Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/03/2008Planning Commission Minutes 04/03/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission April 3, 2008 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 14 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn04032008.htm 07/15/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren - Il Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director aron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Patrick Alford, Planning Manager Janet Brown, Assistant Planner Fern Nueno, Planning Technician Ian Burns, Esquire of Harper & Burns LLP, Special Counsel to the Planning ommission finger Varin, Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Commissioner Toerge stated he had attended the City's Employee breakfast at he request of the Planning Department. He saluted the many employees who have dedicated their years to the City. He was also recognized for his five years of service on the Planning Commission. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on March 28, 2008. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of February 21, 2008. ITEM NO. 1 Mr. Harp recused himself from deliberation on this matter. Approved Special Counsel Burns noted that the corrections had been made to the transcripts of the Fury issue. The prosecutor stated she had no changes to the minutes and the attorney for Fury has been contacted a few times and has mad no suggested changes. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to approve this item as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, Toerge, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None ITEM NO. 2 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of March 20, 2008. Approved file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn04032008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/03/2008 Page 2 of 14 Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner cDaniel to approve this item as corrected. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, Toerge, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None UBJECT: Fury Rok & Rol Sushi Lounge (PA2005 -087 ITEM NO. 3 4221 Dolphin Striker Way PA2005 -087 Update on the revocation of Use Permit No. 3162 and Use Permit No. 2005 -018. Received and filed Lieutenant Craig Frizzell, Detective Services Commander, noted they had me with the operators of Fury and a security company on February 27, 2008 as directed by the Planning Commission to sign a security plan and have it in place by February 27, 2008. The operators have complied with that and the plan was instituted on February 29, 2008. The name of the security company is Brand Paragon Protection and it is owned by Michael Boone, who is well known in the area for security for these types of establishments. Calls for service have ecreased since the security plan was implemented; however, there have been o fights as well as other calls for service since the new security plan went into effect. Two main things that have taken effect are controlling the doors and watching for under -age drinkers who are attempting to gain entrance They are holding the occupancy at 297, which is the maximum for that location. Mr. Burns noted that each attorney believed it was not necessary that they be present and that they had met the Police Department's requirements, at least in he interim. That is why they are not here tonight. Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to receive and file. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge, and Hillgren Noes: None ITEM NO. 4 SUBJECT: Seashore Village (PA2007 -100) PA2007 -100 5515 River Ave Continued to April Use Permit for building height exemption; Modification Permit for setbacks and 17, 2008 building separation; Tentative Tract Map established for condominium purposes; Coastal Residential Development Plan for compliance with CA Government Cod Section 65590 and Chapter 20.86 of the City's Municipal Code; and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Mr. Lepo suggested this item be heard on April 17, 2008 due to needed revision o the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to continue this item to April 17, 2008. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None ITEM NO. 5 SUBJECT: Megonical Residence (PA2007 -133) PA2007 -133 2333 Pacific Drive file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn04032008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/03/2008 Page 3 of 14 he application consists of a variance to allow a new 53 -foot 3 -inch high single Continued to May amily dwelling unit to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and a modification permit t 22, 2008 allow the dwelling unit to encroach 5 feet into the required 5 -foot front yard etback. The property is located in the Single - Family Residential (R -1) Zoning r. Patrick Alford noted that staff is not asking the Commission to take action c e application tonight. This application is for a unique site and a unique set �cumstances and staff is asking for guidance on how to apply the findings for iriance and the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan policies to this particul )plication. He than gave an overview of the staff report referencing exhibits PowerPoint presentation: . Over 50% of the site is covered by slopes of 20% or more; . Projections into height limits and encroachments into the front setback; . Variance findings; . Proposed project is based on substantial alteration of the site and elaborate foundation system that would create a fairly wide graded pad the site; • Questioned if a variance for height is needed for the enjoyment of substantial property rights; or, is this a granting of a special privilege; • Protection of public view sheds and public view corridors; • Obligation to design and site development to protect those public views; • Neighborhood compatibilities