Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc minutes 07-19-07Planning Commission Minutes 07/19/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2007 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 16 file: / /F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Planning COmm1SSi0n\PC Minutes \2007\nm07- 19- 07.htm 12/19/2007 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren: Commissioner Hillgren is excused, all other Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Principal Civil Engineer Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary ELECTION OF OFFICERS Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Toerge to approve a new slate of officers. Commissioner Hawkins as Chairman Commissioner Peotter as Vice Chairman Commissioner Hillgren as Secreta Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: None Excused: Hillgren Chairman Hawkins presented a plaque to out -going Chairman Cole from fellow Commissioners honoring him for his leadership during the previous twelve months. Mr. Lepo noted that both Commissioners McDaniel and Eaton had been re- appointed for a four -year term by the City Council at their meeting of June 6, 2007. PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on June 15, 2007. Page 1 of 16 file: / /F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Planning COmm1SSi0n\PC Minutes \2007\nm07- 19- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 07/19/2007 HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of June 21, 2007. Approved Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Toerge to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: None Abstain: Peotter Excused: Hill ren SUBJECT: Code Amendment 2007 -005 (PA2007 -112) ITEM NO. 2 PA2007 -112 Proposed amendment of Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Continue to Municipal Code to revise definitions, land use classifications, and 08/23/2007 regulations relating to group occupancies and short-term lodgings. Mr. Lepo noted that staff has recommended that this item be continued to August 23rd due to the concern of the ability for outside counsel to prepare a draft ordinance; however, the Commission has the option of continuing his item to August 9th. Chairman Hawkins noted that a supplemental staff report had been circulated in connection with the status of the discussions to date. Mr. Lepo then gave a brief overview of his memo. Chairman Hawkins asked about the availability of special counsel on the dates in question. Mr. Lepo answered that neither Ms. Marshall nor Ms. Kautz will be available August 9th. Mr. Harp noted that the moratorium can be extended, and that the City Attorney agrees, in order to allow more time for the Planning Commission and City Council to review this matter. An August 9th meeting will likely be an incomplete re -work of the ordinance whereas on the 23rd we could get he entire package back. Commissioner McDaniel asked if outside counsel would be available August 23rd. Mr. Harp answered yes, they are available. Commissioner McDaniel noted it will be beneficial to the Commission to have them present to respond to comments at that time rather than have to wait for an answer at a later date. He added that at the meeting the Commission will give as much information to staff as possible especially i here is an extension to the moratorium. Page 2 of 16 file : //F: \Users\PLN \5hared\Planning COmmission\PC Minutes \2007\mn07- 19- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 07/19/2007 missioner Toerge noted he would like to hear from the public. tirperson Hawkins noted this is not a public hearing as there is nothi a hearing, we do have a staff report that discusses the status of 1 elopment in connection with the ordinance and alternative proposals tinue this item. He indicated that public comments on those two itei ild be heard. comment was opened. :ne Taber, attorney with Jackson /DeMarco/Tidus Peckenpaug )resenting a number of residents noted they are disappointed by 1 lay as they believe it was feasible to have an ordinance before I )mmission tonight. She noted the concern of the delay that I )ratorium will have to be extended and prefers that not occur. She asb at this item be heard August 9th to establish standards for things cur. Everyone in the public would like to see the ordinance ahead of ti give some review and comments and the typical three days is not go work. She asked that this be taken into account. number of issues need to be addressed such as unlicensed facilities. e residents had asked that the proposal look at both new and existim Allies, not just new facilities and restricting uses to specific zones R -1 1.5 and R -2. She then distributed copies of city maps that were alterei distinguish impacted areas and multiple -unit residential zoned properties istrating sufficient areas dispersed throughout the city. Ordinana )visions for facilities with seven or more persons should address existin, well as new facilities. Use criteria as directed by the Planning )mmission is not addressed in the staff report. The issue of registration dressed but not with a firm commitment with respect to a registratioi )gram. Use of business license process had been discussed witl tside counsel. She asked if all facilities with 7 or more persons ar quired to have a business license. Language was to be included that state requires a state license and the facility doesn't have it, it i nsidered to be an illegal use. Over - concentration and public involvemer e two issues that need to