Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-03-2005Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 • 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 19 file: //H: \Plancomm\2005 \030305.htm 04/12/2005 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich,. McDaniel and Hawkins II present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director James Campbell, Senior Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Jaime Murillo, Assistant Planner Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Temple announced that at the annual Service Awards Breakfast, Mr. James Campbell had been awarded the Dorothy Palen Award; and, a Team Spirit Award had been presented to employees from the Building, City Attorney's Office, Planning, Public Works and the Police Department who worked as eam on the resolution of the Goetz matter. Mr. Campbell thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their support. Chairperson Tucker noted that St. Andrew's Church is proceeding with its effort to reach an agreement with the School District regarding the parking issue. H noted that it was unfortunate the way the discourse seems to be going in this matter as the focus seems to be by many people not on whether additional parking in the area is needed or indeed would be helpful., but rather they are focused on the fact that the Planning Commission made the agreement with the School District a condition to the successful conclusion to that planning process. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on February 25, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR file: //H: \Plancomm\2005 \030305.htm 04/12/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 0 Page 2 of 19 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of February 17, 2005. ITEM NO. 1 Minutes Commissioner Hawkins noted that under Public comments, should read Ms. Temple presented five year pins to Chairperson Tucker and Commissioner Approved Selich. Commissioner Tucker read his changes to the minutes. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve the minutes as modified. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None xxx HEARING ITEMS UBJECT: Anthony's River Boat Restaurant Use Permit No. 3684 ITEM NO.2 151 W. Coast Highway UP3684 On June 7, 2001, Anthony's Riverboat Restaurant received approval of Use Permit No. Approved 3684 that authorized the use of third level of the Pride of Newport for banquet events. This approval is subject to specific limitations of regarding activities and hours o operation on the exterior decks. The Planning Commission also required that the operation be reviewed for the effectiveness of and compliance with conditions o approval Chairperson Tucker noted this is a review of Use Permit 3684 that was supposed to have taken place a year ago, but didn't, so we are looking at it now. Commissioner Cole asked why we are looking at this now versus a year plus 9o? Ms. Temple answered that is was inadvertently forgotten and we didn't catch it. One of the suggestions in the staff report is whether the Planning Commission eels the need to review it again. Commissioner Cole verified that it was not because someone has brought u any concerns about this facility. He was answered no. Chairperson Tucker noted that at the hearing on this particular location, there were some residents of Linda Isle that were fairly close to this facility that had some concerns about the operational characteristics. We passed what we thought was something that would work but their level of concern was such tha we said, okay, lets bring it back and see how it really works to see if we had one what we thought we had done. Public comment was opened. Bruce Hazlap, 2832 Bayshore Drive across from the Riverboat. He noted that uring the summer the bands were very loud, particularly the drums. As alcohol kes affect, people get rowdier and this creates quite an annoyance. During he summer it is worse. At Commission inquiry, he noted that this annoyance file: //H:\Plancomm \2005\030305.htm 04/12/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page 3 of 19 Ihas been going on for the past two years. • Commissioner Hawkins asked if the noise concerns were from this Hazlap answered no, they weren't living in their residence this past summer he was there before and had this annoying problem then. Tucker noted that the question he asked was if this problem was past two years. r. Hazlap answered no, we weren't there. Jerson Tucker noted that was the nature of the question. We im tions about two years ago, and what we are trying to verify is w restrictions addressed the problems that you refer to that happened r. Hazlap was presented with a list of conditions by staff. Glen Zagoren, President and CEO of the Nautical Museum that you refer to a: he Riverboat. He noted that the restaurant is a tenant of the museum and since he had taken over two years ago, they have been very concerned about how the neighbors react to the museum, given the fact that they are looking to become an even larger part of the community. Anytime the restaurant has an event a he museum, they have to get permission from