item to February 6, 2003 • Ayes: Toerge, Agaianian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Sefich, Tucker Noes: None ssr SUBJECT: Initiation of an Amendment regarding the Subdivision Code procedures City of Newport Beach Initiation of an amendment to Title 19 and Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to amend the subdivision regulations related to Lot Line Adjustments, Lot Mergers and Certificates of Compliance. Ms. Temple noted that she had a discussion with Commissioner McDaniel who raised an issue on one of the components of this initiation. Staff will include a discussion and information with regards to his concern with the lot merger provisions within our report when this item is brought back for hearing. Commissioner Kiser noted that in section one of the resolution no reference was made to Title 19. Does it have a similar authorization? Mr. Campbell answered, no, Title 19 does not require an initiation but there are links between the two sections. Commissioner Kiser asked if on the certificate of compliance, the proposal is to • expand the section consistent with the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) to be more informative; doesn't the burden then become to keep it updated according to 21 INDEX Item 6 PA2002 -239 Initiated City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 the SMA as it moves along? Mr. Campbell answered that those references will be drafted to be consistent with applicable portions of the Act as they are amended from time to time by the State. It would not require a local amendment in the future. Chairperson Kiser noted that we could discuss samples of cases that have no potential to generate impacts or public controversy and making them administrative. Ms. Temple noted that was the issue discussed by Commissioner McDaniel and myself and we will provide more information on lot line adjustments and mergers and are of higher or lesser concern at the next meeting. Public comment was opened Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian to adopt a resolution of intent to initiate an amendment to Title 19 and Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to amend the subdivision regulations related to Lot Line Adjustments, Lot Mergers and Certificates of Compliance. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) b) C) d) e) f) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that there were no planning items on the agenda at the last Council meeting. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich reported that there was no meeting. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Agajanian reported that there was a meeting. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - no meeting. Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. 22 INDEX • • Additional Business • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2002 Status report on Planning Commission requests - none. h) Project status - none. Requests for excused absences - none. axx ADJOURNMENT: 10:10 P.M. SHANT AGAJANIAN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 23 INDEX Adjournment