Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/03/2005"Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 17 'ale: / /N:\Apps\WEBDATA\ Intemet \PlnAgendas120051mn03- 03- 05.htm 06/24/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins - all present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director James Campbell, Senior Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Jaime Murillo, Assistant Planner Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Temple announced that at the annual Service Awards Breakfast, Mr. Jame Campbell had been awarded the Dorothy Palen Award; and, a Team Spirit Award had been presented to employees from the Building, City Attorney's Office, Planning, Public Works and the Police Department who worked as a team on the resolution o he Goetz matter. Mr. Campbell thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their support. Chairperson Tucker noted that St. Andrew's Church is proceeding with its effort to reach an agreement with the School District regarding the parking issue. He noted that it was unfortunate the way the discourse seems to be going in this matter as the focus seems to be by many people not on whether additional parking in the area is needed or indeed would be helpful., but rather they are focused on the fact that the Planning Commission made the agreement with the School District a condition to the successful conclusion to that planning process. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on February 25, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of February 17, 2005. ITEM NO. 1 Minutes Commissioner Hawkins noted that under Public comments, should read Ms. Temple Approved presented five year pins to Chairperson Tucker and Commissioner Selich. 'ale: / /N:\Apps\WEBDATA\ Intemet \PlnAgendas120051mn03- 03- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page 2 of 17 Commissioner Tucker read his changes to the minutes. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve the minutes as modified. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Anthony's River Boat Restaurant Use Permit No. 3684 ITEM NO. 2 151 W. Coast Highway UP3684 On June 7, 2001, Anthony's Riverboat Restaurant received approval of Use Permit No. 3684 Approved that authorized the use of third level of the Pride of Newport for banquet events. This approval is subject to specific limitations of regarding activities and hours of operation on the exterior decks. The Planning Commission also required that the operation be reviewed for the effectiveness of and compliance with conditions of approval Chairperson Tucker noted this is a review of Use Permit 3684 that was supposed to have taken place a year ago, but didn't, so we are looking at it now. Commissioner Cole asked why we are looking at this now versus a year plus ago? Ms. Temple answered that is was inadvertently forgotten and we didn't catch it. One of he suggestions in the staff report is whether the Planning Commission feels the need to review it again. Commissioner Cole verified that it was not because someone has brought up an concerns about this facility. He was answered no. Chairperson Tucker noted that at the hearing on this particular location, there were some residents of Linda Isle that were fairly close to this facility that had some concerns about the operational characteristics. We passed what we thought was something that would work but their level of concern was such that we said, okay, lets bring it back and see how it really works to see if we had done what we thought we had one. Public comment was opened. Bruce Hazlap, 2832 Bayshore Drive across from the Riverboat. He noted that during he summer the bands were very loud, particularly the drums. As alcohol takes affect, people get rowdier and this creates quite an annoyance. During the summer it is worse. At Commission inquiry, he noted that this annoyance has been going on for the past two years. Commissioner Hawkins asked if the noise concerns were from this past summer. Mr. Hazlap answered no, they weren't living in their residence this past summer, but he as there before and had this annoying problem then. Chairperson Tucker noted that the question he asked was if this problem was for the past two years. "file:HN:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn03- 03- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page 3 of 17 Hazlap answered no, we weren't there. erson Tucker noted that was the nature of the question. We imposed two years ago, and what we are trying to verify is whether those ;sed the problems that you refer to that happened before that. Hazlap was presented with a list of conditions by staff. en Zagoren, President and CEO of the Nautical Museum that you refer to as t verboat. He noted that the restaurant is a tenant of the museum and since he h mn over two years ago, they have been very concerned about how the neighb( act to the museum, given the fact that they are looking to become an even larger p. the community. Anytime the restaurant has an event at the museum, they have t permission from the museum first. This is not something that the restaurant c )itrarily do, to go up onto the deck and do an event because that is muses )perty. We work closely with him in terms of monitoring how the museum is bei ed for special events of that nature. Any other time there is music at the museu have City permits and we have been very careful about applying and worki melt' with the City. For example, we are doing the opening of the NOSA Exhibit 16th and we are working with the City on that as we are very sensitive how act to our neighbors. It is now required of every fifth grade student in the Newpc asa School District