the museum first. This is no omething that the restaurant can arbitrarily do, to go up onto the deck and do n event because that is museum property. We work closely with him in term, f monitoring how the museum is being used for special events of that nature. y other time there is music at the museum, we have City permits and we have een very careful about applying and working closely with the City. Fo xample, we are doing the opening of the NOSA Exhibit on the 16th and we are orking with the City on that as we are very sensitive how we react to ou neighbors. It is now required of every fifth grade student in the Newport-Mes< School District to take the Museum program, so we are an important part of the community and are happy to have the restaurant working there with the ability to provide some of the catering operations, but as the last speaker pointed out here really has been no situation within the last two years of any complaint: from any of the neighbors. Part of that reason is we have been very careful tc monitor what has been going on upstairs, is falling within the CUP and withir hat the museum is looking to produce in the community. Schwartz, 89 Linda Isle noted that the last two years things have better. They have not been noisy to us. hairperson Tucker thanked the speaker noting he was a primary speaker a • he last hearing on this matter; this tells the Commission and staff a lot. Public comment was closed. file: //H: \Plancomm\2005 \030305.htm 04/12/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page 4 of 19 hairperson Tucker noted we have a question in terms of whether we want .elete this condition or whether we want to have this matter come back at uture date to see that it still works. He verified with staff that this is the or )mmissioner McDaniel, noting he was on the Commission when the nditions were imposed, stated the Commission did a good job of listening erybody and understanding what the situation was. Therefore, we put a lot nditions on this item that we thought would work. It appears as though it rrking. We've heard from the neighbors who indicate that it is indeed doi , especially from some of those who were very vocal at the last meeting. I a favor of not seeing this again. If we hear something from the neighborho m we will see it then. I think it is working. person Tucker noted that there is a condition in the staff report that if out to be a problem, we can still call it back for review. otion was made by Commissioner Toerge to accept the report and liminate condition 31 and simply respond to any complaints that come urin the normal course of actions; otherwise receive and file the report. yes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None bsent: None bstain: None UBJECT: City of Newport Beach PA2004 -235 sndments to the Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to Recommended iinate discrepancies and insure consistency within the text, clarify existing for Approval -ies and affordability standards, and include additional provisions to promote achievement of the City's housing goals. These amendments include . Amend Housing Program 1.2.1 to provide consistent dates for the reporting of the Housing Element and General Plan. Amend Housing Program 2.1.1 to correct an erroneous reference to Municipal Code. . Expand Housing Program 2.2.1 to include provisions for the production housing affordable to moderate income households. Provide consistency within the Housing Element when defining income categories. . Amend the affordability standards to be consistent with the standards by the State Department of Housing and Community Development Office of the Attorney General. file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \030305.htm 04/12/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Commissioner Eaton noted his concern with the third provision and if that mean: . that the larger developers do not have to build any low income units ani therefore, they won't; secondly, does that affect the in -lieu fees eventuall because it is not as expensive to build moderate or at least it does not require a much subsidy for moderate as it does for very low and does that mean that ou in -lieu fees will be going down or won't accelerate as much up and therefore thi ity will also not be able to provide low and very low income units. Is the fmbination of that going to be a concern to HCD eventually if we are not ably omeet those things that we are supposed to be doing in the Housing Element? Murillo answered that we are in the process of drafting an incl I Ordinance, which is going to address the affordability requ on the prorated basis of portions of our RHNA figures. Ms. Wood added that we are in the process of working on an in -lieu fee ar have been working with the City Council's Affordable Housing Task Force c hat, which is actually where this proposal arose. We had our consultant look o scenarios for the in -lieu fee, what they call the baseline scenario was tt required inclusionary housing in -lieu fee per market rate unit if you did not ha% it apply to moderate income units to receive the assistance. With that the R would have been about $33,000 per market rate unit built. If we make tt hange to allow moderate income units to qualify, the fee reduces to near $25,000. There is a difference in what we would get but it still is so muc reater than what we are at today. I think the last one we negotiated w, .12,000 per unit. It is still a big move in the right direction. I don't think that HC ill ever need to look at the inclusionary ordinance itself, they are reviewing tt Housing Element and the programs in that as long as we report that we haN dopted the fee and are implementing it. As the staff report notes, we do have need for moderate income units. Eaton asked when the new proposed fee would go in? Wood answered that the ordinance will be brought to the City Counci rtly after we have this amendment to the Housing Element done because we not want to bring a fee that was inconsistent with the Element. person Tucker asked if that fee ordinance will come before the Plannir nission. He then noted that for the proposals that are out there f field, by the airport, and Lennar in Newport Center, those are going to provide affordable units on site because there are more than fifty units. Wood answered it goes directly to the Council and affirmed the two Page 5 of 19 Commissioner Toerge, referring to item 2 in the staff report, asked how the 5% threshold is measured for four (4) consecutive quarters, is there a marketing • survey done? Jaime Murillo answered we survey about 20 of the major rental projects in the City. We have a list of their total units and every quarter we send out a survey file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \030305.htm 04 /12/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page 6 of 19 n how many units are vacant and available for rent on the first day of e) •hree months. Basically, I compile the survey to establish what the total vaca rate survey is. We average the four consecutive quarters to determine what percentage would be. This survey is based on anything over fifteen units. )mmissioner Hawkins, referring to the insert of moderate income units on ite noted we have a shortfall for 83 moderate - income units currently, do we kn( iat the shortfall is on the low and very low income units are? With respect 83 moderate- income, what happens when that need is satisfied under tl >. Wood answered this proposal doesn't affect it. The Regional Housi :eds (RHNA) numbers are supposed to be re -done every .five years. It metimes extended to seven years or so because the State has not funded 1 gram for the Regional Council of Government. What the community h educed within the past five or seven year period, I don't think really makes tl ich difference in what your next round of numbers come out to be. They Ic vacancy rates, total number of units, income levels and allocate on a regioi sis into the Counties and then the County allocates it. They look iployment, so it is a much more complicated formula. It is not a matter ce you produce these 83 units you are done, the market could change of five years. Jaime Murillo noted that including the Newport Coast annexation area, there is • total need for 86 very low income units; and low income units is a total of 148. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to adopt General Plan Amendmen P2004 -010 which is an amendment to the Housino Element (PA2004 -235). yes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None bsent: None bstain: None is Pub and Grill (PA2004 -273) I ITEM NO.4 10 Newport Boulevard j PA2004 -273 Request to permit additions and alterations to an existing eating and drinking Approved stablishment. The applicant proposes to add a retractable roof over a portion f the building, an exterior patio adjacent to Newport Boulevard and second floor ffice space. The Modification Permit request is to permit alterations of portion f the first floor and the new second floor office space that encroach 4 feet into he required 10 -foot alley setback. Gregg Ramirez noted he has new proposed changes to the conditions o file : //H:\Plancomm120051030305.htm 04/12/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Chairperson Tucker noted that in the staff report, the conditions that we •roposed were referred to as mitigation measures or other items that addre se characteristics. The Planning Commissioners refer to the condition numt o that it was easier for them to just flip back and see what the condition actua aid in the text of the staff report. I would like to have that resume, otherwise i are just hunting and pecking through each one of the conditions and a lot hem are fairly boiler - plate. itinuing, Mr. Ramirez noted: . One that was omitted is a standard condition that requires that a Wat Quality Management Plan be approved by both the Public Worl Department and the Building Department prior to issuance of a Buildir Permit. . The other two are related to the side walls conditions 42 and 43. Numb, 42 is a requirement as proposed that a six foot high wall be installed alor the northerly property line between Rudy's and what is the Ho Su Restaurant. Staff proposes that this condition be removed from the dre resolution after looking at