Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/10/1994i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: , MINUTES march 10, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX resent * * * * * Commissioner Pomeroy and Commissioner Ridgeway were absent. , bsent * * (Commissioner Edwards arrived at 7:35 p.m.) s s s EX-OFFICIO R PRESENT• James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager John Douglas, Principal Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of February 24 1994 Minutes of 2/24/' 4otion Motion was made and voted on to approve the February 24, 1994, dyes bent * * * * Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. s : : Public Comments: Public Comments No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non - agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, March 4, 1994, in front of City Hall. 4 4 COMMISSIONERS 4 cQ I MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 11 /.._ -I. in 1nnA - 1Y a ch 10, 17M ROLL CALL INDEX Request for Continuance: Request for Mr. Hewicker stated that the applicant, Newport Via Lido Continue Associates, has requested that Item No. 3, Variance No. 1187, regarding the request to reduce the number of required off - street parking spaces which are provided for an existing office building located at 503 32nd Street, be continued to the March 24, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Variance No. 1187 to Ayes * * * * the March 24, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION Absentia CARRIED. • s s Use Permit No. 3519 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the continued operation of an existing dance Item No. UP3519 studio which was established without a required use permit, on property located in the RSC District. The proposal also includes Approved a request to convert an existing Base FAR use to a Reduced FAR use so as to allow the facility to be used for aerobic classes during certain hours of the day and night. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 99/38 -39 (Resubdivision No. 796), located at 3100 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly comer of East Coast Highway and Jasmine Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: RSC APPLICANT: Jett Sharen, dba Chorus Line, Corona del Mar OWNER: Nippon Coporus America Corp, Laguna Niguel r -2- • MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH w,r.._" In 1nnn 1RWb11 1V, 11 JT ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Ms. Jett Sbaren, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Sharen concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit W. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. !lotion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3519 4pes * * * * * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION 9bsent * * CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed application is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with ' surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate parking exists on -site for the existing uses on site. 3. That the existing development will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. It has been demonstrated that the peak hour traffic to be generated by the proposed uses will not exceed that generated by the existing uses in the development, as determined in accordance with City Council Policy S-1. 5. 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 S -1. 6. 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. r -3- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mnrnh In 700d ROLL CALL INDEX 7. The building tenants are be restricted to the uses and operational characteristics upon which the traffic equivalency is based. 8. The proposed use and physical improvements are such that the approved project would not readily lend itself to conversion to a higher traffic generating use. 9. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3915 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 improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDMONS: ' 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot.plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That all noise created from dance and workout /aerobics instruction and related music shall be confined to the interior of the building and all doors and windows within the building shall be closed while dance instruction or aerobics are conducted. 3. That the workout /aerobics classes shall not be offered between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., nor between the hours of 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. during the week. 4. That all employees shall park on -site at all times. 5. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, -4- 0 '7 1% # -�0N\e -- i Ypo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 10, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 6. 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. Use Permit No. 3520 (Public Hearing) item No. Request to permit the continued operation of an existing law UP3520 school which was established without a required use permit, on property located in the M -1 -A District. The proposal includes Approved classroom instruction evenings during the week and weekends only. • LOCATION: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 60/22 (Resubdivision No. 437), located at 4500 Campus Drive, on the southeasterly side of Campus Drive, between MacArthur Boulevard and Dove Street, across from the John Wayne Airport. ZONE: M -1 -A APPLICANT: Orange County University School of Law, Newport Beach OWNER: Koll - KW Irvine, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Ms. Eve Brooke appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Brooke concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "X. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. • -5- r COMMISSIONERS �t N%T% MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Myrrh in 100d ... .., All , ROLL CALL INDEX notion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3520 ayes * * * * * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION Nbsent * * CARRIED. Findines 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the number of parking spaces provided on -site is more than adequate for the proposed school facility. 3. That the proposed site is well suited to the proposed use given that adequate on -site parking is available and there are no residential uses in the proximity. 4. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions 1. That the use of the facility shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan. 2. That the school facility shall be operated only in the approved tenant space and any expansion shall be subject to approval of an amendment to this application. 3. That only general office use of the subject facility shall be permitted during regular business hours of 8:00 a.m, to 5:00 p.m., weekdays. Classes shall he limited to begin after 5:30 -6- 4 4 COROUSSIONERS .00� Q�Gl��o ti's MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ss.._,u in inns lYlQl bL 1V, 177T ROLL CALL INDEX p.m. during the week, and on weekends at anytime. Any increase in the hours of operation beyond that time shall be approved by an amendment to this use permit. t. That all employees and students shall park their vehicles on -site at all times. 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 permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 5. 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. f f f Variance No. 1187 (Public Hearing) item No.3 equest to reduce the number of required off -street parking V1187 paces which are provided for an existing office building on to roperty located at 503 32nd Street and which are located at an 3/24/94 ff -site location at the rear of the Via Lido Plaza Shopping Center n the RSC -H District. Under the existing parking arrangement, 4 restricted parking spaces are provided to the customers and usiness invitees of the office building. The applicants propose to educe the number of required off -street parking spaces to 12 and emove the existing use restriction so as to allow tenants and mployees of the office building to also use the off -site parking paces. The proposal also includes a request to amend a reviously approved off -site parking agreement consistent with the evised parking figures. -7- 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH M h 10 1994 arc , ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 85 -1 (Resubdivision No. 516), located 3471 Via Lido, on the southwesterly comer of Via Lido and Via Oporto (parking site); and Lot 6, Tract No. 907, located at 503 32nd Street, on the northeasterly comer of 32nd Street and Via Oporto, adjacent to City Hall. ZONE: RSC -H APPLICANTS: Newport Via Lido Associates and 503 Lido Partners, Ltd., Orange and Newport Beach OWNERS: Same as applicants James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant requested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 24, 1994. lotion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Variance No. 1187 to kyes the March 24, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION absent * * * CARRIED. Amendment No 796 (Public Hearing) Item No. Request to consider an amendment to Title 20, Chapter 20.62 of A796 he Newport Beach Municipal Code (Mariners' Mile Specific Area Adopted Plan) so as to: allow the Planning Commission or City Council to xes.1348 give a portion of the off - street parking requirement if certain 'teria are met; and approve structures exceeding the basic 26- A796 oot height limit up to a maximum of 35 feet if certain findings are ade; and the acceptance of an environmental document. TED BY: The City of Newport Beach -8- • 4 L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 1VUUl;u LV, 177'T ROLL CALL INDEX John Douglas, Principal Planner, summarized Ordinance No. 93 -24 that was adopted by the City Council on November 22, 1993. The Ordinance amended the right -of -way dedication requirements for the purpose of calculating the Floor Area Ratio for the 12 foot strip of property located on the north side of West Coast Highway in the Mariners' Mile area that is required for the widening of West Coast Highway. On November 22, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93-82, directing staff and the Planning Commission to make recommendations to the City Council regarding revisions to the parking and height limit in the Mariners' Mile area. Mr. Douglas referred to the staff report, and he pointed out that Section 20.62.030 B. (2) Parking Spaces, applies to all areas of the Mariners' Mile Specific Area Plan, on both the inland and Coastal side of West Coast Highway. The amendment would allow the Planning Commission or the City Council to waive a portion of the parking requirement for a project that is located on the inland side of