Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/04/1996COMMISSIONERS T'Yp�F` ,9���F99 • 11y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 78330 Py.1I.1996 DATE: MINUTES ROLL INDEX CALL All Commissioners were present EX -OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: Robin Clawson, Assistant City Attorney * ** Patricia Temple, Planning Manager Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Ginger Vann, Executive Secretary Minutes of December 7 1995: Minutes 003-on 12/7/95 Motion was made and voted on to approve as amended, the December 7, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION All Ayes * * * CARRIED - All Ayes Public Comments: Public Comment Mr. Stewart Williams, 1748 Bayport Way, asked the Commmon to call up for review and public hearing Modification No. 4398 regarding the bam to be moved to the corner of Holiday Rd. and Irvine Ave. Commission voted to Motion call up the Modification, and set it for hearing to discuss set - back issues on January 18, 1996. MOTION CARRIED - All All Ayes * * * * *k Ayes * ** of COMMISSIONERS 4 F, 9q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1946 ROLL INDEX CALL PoWM of the Agenda: Posting a Agenda Ms Temple stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, December 29, 1995, in front of City Hall. SUBJECT: California Restaurant Ent item i 1614 San Miguel • Use Permit No. 3544 Use Permi No. 3544 continued Establishment of a take-out restaurant (as opposed to the existing specialty food establishment) with incidental seating and on -sale beer to 1/18/9 and wine. Staff reported that this particular restaurant use is for an existing operation called Pick -Up Stix in the Gelson's Center on San Miguel. It was noted that two communications were received today, Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning regarding a parking study of the existing retail uses at Harbor View Center. The second communication was from Hollis & Associates, Inc. indicating that the shopping center intends to restripe the parking lot to increase Pick -Up Stix' available parking by seven stalls. It was indicated that the City did not hire Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. to do the parking study, this was done by the applicant. Chairman Ridgeway noted in the staff report that Pick -Up Stix has been in existence for quite some time and that there have been no problems. For the record, he continued, that on prior occasions he specifically remembers, the owner of the shopping corner or their representative came to this Commission to request permission for this use and specifically this use. They chose to build it out without benefit of the Use Permit that is being requested tonight. Chairman Ridgeway takes issue with this and will take this into consideration tonight. He further -2 COMMISSIONERS Osoy `9` °s- <2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX stated that the applicant had chosen to ignore the rules and regulations of the City and stated that this behavior will not be condoned. Commissioner Adams asked staff about the tenant improvements that went in at the opening of this restaurant, was it done without the bene8 of a required permit or is it a specialty restaurant as it sits and is ' allowable? Ms. Temple stated that it was her understanding that it went in as specialty food or a take -out that made use of the common seating ' available in the shopping center. They did come to the Commission to request the additional seating indoors because they have the floor space to do it. Tice Commission was disinclined to issue the permit due to insufficient information in regards to parking impacts. They asked the applicant or property owner to provide additional information on the parking issue. After that, as Chairman Ridgeway noted, they wen ahead and did it anyway. This situation has been going on for six ' ' months and now they have been brought back into compliance. I)unng that time when they were actually operating outside of their permission, there were no parking problems experienced. This has provided u information that has been passed on to the Commission in terms of the specific use and request. The information received from Austin Foust was not solicited by the City but apparently the applicant felt that this additional information could help support the staff analysis in the report. Commissioner Adams asked for clarification of "came into compliance". Staff answered that it was noted they were operating as a restaurant with indoor seating and that the City through Code Enforcement actin asked Pick -Up Stix to remove the violating tables. Ms. Temple stated that at this time she could neither confirm nor deny if Pick -Up Stix was in compliance with the Codes. Chairman Ridgeway stated for the record that Pick -Up Stix has changed its decor nor its operation since it opened because he was u there soon after it was opened and he determined that it was in violation from day one. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1946 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Selich asked that if you take the square footage of all the uses in the shopping center outside of the restaurant and the parking that is assigned to those uses, how many parking spaces are left over? Staff answered that they do not have that information. Chairman Ridgeway noted that the staff report needs more information and that the parking center is the busiest from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. and the study of vacant parking stalls done at 11:00 a.m. is not adequate. Discussion ensued regarding the parking requirements, waiving of 44 parking spaces for a restaurant, cater construction, study time and the change of the nature of the business from a take out to a sit down restaurant. In addition, the Commission asked for clarification of the hours. Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Lee Vuille, 1614 San Miguel - applicant, spoke to the Commission stating for clarification purposes, he was allowed 20 indoor seats under the Specialty Food Use Permit. He did have 35 was indoor with the thought they would be okay for the Use Permit, the center went under development and they did not remove the extra seating. He was cited which resulted in him removing the extra seating to meet the requirement. However, in removing the extra seating, he has determined that he needs that seating back for his business to function. His busiest time starts around 6 p.m. and he states that there is never a parking problem with the take out or eat in business at night. Austin - Foust Associates, Inc. did an analysis of the parking during the busiest times from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. The lunch period is the only time where there has been contention and concern by the Commission. He apologized for the oversight of the extra seating and is asking for the extra seating back. He was available for questions. He affirmed the hours of operation being 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. except on Sundays and -4- COMMISSIONERS pr L . \� 9� '0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX then it is 12:00 p. m. to 9:00 p.m.; there are 20 seats in the restaurant now and are operating under a specialty food permit. Commissioner Adams spoke regarding the letter from the center management saying that they are adding 7 parking stalls to the pool. There is no parking layout accompanying the letter to explain where these extra stalls will be installed. He recommends designating these stalls to be used by the applicant thereby in considering this use permit the commission would be waiving 37 spaces instead of 44 spaces. Mr. Edmonston advised that there are other changes occurring m the center, i.e., a proposal to gate off a loading dock near Pacific View Drive. In reviewing past submittals for this center, he does not know where they could gain 7 spaces for parking unless in the area that was previously a loading dock. He is not aware of any plans that have been submitted to the City