the narrow area, as it might be a problem f security and trash accumulation. It is a 'dead' space there and ste believes that it should be left open. . Condition 43 is a requirement for a three foot wall to be construct( between the parking lot and the adjacent right -of -way. Staff believe through working with the applicant and their landscape architect, we c( provide landscaping in that area that would create better aesthetics than solid wall in that area. Therefore, staff recommends this condition t deleted as well. Mr. Ramirez noted that a landscape plan is required to be submitted ar pproved by the Planning Department. He then stated that the applica believes that there is miscommunication regarding the live entertainment ar he request thereof. The applicant desires to retain his right for lip ntertainment. If the Commission feels that request is workable, we have a da ndition of approval related to live entertainment. imissioner Eaton asked about the proposal to delete condition 43, wa., a standard of the Specific Plan and do you not have a problem with delet Why don't you want to permit heaters in the outdoor area as listed iition 41? Mr. Ramirez noted that condition 43 is a Restaurant Development standard. The Speck Plan refers to the Restaurant Development standards. Conditior 1 was requested by the Fire Department. They would allow some sort o heaters out there but they don't want anything that is not bolted down or stubbe( in. The Fire Department will work with the applicant so they can get some sor of heater out there. Tucker noted that before us is a use permit. Paragraph 1 in Page 7 of 19 file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \030305.htm 04/12/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page 8 of 19 conditions refer to the floor plan is what the development shall be in substantial conformance with. One of the things that is not there is a pool table. Is tha Ding away or is it on a different floor now? Right now, it has such obvious characteristics of a bar, is this remodel design to have it become more of a restaurant bar as opposed to just a straight bar? Ramirez answered that they want to upgrade the facility to a nicer m fortable place to relax and have food and drink. As far as the pool to s, we did discuss that and the applicant deleted it from the plans. He we to come back to get approval for a pool table to go in there in the future. rperson Tucker affirmed that to add games or a pool table would isistent with the submitted floor plan. missioner Selich asked about the seating arrangement. Ramirez answered that the seating arrangement would have to be tantial conformance with what is shown on the plan in number and lay ovina 88 seats. nmissioner Toerge, referring to the floor plan, noted that on the ground 1 e appears to be only one head serving the men's restroom. Is that curre case? It looks like there are three stalls for women. Is that how it is in Mr. Ramirez answered that is how it is shown on the plan. The Bull Department has looked at the plan and they have done an analysis with pplicant that covers the plumbing and fixtures. Temple noted that if the Uniform Building Code sets forth a requirement then the applicant will be required to provide more because your act Id not wave the legal requirements. Carson, 331 Canal Street, property owner and partner in irant, noted the following: . The inside of the building has been patched over many times to its state as a sports bar. . The building facade needs a face lift. . The menu is being changed as well as the building itself in order to gain better clientele. . The pool tables were being used as eating tables and so we have to have seating tables instead and we have removed the pool table. . The proposed outdoor patio in the front will help during the peak s time as people do not like to eat indoors. file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \030305.htm 04/12/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page 9 of 19 . We want to create more a family type atmosphere with this remodel. S. The proposed retractable roof is to enjoy the sun and the outdoors. comment was opened. comment was closed. >mmissioner Hawkins noted this is a much needed face lift. The retractabl :)f is an exciting idea. He noted his concern about the parking space loss an ked about the location of the stairwell that takes that parking space. Parkin a premium and he would like to see if there is some way to regain that space. Ramirez answered the stairwell on the southerly side provides access to tt posed new second floor offices. As designed now, it does not look to k e enough to accommodate an additional space. Whether or not striping a modified elsewhere may be a possibility. If that stairwell was removed the )ther space could be squeezed in there. The standard space width is 8 feet ies, so they would have to pick up a little over a foot to put a space then vever, you may lose some of the landscaping. Ms. Temple noted that in the report, it states that the principal reason for loss of the space is not the installation of the staircase, but the provision of C( or adequate handicap parking, which