to take the Museum program, so we are an important part of t mmunity and are happy to have the restaurant working there_ with the ability )vide some of the catering operations, but as the last speaker pointed out, the ally has been no situation within the last two years of any complaints from any of t ighbors. Part of that reason is we have been very careful to monitor what has be ing on upstairs, is falling within the CUP and within what the museum is looking )duce in the community. Schwartz, 89 Linda Isle noted that the last two years things have been They have not been noisy to us. rson Tucker thanked the speaker noting he was a primary speaker at the on this matter; this tells the Commission and staff a lot. comment was closed. irperson Tucker noted we have a question in terms of whether we want to d< condition or whether we want to have this matter come back at a future date to it still works. He verified with staff that this is the only issue. imissioner McDaniel, noting he was on the Commission when these conditi imposed, stated the Commission did a good job of listening to everybody ;rstanding what the situation was. Therefore, we put a lot of conditions on this i we thought would work. It appears as though it is working. We've heard from hbors who indicate that it is indeed doing so, especially from some of those very vocal at the last meeting. I am in favor of not seeing this again. If we t ething from the neighborhood then we will see it then. I think it is working. iirperson Tucker noted that there is a condition in the staff report that if this to be a problem, we can still call it back for review. " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn03- 03- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 was made by Commissioner Toerge to accept the report and to e 1 31 and simply respond to any complaints that come up during the �f actions; otherwise receive and file the report. Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins None None None Beach Page 4 of 17 ITEM NO. 3 PA2004 -235 andments to the Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to eliminatel Recommended repancies and insure consistency within the text, clarify existing policies andl for Approval rdability standards, and include additional provisions to promote the achievement o City's housing goals. These amendments include • Amend Housing Program 1.2.1 to provide consistent dates for the am reporting of the Housing Element and General Plan. • Amend Housing Program 2.1.1 to correct an erroneous reference to Municipal Code. • Expand Housing Program 2.2.1 to include provisions for the production housing affordable to moderate income households. • Provide consistency within the Housing Element when defining afforde income categories. . Amend the affordability standards to be consistent with the standards used by State Department of Housing and Community Development and Office of Attorney General. imissioner Eaton noted his concern with the third provision and if that means tf larger developers do not have to build any low income units and therefore, th 't; secondly, does that affect the in -lieu fees eventually because it is not :nsive to build moderate or at least it does not require as much subsidy 1 lerate as it does for very low and does that mean that our in -lieu fees will be goi n or won't accelerate as much up and therefore the City will also not be able ride low and very low income units. Is the combination of that going to be ;ern to HCD eventually if we are not able to meet those things that we a posed to be doing in the Housing Element? Murillo answered that we are in the process of drafting an inclusionary Zo nce, which is going to address the affordability requirements based on d basis of portions of our RHNA figures. Wood added that we are in the process of working on an in -lieu fee and have bE <ing with the City Council's Affordable Housing Task Force on that, which ally where this proposal arose. We had our consultant look at two scenarios in -lieu fee, what they call the baseline scenario was the required inclusion, Bing in -lieu fee per market rate unit if you did not have it apply to moderate incoi B to receive the assistance. With that the fee would have been about $33,000 1 ' file: / /N:1Apps\W EBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn03- 03- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page 5 of 17 arket rate unit built. If we make the change to allow moderate income units to qua fee reduces to nearly $25,000. There is a difference in what we would get but it so much greater than what we are at today. I think the last one we negotiated 2,000 per unit. It is still a big move in the right direction. I don't think that HCD er need to look at the inclusionary ordinance itself, they are reviewing the How ement and the programs in that as long as we report that we have adopted the id are implementing it. As the staff report notes, we do have a need for model ;ome units. Eaton asked when the new proposed fee would go in? Wood answered that the ordinance will be brought to the City Council shortly at have this amendment to the Housing Element done because we did not want Q a fee that was inconsistent with the Element. rperson Tucker asked if that fee ordinance will come before the Planr emission. He then noted that for the proposals that are out there for Brookfield, airport, and Lennar in Newport Center, those are going to have to prov dable units on site because there are more than fifty units. Wood answered it goes directly to the Council and affirmed the two :)ner Toerge, referring to item 2 in the staff report, asked how the is measured for four (4) consecutive quarters, is there