Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/20030 is Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/2003 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 2003 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 15 file://H:\Plancomrn\2003PC\I 120.htm 12/05/2003 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker - Il present. TAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney osalinh Ung, Associate Planner Dan Trimble, Program Administrator Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Jean Burroughs, property manager at 18th and Balboa Blvd., stated hat she had been informed that another rehab center had applied for a usiness license at 1520 Balboa. She asked that the Planning ommission follow the City Codes and make them get a use permit. The City has not followed the laws and regulations of its own codes and has le II of the others come in. She asked that no more be allowed to come in. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, November 14, 2003. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meeting of November 6, 2003. Approved Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the edited minutes of November 6, 2003. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None .x� file://H:\Plancomrn\2003PC\I 120.htm 12/05/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/2003 Page 2 of 15 HEARING ITEMS . SUBJECT: Conexant Sign, call for review (PA2003 -232) ITEM NO.2 4000 MacArthur Boulevard PA2003 -232 Permit the installation of a fifth tenant identification wall sign that is Denied approximately 387 square feet in area. The Koll Center Planned Community District Regulations limit walls signs to 200 square feet in are per sign, and to two facades per building. ommissioner Kiser noted the following: • Called this item up because there would be excessive signa allowed for this building. • This building has been accommodated in a number of adeque ways: a modification for four signs instead of two, a modification the 'Mindspeed' signs that were over the PC Plan Standard maximt of 200 square feet; and modifications have been given for the t, existing Conexant signs, each of which are 387 square feet instead the 200 square foot maximum that the regulations allow. • Presently there is 1,226 square feet of signage on four elevations the building (two towers) that is considerably more than the 400 800 square feet that are allowed whether you consider this o building or two towers. .• It would be 1,613 square feet with the south elevation having b signs if this Modifications Committee decision was upheld. • This would go beyond what is attractive and would start to to 'junky'. • If the decision were to be upheld, then to be fair and responsible our decision making the same allowance should be made for t other buildings in the airport area. If you are going to allow signa on three sides of a building, imagine what the airport area would to like with signage on three sides. It is too much. • The property owner or tenant will have to chose with the two sid requirement, which two sides would look the best. • The sign that is proposed to go up is one that Conexant already h and is the sign that was removed from the other tower when they al occupied that. • There has to be an end point to the amount of signage allowed a this is the time to say no. • To allow modification of what is in a PC District Regulation on an hoc basis is carried through to many of these modifications that e • up legislating the signage of the Code on an ad hoc basis that lea to poor planning and decision making. file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1120.htm 12/05/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/2003 • If we were to change these regulations and allow more signage a with significant amount of square footage, then we should do it by 1 • way of a modification to the Sign Code and in this case a PC Disti regulations and not piece meal. • For these reasons, I believe we should vote to reverse the decision the Modifications Committee and not allow the additional sign. nmissioner Tucker noted his support of the Modifications Committee. staff report says that the committee believed the request for the fifth i is rational given that that the Conexant tower has five facades and that 387 square foot size on the proposed fifth sign is appropriate given the and scale of the building and it is consistent with the existing Conexani cage. I don't have the sense this was an erroneous decision. I don's e a problem with the decision. hearing was opened. hearing was closed. nmissioner Eaton noted his support of Commissioner Kis iments. He suggested that he would advise the Conexant dspeed to look at the placement of the existing signs and possibly ribute them. Two of them are not provided enough visibility and cc more if moved. I don't believe the applicant needs five signs. •ommissioner Selich noted his support of the Modifications ecision. The size of the property and size of the buildings, the made some good statements in support of their decision. son McDaniel noted his support of comments made >ioner Eaton. I am not sure the signs are placed well, as they by some of the trees. I support reversing the decision of :ions Committee. was made by Commissioner Kiser to reverse the decision of tions Committee and deny the request if Modification Permit 7 based on the findings for denial attached to the staff report. at