with respect to scale and massing of the project and the use of interim guidelines; . Landform protections on bluff face that minimize alteration to the bluffs this area has been altered by past development. . Lepo noted one of the guidelines regarding designing and fitting the buildi the site rather than altering the site to fit a building had been discussed w applicant; however, the proposed project does not comply. It is a ste idform and there has to be some radical design as to how quickly you sl wn the slope. Looking from Back Bay Drive, this is going to be a of trusive structure built as is and a variance will require relief of about 20 feet back of the second story. The proposed project does not step steed ough. airperson Hawkins noted the importance of the design in connection with 1 idform issues as well as the mass, breaks, and compatibility in t imissioner Toerge asked if this was considered an ocean bluff renced another project recently reviewed by the Planning Commission 1 not request a height variance because they excavated a bench into e. He is more inclined to accept bench excavation as this bluff is not ale and exposed and is not on the water. file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn04032008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/03/2008 Alford answered certain areas have been identified where development nitted on the bluff face such as Ocean Boulevard, Carnation, and Pac e. There are two types of coastal bluffs identified, those that are subject ine erosion and those that aren't, and this site falls into the latter category. Toerge noted the issue is the public view protection. McDaniel noted his concern of the view corridors from the Peotter asked about the property line in relation to the park. missioner Toerge suggested the use of story poles, certified by < >endent civil engineer, to show the perimeter of the project as proposed ar show the height limitation as allowed. If the home was built within the heig ction it would not need a discretionary permit with any public input. The on )n this is here tonight is that the applicant is requesting a variance for tf it. He noted the issue of what could be done without a variance and with nce and what impacts are involved. Commission inquiry, Mr. Alford noted policies in the General Plan and Coa nd Use Plan that speak to views and view corridors as well as vis sources identified as views to particular land forms such as the harbor, blu Vs and coast line as well as the overall visual quality of the area. The act w corridor identified is the bench at Begonia Park as well as other numen to points. North and south streets offer view corridors and these need to )tested as well as views from Bayside Drive and surrounding streets. Lepo noted one of the ways to keep a corridor towards the water is to m garage to the east to allow the view corridor toward the water between we and the house. sioner Toerge noted a homeowner developing his property should not to expand the view corridor; however, they should not have the spec of exceeding the height restrictions to the detriment of the public view. view corridors were discussed. rperson Hawkins asked about the project being within the ssion Zone. Alford answered it meets the criteria for the categorical exclusion, but it is stion of the applicant asking for a modification of the setbacks and the he person Hawkins noted staffs concerns with the proposed project stency with land use regulations. He questioned if there is a question as iroject's consistency with these land use regulations. The proper approa I be to do an initial study to make that determination. If there is a potential e significant environmental impacts then an environmental impact rep be required. Lepo answered the initial study would be done at staff level and we wou that this is not consistent with the land use regulations. We have come saying staff does not believe this proposed project is consistent and ask f Page 4 of 14 file : //Y:1UserslPLN\Shared\Planning CommissionlPC Minutes\mn04032008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/03/2008 direction as to what you find needs to be changed to make it consistent. d on that, staff will proceed with the categorical exemption. airperson Hawkins noted staff believes there is a design consistent ulations therefore, that would void a need to do an initial study. Staff is a direction that would support this. aion proceeded on visual resources from the bay to the site and the of the immediate area. Megonical, applicant, noted the following: . The size of the lot, zoning, unusual shape, topography, and history of process; . The suggested location of the house as depicted on the plans to mini impact on the bluff while preserving the harbor view from the park; . He has the ability to put two stories at street level without a heil variance; most of the homes on Pacific Drive are two or three stories total; . The current design is 3,315 square feet with a 402 square foot garage; thl height of the home is 22 feet at the street, which is two feet below the limit. . We are not going further down the bluff than our neighbors; request variance for the back corners because the lot is a severe slope; withc the variance we will be forced to cascade down the bluff and impact tl view and bluff coverage to a greater extent. issioner McDaniel asked why there is a need for a variance as this is new home that could be designed without one. Megonical answered he is trying to preserve the view from the park and io down the bluff. Olson, architect for the project, at Commission inquiry, noted: . The Building Code prohibits openings within three feet of a property line fire safety reasons and pulling the house closer to the property I prevented windows in the front of the structure; . Vacation of excess right -of -way in order to have the windows was discussed with staff. Commission