regarding the location. He does not recommend that the Commission go ahead with the condition of designating these seven stalls without viewing a plan. Public Hearing was closed. Chairman Ridgeway stated that in every staff report there has been a detailed breakdown of the number of parking stalls and the required versus the actual field of parking based upon use, and that is missing in this report. A representation is being made that there will be an extra seven stalls. The Commission is not prepared to grant a use permit without putting into inventory and into record what and where the number of stalls are. The staff report is inadequate and the representation being made tonight needs to be documented. He is sure that with adequate information, this Use Permit may be approved. kion * Commissioner Adams moved for a continuation of this item pending a preparation of a more detailed parking study as discussed tonight. -5 COMMISSIONERS 4 i �; �90j <� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Kranzley agreed with earlier comments that there would not be any problems with overflow street parking in the surrounding neighborhood. Substitute Motion * Commissioner Pomeroy made a substitute motion to approve Use Permit No. 3544 in accord with the findings and conditions pertained in the staff report, adding a condition that 7 additional parking spaces shall be created by the applicant and that the parking plan be approved by the City of Newport Beach prior to the effective date of the Use Permit. Commissioner Gifford asked why the parking plan needs to be approved. If they are inconveniently located, they could be used for employee parking. There can be parking spaces that may not be desirable for customers but can still serve the purpose of employees having to park on site. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that it is based on Mr. Edmonston's • comments that he is not sure how seven additional spaces can be created and if they can not be created, then the Use Permit would not have effect. The applicant has shown that his restaurant has functioned without any parking problems where it is now. Commissioner Adams stated that the substitute motion will not be any more timely than the original motion on the floor. Hollis & Associates have stated that the additional stalls will not be added until mid - February and if this is conditioned with the addition of seven stalls it won't happen until mid - February. If this is continued to the next meeting then the study will be done and it will probably be conditioned Substitute on the seven stalls which will be done in mid - February . Motion Withdrawn Commissioner Pomeroy withdrew his substitute motion.. MOTION PASSED to continue this item to January 18, 1996 - All ayes. Motion All Ayes * * * * * s s • COMMISSIONERS • 9, L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL INDEX CALL SUBJECT: Daniel and Christine Jureuka Item 2 617 W. Balboa Blvd. o Use Permit No. 3574 UP No. 3 Approved " To approve a use permit for an addition and alterations to an existing ton- conforming duplex. The duplex is non - conforming with regard to the density. Staff clarified that this request is a use permit to allow an addition to an existing legal non-conforming duplex. The Planning Department has received four pieces of correspondence from neighbors in the area all in opposition to the permit. All the letters have indicated that the duplex is a violation in zoning in this area, that is not a true characterization as the existing duplex is considered legal although non - conforming to today's zoning standards. At the time it was constructed it was consistent with zoning, so it is legal and not violating conditions. Staff was available for questions. Commissioner Gifford stepped down from the dais because of a possible conflict of interest as she fives within the proximity of the address and had received a notice in the mail. Commissioner Thomson asked staff in a situation as this with a non- conforming use and they are granted a use, what is the real purpose of a non-conforming use if you are going to turn around and grant a full memorization of that use, if this was to be approved. Staff answered that the Municipal Code Title 20 includes a specific chapter which addresses the continuance of non- conforming uses and structures. In this particular case, all the property improvements which the applicant is proposing for this property are permitted under the Code. The portion of the application which requires the Use Permit is the addition of floor area in the deck area. Absent that particular request, this item would not be before you and would simply be a matter of an administrative building permit. The Code as currently worded requires any additions to a building that is non - conforming as to the 574 COMMISSIONERS \i*\0W1* CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX number of dwelling units requires the approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission. The decision before the Commission is whether to allow the additional floor area. You can deny the additional floot area, but the duplex is legal, non - conforming and can contimte and be maintained as such. It can be remodeled within the provisions of the Code which sets limits for the amount of external wall area which can be altered and the amount of internal floor space which can be rearranged but all the other improvements proposed for this property are of maintenance and repair type. There has been no reference made by the applicant acquiring a third parking stall. Assistant City Attorney Clauson added that this Use Permit does not make all the non - conforming characteristics of the project suddenly conforming. It only makes permitted that additional space. If for some reason they decide to tear down the entire structure they could not build it again as is. They could build a larger single family conformirig ' structure as they are below the floor area ratio. Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Daniel Jurenka, 449 Southern California Avenue, Long Beach owner of the property spoke to the Commission describing the additional space use. This duplex has an open balcony porch on the second story and the architect, when drawing a design facade to improve the building, included enclosing about half of this open porch. The additional space is not outside the existing perimeters of the building, it is enclosing this porch area as part of the design. The comments between the architect and the planner were if we were no enclosing those 109 square feet, he would not be here as all of the other improvements would have been automatically approved. The letters ' in opposition talk about the issue of increasing density, this is not the case as they are keeping this as a duplex In talking to the builder about the design of improvement, it will be a nicer looking building. Chairman Ridgeway stated he read the letters and he read into the minutes record part of one, .... "We do not wish to discourage any upgrade of the structure at this property ..... we do not wish to allow the -8 COMMISSIONERS - �90< • < CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX non- conforming use of a duplex.. ", that issue is not before us, that of a non - conforming use. The commission will not be addressing this issue. Mr. Michael Phillips, 604 West Oceanfront commented to the Commission about the neighbors' confusion about the Use Permit. They were under the impression it would require a zoning change from R1 to R2 and that was their argument, they did not wish to set that precedent. There are many other homes in the area that are in dire need of repair and they did not want to see those torn down and, then with the precedent that may have been set here, turned into duplexes, thereby increasing the density in this particular area. This is not the issue at hand and therefore has no objection to the upgrading of this structure. Public Hearing was closed. Motion Commissioner Kranzley moved for approval of Use Permit 3574. * * MOT10N CARRIED - 6 Ayes, 1 Abstained n lmdinas: 1. That although the existing density is not consistent with the Land U Element of the General Plan, and the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program; but is legal nonconforming with the current underlying Zoning District; the Municipal Code allows the application to be considered under Section 20.83.040 Increase and Intensification of Non - Conforming Uses, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the proposed construction will not increase the parking demand on the property. 