be further addressed. )enise Oberman, local resident, noted the reason for these maps is wer- concentration issues. The concept of overlays had been discussed ;tall and counsels and the impacted areas map identifies areas that h, )een agreed upon as impacted areas and have particular i : haracteristics. The shaded areas represent all of District 1, District 2, v he exception of Newport Heights and Balboa Island and a portion of ;orona del Mar. These areas have particular use characteristics lemographics and are currently, or have the potential to be, seriot mpacted by over - concentration. The counsels had discussed and agm ipon the notion of applying dispersal characteristics. We feel strongly 1 a draft ordinance could be prepared by August 9th and it is very imporl hat a sense of urgency be applied and milestones be established by planning Commission. She requested that a plan with timelines ;stablished to assure a reasonable progression of this ordinance. moratorium has a loophole in it and as a result more of these facilities ;ropping up every day. There are facilities operating that need to h icenses and we have expansion of existing businesses with no controls. Page 3 of 16 file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mn07- 19- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 07/19/2007 Toerge asked for suggestions on milestones and timelines. Oberman answered there should be a draft ordinance on the table gust 9th and she will commit the residences' resources toward fulfillme that end. The City Attorney, staff and outside counsel can meet tt eline. The ordinance should address all issues identified by Ms. Tat J should identify areas that may require further study and areas whE ;cific planning considerations and discussion is needed. There needs a second timeframe as it is not realistic to presume the ordinance u t completely vetted and discussed and researched within that time ether meeting on August 23rd would be necessary. With two meetin J a commitment of cooperation and reasonable compromise linance can be completed. If a recommendation does not go to the C uncil by the last meeting, the City will need to extend the urgE linance moratorium. hia Kohler, local resident, noted that she had received a list from th+ regarding the licenses pending. She had received a list of thi ations within the City and found that 3 of the 4 are operating while wi the moratorium; another one we got closed down. When she went ti at a property in Via Lido Penthouse, she was told it was for runaway: :r 18 (license pending) but the State has them as registering for non ential care. When I went to another condo property on 31st Street, d who she was renting to and was told Sober Living by the Sea an( they only do group therapy (unlicensed). No one knew about them. is going through my area in Cannery Village and I just wish you wouk ider everything that was said here tonight. It is urgent. iri Morris, West Newport, asked the Commission to be aware of the tir e as no matter where you drive, you see new six and under faciliti iening up as fast as they possibly can. It's obvious that the moratorium it stopping the growth of the sober living facilities. She noted the timeli doable and we can all work together. Nichols, local resident, asked if Sober Living by the Sea was mov main offices to Costa Mesa. It appears business is continuing )ort Beach as it was before. The moratorium seems to be n comment was closed. Toerge asked about the availability of special counsel 9th. Harp answered special counsel is not available for August rever, as they are the ones drafting the ordinance it is unlikely you a complete package with all the issues addressed. nmissioner Toerge noted he recognizes the urgency of this matte ing seen this issue come before the Council for years. We should do al can to encourage the whole process to move as quickly as possible. ire may be circumstances on the 9th that cause us to review whatever it ilable and we may need to continue the item. Doing so today, however Page 4 of 16 file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn07- 19- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 07/19/2007 t adds delay. Given the size and complexity, come the 23rd if we take at one time it may just cause us to have to delay it again to get through I would like to get through whatever we can on the 9th and I a ifident that our attorneys can express their feelings and advice to L -e on the 9th. was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded loner Cole to continue this item to August 9, 2007. Commission inquiry, Mr. Harp noted that if the meeting is held on I you will see part of the issues that have been raised and part of th( being addressed. It is a big process to come together to assure ti at we are doing is within the legal requirements. Significant work ng done on this by the special counsel. There is a benefit to looking whole project instead of piecemealing portions of it. I can see I ;idents becoming frustrated with issues that have not been addressed gust 9th as opposed to having a complete package that addresses issues. The City Attorney's office is preparing an extension on I ratorium; the ultimate decision on whether to extend it or not is up to I y Council, but we would be recommending to extend the moratorium e enough time for evaluation. nmissioner Cole noted on June 21st the Commission had suggest ie changes along with Ms. Taber's issues. It will be 50 days on the ( it seems to me to be adequate time to address in