a marketing sr, aime Murillo answered we survey about 20 of the major rental projects in the City. Ve have a list of their total units and every quarter we send out a survey on how mangy nits are vacant and available for rent on the first day of every three months. Basically compile the survey to establish what the total vacancy rate survey is. We average the )ur consecutive quarters to determine what the percentage would be. This survey is ased on anything over fifteen units. iissioner Hawkins, referring to the insert of moderate income units on item we have a shortfall for 83 moderate - income units currently, do we know what' all is on the low and very low income units are? With respect to the 83 modera e, what happens when that need is satisfied under this proposal. Wood answered this proposal doesn't affect it. The Regional Housing Nec NA) numbers are supposed to be re -done every five years. It is sometirr nded to seven years or so because the State has not funded the program for 1 ional Council of Government. What the community has produced within the p; or seven year period, I don't think really makes that much difference in what y< round of numbers come out to be. They look at vacancy rates, total number income levels and allocate on a regional basis into the Counties and then 1 my allocates it. They look at employment, so it is a much more complicit Tula. It is not a matter of once you produce these 83 units you are done, the marl d change over the five years. e Murillo noted that including the Newport Coast annexation area, there is a for 86 very low income units; and low income units is a total of 148. 'Tile: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn03- 03- 05.htm 06/2412008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page 6 of 17 comment was opened. comment was closed. was made by Commissioner Toerge to adopt General Plan •010 which is an amendment to the Housinq Element (PA2004 -23 Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Rudy's Pub and Grill (PA2004 -273) ITEM NO.4 3110 Newport Boulevard PA2004 -273 uest to permit additions and alterations to an existing eating and drinking Approved blishment. The applicant proposes to add a retractable roof over a portion of the ling, an exterior patio adjacent to Newport Boulevard and second floor office ;e. The Modification Permit request is to permit alterations of portions of the firs and the new second floor office space that encroach 4 feet into the required 10 alley setback. Ramirez noted he has new proposed changes to the conditions of approval. iairperson Tucker noted that in the staff report, the conditions that were propos< :re referred to as mitigation measures or other items that address u: aracteristics. The Planning Commissioners refer to the condition number so that is easier for them to just flip back and see what the condition actually said in the to the staff report. I would like to have that resume, otherwise we are just hunting ar cking through each one of the conditions and a lot of them are fairly boiler - plate. uing, Mr. Ramirez noted: One that was omitted is a standard condition that requires that a Water Qu Management Plan be approved by both the Public Works Department and Building Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit. The other two are related to the side walls conditions 42 and 43. Number 42 is requirement as proposed that a six foot high wall be installed along the norther property line between Rudy's and what is the Ho Sum Restaurant. St, proposes that this condition be removed from the draft resolution after looking the narrow area, as it might be a problem for security and trash accumulation. is a 'dead' space there and staff believes that it should be left open. Condition 43 is a requirement for a three foot wall to be constructed between parking lot and the adjacent right -of -way. Staff believes, through working with applicant and their landscape architect, we can provide landscaping in that that would create better aesthetics than a solid wall in that area. Therefore, recommends this condition be deleted as well. Ramirez noted that a landscape plan is required to be submitted and approved Planning Department. He then stated that the applicant believes that there ,ommunication regarding the live entertainment and the request thereof. T " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn03- 03- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page 7 of 17 desires to retain his right for live entertainment. If the Commission feels is workable, we have a draft condition of approval related to nissioner Eaton asked about the proposal to delete condition 43, wasn't that and of the Specific Plan and do you not have a problem with deleting it? WI you want to permit heaters in the outdoor area as listed in condition 41? Ramirez noted that condition 43 is a Restaurant Development standard. TI ;ific Plan refers to the Restaurant Development standards. Condition 41 w� ested by the Fire Department. They would allow some sort of heaters out the they don't want anything that is not bolted down or stubbed in. The Fi artment will work with the applicant so they can get some sort of heater out there. Jerson Tucker noted that before us is a use permit. Paragraph 1 in the conditioi to the floor plan is what the development shall be in substantial conforman( One of the things that is not there is a pool table. Is that going away or is it on mt floor now? Right now, it has such obvious characteristics of a bar, is & lel design to have it become more of a restaurant bar as opposed to just 1 bar? Ramirez answered that they want to upgrade the facility to a nicer rr ifortable place to relax and have