3. That the proposed additions to the structure are not significarrt in this case and will not increase any non - conforming condition nor create any new nonconforming condition on the site. COMMISSIONERS F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. S. That the proposed application is not an intensification of the adsting, nonconforming residential stnra um and as such, approval of Use Pemrit No. 3574 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvers in the neighborhood or the goal welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in muhctm;al conNmance with the approved site plans floor plan and elevations. • 2. That one garage parlang space shall be maintained for each dwelling unit. 3. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed addition. 4. That an new construction shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code. 5. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. *s. J -10- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL INDEX CALL SUBJECT: Sanderson J. Ray Development - Corinthian Item No. 3 4343 MacArthur Boulevard Modification No. 4376 M No. 4376 Establishment of a sign program in conjunction with the construction Of Approved a new commercial center, on property located in the Newport Place Planned Community District. Staff stated that this is a continued public hearing on a proposed sign program which was considered at the last meeting. The applicant has submitted modifications to the proposed sign program which has been discussed in the staff report. Staff was available for questions. Commissioner Adams asked staff if the mural issue bad been interpreted to be a sign? Staff indicated that it is up to the Commission to make this determination. The language to help make that determination has been included in the staff report. The options are: it is a sign and the Commission would have to approve or disapprove it, or, it is a mural, an architectural feature, part of the project and there would be no conditions needed for it. It was suggested in the staff report that a proposed condition be added which will limit the mural to a depiction not representative of goods or services rendered on -site. It is staff s recommendation that the commission make a determination. Commissioner Gifford asked, rather than making a condition that something else could be placed there, they do not need Commission permission if it is not a sign. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated if the Commission determines what is proposed is a sign and it is not approved, it would be up to the applicant to put something else up. Public Hearing was opened. Mr. James W. Ray, Sanderson J. Ray Development, 2699 White Road, Irvine - spoke to the Commission stating that he did three things as result of the outcome of the last meeting: reduce the height of the monument signs; signs that face northbound MacArthur will be reduced -11- COMMISSIONERS 4\*\o6R0ie5r\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX in size on the sign area and, that expressed concerns of the content of the mural will be addressed. Mr. Ray compared the monument signs to others in the area and said that there are 20 foot high signs and he is proposing either12 or 15 foot high sign. Regarding the signs that face northbound MacArthur traffic, he concluded that by going from 28 inches to 20 inches, the Commission concerns would be satisfied, as a result they have instructed their people to relocate certain electrical outlets that serve the signs and reduce the sign area proportionately. As for the mural, if the Commission would like the applicant to come back for their review of the art work, he would have no hesitation in doing so. Discussion ensued regarding sign versus mural with subliminal advertisement in the use of shapes and colors; recommendations of change(s); signage use; lighting and variations of tenant signs. Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Selich stated that given the character of the architecture and what is happening on the site, he agrees with the recommendations of staff as being reasonable. As far as the mural goes, we should address this and let the applicant paint what he wants. If it becomes or is representative of a sign, then the Code Enforcement officer will see that and there will be a problem. It will then be addressed within the proper channels. Commissioner Pomeroy concurs with the comments and agrees with the proposals that they are in character with the architecture. If a problem is determined, then the applicant will be called back by the Commission and the sign will be painted over. Commissioner Gifford stated that there is a specific proposal before the Commission, we are charged with finding a fact as to whether or not it is a sign, given the definition. As to any other unspecified sign the applicant might come up with, it is not our duty to attempt to guess or predict whether it might be a sign or not. We are, however, obligated to make a determination as to this particular one. -12- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX Discussion continued on the merits of the applications. Staff recommended that the Commission vote on the issue of this mural. If i constitutes a sign, than the Commission has to be determined to alto or deny it as an exception to the sign regulation. If the feeling that thi2 mural depicts products that are sold within the complex and therefor falls within the definition of a sign, then Commission needs to determine if it is to be allowed. Murals are allowed. The City has neither architectural nor design review with regards to murals. Commissioner Thomson asked that all of these issues be considered separately. As a result, the Commission then took straw votes with in depth prior discussion to determine the final vote and its wording. Stafl was involved with this discussion explaining the staff recommendations of sign measurements referring to the exhibits on the wall. Public Hearing was re- opened. Mr. Ray reiterated that the mural will be an image that will no incorporate goods or services which will be offered in the center. Mr. Chris DeRuyter, "Signage Solutions" 1336 Alex Street, Anaheim spoke on the issue of sign heights. None of the signs in this center are ft high due to the fact that an adequate message for the tenant mix with a base area needed for some type of shrubbery and/or annual color to make these signs look attractive, takes up at least two feet of the sign. Now, the messages would be crammed within a two foot area Maximum visible impact ratio is for every inch you see 25 feet. With 1 inch high letters, the maximum visible impact would be 450 feet. Most of the criteria within Newport Beach is a maximum letter height of 2 inches. He than clarified that there are signs on the tower for tenants with the exception of Staples, there are three signs on Staples building and there are individual signs on each of the tenant buildings ' over the entrance which can be seen from south bound MacArthur. The goal of the monument sign is that Staples has to, as part of their lease . -13- COMMISSIONERS 4\A00 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX agreement, be on the monuments and their proportions on MacArthur be 600/a and on Corinthian be 40%. Attention to the whole design including the mural and the signage and the iconic signage that the tenants will be doing, is an overall sign program which fits for this specific use for this retail center. It is an