Commission inquiry, noted that if Conexant moved out of g and another tenant moved in with different copy that tent with the size, they would have right to these sign locations. Ayes:j Eaton, Toerge, McDan Noes: Cole, Selich and Tucker sent: None OBJECT: Mariposa Restaurant at Neiman - Marcus (PA2003 • 601 Newport Center Drive Request for a Use Permit pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Page 3 of 15 PA2003 -229 Approved file : //H: \Plancomm\2003PC \l 120.htm 12/05/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/2003 Page 4 of 15 rdinance (ABO), to upgrade the existing license for the premises i • Type 41 (On -Sale Beer and Wine Eating Place) to Type 47 (On eneral Eating Place) License. The new restaurant (Mariposa) with proposed license, will replace the existing restaurant (Zodiac) w urrently operates with a Type 41 License. Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner, noted the following: . Copies of the menu were distributed to the Commissioners. . The applicant has presented renderings of the interior of the restaurant for review. The applicant has requested changes to two conditions; condition 5 training only be required for the bar and restaurant managers or lea server (supervisory staff only); condition 15 - the restaurant planning on offering gift baskets that would include bottle wine /champagne, so they ask that the restriction be eliminated for th sale for off -site consumption of alcoholic beverages. Staff supports the change on condition 15; however, the Poll Department is concerned with the requested change to condition and staff seeks your direction. • ommissioner Kiser noted that condition 5 has always included ever ho is associated with the restaurant to have this training. Have we eparated this out on other applications? . Temple noted that the training can be arranged on site at times wt the employees are present. There is a process to make it as easy isible, but it does require when there is significant turnover in staff t )er individuals be trained or a new training session be scheduled. imissioner Kiser asked if this would change the type license from If the Commission wanted to, could we limit this off -site to gift b; s only? Ung, answered no. Type 47 gives the applicant the ability to do that. on site is our condition. noted that Condition 5 refers to owners, managers and emplo, 3 alcoholic beverages would have to do the training; just grant employees. Mr. Michael Cho, attorney representing the applicant, noted the following: . • This is an upgraded license from a Type 41 that the previo restaurant currently has on site which is being replaced. • The new restaurant with beer/wine and distilled spirits service u file: //H: \Plancomm\2003PC \l120.htm - 12/05/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/2003 replace the old one. This new type of restaurant is consistent wi other restaurant services that are within other Neiman Marci • stores. The department store owns and operates the venue, tl employees are Neiman Marcus. • The reason we have asked that the supervisory and manager personnel only go through this training is that in the food servi industry, there tends to be quite a bit of turnover. The restaurant v have up to 20 employees working in the restaurant. • Under the language of the condition, when we hire someone, th must go through the training. If that training is not available until days from date of hire, that person would not be able to bring a gla of wine to a table. That is burdensome due to costs involved. Goii through private training costs is $250 per employee, the State AE does offer it once a month free of charge, but that is only once month. • Neiman Marcus has their own internal training for employees. I having those supervisory and management personnel go through tl certification process, then they can impart that information to oth employees as they come on board We feel this would provide tl applicant the flexibility they need to operate and also provi4 appropriate assurances to the City that the people are propel . trained. • The training is important but to have all the employees go throul that process prior to being able to serve becomes a burden. • Condition 15 - a Type 41 or 47 allows the licensee the privilege for sale of just beer and wine only, there is no distilled spirits. • The sales of gift baskets during the holiday season or by spec request of customers is envisioned. By removing the one sentenc that the sale for off -site consumption of alcoholic beverages prohibited, would allow Neiman Marcus the flexibility of having off s sales. t Commission inquiry, he added this type of change had been grant based on the type of operation that is being proposed, i.e., larger spot theme restaurants. This condition is relatively normal, and most of tl larger companies that operate this type of businesses have an in -hou program that addresses that. Typically I will verify the training. We are r opposed to having training, it is trying to develop a condition that alloN Neiman Marcus to operate efficiently as part of that training. If you can jt add language in there that all these owners, managers, employees senrii alcohol have that training completed within 60 days of hire, would allow tl flexibility if the employee doesn't work out and stay for a short time. Clauson noted that this is a provision in the City Ordinance. It is Page 5 of 15 file: //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1120.htm 12/05/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/2003 perational requirement of businesses issued a use permit under this provision. It would be appropriate to modify if the Commission wanted with . a 60 day time period to get the training. Public comment was opened. I] comment was closed. otion was made by Commissioner Tucker approve Use Permit No. 2003 - 9 to allow an eating and drinking establishment within Neiman - Marcus to aerate under a Type 47 (On -Sale General Eating Place) License, subject the findings and conditions of approval attached with modification to ndition 5, to insert the words at the end of the sentence, ..'within 60 iys becoming an employee of the applicant'. Also on condition 15, ilete the sentence, 'The sale for off -site consumption of alcoholic averages is prohibited.' I don't have a fear that Neiman - Marcus selling out their restaurant will turn into a liquor store type of problem. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None 707 East Balboa Boulevard Page 6 of 15 ITEM NO.4 PA2003 -212 :quest for a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element of the Recommended %neral Plan and Local Coastal Program to change the intensity limit for for Approval 7 East Balboa Boulevard from a floor area ratio to one based on the mber of seats and a Code Amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Cod add a specific height limitation for landmark buildings. Trimble, Program Administrator gave an overview of the staff report ig that the Code Amendment would specify a maximum heigh ation that would only apply to the Landmark Buildings. The reason fo flexibility is tied to the renovations that would be needed, specifically ators and ADA regulations. He concluded with the recommendation tc >t the resolution and three attachments, the General Plan Amendment Local Coastal Program Amendment and the Zone Code Amendment. supplemental staff report has the findings that would go along with the permit. He then noted two corrections to the resolution, an extra worc reference to 50 feet should read 55 feet. Toerge asked for the current height of the four •Mr. Trimble answered that each of them is under the 55 foot height and non - conforming status may be at or over the existing height limits. He not know the exact height of each building. This item would allow for xpansion of the building itself to the height limit. file://H:\Plancomm\2003PC\l 120.htm 12/05/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/2003 Page 7 of 15 Commissioner Toerge asked under the circumstances that a building 1 be demolished, whether choice or disaster, does the action before us • he additional rights to the existing development should they rebuild it han what they have today? Trimble answered it does not by right, it does by use permit and tt ild need to meet the findings of the use permit, which would be ards to significant views and visual impacts as well as not allowing intensification of use. They can build higher, but they can not intern use of that structure. Temple added that if the property owner with a Landmark Buildi d elect to demolish the entire structure by his own judgment with t ption of those in the Central Balboa Specific Plan, outric nstruction would not be allowed as it would no longer be a Landme ling. In the case of natural disaster or act of public enemy, our Nc arming Chapters does allow reinstatement of non - conforming rights iin circumstances. nmissioner Toerge, referring to page 4 of the staff report, noted the uction in intensity insures that traffic will not exceed 'acceptable levels'. N are 'acceptable levels' defined? Mr. Trimble answered that staff took the existing non - conforming m or the floor area ratio and considered the 800 seats, which is the e capacity, to be equivalent and going off from the reduction of 450 that is how we made that conclusion. . Temple answered that the City's General Plan assumes continuation o the uses that are non - conforming. In the General Plan, we make the gment that the traffic system and the land use plan are correlated. :re is the presumption that those 800 seats stay forever within ou :rail land use and circulation balance. With the project that reduces tha i- conforming number, it should be less in terms of traffic. )mmissioner Tucker noted that the motivation for the 55 foot height Iii id to do with ADA type access; however, the way the Code Section itten, if the applicant came in with sufficient reason for us to grant a u �rmit we could. We don't have a duty to limit it to those type of ADA us the higher areas. iissioner Eaton asked about the roof deck being used ainment purposes. Does that fit within the non - conformity that !nt in the land mark designation? What is the capacity of the n and has there been any discussion if that would be operatl aneously with events in the theater itself? • Mr. Trimble answered that we have recommended a condition that tl balcony not be used if the theater is being used to capacity. If there was minor event going on, not sold out and they wanted to have an event on tl f ile: //HAPlancomm \2003PC \1120.htm 12/05/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/2003 Page 8 of 15 eck, they would be within their capacity and still meet the intent of intensification. We would allow joint use under those conditions. • Public comment was opened. trol Hoffman, representing