inquiry, Mr. Lepo stated staff is asking for direction so that :hitect could get to a building that would be able to be found in conformity General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan. That design would be rev ;ording to Commission direction for compliance and the project will be broi :k at a subsequent meeting for Commission action. Olson noted he has received differing direction for this project. Staff decid come to you for direction to be presented in the formal submittal to be voted d be in compliance with those guidelines. He noted the several scenarios Aecting bluff development and view from the park while providing adequ; Page 5 of 14 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn04032008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/03/2008 space. He then referenced the exhibits and explained the reason for Lepo noted that in this case it is suggested to build down the bluff face ch as possible so you can protect or enhance view corridors. It H Igested to the architect to build further down the bluff to protect the view fri rve. We would work to get an easement through the bottom of Begonia P, provide access from below rather than up on Begonia Avenue. This isistent with those policies that apply to Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Aver I Pacific Drive. However, the architect told staff they did not want to to oess from below. missioner Hillgren asked if a two -story home could be built as opposed to -story home to get the 4,000 square feet at a wider footprint towards tt as opposed to being more vertical and to the west. Lepo answered referring to an exhibit and stated going horizontal instead ical would not help. erencing the exhibits, the Commission and applicant discussed the areas )Ived with the height variance and the view impact from the park, and the sibility of shifting the site of the home with or without impacting the view frorr park; use of story poles showing the current and potential structure and those Lepo noted that with a variance, this project would have to be sent to the 3stal Commission with an approval in concept. We had stressed the `erence to build down the bluff with the roofline below or at curb line to keen view. This is why we suggested the City could grant an easement to access i Carnation across the lower end of the park, the applicant's answer was no. ff believes if the applicant builds down the bluff to protect the view, Coasts Id find the project in compliance with the policies. comment was opened. Yeo, presented a picture and stressed the vista point at the end of Begor we needs to be kept open for views to the bay and ocean. It is important :ct the upper view. k Simon, presented pictures he had taken and noted that there will be about to 40% loss of public view from the park if this project is built. He asked f story poles. He added that this lot is very difficult to build on due to tt graphy and the enormity. of the foundation to be laid is above the playgrour i in the park. icia Bell, representing her mother, referenced her letter in the packet �d the houses on Pacific Drive, except for one, has been built down the :h is ideal. She noted that with no windows on the front of the house, it lo a box. This design needs to be changed. n Fleming, noted she does not favor a variance for this project. She a: the view from the city public park not be impeded. She agreed that ict should be built down the face of the slope. ne Balderston, stated that everyone comes to the park to enjoy the views. rented a 1977 photograph that depicts the pepper tree and view that Page 6 of 14 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\nm04032008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/03/2008 enjoyed for many years. This is an impractical lot to build. Jaggers, stated his agreement of the use of story poles to see what ct is going to be on the views. Gorrie, noted his concern of the impact to the views. i Kenney, stated this is a property rights issue. It is the view from the these people are trying to protect. ;colt Cameron, resident of Costa Mesa, noted he enjoys the view from his car. le suggested looking at the Planning Commission meeting minutes from the 970's for the history on this location. Kelly presented a petition that was left at the park that has 150 signatures. is a community issue. an Tingley stated that he would like to see.the home built down the bluff as ild save the public views. The story poles will show how intrusive the proje be if it is built as proposed. comment was closed. rperson Hawkins noted the issues that have been raised are neighborhooc >atibility, impacts on visual resources, public views, design compatibility consistency with regulations regarding bluff development. discussion that followed gave guidance to staff to include the onal information and considerations for the next meeting: . How the height limits are viewed from the Begonia Avenue and Park angles; . Table of adjacent homes relative to heights, sizes and variances Pacific; . Visual simulations to distinguish the extent of development in neighborhood; • Focus on views of what will happen to the view corridors from the levels as well as from the back side facing Bayside; . Standard distance of the front property line and the curb for the rest of street and the extent of the encroachment in the right -of -way; . Story poles to see adherence to the height restriction or with a and what the impacts could be; . The majority of the Commission stated that the scale and massing of proposed residence were not consistent with the character of surrounding neighborhood; • The majority of the Commission stated they would allow for the bluff encroachment in turn for reduced height on the street; Page 7 of 14 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\nmG4032008.htrn 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/03/2008 . The Commission