some fashion tho ies. How much time does it take to respond? We should have )onse of some sort and I think we and the public deserve something 9th. I don't think that is asking too much. Harp answered you are dealing with an area of law that is comp) re there have been a lot of decisions made. It is not an area of law tl want to rush into and just throw something out there; you want to to time to contemplate the issues. There have been extensive meetin outside counsel to work through issues. It is a complex area and y better served by getting a higher quality product all at once rather used to us rushing it and getting it to you on the 9th. However, if y Id like to have another hearing to have it discussed on the 9th, that Cher way to go, but outside counsel will not be available and all t es may not be addressed. �mmissioner McDaniel noted his main concern is that there is somel look at and that the public also is given the opportunity for their input. Harp stated to put something out to the public prior to finalizal isn't seem to be appropriate. If we went to a 23rd meeting, potenti could get something out sooner so there is more opportunity to rev I there will be more public comment with extending the period of time. McDaniel stated the process needs to get the best Taber suggested a matrix be presented on the 9th. Harp noted staff would like to come back with a matrix and a Page 5 of 16 file: / /F:\Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mn07- 19- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 07/19/2007 inance, complete staff report but having that done by the 9th might ;ouraging and will not be a complete product. When outside coun 3hes up with what they are doing, we then review it in -house to :ther or not it comports with what we discussed and there may litional changes needed or issues to look at. Going to the 23rd gives re time for that process to take place as opposed to the 9th with limi )mmissioner Peotter suggested an alternative if this item is continued V e 23rd maybe staff can have this ready by the 13th and that would give ne for the residents who can then contact staff with their comments an( en we would get the report with the public comments included in ou ;cket. There is going to be a lot of paper for us to review and to expect u+ review the public comments the night of the meeting is difficult. I sugges ;king that the staff report be released to the public by the 13th. Is tha I. Harp answered it is possible to have an earlier release and allow n ie for review. The 23rd doesn't have to be the only meeting with anning Commission. The 13th date is reasonable and we should be have a complete packet by then. airman Hawkins noted that everyone would be iii- served if this came c cemeal because at that point there will be questions. We want nplete set so that everyone can review it. Is that two -week problema the residents, yes it is. Is there a benefit, yes, we will have a compl( inance and the moratorium possibly was too short and so I believe tl extension of the moratorium while the Commission, staff and Council a rking on this is something that will do us all well. imissioner Toerge, recognizing the timeliness noted by the Assist: Attomey's, Commissioner Peotter's and the Chairman's commer inded his motion to continue this item to the 23rd with the proviso tl documents be made ready for the residents by the 13th of August Y as much time as possible for review. Cole seconded the amended motion. ant City Attorney Harp noted he will commit his office to having ble by the close of business on the 13th. missioner Eaton noted for the record he would like comments the residents and operators as well. airman Hawkins noted the Commission is disappointed they do not ordinance to deal with as that was the expectation and should pened but hasn't happened. We need to be committed to move foi get that done. None Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel and Page 6 of 16 file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mn07- 19- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 07/19/2007 'SUBJECT: Let's Roll - PA2006 -227 1 20061 Birch St. iquest for a Use Permit approval to allow the operation of limousine c)tic car rental service. The operation also includes detailing, storage, dispatch and chauffer service. Planner Russell Bunim gave an overview of the staff report. missioner Toerge asked which office shares the rear parking lot. Bunim, referencing the aerial view on page 2 of the staff report, name of the business. Toerge asked if this requires Planning Commission action. Bunim answered this could be approved by the Planning Director d in the staff report. Harp added that the granting temporary use permits, especially for c ig uses of this nature, are viewed by the courts as basically being I ie as a use permit where you need to have the grounds for revocation renew that temporary use permit. With ongoing uses of this nature more permanent type of use, what the courts have found is that wh grant a temporary use permit and the person or entity comes back ;wal of that use permit, to not grant that renewal you have to have I ie grounds that you would have to have for revocation not to grant I ;wal because it is treated as a vested right. mer Eaton asked if the Planning Director approved this as use permit would the applicant be required to file over again a Lepo answered no, we would not require that. nissioner Eaton then asked if a chain link fence around the is needed from the applicant's or community's