the Balboa Theater Foundation noted that tt iinanoe is important and gives the Foundation flexibility. In operating rater for the performing arts, you need an area for receptions ar tivities for donors. Seldom do those occur when a performance is goir because the very draw is for those types of activities for people who ai ing to the theater. At the time a use permit does come in, we cE nsider the kinds of conditions that would assure that there would not be nflict in intensity. We do need the flexibility, we have taken out the sea order to have a bigger stage and sound equipment to modernize tt pater, so there is a reduction which does reduce the intensity. The de( top expansion gives us an area that will work to enhance the operatior the theater. The 55 feet is important to give us the flexibility for tt ace and the deck will be controlled by a use permit. is comment was closed. ommissioner Toerge noted his concern if this would create an avenue th ould allow the Port Theater to add another floor. He stated he is having and time because he did not know how tall it is and are approving a heig . limit of 55 feet that could potentially be an additional 10 -15 feet limit to uilding that is much shorter. Are we creating something here, are the her findings or limitations to prevent that from happening? Trimble answered that with respect to height limitation, they would e to meet the findings that are within the Zone Code Amendment. T ild not be able to intensify the use. The measure of the Port The F be FAR or the number of seats, I believe it is FAR currently. ommissioner Tucker noted that the Commission has to be satisfied 5 feet is okay, but the limit is the existing height or up to 55 feet with a Drmit. The Port is a different situation than the Balboa Theater and I 1 ach one of these buildings is unique. It gives flexibility because we c ave any idea what someone might do to re -use one of these buildings at seems to be a policy decision the Council has made to try icourage. It doesn't mean it is going to be 55 feet, they need to show has to be that. oner Kiser asked if it would impact the theater project if space above the current historic building was not ad floor area? Ms. Temple answered yes. • Mr. Trimble added that the Land Use Element Policy L statements bout the viability of a renovated structure. In discussions with file : //H: \Plancomm\2003PC \1120.htm 12/05/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/2003 Page 9 of 15 pplicant, one of the important economic functions of the theater space he deck space is the entertainment space that can be used for fi iraising. The lobby on the existing structure is not adequate to do any fi raising activity. The actual body of the theater itself is sloped stadi eating so that would not be available either. They do need a place for activity and have talked about putting a deck on the roof to add 1 component. They also need to add and or upgrade dressing rooms, gun ize elevator, handicap accessible restrooms, heating, ventilation, etc. n was made by Commissioner Kiser to recommend to City Cou tal of General Plan Amendment No. 20003 -006, Local Coa im Amendment No. 2003 -005, Code Amendment No. 2003 -009 ited in the staff report according to the attached resolution with edits. None None None Area 7 Annexation PA2003 -149 JA General Plan amendment and pre - zoning for the territory knows as 'Areal Recommended including West Santa Ana Heights, the Santa Ana Country Club, and th for Approval Lea south of Mesa Drive and the Emerson Street Area. drperson McDaniel noted that the Planning Commission is dealing c i the zoning issues. We do not have the ability to approve or disapprc annexation. Speakers should limit their remarks to zoning issues st floor area ratios, heights and setbacks. Those of you who wish :uss the option of annexation need to made those comments to the incil who will deal with that. Lawrence, consultant for the City, noted: . The City Council directed staff to prepare an application to al West Santa Ana Heights, the Santa Ana Country Club and adjacent areas in March. • Additionally, the city previously initiated annexation proceedings for the small Emerson Street area off Tustin Avenue. • None of these areas presently have zoning or land use designations in the General Plan. • • The purpose of this item is to apply such zoning and land use designations preparatory to annexation of subject territory. file: //H: \Plancomm\2003PC \1120.htm 12/05/2003 0 • Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/2003 . The West Santa Ana Heights and adjacent areas have been to as Area 7 by the Local Agency Formation Commission I and we have retained that label for consistency of discussion. . In order to pre -zone the portion Ana Heights Specific Plan, it is districts to the City's Zoning Code. of Area 7 outside the West necessary to add two new . RMD District (residential medium density) - to provide for me density residential development mostly along Santa Ana Avenue. . CN District (neighborhood commercial uses that are Avenue. . He then Minimum not 2,000, commercial) - to accommodate those in the existing Back Bay Center on I noted that in attachment ZA1, handwritten page Site Area per Unit for the RMD District should read < and is referred to as 3,000 throughout the staff report. . About two years ago we went through similar circumstance for East Santa Ana Heights area as pre- zoning