indicated that they preferred the protection of public from Begonia Park over protection of the landform of the coastal bluff; The Commission expressed their concern with the bulk and mass of proposed project and the plan as proposed is not supported; and, The lot can not be built with a 4,200 square foot project due to topographical constraints and compliance with codes. was made by Commissioner Cole and seconded by to continue this item to May 22, 2008. applicant agreed to the continuance. and None ECT: 311 Femleaf Avenue Appeal (PA2008 -009) appeal filed by Carol Pangburn of the Zoning Administrator's decision for t Droval of Modification Permit No. 2008 -007 on property located in t Itifamily Residential (MFR) District at 311 Fernleaf Avenue. Modificati rmit No. 2008 -007 would permit the remodel and 1,235 square -foot addition existing non - conforming 3 -unit residential condominium structure. )ner McDaniel stated that he had been given a letter to give to Ms. Pangbum. r. Alford gave an overview of the staff report. He noted the propose( odification Permit would permit the remodel and addition to the front unit of the mconforming triplex. The nonconformity is the encroachment into the side yar( Aback and short one guest parking space that is required for a multifamill plex. Staff is concerned that the application provides the bulk of the floor are, Ang to one unit, thereby lessening the likelihood for a remodel to the rea )rtion of the building where the actual nonconformities exist. Dealing with the aighborhood compatibility issue, particularly the regulations dealing with abrup ranges in building form and scale, the previous development pattern had singlc Dry portions of buildings in the front and going up to two stories in the rear. sere are a number of homes in the block and in the area that are taller than twc Dries occurring in the area. This project is providing a distinct third level that i; departure from the pattern of the area and this does present an abrupt changc building form and scale with the adjacent properties and to the middle unit o e triplex, which would have two levels above its single story. He noted then Duld be adequate space to provide light and air. For the issue of consistenc, th the General Plan policies, staff recommends that the decision of the Zoning iministrator be reversed and the Modification Permit be denied. noted one finding in the staff report that dealt with the validity of the Aication. It was noted that the modification would clearly involve modification the foundation and the roof, which appear to be held in common for the idominium plant. However, we were presented with CC &Rs from the Aicant, which seem to indicate he does have development rights to the area: ere he has partial ownership. This is apparently justification of his ability tc n the application without the consent of the other two property owners. Brefore, the finding included in the draft resolution being based on false anc >leading information may not be valid. Page 8 of 14 PA2008 -009 Modification is denied file: / /Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mn04O32008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/03/2008 . Harp noted the applicant has indicated on the application he is the owner. our opinion that the CC &Rs are somewhat ambiguous as far as owners) ues. There is support in the CC &Rs that indicate he would be allowed to ward with the development, and there is also conflicting provisions regardi a common areas and who has ownership and interest in those. From rspective, as far as your decision tonight in regards to ownership issues, y ould assume he has the right to proceed with the application. If the otl ners disagree with that they have the right to enforce their CC &Rs. issioner Cole noted his concern of the neighborhood compatibility. Alford answered the initial pattern of development in the neighborhood wa: front portion limited to a single story and then taller portions were in the rear. you get towards Seaview Avenue, you do have taller structures and there i; with a third level that is more in the form of a roof and gables and referred tc photos that were part of the applicant's submittal. Staffs concern is the fron vation towards Femleaf with the three distinct levels is a departure from tha t of the neighborhood. This project has a lot of floor area going to one uni i it is not likely that you will see the other two units going up and, for tha son, staff sees an inconsistency with the General Plan policies. He adder t dealing with a discretionary application, you have to review it for consistenc, i the General Plan and staff thinks there is an inconsistency. We are in nt of transition where we are operating under the Interim Ordinance and we d( re guidance from the Council on how to proceed. Ultimately, it is going to N tided through review standards in the new Zoning Code in terms of how wE cress these policies. comment was opened. Kinney, the applicant, referring to his letter distributed in the report, stated h files the ownership rights and the legal issues. Because of his control, h d develop up to 2,700 square feet house within the Code. He has left 51 are feet on the ground floor for the other two units to use. Eaton asked about the ownership. Kinney noted he has the ownership rights to develop the property as he is t inal developer that created the triplex and lives in one of the units. E efore, is able to change the development plan. He then read Article irding declarant's rights and reservations. iairperson Hawkins noted this is a substantial addition to the 311 unit and er 100% increase of that unit. He asked about the responsibility aintenance of the property and subsidizing this larger portion of maintenance 1. Could you hand a bill to the other owners for the roofing of the n4 node]? What in the CC &Rs would prohibit that? Kinney answered there