is not a choice for this project, landsce areas and the proposed open staircase. Commissioner Hawkins noted that there is no way to compromise the spec needs parking area, but perhaps there is a way to adjust the other two recapture that space. Campbell noted an alternative would be to put the staircase in the ack, which would then create another issue, or, you could put that inti ms inside the restaurant, where space is at a premium. There fications if that were to be required. irperson Tucker asked the applicant what the two outdoor upstairs p all about? Mr. Carson answered that originally he had just a deck on top of the offs( pace. In trying to get the net useable occupancy everything shifted around ar e actually lost space in the restaurant area. We also addressed the parkir issue by cutting into the back of the building and creating a space that is no urrently the freezer. That was another thing, we were having an issue with tt Coastal Commission requirements. In the front patio area we wanted to make asy and as you walk up the staircase, that put us over the 10% add -on whi( ould have kicked us over into the Coastal Commission. So, we took that o' •nd have it as a breezeway walk -up underneath and you would go into tt ffices. At Commission inquiry, he added that they have no office spa( urrently. The patio is only to be used for the employees to get away. The pat file : //H:1Plancomm120051030305.htm 04/12/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 0 A • is not for the restaurant patrons. iirperson Tucker asked if there was something in the restrictions patio use. itinuing, Mr. Carson noted that closing the patio at 10 p.m. is diffiCL ecially in comparison with other restaurant patios that are allowed to be use I closing. As far as the restriction on noise, we have no problem with ni ing piped in music or something to the outside after 10 p.m. There is r son to have music out there. As far as our patrons to be able to be out then does hurt us and makes it difficult too if we reach our capacity and we the e to basically remove people off the patio at 10 p.m. That would not b tomer friendly and would make it difficult for us to function. We agree c ar things to keep the noise down such as the roof closing at 10 p.m. As f, the noise, we haven't done a study but we sit at an intersection that bably the busiest intersection down here with traffic and noise. There is WE about widening the street, which means there will be more traffic. There ,e noise created from that intersection than is caused from that patio, so w ild like to keep it open all hours of business. The patio area has a total of of wall as a barrier. nuing, he noted the live entertainment; they would like to have it at the We are not looking to have that noise after 10 p.m., so if you want tion that and limit the timeframes, that makes sense to us. We envision being used more during the summer daytime. The retractable wall will I d at 10 p.m. as there is a door on one of them for egress and ingress. Ramirez noted that condition 9 states that, 'the second floor office e all only be used for commercial activities associated with and in support :ing and drinking establishment. The office area shall not be leased or r a separate use.' We can clarity that with second floor office space and Tucker stated that we could come up with language on . Temple noted that during the development of this application and the plan !et all the criteria and avoid the need to go to the Coastal Commission the s a lot of work done on the design of this project. As we worked with this v re concerned about the possibility of the second floor office area being leas( separately and not used at all as part of the restaurant. The way they a posing to use it, it would not count as part of the floor area used to measu Icing requirements. The second part of it was the design of the patios d Inge because as they were originally proposed they looked very susceptib enclosure for additional office space. Once again, the concerns we seeding floor area ratio, exceeding the Coastal Commission threshold. IC !se two conditions, 9 and 10, were intended to address those two concerns. uld think that if the Commission wants to clearly state that the use of the pal not for patrons of the restaurant but only for other employees of tl ablishment, that would be yet another condition. Page 10 of 19 file : //H:1Plancomm120051030305.htm 04/12/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page I 1 of 19 Chairperson Tucker noted that is where he is headed because he is concern( . hat nominally they are asking for less than 400 square feet of addition, b hen you start having additional bodies on additional patios, even though oesn't count as floor area under the technical definition of our code, there is arking demand that is associated with it. I personally would like that type Selich asked how the patrons would get up there to use it. Carson answered that the patrons would actually have to walk through )an, through the cooler and the bathrooms of the employees. The off in front and the patrons would have to walk through them. At Commis: iry, he answered he would