preparation annexation. That annexation was finalized and is part of the City of July. . New zoning districts for the West Santa Ana Heights weren't in in the East Santa Ana Heights annexation because they an specialized land uses that did not need to be addressed earlier. . The new Zoning Districts are the RK District (Residential Kennel the cul -de -sac at Riverside Drive), which was engineered by County for the concentration of those uses. . The RMD District (Medium Density Residential) within the mentioned as multiple family. . The FIN District (Horticulture Nursery) for a wholesale nursery Orchard Drive). . An N Overlay District (allows nursery related uses as part family residential areas). . Because the area to be annexed is within the airport environs use plan it requires Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) re prior to LAFCO review. At today's meeting, ALUC approved the zoning with conditions with regard primarily to noise. . The condition requires any new residential development that discretionary be reviewed by ALUC if it is within the 65 CN contours and would be for a re- subdivision or an intensification residential density or condo conversion. file : //H:1Planeomm\2003PC11120.htm Page 10 of 15 12/05/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/2003 Page 11 of 15 . If this is acceptable to the Planning Commission, we would add tha as a provision within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. ommissioner Eaton asked about the new categories recommended to be in the City's Specific Plan, are they already in the County's Specific Plan? How much of this residential area in this proposed annexation is within the 5 CNEL? What were the parking requirements within the County's anc he City's Specific Plans. Are there different parking requirements in and Ir. Lawrence answered they are already in the County Specific Plan. Tt Fere not included in the first draft in the City's Specific Plan because tt Fere exclusive to the West Santa Ana Heights area, which was 1 onsidered by the City at that time. Referring to the County's Specific P >r Santa Ana Heights, he referenced an exhibit depicting the Board upervisors 65 CNEL policy line where they implement land t �strictions because of noise. I don't believe there are any signific ifferences in parking for residential. In the non - residential, I would ne me to look that up. I know there weren't significant, otherwise I wo ave pointed that out in the staff report. comment was opened. hairperson McDaniel asked for comments on zoning issues. Maryanne Orr, spoke representing the residents of Master Circle, noted She had called the City to verify if they were included in annexation and was informed they were not. . Their concern is if the Country Club would become part of Nei Beach, it would leave the residents of the Master Circle in a secl pocket of Costa Mesa and that would become problematic. Of the 50 homes of the block, the residents would like to go Newport Beach, and asked how this could be accomplished. ommissioner Tucker noted that the Planning Commission has no con ver the annexation. We are here tonight to say what the zoning of roperties would be in the event the Council decides whether there will annexation or not. That is a financial matter that only they decide. I orum to discuss annexation issues is the City Council, they will make 1 olicy decision whether that property is within Newport Beach or they w hem to be in Newport Beach. Ultimately, LAFCO has to decide and ity of Costa Mesa has an opinion on that as well, we don't. We are j oing to look at the zoning. If this properly you are referring to was wii • ur pre- zoning, is the zoning acceptable for you? You need to tell us w ou don't like about the zoning or what you want to see that is different. file: //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \l 120.htm 12/05/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/2003 Page 12 of 15 Ms. Temple noted that if the Council after hearing this testimony agreed include this area as part of the annexation, they could so choose and din taff to add this to the application. Staff would then need to come back • iscuss that area within the General Plan Zoning documents. ndy Rank, resident of Santa Ana Heights, noted the reference ;idential kennel district. Representing approximately 200 tenants at Pa ,sa noted that the RK district zoning is a contentious issue. The kenr g barking noise falls over the walls and invades the residential areas. � rt of the pre - zoning, this is an area that we would like to have an id, it the problem of dog barking is addressed. We want the kennel owne somehow abate the barking noise. He did a noise study with a soul ;ter. The noise level is supposed to be 50 decibels before 7 a.m. ai m 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. it is supposed to be 55 decibels. This is itentious issue in the RMF zoning for the residents. (he distributed ay of his study) imissioner Tucker asked if the zoning of the property allows kennels County. Mr. Lawrence answered that the kennels are on Riversil e and the area.is zoned RK. Commissioner Tucker noted that is tl we are bringing it in, as RK. What I am hearing is an enforceme e that they are not complying with what the Code requires. r. Rank answered that is correct. When it was first brought in, i esignated that between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. there