point of view. . Bunim noted the material is at the discretion of the Planning Directo t a chain -link fence with wood or plastic slats is prohibited. The intent is screen the outdoor storage and this could be done with PVC fencing od fencing or wrought iron fencing as it is towards the rear of the )perty and is out of the public view. Discussion continued on the type o odd Coye, applicant, at the inquiry by Commission, noted he has read nderstands and agrees to the findings and conditions in the staff report. le agrees to a fencing in the rear of the lot stating he would be willing to do at the least cost even though he is not the property owner. oioner Cole asked the applicant if he understood the a temporary and permanent use permit. r. Coye answered his lease is a three -year lease at the most. file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mn07- 19- 07.htm ITEM NO. 3 PA2006 -227 Approved Page 7 of 16 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 07/19/2007 >perty owner seems to have plans for a major re- development then. fes me the opportunity to expand and grow into another level and a different location. Peotter asked about maintenance operations. r. Coye answered that car maintenance is all done off -site. They nousines on site but nothing else. missioner Peotter asked why a fence is needed. Lepo answered it is probably for security of the vehicles; our concern t it looks like. is comment was opened. is comment was closed. lotion was made by Commissioner Peotter to approve Use Permit 006 -028 subject to the findings and conditions of approval with Cond 3 amended to delete wrought iron and replace it with wood. issioner McDaniel, noting the applicant is concerned about the if the maker of the motion would allow for a solid fence. Peotter agreed to add the term, "other solid ". McDaniel seconded the motion. c)mmissioner Toerge stated if we don't make this temporary, then you the to find grounds for revocation. If you do make this temporary, yot the to do that anyways, but it sends a better message. This should be mporary as two year leases or one year options get extended because ;ople don't want to move if they don't have to or plans get delayed. He iggested that the Commission allow for a temporary use here which lows for the Planning Director to make the approval. Given the temporary ;e of this and the fact that we are trying to encourage lot consolidation n more inclined to give the Planning Director leeway to satisfy the quirements. I would encourage the maker of the motion to modify thi: ith a temporary use permit and allow the Planning Director the discretior approve the fence. wing a brief discussion, substitute Motion was made missioner Toerge to refer this back to the Planning Director for a f temporary use permit and allow the Planning Director discretion na material used on the back lot. nmissioner Peotter noted if we refer this to the Planning Director it come back to the Commission. I understand this section of the c not allow chain -link fence no matter what the discretion of the Plani actor is. I am not sure we gain anything by doing it. sion continued on possible lot consolidation, redevelopment of the PAC in that region and that a temporary use permit does Page 8 of 16 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn07- 19- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 07/19/2007 a precedent for lot consolidation in this area. on Substitute Motion: j yes: I Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel and Toerge (Noes: None Excused: IJ Hillaren # w w ECT: Lamborghini - PA2006 -203 2244 Coast Hwy W luest for a Use Permit to establish a new Lamborghini automol lership. The request also includes the approval of a comprehenE i Program and approval of a Development Plan Review. ociate Planner Jaime Murillo gave an overview of the staff report. ;d a question received from the Commission regarding a road easem the applicant is not prepared at this time to dedicate an easeme (ever, the applicant did re- design the project to accommodate fut et easement should it be pursued by either the City or in negotiat i a neighboring property owner. Staff has not required this easement project does not necessitate one at this time. nissioner Eaton asked for staffs opinion on whether access fi i Avenue is more warranted or feasible if there is ever a time that out from Coast Highway are blocked. Tony Brine, Principal Civil Engineer, noted it is a limited number of tril it really won't impact the level of service in the intersection. As far : ling out of the site, making a left turn, or coming onto the site, making turn, then having a secondary access would provide a benefit to tt ject property and adjacent properties. Hutson, architect representing the applicant, presented a P included the application and plans. He noted and answered Parking for 46 vehicles on site; Building will be two levels; vehicle lift on building; showroom on second level; Offices, restrooms, coffee bar area, balcony; Mechanical equipment on rooftops well neighbors; Roof plan; Updated colored elevation; Predominant color of building is gray; Overhangs and patio awnings will be white; Stainless steel cable railings; the backside of area screened Embossed images of birds on various locations on the act building; Signage on site consistent with materials and finishes of the buildi Landscape plan provided is consistent with the Mariner's P Guidelines; file: / /F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn07- 19- 07.htm ITEM