is no association, there has only been monthly fei for painting and a sharing of the gardener's bill. If something is done to mon area, there is an equal share of responsibility. Exclusive use area airspace envelope of each individual unit. ussion continued on the exclusive use areas, roof and improvements, ai ership of common areas, and assertion of development rights. Monteleone, architect for the applicant, noted there is no room in the back Page 9 of 14 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn04032008.htrn 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/03/2008 omplish a guest parking space. The rear unit could be remodeled with a fc setback. The proposed project does not create an abrupt change in scale neighborhood. The front unit and back unit balance. The proposed proje ease would result in a 30.6 percent increase in floor area to the condomink ect and 122 percent increase in floor area to 311 Fernleaf. The rear unit c developed with 300 square feet as a third story, this will leave about 21 are feet for the middle unit. Commission inquiry, Mr. Alford stated the original application for t iification did not have a supplemental information page. It requires t licant to describe the project and to provide information as to the thr ings for approval of a modification. The Zoning Administrator stated t licant had applied initially as a use permit because it appeared to go over t : that could be approved by the Zoning Administrator. He noted that ilculation indicated a modification permit was the appropriate vehicle and It r changed the application. It is assumed that one portion of the applicati not changed. r. Kinney stated he intends to live in this unit and will be moving his family th him some time in the future. He may be selling later on. s Carol Pangburn, the appellant, noted she had not been offered the use of tl 10 square feet. She stated three weeks prior to the Zoning Administratoi eeting she had been informed of the meeting. She referenced the packet aterials that had been distributed to the Commission and read her history of tl plex. She noted her protest to the proposed development as her unit will I varfed by the three story building that will take light and ventilation; destructic common foundation, wall and roof between 311 and 313 Fernleaf as we sha common wall. The construction noise during this year -long process will be rig the next room as Mr. Kinney's place is not a stand -alone house. The bearir all, roofs, foundations, driveways, walkways, etc are common areas. Ear vner of the condominium shall own one third undivided interest in the comm( ea. Mr. Kinney should not be allowed to cut into the roof without the permissi( the two other owners. Is it fair that 1,235 of the 1,746 developable squa otage be given to one owner? This should be negotiated among all the owne comment was closed. Commission inquiry, Mr. Harp noted that this is a case where there are C t no homeowners association has been formed. The CC &Rs do not )vide for a homeowners association. missioner McDaniel noted his concern of the contractual obligations in r of the common areas. Harp noted the City does not enforce CC and R provisions nor does it Ived in private disputes between parties related to their interests. mmissioner Toerge noted this is an abrupt change in scale, not only to scent unit but to the properties next to it that are also objecting. It violates J Use Plan provision 5.6.2 that discourages abrupt change in scale. ing Code is clear and that this is detrimental to the general welfare -ious to the property of the improvements in the neighborhood. was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commi= 4 to reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator and Page 10 of 14 file : //Y: \Users\PLN\3hared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn04O32008.htrn 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/03/2008 Page 11 of 14 (Modification Permit No. 2007 -007. I 1 Alford confirmed that the motion include the strike out of tt presentation in the draft resolution. He noted the percentage increase led up to 31% not 41 %. He added that the project is non - conforming as a with the garage. Two parking spaces are provided per unit, the gue ig is required over and above that two space requirement. The gue ig has not been provided and therefore the project is not in conformance. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None ITEM NO. 7 SUBJECT: Bay Burger (PA2007 -219) PA2007 -219 600 Bay Avenue Denied request to amend Use Permit No. 3120 to allow the authorization of the sale per and wine for on -site consumption (Type 41 ABC License) pursuant to t coholic Beverage Ordinance (ABO). n Nueno, Planning Technician, gave an overview of the staff report. The Ty license they are applying for does allow for off -site consumption of the aloof chased on the property. The City is not allowed to regulate that as that ler the jurisdiction of the ABC; however, ABC will condition that the alcohol allowed on the outdoor patio. She noted a correction to the draft resolution edition 4 to delete the first sentence; and, Condition 7 is to be removed. ner Toerge noted his concern of the purchase of alcohol that could off site. Cho, representing the applicant, noted: Request to change Condition 3 to two employees as there will be suffic supervision regarding alcohol service outside noting the visibility from inside. . He agrees to the other Conditions. Mr. Harp added that the City does not control what the ABC issues as far icenses, and it would be appropriate to have a security guard placed on outdoor patio to the extent they are allowed to have alcohol service in 1 outdoor patio area. son Hawkins noted we could add to Condition 3 if alcohol service on the outdoor patio the applicant must have some type of security pl d by the Police Department. Cho noted he would have no