interactive play by each component. The lease agreement with Staples as relayed by Mr. Ray provides, if he is successful m obtaining a monument sign, that Staples would be entitled to 60% of the sign area on MacArthur. It also provides that technically Staples can cancel the lease if the monument is not approved. Public Hearing was closed. Commission then took straw votes on the various issues. • The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed mural is • a sign and an exception is not granted. • The pylon sign facing MacArthur Boulevard be a maximum of 12 feet in height as depicted on the alternative exhibit. • The secondary pylon sign will be 6 feet high on Corinthian as depicted in the original exhibit. • The multi- tenant identification wall sign facing Corinthian will be 18 inch high letters with a 10 foot width. Motion * Motion was made to approve Modification No. 4376. MOTION Ayes * * * * * CARRIED - 6 Ayes, 1 No. No Fmdnes: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and that the height, sine and number of the proposed signs, as approved, is compatible with the general commercial uses on the site, as well as with the surrounding neighborhood. • -14- COMMISSIONERS `02 c`�v9�� < CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That the sign program, as approved, is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the sign requirements for the district. 3. That this project has bem reviewed, and it has been determined exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class I I (Accessory Structures). 4. The approval of Modification No. 4376 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and firther that the proposed modification related to the proposed signing is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the height of the pylon sign on MacArthur Boulevard shall be a maximum of 12 feet; the tenant identification wall shall be limited text 18 inches in height and 10 fees in width for each tenant; and that the mural as presented to the Planning Commissiorn constitutes a sign and is not permitted. 3. That the final location of the monument signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City Tn$o Engineer and shall conform to City Standard 110 -L to ensure that adequate sight distance is provided. 4. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Modification or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Modification, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Modification, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. -15- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That this Modification shall expire unless exercised within 24 mondu from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. t t k SUBJECT: Armstrong's Nursery (Russell Fluter, Item No. 4 applicant) 1500 East Coast Highway • General Plan Amendment No. 93-3 (A) GPA 93 -3 (A) LCPA No. 44 • Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 44 • Amendment No. 840 A No. 840 Redesignate the property for Retail and Service Commercial use and establish the permitted intensity of development; and to amend Recommended for Approva Districting Map No. 48 to rezone the property from the "V' Distric (Unclassified) to the "RSC [10,000 sf]" District (Retail and Service Commercial). Chairman Ridgeway stepped down from the dais because of a possible conflict of interest as he is a partner with the applicant on another transaction. Staff reported that this is a request to amend the Newport Beach General Plan, the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and to amend the zoning for the subject property. Currently the property is occupied by Armstrong's Nursery. The request is to increase the permitted development level from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet. As noted, the intensity of the entitlement is consistent with other office and retail development in the Newport Center area and as such staff has problems with the request. You did receive in your packet, correspondence from the current tenant of the property objecting to the application. You have also received tonight a letter from the pro owner indicating their rational for the request. Staff was available fo questions. The 5,000 square foot level was established to acknowledge -16- COMMISSIONERS " '3�' 9� A 'An \`X CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1496 ROLL CALL INDEX the indoor /outdoor nature of the existing building and to allow for modest expansion of the retail floor area. It is predominately outdoor but, that is included in the 5,000 and only a very small amount of additional floor area could be added under the current level of entitlement. The existing structure itself and most of the outside area is within the 5,000 square feet. An aerial photo was used in an attempt to define what was interior and exterior, certainly a great deal of their outdoor display area is not within the 5,000 square feet. Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Russ Fluter, 2025 West Balboa Boulevard - applicant addressed the Commission stating that when he bought the property from the Irvine Company, they restricted the amount of building that could be built on the property to 10,000 sq. ft. They also have architectural review as well as other requirements if any additional square footage were to be built on the property. His proposal is to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan and to allow a modest allowable square footage on the property. Commissioner Kranzley asked that with the unclassified district, could there be with approval by the Commission, various RSC type projects on the property. Staff answered that under the "U' classification, any use that would be allowed under the General Plan would be permitted with a Use Permit. Under the " RSC" district, certain uses would be permitted as a matter of right, others could be subject to a Use Permit and depending upon the nature and scale of the project there could be other discretionary actions; traffic studies, parcel maps or any of a range of approvals which could be required based upon the specifics of the request. Commissioner Selich asked why the property was originally given the classified designation. Staff answered that it was thought that the City had a number of properties that remained in the unclassified district. Many times they were areas where there would be other master planning going on, such as Newport Center. In some cases, there were areas that the existing use might be inconsistent with the underlying land use -17- COMMISSIONERS i KOONER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX designation. In this particular case, the original general plan showed this property to be multi - family residential and it would be a guess that the "U" district was maintained because the existing use was commercial and the general plan use was residential. Since that time, the General Plan has been amended to designate the nursery property for retail and service commercial and would be desirous of establishing the correlating zoning designation. It is the goal of staff to eliminate the "U" district from the code. Commissioner Gifford asked why at the time the General Plan was revised in 1988 that this would have been changed to fall within an area that would have RSC uses and what is the philosophy as opposed to office and professional. Staff explained that the change was from multi - family residential to retail and service commercial. At a point in time the Irvine Company was interested in incorporating this property into the project that is no known as Villa Point. That did not occur and so the RSC district was selected to reflect the existing use on the property which is a retail and service commercial use. Ms. Temple further clarified that if it remains that does not preclude any uses that would be available under RSC. Notion * Motion was made to recommend to City Council for approval of General Plan Amendment No. 93 -3 (A); Local Coastal Plan Amendment Ayes * * k k * * No. 44 and Amendment No. 840. MOTION CARRIED - 6 Ayes, 1 No * Abstain A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, 93 -3(A): Adopt Resolution No. 1421 recommending to the City Council the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 93 -3 (A), amending the Land Use Elememt of the Newport Bead General Plan so as to redesignate property located at 1500 East Coast Highway to increase the intensity of development from 5,000 sq.ft. to 10, sq.ft. and retain the "Retail and Service Commercial" use designation. • -18 COMMISSIONERS 9h Nvlk\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL INDEX CALL B. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO 44• Adopt Resolution No. 1422 recommending to the City Council the adoption of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 44, amending the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program so as to redesignate property located at 1500 East Coast Highway to increase the intensity of development from 5,000 sq.ft. to 10,000 sq.ft. and retain the "Retail and Service Commercial" use designation. C. AMENDMENT NO, 840: Adopt Resolution No. 1423 recommending to the City Council the approval of Amendment No. 840, amending a portion of Districting Map No. 48 so as to reclassify the subject property from the "U" District (Unclassified) to the "RSC [ 10,000 sf]" District (Retail and Service Commercial). sss SUBJECT: Local Grounds (Dan Danks, applicant) item No. 5 3007 East Coast Highway • Use Permit No. 3573 Up No. 357 Establish a restaurant on property located in the RSC -H District where a Approved specialty food use currently assts in a portion of an existing retail tenant space. The proposal also includes: a request to convert an existing Base FAR Use to a Reduced FAR Use, the addition of five entertainment, and a waiver of a portion of the required off -strcet parking. Staff stated that this is an application to allow a restaurant facility in a shopping center in Corona del Mar which contains the Albertson's Market. The report contains a different parking analysis, similar to the analysis for Agenda Item 1. The issues are also similar as it is an existing facility where a retail use wishes to convert to a more intense restaurant use In this particular case, this center is one which does not currently meet the City's parking codes. There have been some parking problems in tins center in the past. Staff is available for questions. . -19- COMMISSIONERS 4 1 i OK40 \k, R� 1\03ii, 5 � \ 4 i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX Public Hearing was opened. 1W Dan Danks, 1821 Port Stanhope, applicant, spoke to the Commission stating that he basically has a coffee house / video store and he wants to add an acoustic guitar playa or duet for evening entertianment. The process as he was advised, was to apply for a restaurant permit. He does not have a full kitchen and he will not be preparing meals. He saves coffee, baked goods, preheated soups and has prepared sandwiches brought in by a local store. Ibis intention is to take advantage of the parking 8uc tuation in the center by converting the video more to a coffee house as that video business was done Friday and Saturday night only That was not enough, so he developed the coffee house use and wants the artertamment for his customers. He is asking for hours of entertainment from Sunday through Thursday, 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m and Friday and Saturday, 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. as reflected in Condition No. 5. Chairman Ridgeway stated that in effect, the only thing the applicant is asking for is live entertainment but he has to do it under the guise of a Use Permit. He was answered in the affirmative. Assuming this Use Permit is approved, how do we get control of the location Sour turning into a restaurant if the applicant was to become defunct. Staff answered that Condition No. 1 states that the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations. The actual plans do not show significant cooking facilities but there is a kitchen. They would be allowed to change to any other operation within the parameters of the plans approved by the Planning Commission Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that one suggestion would be the addition of a condition that the installation of a full service kitchen would be a change in the operational characteristics of the business and would require an amendment to the Use Permit. Commissioner Adams asked what the use is now, technically Staff answered that he has converted a portion of an esisting retail establishment to a specialty food use. -20- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Gafford asked staff about the relationship of tins Item and Item No. 7 which is asking to adopt a resolution of intention and set public hearing Amendment No. 839 for Specialty Food Service, Alchoholi Beverage Sales and Live Entertainment. In order for that type of a code change to actually become effective, it will take about sic weeks plus ftty days for the Ordinance to become effective, so it would be about a two and a half to three month wait. If it could be enacted tonight, then this type of use could be allowed with a Use Permit but not as a restaurant but simply as anther use permitted in a specialty food use. Staff is struggling with the way uses are defined within the limitations of very traditional zoning code and the changing needs of retail operations today. Entrepreneurs are seeking multiple ways to keep their doors open, in tins particular case, the applicant didn't feel he could stay in business solely as a video Gore so he is expanding his business. From a zoning standpoint staff has attempted to look at the various components of this parti business and assign them the appropriate type of designation and look at paling based on that use. If this becomes more and more prevalent, staff will be coming back with attempts to try to address in a more specific way when retail and retail like uses, and food service and food service like uses are trying to congregate in a single building. There has been an attempt as indicated on the exhibits on the wall to acdually define where the retail operations versus the food service is located. This will be used to determin where retail areas must be maintained to stn in substantial conformance with the floor plan. If they were to encroach food service into that area, then it would require an amendment to the Use Permit. In response to commission inquiry, Mr. Danks stated that he has read and agrees to the findings and conditions attached to the report. Public Hearing was closed. Assistant City Attorney stated that the additional language to Condition No. 1 to be: " ... Any addition of a full service kitchen facilities shall be -21- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX considered a change in operational characteristics of this approval and stall require an amendment to this Use Permit prior to installation." Commissioner Adams brought up the issue of parking. The effective change we are approving is probably going to effect the evening hours with the entermiriment. It would have been nice to have a parking analysis for this particularly since the parking on this site is horrendous, speaking from personal experience. A surface street has to be used for circulation, there is no on -site ci cidation, If you miss a spot, then you have to go out on to the street which does not meet current traffic engineering practice. As king as we can make sure this thing does not turn into a restaurant, be does not have a problem. Discussion ensured by the Commission regarding potential abuse /misuse of specialty foods and fix outdoor dining in the codes, the problematic characteristics, i.e., the clean up after closure, lingering patrons eating after • service has stopped, dragging trash out to trash enclosures, etc. Motion * Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3573 in accordance with Ayes * * * ** * the findings and conditions and revised addition to Condition No. 1. MOTION CARRIED - All ayes. Findino: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the waiver of the restaurant development standards as they relate to perimeter walls and a portion of the required off-sued parking, will be of no fiuther detriment to adjacent properties because of the existing developed nature of the site. 3. That adequate nighttime and daytime parking will be provided for the proposed restaurant. • -22 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That the structure on the site was constructed prior to October 25, 1988, consistent with the policies and ordinances in effect at the time of construction. 