food and drink. As far as the pool table goes, discuss that and the applicant deleted it from the plans. He would have to cc k to get approval for a pool table to go in there in the future. rperson Tucker affirmed that to add games or a pool table would be the submitted floor plan. Selich asked about the seating arrangement. Ramirez answered that the seating arrangement would have to be in substantia ormance with what is shown on the plan in number and layout approving 88 seats. iissioner Toerge, referring to the floor plan, noted that on the ground floor the irs to be only one head serving the men's restroom. Is that currently the case? like there are three stalls for women. Is that how it is in the Code? Ramirez answered that is how it is shown on the plan. The Building Dep looked at the plan and they have done an analysis with the applicant that plumbing and fixtures. Temple noted that if the Uniform Building Code sets forth a requirement for i the applicant will be required to provide more because your action would not legal requirements. Carson, 331 Canal Street, property owner and partner in Ruby's the following: . The inside of the building has been patched over many times to its current as a sports bar. "file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas \2005\mn03- 03- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03103/2005 . The building facade needs a face lift. . The menu is being changed as well as the building itself in order to gain a clientele. . The pool tables were being used as eating tables and so we have elected to seating tables instead and we have removed the pool table. . The proposed outdoor patio in the front will help during the peak summer time people do not like to eat indoors. . We want to create more a family type atmosphere with this remodel. . The proposed retractable roof is to enjoy the sun and the outdoors. comment was opened. comment was closed. mmissioner Hawkins noted this is a much needed face lift. The retractable roof exciting idea. He noted his concern about the parking space loss and asked abc location of the stairwell that takes that parking space. Parking is a premium and uld like to see if there is some way to regain that space. I. Ramirez answered the stairwell on the southerly side provides access to )posed new second floor offices. As designed now, it does not look to be v ough to accommodate an additional space. Whether or not striping can be modi ;ewhere may be a possibility. If that stairwell was removed then another space cc squeezed in there. The standard space width is 8 feet 6 inches, so they would h pick up a little over a foot to put a space there; however, you may lose some of Temple noted that in the report, it states that the principal reason for the loss of ;e is not the installation of the staircase, but the provision of Code for adegi licap parking, which is not a choice for this project, landscape areas and iosed open staircase. sioner Hawkins noted that there is no way to compromise the special n area, but perhaps there is a way to adjust the other two to recapture Campbell noted an alternative would be to put the staircase in the alley setb< :h would then create another issue, or, you could put that internal access inside surant, where space is at a premium. There are ramifications if that were to Tucker asked the applicant what the two outdoor upstairs patios are Carson answered that originally he had just a deck on top of the office space. g to get the net useable occupancy everything shifted around and we actually ;e in the restaurant area. We also addressed the parking issue by cutting into Page 8 of 17 " file:// N: 1Apps1 WEBDATAIInternetlPlnAgendas 120051mn03- 03- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page 9 of 17 k of the building and creating a space that is now currently the freezer. That wa: ther thing, we were having an issue with the Coastal Commission requirements. Ir front patio area we wanted to make it easy and as you walk up the staircase, tha us over the 10% add -on which would have kicked us over into the Coasta nmission. So, we took that out and have it as a breezeway walk -up underneatt you would go into the offices. At Commission inquiry, he added that they have n( :e space currently. The patio is only to be used for the employees to get away. patio area is not for the restaurant patrons. Tucker asked if there was something in the restrictions regarding the ontinuing, Mr. Carson noted that closing the patio at 10 p.m. is difficult especially )mpadson with other restaurant patios that are allowed to be used until closing. P r as the restriction on noise, we have no problem with not having piped in music ) )mething to the outside after 10 p.m. There is no reason to have music out there. F r as our patrons to be able to be out there, that does hurt us and makes it difficult tc we reach our capacity and we then have to basically remove people off the patio ) p.m. That would not be customer friendly and would make it difficult for us 1 nction. We agree on other things to keep the noise down such as the roof closing , p.m. As far as the noise, we haven't done a study but we sit at an intersection the probably the busiest intersection down here with traffic and noise. There is also to )out widening the street, which means there will be more traffic. There is more noi: eated from that intersection than is caused from that patio, so we would like to keep )en all hours of business. The patio area has a total of 6 feet of wall as a barrier. tinuing, he noted the live entertainment; they would like to have it at their bar. VI not looking to have that noise after 10 p.m., so if you want to condition that ar the