West Coast Highway that is affected by the aforementioned 12 foot wide setback. He suggested that the amendment be revised as follows ...however, off - street parking for all floor area building ulk of any structure eject to the setback requirements of Section that exceeds 0.5 times the buildable area of the site elusive of all setbacks may be waived by the Planning Commission or City Council on appeaL.. The revision would specify that the irking waiver could only be considered for the properties directly affected by the setback requirement. The foregoing would be considered a clarification and not a change to the intent of the language that the City Council initiated. . In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, Mt. Douglas explained that Section 20.62.050(C)(1) was added by the City Council and allows a transfer of development rights from the 12 oot setback area on to the main portion of the property and it only applies to the inland side of Coast Highway. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Douglas explained that to currently waive parking spaces would -9- L 4 COMMISSIONERS ®a MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u,. -,.t In 1 nne Avl=a n iv, i»� ROLL CALL INDEX require a Variance. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission currently has the authority to waive parking spaces for restaurants. Mr. Douglas addressed Section 20.62.050 D. Height Limit. He distributed a diagram to the Planning Commission illustrating how the City determines height. The Mariners' Mile Specific Area Plan is within the 26/35 Height District, i.e. the base height limit is 26 feet and the height of a building up to 35 feet can be approved with a use permit if specific findings are made. 26 feet is measured either to the height of a flat roof or the average height of a pitched roof. If the building has a pitched roof the ridge height can be 5 foot higher than the 26 foot average, i.e. the building can be constructed to 31 feet so long as the lowest portion of the roof is 21 feet. The 35 foot Height Limit would allow the height of the ridge to be 40 feet. Mr. Douglas explained that the proposed amendment would allow the average height of a building to 35 feet with the approval of a use permit if four findings are met. The City Council initiated the following language in Section 20.62.050(D)(1) ....The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than would result from compliance with the basic height limit, and that the inc aced uildin hgk—ht is mcmm to consftuct t addi 'onal #= area authadwd by Section 2 . 2 0 B . The proposed language would make it more restrictive for the City to approve a 35 foot high building, and it would only allow a building up to 35 feet if it would be located on the inland side of West Coast Highway on a property that is affected by the 12 foot setback requirement. The building would be required to utilize all A the additional floor area that was permitted by the Ordinance in November, 1993. In response to questions posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Hewicker commented that to construct a building to the 35 foot height limit it would be necessary to incorporate all of the additional square footage that would be included in the 12 foot setback area. 10 -10- 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �,r—w 1n i nnn ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a request by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Hewicker explained the permitted roof height if the horizontal surface would be located on top of the roof. Commissioner Glover referred to the sentence in the staff report tating Properties not fronting on the inland side of Coast Highway ould no longer be permitted to exceed the 26 foot basic height limit. he determined that because the change only applies to the inland ide of Mariners' Mile Specific Area Plan and the parcels that but West Coast Highway, that no provisions were made for Avon Avenue. Avon Avenue is required to comply with the 26 foot eight Limit unless specific findings can be made to allow the 35 foot Height Limit. If the Commission adopted the Amendment as proposed then rights would be taken from Avon Avenue parcels. She suggested that the Amendment's language be modified that would allow the Avon Avenue property owners to retain the development requirements as they currently exist. Mr. Douglas uggested that Section 20.62.050 (D) (1) be amended as follows: The increased building height would result in more public visual open pace and views than would result from compliance with the basic eight limit, and for those —ronerties abutting West Coast High that the increased building height is necessary to construct the additional floor area authorized by Section 20.62030(B)(5)... Mr. ouglas explained that the proposed language clarifies the intent at the change would only apply to the properties that are subject o the setback requirement on West Coast Highway and it would of apply to properties inland on Avon Avenue or other properties hat do not abut West Coast Highway. r. Stephen Sutherland, 2101 - 15th Street, appeared before the Tanning Commission on behalf of the Mariners' Mile Association o express their support of the proposed Amendment, as modified y Mr. Douglas. He stated that the Association is attempting to evitalize the Mariners' Mile area, and he explained how the reviously approved Amendment and the proposed Amendment ould enable the property owners to develop their property. -11- `�y�o 2t�•p'Pd��o • r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES • provisions so as to: increase the allowable gross floor. area for such A793 uses; remove the mandatory off - street parking requirement when uch uses are located on property that is nonconforming relative to the commercial off- street parking requirement; increase the umber of allowable seats; remove the requirement for Modifications Committee approval of Specialty Food Services; and to establish an administrative permit procedure for Specialty Food Services. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach ames Hewicker, Planning Director, summarized the proposed Amendment. The proposed Amendment would allow the gross floor area of a specialty food establishment be increased from 1,200 square feet to 2,000 square feet for seating for 20 persons. The Amendment would eliminate the requirement of on -site asking requirements when a specialty food service is proposed in existing nonconforming building which was previously utilized or retail uses. Specialty Food uses do not include service of alcoholic beverages, live entertainment for dancing, and the hours of operation are restricted from 7:00 a.m. to midnight, unless the ours are amended. J -12- March 10, 1994 ROLL CALL I INDEX There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public Baring was closed at this time. lotion * * M Motion was made and voted on to adopt Resolution No. 1348 and .yes t to recommend Amendment No. 796 to the City Council, as Lbsent * * * * o odified by the suggested revision in the staff report regarding parking and the revision suggested by Commissioner Glover regarding height limit. MOTION CARRIED. x x x Amendment No. 793 (P bli H arin i item No. Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport A Adopted Beach Municipal Code revising the Specialty Food Service R Res-1349 A° IFORPAA. `�o • 4 ulhl Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH lvlaicu 1V, 177't ROLL CALL MEX Commissioner Gifford referred to Section 20.72.015 (E) Appeal, and she requested a clarification of who may appeal the decision. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that because there are currently public hearings at the Modifications Committee meetings for specialty food service uses, any person could appeal the decision of the Modifications Committee; however, only the applicant would be able to appeal the decision of the Planning Director to the Planning Commission with the proposed Amendment. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, and Commissioner Gifford agreed that there would not be a mechanism for any other person to appeal the Planning Director's decision. Mr. Hewicker stated that the purpose of the Amendment is to streamline the process and make it easier for specialty food uses to go into business without having to go through the Modifications Committee or the Planning Commission. Commissioner Edwards determined that there would be no public notices mailed to the surrounding property owners with the proposed Amendment, and Mr. Hewicker concurred In response to a concern expressed by Commissioner Edwards regarding a potential impact on the adjoining property owners, Mr. Hewicker explained that the specialty food use should not utilize more parking than if there would be an office or retail use at the location. Mr. Hewicker further commented that a condition of approval would be imposed stating that the Planning Director may call up the use for revocation or add conditions if there would be problems. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Laycock replied that outdoor use would be allowed if it would be within the 2,000 square feet. Mr. Laycock further replied that the application would not have to go through the Coastal Commission for approval. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Tom Hyams, President of the Central Newport Beach Community Association, appeared before the Planning -13- COMMISSIONERS • 6 11ROR 6 ,0 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ILA, 1. 1A 100A ROLL CALL INDEX Commission. Mr. Hyams expressed his concerns regarding the elimination of public notification, and he determined that it is easier to allow the use than it would be to remove the use if there would be problems with the operation. He suggested that the approved permit be held in abeyance for 15 days with notification to the adjacent property owners, and if there is no objection, then to allow the use. Mr. Laycock stated that the Modifications Committee has reviewed 39 Specialty Food Use requests in the past 4 years, and public notices were mailed to all property owners within 100 feet of the proposed uses. He could not recall anyone appearing before the Modifications Committee to object to the proposed uses. He said that the operations have not been controversial. Ms. Flory stated that a City Councilperson has the ability to call up a permit if there is a concern regarding the use. She stated that a provision ' could be added in the proposed Amendment that would allow the City Council or the Planning Commission to call up a permit during a speed appeal period after reviewing the conditions imposed by the Planning Director. Discussion ensued with respect to the appeal period. Mr. Hewicker stated that the purpose of the proposed Amendment was to streamline the procedure and to expand the scope of the Specialty Food Service Use so as to be able to bring in a larger facility under the Specialty Food Service umbrella. The purpose of eliminating the Modifications Committee was to shorten the procedure, and by implementing the Planning Director, there would be a written record in the event that the conditions were not being complied with by the establishment. Mr. Hewicker commented that the Economic Development Committee approved the proposed Amendment as presented to the Planning Commission. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Laycock explained that the Modifications Committee meets every Tuesday, and two Tuesdays prior to the public hearing is the deadline for filing an application. The request is noticed 10 days prior to the public hearing, and there is a 14 day appeal period after the public hearing. -14- COMMSSIONERS MONO A*\\0 • L 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH X,r�rA, 1n 100A ROLL CALL IlVDEX Mr. Don Holly, Vice President of Operations for Diedrich Coffee, appeared before the Planning Commission. He pointed out that a use permit was granted to Diedrich Coffee for a coffee house at 3601 Jamboree Road. He pointed out that the cities of Tustin and Costa Mesa approved over 60 seats in Diedrich establishments. He said that Newport Beach permitted only 12 seats in their establishment on Jamboree Road and to date they have not been able to increase the number of seats in their facility; however, the proposed Amendment would provide greater satisfaction to their customers because additional seats would be available to them. Diedrich Coffee currently has seven coffee houses in Orange County, and on -site consumption of all the facilities, with the exception of the complex in Newport Beach, is 60 to 75 percent of their business. In contrast, because of the limited seating, only 3 percent of their business in Newport Beach is for on- premise consumption. The missing 24 to 74 percent of the eat -in business is largely lost business, and if they could have more seating in the coffee house they would experience a very large increase in their customers. The City does not receive any tax revenues from 'to go, business, i.e. 97 percent of their business does not generate any sales tax revenue for the City. He said that they would expect to see a 30 percent increase in business if they were permitted to have more chairs. In response to a questions posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Holly discussed the parking spaces that were allotted to the coffee house by the landowner, and inasmuch as their business is the lowest during the lunch and dinner hours the establishment does not cause parking problems. Mn Iaycock explained that Diedrich Coffee did not come to the Modifications Committee because the establishment exceeded the 1,200 square foot area. The Planning Commission permitted only 12 seats because of the parking conditions at that particular shopping center. Mr. Holly concluded that he used the Newport Beach coffee house as an example for the generalized issue, and that to have such a limitation on the City has resulted in a decrease in the potential business that could be offered the community. -15- L uf�ii 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH iviarcn w, lyyw ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Holly stated that the Jamboree Road coffee house could easily accommodate 30 chairs. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Holly explained that he would agree to public notification and an appeal period. Mr. Earl Gibbs, 1823 Port Carlow Place, appeared before the Planning Commission. He said that when he inquired about a permit to open a bakery business he was informed that it would take approximately six weeks to open. The bakery would be approximately 1,300 square feet, therefore, it would not currently be permitted under the Specialty Food Service provisions. He said that every store in the Newport Hills shopping center exceeds 1,200 square feet. Mr. Paul Carlson, 37 Rue Fontainebleau, appeared before the Planning Commission to express approval of the proposed Amendment. He said that The Carlson Company is a property management firm operating six shopping centers in Newport Beach. Anything that the City can do to help lease space in the present economy is a great move, and the proposed use would have a positive impact on leasing and on the spirit of the City of being pro - business with controls. It would also generate income to the City. Ms. Marsha Dossey, 109 - 26th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Newport Pier Association. She referred to the letter from the Association dated March 9, 1994, to the Planning Commission. The merchants determined that the proposed Amendment would assist in the leasing and revitalization of the area, and they concur with the elimination of the parking requirement. She further commented that the proposal would increase the revenue to the City, and that public notification would not he necessary in their commercial area. -16- COMAdISSIONERS L 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TJ LL M v_ -_t_ in i nnA 1Y16VL LV, 1➢DT ROLL CALL U41DEX Ms. Janice Fuchs, Vice President and General Manager of Fashion Island, appeared before the Planning Commission to express their support of the proposed Amendment. She stated that restaurants, specialty foods, and entertainment have become important to Fashion Island. The proposed Amendment would increase revenue for the City, and it would expedite the process to open stores. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to questions posed by Commissioner DiSano, Mr. Hewicker explained that the proposed Amendment specifies Planning Director; however, it would be his intent to designate a representative of the Planning Department to review the Specialty Food Service Permit. He further replied that the Planning Director ' could call up a Specialty Food Service Permit, if necessary. Commissioner Gifford stated that it is appropriate to issue a public notice when the issues may affect the community, and that there is an appeal procedure for the actions that are taken. In reference to the Modifications Committee public hearings, she indicated that previous experiences have shown that there have been few problems relating to specialty food service uses, and there is reason to consider moving the process to another level by eliminating impediments in terms of time and cost to individuals who are prepared to open businesses. She stated that the market place tends to take care of parking on the basis that if individuals are discouraged by the parking the business would not succeed. In support of the Amendment, Commissioner Gifford concluded that if there is no public notice, the opportunity to appeal does not have substance to it, and it would make the process unwieldy without giving any real affect. The Planning Director has the ability to call the permit back for review if there are complaints. Commissioner Edwards stated that he is in general agreement with the proposed Amendment; however, he stated there should be -17- L MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 11.. --U 1 n 7 00A ,via lh 1V, 17, ROLL CALL INDEX public notification. There are other things that delay openings far more than the proposed process. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Hewicker explained the circumstances that would cause a permit to be called up by the Planning Director. Commissioner Glover expressed confidence that staff would use the proper judgement concerning the specialty food service use. Motion * Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1349, and to Ayes * * * * recommend Amendment No. 793 to the City Council. No Commissioner DiSano stated that previous public notifications of Absent * * specialty food service uses have not been cause for the public's concerns, and he expressed confidence that the Planning Department would make the appropriate decisions. He stated that it would not be appropriate to burden the City when the City is concerned with budget issues; and when no one is taking advantage of the public notice. He pointed out that a permit could be called up if the operation is not complying with the conditions of the permit. Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 795 (,Public Hearing) item No.& Request to consider amendments to Titles 19 and 20 of the A795 Newport Beach Municipal Code so as. to reduce the required appeal period for Planning Commission actions to less than 21 to 3//24/9 days. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the proposed Amendment would reduce the required appeal period from 21 days to 14 days. He commented that there are four times a year when there are three weeks between the Planning Commission and -18- • Fr MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 11.f......1. 1A 1 nM L�LQl �rLL lV, 1JJ7 ROLL CALL INDEX City Council meetings, and it was the feeling of staff that there could be a situation when the appeal period may expire before the City Council has the ability to meet and to decide whether or not to call Planning Commission actions up for review. The staff inserted a tolling procedure between the Planning Commission review and the City Council review which is similar to what currently exists between the Modifications Committee review and the Planning Commission review on modifications. He indicated that the Assistant City Attorney has a concern regarding the tolling process wherein he suggested that the proposal could be continued to a future public hearing. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, replied that she had a concern that the appeal period was not clearly defined in the proposed Amendment. appeal lion * AmendmeNo. 795 Motion was made and voted onto continuem Ayes to the March 24, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION Absent CARRIED. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Add l i Business Motion * Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner Edwards Ayes * * * from the Planning Commission meeting of March 24, 1994. Edwards Absent * MOTION CARRIED. excused s s s Planning Director Hewicker informed the Commission that the Joint Joint City Council /Planning Commission meeting will be held on cc /Pc Monday, March 28, 1994, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Meeting x s s • -19- r L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES l _L �^ InnA lViL41VL 1V, 177Y ROLL CALL INDEX Planning Director Hewicker invited the Commission to attend the Economic Development Committee's Business Outreach Program EDC Mtg with restaurant operators on Wednesday, March 16, 1994, at 11:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT: 8:50 p.m. Adjourn x s x ANNE K GIFFORD, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION r r 20-