objection. If alcohol service is requested on 1 a, we would have to come back to the Planning Commission for iification of the existing Use Permit or a new application at that time. McDaniel noted his concern of the hours of operation. Cho noted during the mornings it is anticipated to sell breakfast items. emission inquiry, he added the clientele is patrons of the Fun Zone sts. It is a small family owned burger place. file: / /Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn04032008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/03/2008 Page 12 of 14 Commissioner Hillgren noted his concern of alcohol be no more than 500/0 o gross sales. That seems a lot for a small burger place, is it presumed that sale would increase due to the alcohol? Could it be made a smaller percentage? Th folks who are serving should be a minimum of 21 years of age. Cho answered it would be a similar operation as a Ruby's. He noted he could the applicant. It would be problematic as the employees are under the age o The ABC allows anyone under 21, as long as they are supervised by ieone over 21, to serve alcohol. aw vote taken if there is a concern on these issues: s - Commissioners McDaniel, Eaton, Hillgren Commissioners Toerge, Cole, Peotter, Hawkins airperson Hawkins noted these were not a concern. tion was made by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner )tter to allow the authorization of the sale of beer and wine for on -sit isumption (Type 41 ABC License) pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage linance (ABO) with the modified conditions to the draft resolution that include deletion of Condition 7, deletion of the first sentence in Condition 4, and inge to Condition 3. Harp noted the security plan as part of Condition 3 to be approved by -e Department. maker and second of the Motion Noes: Eaton, Hawkins, McDaniel and Hillgren Discussion ensued on whether to reconsider the matter. Continue meeting Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner to hear next item Cole to continue the meeting to hear the next item as it was after 10:30. Eaton, Cole, Hawkins, Peotter •ee UBJECT: Tommy Bahamas (PA2008 -029) PA2008 -029 854 Avocado Avenue. Denied request to amend Use Permit No. 3623 to permit an additional 461 square-fool Adoor dining patio which would be in excess of the maximum outdoor dining �ea allowed by the provisions of Section 20.82.050 (Accessory Outdoor Dining) ` the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The property is located in the Newport illage Planned Community (PC) District. Planner Janet Brown gave an overview of the staff report. W. C. Wells, President of Tommy Bahamas, noted he is in agreement 's recommendation. file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn04032008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/03/2008 imissioner Toerge noted his concern of parking and therefore is unable rort the application as this is an already impacted area. He suggested that primary goal is to increase visibility, a commensurate reduction in 1 :ing outdoor dining area to equal the amount of the increase be given and d be more supportive of this. This would be a transfer of a portion of 1 :ing outdoor dining area to this front dining area. Hillgren asked if The Irvine Company was in support of ication. Wells answered, yes and staff added that an authorization form had ed as well. Cole asked about the additional parking. Wells answered there has always been a concern about parking on, it. However, he feels that adding six additional tables would not ;h impact on the parking. The shopping center does not have nmissioner Toerge asked about the number of restaurants and if that deli in the market. Brown answered, no. It is strict eating and drinking establishments and :et is not included in this count. missioner Toerge noted this adds to the parking demand. comment was closed. ion was made by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Con Iter to approve an amendment to Use Permit No. 3623 to permit an square -foot outdoor dining patio. Brown added that on Conditions 3 and 4 the wrong date for the plans is report and should read March 25, 2008. maker of the motion accepted those edits. :itute Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to approve the project ioned with the further condition that the square footage allocated to the n Dr dining area only be granted to the extent similar square footage ity is deducted from existing outdoor dining area. This substitute moti due to lack of a second. ommissioner Eaton noted he was not in support of the original motion as r the findings can be made and it exceeds the limitation on providing out ning without providing the additional parking and could be consid atrimental to the other tenants of the center as it will exacerbate an already rrkina situation. McDaniel noted he will not be supporting the motion for )mmissioner Hillgren noted he will support the motion based upon the fact crowded retail center is a positive issue and that if parking was a problem Page 13 of 14 file: //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mn04032008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/03/2008 Page 14 of 14 would have received comments to that effect, and we had none. Vote on the original Motion. Ayes: Peotter, Cole, and Hillgren Noes: Eaton, Hawkins, McDaniel and Toerge SUBJECT: Planning Commission procedures, minutes, and business ITEM NO. 9 Not Heard Due to the late hour, this item was not heard and will be on the next agenda. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up. b. Planning Commission Reports. C. Announcements on matters that Commission members would like placed on a future agenda for discussion, action, or report. ADJOURNMENT: 10:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT BRADLEY HILLGREN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mn04032008.htm 07/15/2008