timeframes, that makes sense to us. We envision a guitar being used mo rig the summer daytime. The retractable wall will be closed at 10 p.m. as there is r on one of them for egress and ingress. Ramirez noted that condition 9 states that, 'the second floor office space shall used for commercial activities associated with and in support of the eating eking establishment. The office area shall not be leased or rented as a sep We can clarify that with second floor office space and patio area. Tucker stated that we could come up with language on condition 10. Temple noted that during the development of this application and the plan to mf the criteria and avoid the need to go to the Coastal Commission there was a lot rk done on the design of this project. As we worked with this we were concern out the possibility of the second floor office area being leased off separately and ) ad at all as part of the restaurant. The way they are proposing to use it, it would ) unt as part of the floor area used to measure parking requirements. The second p it was the design of the patios did change because as they were originally propos )y looked very susceptible to enclosure for additional office space. Once again, 1 ncems were exceeding floor area ratio, exceeding the Coastal Commissi eshold. So these two conditions, 9 and 10, were intended to address those b ncems. I would think that if the Commission wants to clearly state that the use of 1 do is not for patrons of the restaurant but only for other employees of 1 tablishment, that would be yet another condition. " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn03- 03- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page 10 of 17 rperson Tucker noted that is where he is headed because he is concerned inally they are asking for less than 400 square feet of addition, but when you ig additional bodies on additional patios, even though it doesn't count as floor �r the technical definition of our code, there is a parking demand that is assoc it. I personally would like that type of condition. Selich asked how the patrons would get up there to use it. Carson answered that the patrons would actually have to walk through the kitch ugh the cooler and the bathrooms of the employees. The offices are in front < patrons would have to walk through them. At Commission inquiry, he answered ild accept an additional condition regarding patio use restriction. ,nmissioner McDaniel noted he has no trouble with live entertainment as it is a d as it is. He would allow the live entertainment up to 10:00 p.m. It is quieter n it is outside. He would say live entertainment inside done at 10 p.m., that his proposal. Toerge noted the request is to allow the patio to be open until 2 a.m. r. Carson noted we serve until 1:30 a.m. and then we clean up and people pay th Ils. We would like to serve breakfast on the weekends so we would like to open up a. m. Tucker noted the issues to be decided: . Outdoor patio operating hours. . Okay with the roof retraction hours. . Live entertainment up until 10:00 p.m. and staged inside. . Operating hours to open at 6:00 a.m. . Limiting the upper patios to the employees' use only. . The loss of the one parking space. outdoor patio hours: nissioner Toerge noted it would not be unreasonable to have the outdoor dinir J an hour or two before the close of business at 2:00 a.m. There is some offs because of the location and being so close to the road. It wouldn't create hip on the business if it were to close an hour or two before the 2:00 a.m. closir maybe at midnight. I do believe as it gets later at night that certainly aft ght the impact of the noise of the road is far less, there are residents down 31 t and maybe 32nd Street that might hear the noise there. I am not sure he of a negative impact it will create for the bar if it is closed at midnight or 12:30. Tucker clarified that the property next to this establishment is zoned below and residential above. " file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas \2005\mn03- 03- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/0312005 Page 11 of 17 Temple noted that there are some second floor residential in some proximity and r properties can be developed with mixed use as well. While there may be outdoo )s that have lesser regulations, this has been a standard request of the Polic( artment for at least the last five to eight years. That doesn't mean you can' ige it because if the context of this property is different, certainly longer operations s would be okay. Once we get to 10 to 10:30 the ambient noise level associate( the road does drop pretty dramatically throughout town. nissioner Toerge noted he has no problem with extending it beyond 10 p.m., have a problem with leaving the outdoor area open past midnight. Selich asked about the restrictions on the outdoor patio of El Ranchito. Temple noted she would have to research the outdoor patio uses; however, rn El Ranchito has been there a long time and their patio is almost fully enclosed. ssioner Eaton noted if this patio faced the water that helps the noi; ssion he would be quite concerned. Here this patio is facing a fairly bu / and intersection and assuming the retractable walls are retracted as well f and with no amplification out on the patio, he doesn't have a problem with open until 2:00 a.m. 3sioner Selich noted he has no problem with it either >mmissioner Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Toerge's suggestion. He nbient noise goes down and so some sort of restriction is reasonable, 12:00 at a reasonable restriction. missioner McDaniel noted the Police Department is the bigger concern than nois( now. Crabby Kenny's was like midnight, if I remember