are d imitations and requirements for the kennel operators to keep the Temple noted that the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance would i the annexation of these properties and it would be up to Nev ;h staff to implement the enforcement that is required under the e. Both the animal regulations and community noise and loud asonable noise regulations would then apply and our ircement staff would be responsible for enforcing these violations. Rank noted the dog noise and presented a list of kennels with t numbers. She asked that the Commission address this annoy,c 3h the enforcement. Banghard, operator of a Rebel Run Kennels on Riverside noted: . The kennels have been there for about 35 years. . The zoning of RK was changed from Al about 17 -18 years; the not standard on the block is about 67 decibels due to the direct corridor the airport. 101 . Kennel owners try to keep the noise down; of course the weekend more noisier because of dogs being boarded with vacations, etc. file : //H:\Plancomm\2003PC \l 120.htm 12/05/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/2003 Page 13 of 15 • We hope to cooperate and do what we can to keep people happy. • • I live in a house about 20 feet away and if there is noise, I go out to do what I can to keep the noise down. . We operate under a use permit and license that is associated with land and passes from one owner to another as the property chan hands. . The noise impact study has been done several times. The last was about 6 -7 years ago and it was approved as being the base for the neighborhood. . There are numerous studies and noise guidelines that have done under which we operate the kennels. comment was closed. otion was made by Commissioner Tucker to recommend to City Cour pproval of the General Plan and pre- zoning amendments for t nnexation of Area 7 and the Emerson Street area pursuant to the attach resolution of the Planning Commission. We also recommend that t ouncil adopt and certify the Negative Declaration (GP2003- 005 /CA20C 06 and GP2003 -006 and CA 2003 -007). Mr. Lawrence clarified that the motion included the edit of the attachment -1 page 31 to change the 2,000 to 3,000 in the RMD District, and t addition of the request of the Airport Land Use Commission review of a re- subdivision in the 65 CNEL to be inserted in the Speck Plan for Sar Ana Heights. maker of the motion agreed. missioner Eaton asked the maker of the motion to insert a floor provision as in our existing MFR added to the RMF and RN. Lawrence stated that the County does not have a floor area this area. Temple added that the City's conventional zoning districts of �r a floor area ratio limit but there are many zoning districts, entional and Planned Community, that use a combination of cove ack and height limits and do not have floor area ratios. It is - rsally applied development standard. ommissioner Tucker asked if the suggestion was something that needed or can we go without? tall has looked at the three standards and with the exception of the pace requirement we think we can adapt our existing multi f fil e: //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1120.htm 12/05/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/2003 Page 14 of 15 (standards to the new district without the suggested changes. Mr. Lawrence added that there is in the multi family residential a floor,, ratio of 1.75 maximum and that would also be appropriate to add in RMD if you feel it is necessary to have added control. The only maxin overage in the present Zone Code only applies to the RA District and is 40 %. iissioner Tucker noted that the property being annexed in genes like to see it come in the way it is presently zoned because that is ration of the existing property owners and that we will not cha on them. Temple noted that generally in these annexations, staff sugg lopment regulations that will as closely parallel existing regulations ible within our framework. )mmissioner Selich noted that this area should be brought in as it is not in favor of changing anything. McDaniel noted that we should bring this in as it is. Ayes:j Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser • Noes: None Absent• None Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that the Council reconsidered the call up of the Tabak variance and modification, and reversed their original decision and affirmed the Planning Commission's decision; and, introduced an ordinance to allow the consideration of a Special Circumstance Variance related to a local architect situation. b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - the meeting will be on December 8th. d. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - no meeting. • e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Eaton asked for a report on the definition of 'natural grade'. file: //H: \P1ancomm \2003PC \1 120.htm 12/05/2003 0 0 0 Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/2003 f. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on future agenda for action and staff report - none. g. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple that the issue of 'fifth' sided architect will be discussed on the m of January 8, 2004. h. Project status - none. i. Requests for excused absences - none. Page 15 of 15 AUJVUKNmtN I: u:su P.M. I AuJVUrcnmen MICHAEL TOERGE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file://1-l:\Planconun\2003PC\l 120.htm 12/05/2003