5. It has been demonstrated that the peak hour traffic to be generated by the proposed restaurant will not oweod that generated by the existing uses in the development, as determined in accordance with City Council Policy L-18. 6. The projections of traffic to be generated utilize standard traffic generation rates generally applied to a use of the type proposed, per City Council Policy 1-18. 7. That proposed restaurant and other building tenarns will be restricted to the uses and operational characteristics upon which the traffic equivalency was based. Relevant operational characteristics include, but are not limited to, hers of operation of on -site busmesses, provision of valet parldug, off -site parking, and net public area of restaurants. S. The proposed restaurant and physical improvements are such that the approved project would not readily lend itself to conversion to a high traffic generating use. 9. The proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding area 10. That the proposed development will not have any significant envirom»ectal impact. 11. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for aces through or use of property within the proposed development. 12. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. -23- COMMISSIONERS 4i W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX 13- The approval of Use Permit No. 3573 will not under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfiure of persons rekdi% or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and father that the proposed modification related to the proposed signing is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confornnance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, accept as noted below. Any addition of full service kitchen facilities shall be considered a change in operational characteristics of this approval and shall require an amendment to this Use Permit prior to installation. . 2. That the hours of operation of the proposed restaurant shall be from 6:00 am. to 11:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and from 6:00 am. to 12:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. 3. That no outdoor paging system shall be utilized in conjunction with the subject restaurant. 4. That the use of live entertainment shall be limited to three non- amplified performers and an entertainment permit shall be issued by the Revenue Manager in accordance with Title 5 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. That the hours of the five entertainment use be limited to between 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and between 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday nights. That all vdax r doors and windows shall remain dosed during the use of the five entertainment; and that dancing shall not be permitted as part of the live entataimment unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. . -24- COMMISSIONERS 4 y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX 6. That the "net public area" of the restaurant, which is devoted to dining shall be delineated in the form of a physical wrier from the retail portow► of the facility and that no dining tapes and chairs shall be located m the retail area The form of physical barrier shall be approved by the Planting Department 7. No deliveries shall take place before 8:00 am and after 8:00 p.m. daily. 8. That trash pick -up shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and in accordance with Chapter 20.63 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9. That the development standard pertaining to a portion of the required parking (19 spaces) shall be waived. . 10. That the development standards pertaining to walls shall be waived, 11. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 12. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building and the errtve site shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 13. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from smrw nding public streets and alley and adjoining mss. 14. That where grease may be introduced into the drainage system, grease interceptors shall be installed on all f iurees in the restaurant as required by the Uniform Phrmbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 15. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. -25- COMMISSIONERS • P0M CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX 16. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public works Department. 17. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public works Department 18. That the on -site panting, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circilation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 19. That all employees shall park on-site. 20. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Pen* upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 21. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • +s SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 95 -1(B) and Item: No. 6 LCP Amendment 42 (Revisions to Calculated Density and Intensity Policy) GPA 95 -1 (B) -LCPA No. 42 Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan to allow the Planning Commission and City Council to determine permitted residential density and commercial intensity for Approval based on parcel we prior to right -of -way dedications or acquisitions. . -26- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX Staff stated that these are parallel amendments to both the Land Use Element and the Local Coastal Program which would establish a policy by Which the Planting Commission or the City Council could use previous dedicated land in determining the potential development intensity and density of firture projects This would potentially allow a greater rent commercial intensity and residential density that would occur under current policy. However, the uses would be somewhat isolated and would not have a major effect on the development limits of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program. Staff was available for questions. Staff affirmed that this is similar to the Mariner's Mile provisions. Staff explained the purpose is to essentially provide a policy basis for the type of action that was taken in Mariner's Ivfile. This is a housekeeping amendment and gives the City the policy basis for the concept used in Mariner's Mile. Commissioner Selich asked for clarification of the sex back line and future right of way dedication for Mariner's Mile and why this action is being taken tonight. When Use Permits were Coming before the Commission, the City was requiring the dedication of the twelve foot needed to widen Coast Highway and the issue came up that when you actually require dedication, them the am of the parcel was being reduced, thereby reducing the allowed amount . of development. The City Council determined after reviewing that particular circumstance, that they did not want to "double penalize" a project by both requiring a dedication and by virtue of that fact also lowering the permitted development. So they determined that in Mariner's Mile that when the dedications were required, that the FAR would be based on the original parcel size rather than the subsequent size and this policy would simply provide the basis for a decision of that mature should. the Council or the Commission decide to take such an action in the firture. In the commercial districts, the FAR is based on the parcel size and does not account for setbacks. Prospects trust still comply with all other provisions of the codes for parking and would have to set the project back to accommodate a twelve foot dedication plus the required set back. -27- COMMISSIONERS io: \k5 19 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX Public Hearing was opened and closed. Motion * Motion was made to adopt resolutions recommending approval of General All Ayes * * * * * * Plan Amendment 95 -1 (B) and LCP Amendment No. 42 to the City Council. MOTION CARRIED - All Ayes, A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 95 -1 (B): Adopt Resolution No. 1424 recommending approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment No. 95 -1 (B), amending the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan so as to allow previously dedicated right -of- -ways in determining residential density and commercial intensity. B. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO 42: Adopt Resolution No. 1425 recommending approval to the City Council of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 42, amending the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use • Plan so as to allow previously dedicated right -of -ways in determining residential density and commercial intensity. srr SUBJECT: Specialty Food Service, Alcoholic Beverage Sales Item No. & Live Entertainment • Amendment No 839 AL No. 839 Adopt resolution of intent and set Amendment No. 839 for public hearing at the Plarming Commission meeting of February 8, 1996. APProved Staff stated that specialty food uses under the current code by definition are precluded from having live entertainment or serving alcoholic beverages. This amendment would allow than to do so on a limited basis. Alcoholic beverages would be limited to beer and wine only and live entertainment would be limited to three performers and could not utilize amplified sound. Staff feels this is a reasonable expansion and will not create major intensity -28- COMMISSIONERS Pom�\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX with these issues. The basis of the idea of three enrtetainm was that this is the maximum amount you would reasonably have without amplified sound. Discussion ensued by Commission regarding amplification of sound, number of entertainers; background noise, if there is a problem there could be enforcement and conditions that would allow the City to step in if there is a problem. Staff affirmed that this would give them another tool or mechanism whereby an applicant could ga before the Commission to specifically discuss the nature of the exact request which would be to add live entertainment to a use which is clearly a specialty food use. Commissioner Kranzley brought up the point of an unequal playing field with restaurants. For example, you have a 2,000 square foot restaurant next door to a 2,000 square foot specialty food establishment. The restaurant serves food, beer and wine and has entertainment. The specialty food restaurant serves food, beer and wine and has entertainment. For that 2,000 square foot restaurant, 20 parking spaces are required, meanwhile the specialty food restaurant requires 8 parking spaces. It seems that we are creating an establishment that does not fall within the definition in the code of specialty food service. This creates a fairness issue. Commissioner Adams agreed in theory with the remarks but observed that this item before the Commission tonight is not the thing that is making things unequal. The alcohol and entertainment would be permitted only with a permit that would come before the Commission, just as it has to be in a restaurant. The real problem as he sees it is the 2,000 square foot maximum for these things and the latitude that is in the specialty food uses description in general. This is not the problem, but thus does contra ue to blur the distinction between restaurant and specialty food. There are specialty food establishments in place that are not problematic and probably did need the parking variances although why could they have been granted as a restaurant with special considerations by the Commission? . -29- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Ridgeway led discussion of the Commission regarding the difference in parking spaces required and the history of specialty foods as told by Commissioner Pomeroy, possible change in number of parkin spaces for the specialty food uses; initial definition; diflim t requirements; use of entertainment and service of alcohol and other related issues. Commissioner Ridgeway asked for a definition of what comprises specialty food uses. Staff answered that the definition of specialty food is related to the size and the number of seats that the food service operation has. The Code would define specialty food as a food service use that has no more than 2 ,000 square feet, 20 seats and does not serve beer or wine and does not have live entertainment. If you step out of any of those categories, as the chart illustrates, they become a restazuant, a drive in or drive through,' a take out, a bar or theater /nightclub, all of which are subject to Use Permit requirements. Public Hearing was opened. Lieutenant Andy Gonis, Newport Beach Police Department spoke to the Commission on issues that had been brought up m their discussion. Speaking for the Police Department he concurs with the issues discussed and concurs with concerns of having a climate of what am aunts to a lot of small bars in the City. We need to make sure that some of the some restrictions that apply to food service and restaurants would also apply to ' if you opt to go with specialty food use defining how much food service is required. Otherwise, he estimates, that means they could start eating popcorn and pour down the beers, this is a similar concern of the Police Department. The ampfified sound issue is important also with the doors and windows because the department receives a lot of complaints and on occasions they do involve solo players, etc., so this is an important condition to maintain in the section if this is approved. He was available for questions by the Commision. Commissioner Adams talked about the complaints that Lt. Gonis mentioned the Police Department receives. He would like to know if the Commission -30- COMMISSIONERS 4\1S � �. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX could see these complaints or somehow be made aware of them as they happen. Otherwise, these complaints are rarely made ]mown to the Commission. Staff answered that communication between the Police Department and Planning is improving. In the past, information had not been transtnitted or if it was, it was not included in the staff reports. However, with a more proactive communication in the terms of the types of conditions being discussed here tonight, this information is being used in the wording of some of the newer conditions. This information is coming from Lt. Gongs and the staff is incorporating it into use permit conditions and the Police Department is incorporating them into their special conditions on the ABC licensing. Giving the Police Department greater tools for enforcement there is no question that you don't know you have a bad apple until the bad apple is in place. It would be difficult for staff to go back and say this restaurant has had a complaint, therefore, this new permit should not be approved. Commissioner Adams stated he understood, but if the Commission hears there are problems with noise complaints, doors and windows not kept closed with loud n wsw, etc., that is the type of information that the Commission needs to know when they are evaluating individual sites. Even though this information may not be in a staff report, this knowledge on a continual basis that is not necessarily associated with individual staff reports would be extrmely helpful. Even giving an applicant a warring letting them know there have been complaints in this area and that it is partimlariy sensitive, etc. would be