right. He is concerne( it people being out there drinking until 2:00 a.m., when the crime rate goes up. has definitely been a concern in that area specifically. That is more an issue t( than the noise so he is in favor of closing the patio down, and bringing then e. At least they won't be standing around outside. imsssooner Toerge noted his concern of the music inside and doors opening A pie going in and out and the ambient noise going down and now it is midnight icularly 1:00 a.m., I think it creates problems. I am sympathetic to the idea abi smoking issue, but it should be closed well before 2:00 a.m., that is too late. Id agree closing at midnight. McDaniel noted he would support midnight closure as well. ssioner Cole noted that there is a condition that allows the Planning Director the hours if there is a problem, condition 25. So, he would tend to allow them subject to that condition. If there is a problem, we can take action. Is tt Ramirez noted that the way condition 25 is written, it addresses only the ', the wall, etc. We could include the patio area in that condition. Tucker noted he supports the midnight closure. He then asked about " file: //N:1Apps1WEBDATAI Intemet \PlnAgendas120051mn03- 03- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03103/2005 Page 12 of 17 space loss issue and asked Commissioner Hawkins what he is proposing )mmissioner Hawkins asked if there were any parking in -lieu fees that can be this location or is re- design the only option to recover the lost parking space? Temple answered that re- design is the only option. The City did at one time have ing in -lieu fees for commercial; however, it has been suspended by City Council. i if it is still there, the City was never willing to charge more than $150 a year. )mmissioner Hawkins noted that parking is at a premium there. If there is some re- capture that one space I would like to see that. noted that the concept of compact parking was eliminated from the Public Wor ng Standards and that the standard parking space for all parking is 8 feet rson Tucker noted that what we can suggest that the parking configuration to the approval of the Traffic Engineer for not less than 27 spaces. Carson noted that the noise created on the patio will be going out onto a parki He would be in favor of closing at 1:00 a.m. and maybe work their way back 0 a.m. He noted that patrons are not allowed to smoke inside so they have to side to smoke. When they are outside we lose control so if they are inside we c our job and make sure that everything runs smoothly. The other conditions we with and have no problem. ner Hawkins noted a change needs to be made to condition 23 given of opening hours. McDaniel noted he is still in favor of the midnight hour iissioner Cole noted condition 20 needs to be clarified that live entertainment the facility and has to cease at 10:00 p.m. Ramirez noted staff will amend the conditions accordingly and add some ditions related to the live entertainment. Commission inquiry, staff noted that if there are complaints or other forms o nmunication that the conditions imposed are inadequate to maintain an acceptable aration of the business for the area, then the Commission has the right to call ae n for review and to impose /change conditions or initiate revocation proceedings. s can use the concept of condition 25 where the condition authorizes the Director tc Cher restrict hours when the retractable roof, wall, doors or windows are permitted tc open. This option includes the option of requiring these features to remain closed a times except for the ingress and egress. A similar condition can be drafted regardinc patio, which simply says that if you are authorizing whatever hours on the outdoo do that if problems are incurred that the Director has the authority to reduce the urs of operation. imissioner Toerge noted he finds the applicant's position rather compelling smoking and control of the patrons as they go outside and the ability to " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATAI Intemet lPlnAgendas120051mn03- 03- 05.htm 06/2412008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page 13 of 17 ;m on the patio. Maybe the 1:00 a.m. is more reasonable, he just has a pr( th closing at 2:00 a.m. So long as we expand that condition and make it very at should there be complaints, we will call it up for review. I would be more in( accept the applicant's request for the patio closure time. E)rson Tucker noted that the proposal is now for 1:00 a.m, with the additii m that the Planning Director, if there are problems, has the ability to modify of operation. So basically instead of 12:00 it is 1:00 a.m. with what ted by staff. . Temple noted that either the Director on his /her own authority has the authority uce the hours, or that the Director clearly has the obligation to bring this back it review. We can do it either way, it is just how much you think the Commissi ads to be involved. mmissioner Toerge noted that if there is an issue, then we can review it. If it is r issue, then we don't see it. With that in mind if we modify the language to inclu outdoor patio, I am in favor of 1:00 a.m. closing the patio and verified that he urging condition 25 to add the outdoor patio. mmissioner McDaniel stated that the parking lot belongs to these people too. Tt is a place in Corona del Mar where there was noise and people throwing trash oh and we made them put guards on the gates, etc. and nun people off that V nking out there and causing trouble. My concern is that these people, whatever 1 doing at midnight, if they are going outside, that is still going to be a problem in mmunity that is happening on their property. He really believes