NO. 4 PA2006 -203 Approved Page 9 of 16 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 07/19/2007 Landscape is minimal in front to allow visual access to the frc showroom; Enhanced paving from street to where parking lot begins; Wall signs on building facing the south and east elevations with monument sign in front setback area; No adjustment of drive approach; Building footprint will extend a bit further towards the rear; Roof material will be a cap sheet roof, the color has not be specified as yet; Views from various neighbors' perspective; There will be a separate wall off -set two feet from the property line Holiday Inn side. Commission inquiry, Mr. Keuylian noted he has reviewed and agrees staff report, resolution and conditions. Toerge asked if the roof was to be painted the same color building. Hutson answered no. nmissioner Peotter noted Condition 23 requires that; however, Title uires roofs have a reflective, painted finish. missioner Toerge noted the intent is to "wash away" whatever is on th such as vents, etc. He then asked if there was to be a finish on th He added that the exterior should be textured or smoothed so that not appear cinder block and would enhance your project. Hutson noted he had talked to staff and he had agreed to this condi portion of the block wall will be plastered on the interior side. The jacent to the Holiday Inn does not have a finish as Holiday Inn alrE is a wall. The wall to the rear of the property is mostly retaining and ill to the other side that abuts the boat dealership is wrought iron fen the way to the street. missioner Toerge noted the plans show a block wall at the parking meeting the wrought iron fencing. He noted that there are public v s at the top and that all the walls should have finishing on all visl surfaces with the exception of the wall that backs up to the Holm Hutson noted he has no problem with that and will work with hbors if needed. )mmissioner Eaton asked about the alternative access issue. Would )ject to a review by the Planning Commission if you should lose the al r a left turn in or left turn out? Keuylian answered he does not know what the future would bring; all is is his project approved and his trip generation is very little. Eaton noted he wants the Commission to review this Page 10 of 16 file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mn07- 19- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 07/19/2007 that should happen. Hutson answered that if CalTrans eliminated the left turn out of veway then, right -hand only turns out of the property would be allo d would probably be safer anyway. We can't change the drive ;ation. If that happens, we would look at it then to see what portunities are. Keuylian noted we do not need a condition today. ark Mittiman with Kraudus and Dietrich, representing the applicant, nol that situation came up and it hurt business, he would be happy to coi ack to the Commission and talk about other alternatives. My client >ncerned of that eventuality occurring and he would resist a conditi iquiring him to come back to the Commission to consider altemat ;cess. However, should circumstances change he is willing to work v% Keuylian added that he has already taken steps with the neic rding parking, ingress and egress and has downsized his project. comment was opened. es W. Johnson, adjacent property owner, noted his concern about -s of operation. He asked that these hours be referenced in lution. He also asked about the noise generated from the eleva ing vehicles and the trash enclosure. He asked that the to osure not be moved adjacent to his property and that the cars not driven in his neighborhood. comment was closed. Keuylian answered that the trash can be picked up at a later time day and the lift (not elevator) will be very quiet as it is enclosed. Hutson stated the trash enclosure was located to maximize the numt parking places and accessibility based on waste managem( ndards. To relocate the trash enclosure would be to lose parki ices. The trash will be picked up during the hours of operation. Murillo noted the hours of operation as 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. weekdays and . to 5 p.m. on weekends. nissioner Toerge, referencing Condition 35, suggested changing tl of refuse collection and deliveries as prohibited between 8 p.m. and He encouraged the applicant to try to re- locate the trash enclosure seems to be minimal public opposition to the project. Keuylian said he would do what he could. aioner McDaniel noted the building is too square and gray e have articulation that should be on a building fronting Co . There is no clear understanding of what the roof will look like Page 11 of 16 file: //F:1Users\PLNlSharedlPlanning Commission\PC Minutes\20071mn07- 19- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 07/19/2007 as the public view will be of mechanical equipment, citing mmission's requirements for significant articulation with the Lexus tcher Jones dealership to make a beautiful building. Landscaping c enhanced as well. He stated he is not in favor of this project. on was made by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner ter to approve Use Permit 2006 -024, Development Plan No. 2007 -001 Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2007 -004 with the changeE issed to include the hours of operation in the resolution, limit the trash up hours from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and texturing the walls. nmissioner Eaton noted his concern of circulation in the