important. Commissioner Gifford asked Lieutenant Gongs if there is a way for the Police Department to get the type of information as requested by Commissioner Adams. With this information the Commission might be able to AT in and when advising residents that there is a condition in a use permit that allows for it to be called up if there is a problem, this would be a way of taking a proactive stance by letting them know this is a serious issue. It would help the Commission in terms of understanding what the issues are that are out there so the Commission knows what the sensitive issues are. Is there a way to have a listing of calls that the Police Department responds to, Eke various restaurants or bars? -31- COMMISSIONERS L 9L � V CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX l lcutenam Gouts stated yes, that working with staff he could set up a procedure. The Police Department certainly appreciates any help tbe Commission could give them to deal with the problems. Commission Kranzley said even more than Just a specific applicant, in some areas it would be helpfid if they have an applicant that is next door or down the street from a particularly noisy place that has had a lot of problems and the Commission is contemplating approving another bar or restaurant, it would be helpfid to know that this is already a problem area So he is asking that the information provided would address districts so that existing problems are not exacerbated. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to the copy of the memo from the Planning Department to the City Manager the Commission receives, perhaps if the information from the Police Department could be done on a quarterly basis. Right now, the Commission gets nothing, unless an applicant comes before them and then neighbors come forward and state they have called the Police Department to complain. Chairman Ridgeway then led discussion on the merit of having this type of information when Commission is addressing use permits, the scope of this information and the means of transmittal. Staff suggested that they get together with the Police Department to see how this information is compiled and how this information would/may need to be re- compiled and presented to Commission. Chairman Ridgeway agreed that this world be appropriate. Commissioner Selich asked if this item is being initiated by some group or by staff responding to problems within the city. Staff answered that the proposal is a suggestion, not a recommendation of staff and it is directly in response to the fact the specialty food users are now coming in and asking staff to have this type of use in their building. Staff than reported on 34 such applicants. Under the definition of specialty food and other constraints within the Code, in some cases, there was simply no . -32- COMMISSIONERS �9���\ • c CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX way to get the applicant before the Commission. It was simply inconsistent with FAR requirements or other non - related requirements. It was felt this proposal would give a path to a public hearing but it is definitely one that staff understands the concerns that the Commission has To date, the experience of specialty food uses is that they mix well in minced areas and in uses with multiple types of uses. There are serious problems with specialty food uses when they congregate, an example would be the shopping center at the corner of Bristol and Jamboree which is about Me specialty foods and it is a poor situation. Staff is considering suggesting a page limitation to address this type of situation. Commissioner Thomson stated that in addition to that, the Caio Restaurant was a specialty food and now has become a big restaurant use. He is concerned with having this transition between the small uses and then a much bigger use. Commissioner Adams stated that they have to come before the Commission and therefore the Commission is to blame for allowing them to go up to become restaurants. He then asked stn$ if these specialty foods that are making these requests, is there no way they can come before the Commission with a request to become a restaurant prepared with variances? Staff answered that in some buildings, particularly in older parts of town, given the structure of the FAR code, if they are already at or above what is called the base FAR (.5 ratio), they can not convert space to a reduced FAR use at all. A restaurant by definition is a reduced FAR use. Commissioner Pomeroy gated that this is not going to go away. It has come before the Commission because local businesses need to have this addressed and whether it is bandied by making them a restaurant or make modifications proposed here. Commissioner Gifford requested that the staff report for the public hearing on this matter include clarification that the planning Commission my impose a condition of approval requiring additional parking.. This is a key issue. Given their particular circumstance, they might need to add parking spaces. . -33- COMMISSIONERS •1��9�F. y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Ridgeway then led discussion by Commission on the required findings pertaining to the parking demand characteristics and FAR regulations and the feasibility of a workshop/study session on this issue prior to public hearing. Motion Motion was made to set this to Public Hearing on February 8, 1996. All Ayes * * * * MOTION CARRIED - All Ayes. sss SUBJECT: Zoning Code Item No. 8 • Amendment No. 834 A No. 834 • Initial review of an amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Code to conduct a comprehensive update of the Zoning Code. Discussion Staff commented that this is essentially a formal presentation of codes that have been worked on in -house for several months. It is a vast improvement of the current code being more logically laid out and using consistent language throughout and provides a more easily useable format. The basic format is in place and a number of revisions need to be debated and staff is looking for guidance as to the proper vehicle. Typically with a change of this scope, some type of steering committee whether made up of Planning Commissioners or incorporating other components of the community, would be advisable to work with staff to work out the details while maintaining the basic formnat consistencies. Chairman Ridgeway asked for volunteers to be on a sub - committee to work with staff. Commissioners Selich, Kmdey and Adams volunteered and will convene with staff to establish size, approach, scope and characteristics of the committee. It has been established that the committee will review and have ready for the Commission calendar by April 1, 1996. sss . -34- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 4, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - none b.) Verbal report by the Planning Department Manager regarding Outdoor Dining Permit approvals - none. c.) Verbal report on Temporary Use Permits - A conditional approval for a temporary use has been included in the commission packet, the related Use Permit will come before the Planning Commission within 90 days. d.) Verbal report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none e.) Verbal report from Planning Commission's representative to the Balboa Peninsula Planting Advisory Committee - none f.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would tike staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none g.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and Staff report - Due to the July 4th holiday, there will be only one meeting during the month of July. Staff is asking to schedule a replacement meeting due to the high volume of work during the summa months. Tin issue will be placed on the next agenda IL) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Pomeroy asked to be excused from the January 18th meeting as he will be on vacation. L) Discussion of Staff report format - none ADJOURNMENT: 11:30 p.m s *s MICHAEL KRANZLEY,SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -35-