midnight is ph e at night for this establishment for not to be causing trouble in the neighborhood. erson Tucker then canvassed the Commission: Commissioners Eaton were okay with 2:00 a.m. so they are okay with 1:00 a.m. )mmissioner Eaton answered yes, as long as the language is added to condition add the patio. Selich answered yes, Cole answered yes. Toerge answered yes. Aion was made by Commissioner Toerge to approve Use Permit 2004 -049 edification Permit No. 2004 -089 (PA2004 -273) subject to the findings and condi approval contained within the resolution with the following modifications: . Live entertainment be permitted inside until 10:00 p.m. . The hours of operation be from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. . The patio is obligated to close at 1:00 a.m. . Restrict the access and the use of the second floor patios from the use of restaurant patrons. . The 27 car parking is adequate. . Condition 25 shall be edited to include outdoor patio. . Live entertainment permit needs to be allowed by the City Manager prior to live "file:HN:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn03- 03- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03103/2005 Page 14 of 17 entertainment at the establishment. . Delete conditions 42 and 43. . Add the standard condition reaardir None None None Chris Brigandi (PA2005 -001) ITEM NO. 5 500 31 st Street I PA2005 -001 ie applicant requests the establishment of a height limit in excess of the 26 -foot basl Approved nit pursuant to Section 20.65.055 of the Municipal Code. The applicant proposes t instruct a mixed use building with an average roof height of 30 feet and 9 inches and peak height of 32 feet approximately iairperson Tucker asked about the width of the sidewalk in the public right -of 3t is next to this building and whether there is enough room for two people to v le by side down the street. I observed the location and the Cannery Lofts space looks to me like the sidewalk at Cannery Lofts is about 1/2 foot wider. destrian elements seem to be quite wide on the west side of the street and this kind of narrow, but looking at the plan it looks like there was a little bit of a setb the property line for the sidewalk area that would bring it up to more than just nimal three feet. Rich Edmonston answered that the Public Works Department did an extent aw of sidewalks on Villa Way in conjunction with some of the comments regan Cannery Lofts project. There is no clear pattern today out there and again elopment patterns are such that it is very difficult to provide the sidewalks we we to have other than by narrowing the streets. In fact alongside the Cannery L w we did narrow the streets slightly to give a little more room to the sidewalk but stain the minimum amount in the street in order to keep from losing ten additi( Jng spaces along the street. It is a very challenging area and clearly there ie tradeoffs that have been made to try and make it work. Tucker noted that there appears to be four feet between the curb face the building would go. Edmonston answered he understood that as well. It has been recommended )lace the sidewalk there and is typically so where there old curb cuts, etc. that he be either moved or closed. comment was opened. Gellatly, project designer with Bissell Architects and representing the the following: . This is a high quality solution to building in the Cannery Lofts area. This projects fits in the area and resolves issues such as open space, bulk, mass and street curb appeal. "file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn03- 03 -05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page 15 of 17 . The ground level has a commercial component of 750 square feet with parking spaces one being handicap parking. . There is also a two story parking element for the 2nd story residence above. . The residence is designed on a loft concept with most of the square footage the first floor with a master bedroom suite on the third level. . We have provided additional setbacks on the front and side in order to break scale of the building as much as possible in responding to concerns of nec residents. . We are here for the increase in height that is necessitated by the natural that is low and the first floor elevation is approximately 18 inches above i grade, which causes us to have to raise the building up a bit. We have mil most of the concerns that resulted from that. . At Commission inquiry, he noted that along Villa Way it is allowed to have a ze setback; however, they have increased that to six inches which provides a cle space between some of the parking meters of 3 feet 4 inches. The ADA code 3 feet. Where you are not walking by a meter, we have maintained that pre much along the way and it approaches 4 feet depending on the width from face curb to property line is. o Campanili, of 403 Orion Way and property owner next door to this site, noted street improvements section states that the City was going to allow a modified of 5 feet at the southeast corner intersection of 31 st Street and Villa Way. It se( t might be the standard that might apply to all four cut offs for the intersection, haps any other future applications that might come before the Public We partment or perhaps the Planning Commission could use the same design. Tucker asked if this was something within the purview of the or is this information only. Edmonston answered that the dedication requirements are within the purview City Council. comment was closed. irperson Tucker noted the basis for the Use Permit is for the height limit due to t gn characteristics that make the site design better than if the applicant had stay the same amount of FAR but did not seek the