area. I think be a problem for other property owners and the City as well. iissioner Toerge noted he does not see a nexus to require that ti there is a reservation across the Holiday Inn property. To force rty to reserve an easement for the benefit of the adjacent prof > to be a reach. issioner Peotter noted clarification on texturing of the walls could stone, stucco or split face as long as it is not a block wall finish. ran Hawkins noted that to the extent the applicant attempts pct to that reservation, Planning Commission review should red. I think we should condition for further review. If the applic i take access over the Holiday Inn property to the city parking lot, t i be an application that comes back before this body. >sioner Toerge noted if the applicant comes back and wants to over the Holiday Inn site, it certainly requires city review. Lepo agreed this should be a condition for clarity regarding a change >ite or circulation on this property and should be a subject of review use permit. iissioner Eaton stated this is not the same as I brought up but it than nothing. mmissioner Cole agreed to amend his motion that the use permit nee be reviewed to the extent that there is an application for change :ess and they are taking access through the rear yard or change to circulation. Commissioner Peotter agreed and seconded. Mittiman noted his concern about circulation change language. If I icant proposes to use the back access for access, that is a cle dard as opposed to an application including any on -site changes elation; that is the formulation we prefer. Staff and the maker of the motion agreed. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins and Toerge Noes: McDaniel Excused: Hill ren x +e Page 12 of 16 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\29007\mn07- 19- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 07/19/2007 Page 13 of 16 SUBJECT: General Plan Corrections and Revisions — Land Use Element I ITEM NO. 5 rmation of corrections of errors of fact, language consistency between Affirmed ments and policies, calculations, and /or scribe errors to General Plan I, exhibits, and figures, as authorized by City Council Resolution 2006 >r Planner Gregg Ramirez gave an overview of the staff report noting e ad correction table for Planning Commission Resolution Exhibit No. 4. reason for these changes is correction of errors to the exhibits an( s. The text corrections are for the most part grammatical changes na usage and there is no change to the goals and policies of the ;ral Plan. nmissioner Eaton asked for and received an explanation of the Mar map exhibit. Commission inquiry, Mr. Ramirez stated that there was no discussion range the current parking lot use at Heliotrope and Second Street tl is a use permit to operate in a residential zone. There was no discussi change that land use designation when we were going through t aneral Plan process. Since the Plan does allow for commercial parking residential zones we thought that since it wasn't discussed, that for t mefit of the property owner we should leave it as it was. We took tl )on ourselves that this shouldn't have been changed and it was appinq area when it first went out. mmissioner Toerge noted in your opinion if we left it the way it is, what i; down side? There has been a big push in Corona del Mar to discus: :)rporating adjacent residential lots for commercial parking. This is e king lot across from a restaurant adjacent to Port Theater and i; rounded by streets from residential. The owner did not come to you? me it should be commercial. Ramirez answered we can come back with this item as we thought out of the purview of a correction as it is an error in the mapping e it wasn't discussed at any of the public hearings as being Chan since the policies do allow commercial parking uses in reside icts that staff should put it back to how it was. mmissioner Toerge noted it seems we are creating an error. Maybe >n't an error and logically it should have been that way. I looked at th a thoroughly back then and didn't bring it up because it should hav !n that way. Now we see residential in the grid that forms commerci, scent to an area that clearly needs more parking. It seems we are goin iinst some of the policies in the General Plan in doing that when in fact see that as commercial and think it should be. finer Eaton, as proposed to be corrected, it would be the parcel not on Coast Highway within a sub -area? Ramirez answered that is correct and that he also sees file: / /F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mnO7- 19- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 07/19/2007 point of view as well There are two ways to look at this. comment was opened. comment was closed. Alon was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded immissioner Eaton to affirm the corrections and revision to the adopt rsion of the Land Use Element of the General Plan dated July 25, 2C :h the exception of the Heliotrope and Second Avenue change back >idential and that it remain as it is in the current General Plan. es: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel and Toerge res: I None Arches Grill 508 29P' Street accordance with Section 20.60.015 (Temporary Structures and Uses) Newport Beach Municipal Code, the Planning Director has authoriz( temporary use of an existing eating and drinking establishment for dod not to exceed 90 days. The action specifically allows the existir ting and drinking establishment to continue operating under 0 nditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3611 with an exception that wou c)w a temporary expansion in the hours of operation to accommoda :ekday lunch service. r. Lepo noted this report is required to provide notice of the Planr rector's action to approve this. The application has been submitted vision of the existing use permit and is a clean -up of the in -lieu rangement for parking arranged subsequent to the approval of cisting use permit. Code requires notice that you be informed of : cision. The Commission can appeal any decision made by the Planr rector. The minutes of this meeting will document that you have recei is notification. Murillo stated and answered questions received: notice provided to the surrounding property owners on this type nning Director's temporary use permit? This isn't a temporary t -mit it is only a notification of the action of the Planning Director horize a temporary use and no notification is required. The applic > submitted a formal use permit amendment application and forr ification will go out with that application. the in -lieu parking fee for the same parking lot on 30th Street whi used by the Brewing Company? In approval from City Council to alk u parking fees, that Municipal parking lot was identified; however, stated in the staff report that most likely patrons to this restaurant v on 29th Street and surrounding streets and that there is adeque ng on the streets today. When the exception was made for this u: iit from the in -lieu parking fee moratorium, there were son dished criteria for restaurants that could fall under this exception. Oi ITEM NO. 6 USE PERMIT NO. 3611 Receive and file file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn07- 19- 07.htm Page 14 of 16 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 07/1 9/2007 that there is adequate on- street parking within the vicinity of the taurant. Therefore, we concluded that it was Council's intent that the taurant patrons would be parking on 29th Street and would not impac municipal parking lot. the in -lieu parking fee still $150 per year? Yes. missioner Eaton noted the Coastal Commission has interpreted in of the Brewing Company, that the daytime parking situation is diffe night time. This is an issue that needs to be considered when this it comes before us. Toerge asked if this is different from the Let's Harp answered it is different. Let's Role is an on -going use that wou been out out of business if it was not aooroved. This is truly :)orary type of use and they are in he process of amending their u: nit that wouldn't put them out of business if you did not approve it. Hawkins noted this is received and filed. D City Council Follow_- UP Mr. Lepo reported at the last Council meeting of July 12th the de novo hearing for the Newport Beach Brewing Company was helc and it was determined that there was no clear evidence of nuisance, resulting from the Brewing Company or clarifying the intent when the use permit for alcohol was revised in 1999; some changes were made to conditions regarding restricting a queuing line to the Newport Boulevard side of the building, requiring future Planninc Commission review of this use permit to try to clarify if the recorz supports a nuisance violation or that the premises were bein4 operated contrary to what the original intent was; the applicant has tc maintain records of food, beer and alcohol consumption after the hours of 9 p.m. on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Assistant City Manager David Kiff will be taking an active role in directing the operations of Code Enforcement related to the group homes issues. Discussion continued. Report from Planning Cc Development Committee Chairman Hawkins reported that they had a discussion on Toshiba Golf Tournament and the economic benefit. He presented group homes Planning Commission discussion. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Page 15 of 16 file : //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn07- 19- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 07/19/2007 issioner Eaton reported another section of the proposed code v reviewed. It was determined there has not been enough time staff and consultant deliberation prior to committee notification. was suggested and agreed upon that the next meeting would cancelled to allow a catch -up period for the staff. There had a been a decision on some of the draft codes to retain the R -1 and I designations rather than shift them to R -T and R -S. Discuss continued and staff will bring back the possibility of a study sess in connection with this item. Intensive Residential Occupancy Committee Commissioner Toerge noted there had been no meeting and i scheduled and suggested, with assent of other Commissioners, this item be removed from the additional business listing. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report at subsequent meeting None. Matters which a Planning -Commissioner may wish to-place. on future agenda for action and staff report None. Project status Mr. Lepo noted the difficulty the Planning Department is having attracting and retaining qualified people, the resignation of El project manager, occupancy of new modular office facility a change in format of modification actions. Reauests for excused absences Commissioner Cole noted he would not be available for the of August 9, 2007. ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 p.m. WNW Page 16 of 16 file : //F: \UsersTLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\nm07- 19- 07.htm 12/19/2007