Use Permit. It looks to be /some, well thought out project that is consistent with the materials that are call in the Specific Plan in this area, like them or not. This applicant has be sistent with what the Code says. mmissioner Toerge noted his agreement and added that the increased buildin< ght results in more public visual open space and views than is required by th( ular standard height restriction. He also believes it results in more desirablf hitectural treatment as displayed in the plans and more appealing visual character. ntinuing, he noted that the increased building height would not result in undesirable abrupt scale in relationship considering the Cannery Lofts across the street. Th( ' file:HN:1Apps1WEBDATAI Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn03- 03- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page 16 of 17 ling does not provide anymore floor area than what we be achieved without the Iht variance. He then noted his support of this item. Gellatly, at Commission inquiry, noted he is in concurrence with all the conditions. ion was made by Commissioner Toerge to approve Use Permit No. 2005 -001 2005 -001) subject to the findings and conditions of approval contained in the None None None BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that at the last City Council mee they adopted the Ordinance regarding the increased parking requirements medical office; and, established the ad hoc committee for revisions to the Z Code. b) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic ,ommittee - no meeting. c) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan ,ommittee — no meeting. d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal PI( ,ertification Committee - Commissioner Toerge noted that at the last meeting pub/ access and coastal bluffs were discussed. He noted that there are a lot of though and concerns with how to deal with coastal bluffs, the process is on- going. He not( hat issues such as string line and predominant line of development were discuss( and since the City is essentially developed, there was a suggestion to create a graph hat shows specifically what properties are in the coastal bluff area and maybe v :ould ask staff to come up with examples of existing situations, not hypothetical, fro vhich we can start to draw some conclusions. Since we are doing the Zone Code ar he Local Coastal Program now and this body has dealt with the coastal bluff issue lumber of times, that it might be a good idea to go through that process on all tl ;lopes in the City that meet that criteria now as a body and determine how to addre: hem all now and not do in piece meal as the applications are put forward. This will I tiscussed further at our next meeting and I am hopeful that we will have a graphic vork from. He then proceeded to give an overview of what the group hopes to addre: n the near future. Temple noted that staff met with the Coastal staff last Friday to discuss the LCF ication status and some of the issues that they have seen to date. The principa stal Analyst who was working on our project left on maternity leave and is nov ning on a part time basis starting this week. That person will be workinc ;ipally on our Land Use Plan. The staff gave us a verbal commitment that the! d have comprehensive comments on the submitted Land Use Plan by the end o and that would include the comments from their legal staff in San Francisco. r intent was to provide us with some amount of time that would allow them t( dule the initial hearing at their meeting in June, which is in Long Beach. Their staf "file://N:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas \2005\mn03- 03- 05.htm 06/24/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 03/0312005 Page 17 of 17 ports go out May 8th, which means they are giving us a week, which is not probabl) fficient time. We did talk about still wanting to get the comments and have some setings during the month of April and try to have some sort of final comments. .pending on what happens in April, we may or may not be able to make the meetinc June. If we end up slipping to July, the Coastal Commission meeting is in San Diegc d in August it is in L. A., so it is staying south for almost all summer. Depending or nature of what we are confronted with, we will not have to deal with a two montl lays that have been an outgrowth alternating between northern and southerr alifomia. Our staff would not want to see it go any later than July, but there is ssibility that we may need to go back to the City Council if there are significant policy erations which we feel they would need to consider. If it has to go straight tc )until, that is where it will go due to the time constraints. e) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - Commissioner Toerge asked about the subject of t ntroduction of one way streets in Corona del Mar. Mr. Edmonston stated he would sappy to sit down and share his thoughts and history about this issue and suggest hat he call. f) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda action and staff report - none. g) Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - none. h) Project status — Chairperson Tucker noted that the School District will be hay hree hearings on the parking situation. At the first meeting of April they will :onsidering a vote on an agreement assuming it gets that far. A tape will be m available for anyone on the Commission who would like to view it. I am concerned I he nature of this is playing out. i) Requests for excused absences - none. JEFFREY COLE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION "file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn03- 03- 05.htm 06/24/2008