accept an additional condition regarding p restriction. nmissioner McDaniel noted he has no trouble with live entertainment as it Cady loud as it is. He would allow the live entertainment up to 10:00 p.m. It eter inside than it is outside. He would say live entertainment inside done p.m., that would be his proposal. Toerge noted the request is to allow the patio to be open until rr. Carson noted we serve until 1:30 a.m. and then we clean up and people heir bills. We would like to serve breakfast on the weekends so we would open up at 7 a.m. Tucker noted the issues to be decided: . Outdoor patio operating hours. . Okay with the roof retraction hours. • Live entertainment up until 10:00 p.m. and staged inside. • Operating hours to open at 6:00 a.m. • Limiting the upper patios to the employees' use only. • The loss of the one parking space. outdoor patio hours: ommissioner Toerge noted it would not be unreasonable to have the outdo fining closed an hour or two before the close of business at 2:00 a.m. There ome offset here because of the location and being so close to the road. •ouldn't create a hardship on the business if it were to close an hour or tv before the 2:00 a.m. closing time, maybe at midnight. I do believe as it ge later at night that certainly after midnight the impact of the noise of the road is 1 file : //H:\Plancomm120051030305.htm 04 /12/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 less, there are residents down 31st Street and maybe 32nd Street that hear the noise there. I am not sure how much of a negative impact it will or the bar if it is closed at midnight or 12:30. Chairperson Tucker clarified that the property next to this establishment is or commercial below and residential above. . Temple noted that there are some second floor residential in some proxirr i other properties can be developed with mixed use as well. While the y be outdoor patios that have lesser regulations, this has been a stande uest of the Police Department for at least the last five to eight years. TI isn't mean you can't change it because if the context of this property Brent, certainly longer operational hours would be okay. Once we get to 10:30 the ambient noise level associated with the road does drop pre matically throughout town. missioner Toerge noted he has no problem with extending it beyond 1t , he does have a problem with leaving the outdoor area open past midnight. Selich asked about the restrictions on the outdoor patio of s. Temple noted she would have to research the outdoor patio uses; however noted that El Ranchito has been there a long time and their patio is almost fulb . nclosed. missioner Eaton noted if this patio faced the water that helps the not ,mission he would be quite concerned. Here this patio is facing a fairly bu vay and intersection and assuming the retractable walls are retracted as the roof and with no amplification out on the patio, he doesn't have lem with it staying open until 2:00 a.m. Selich noted he has no problem with it either. ,nmissioner Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Toerge's suggestion. ed ambient noise goes down and so some sort of restriction is reason; 00 at night is a reasonable restriction. �mmissioner McDaniel noted the Police Department is the bigger concern th ise right now. Crabby Kenny's was like midnight, if I remember right. He ncerned about people being out there drinking until 2:00 a.m., when the crir e goes up. That has definitely been a concern in that area specifically. Tt more an issue to him than the noise so he is in favor of closing the pa wn, and bringing them inside. At least they won't be standing arou .ommissioner Toerge noted his concern of the music inside and doors openii ith people going in and out and the ambient noise going down and now it idnight or particularly 1:00 a.m., I think it creates problems. I am sympathe Page 12 of 19 file : //H:1Plancomm120051030305.htm 04/12/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page 13 of 19 o the idea about the smoking issue, but it should be closed well before 2:00 M., that is too late. He would agree closing at midnight. Commissioner McDaniel noted he would support midnight closure as well. imissioner Cole noted that there is a condition that allows the Plani ctor to restrict the hours if there is a problem, condition 25. So, he we I to allow them to operate subject to that condition. If there is a problem, take action. Is that correct? Ramirez noted that the way condition 25 is written, it addresses only th actable roof, the wall, etc. We could include the patio area in that condition. iairperson Tucker noted he supports the midnight closure. He then asl lout the parking space loss issue and asked Commissioner Hawkins what proposing on that? mioner Hawkins asked if there were any parking in -lieu fees that can at this location or is re- design the only option to recover the lost park Ms. Temple answered that re- design is the only option. The City did at one tii have parking in -lieu fees for commercial; however, it has been suspended City Council. Even if it is still there, the City was never willing to charge me •than $150 a year. Commissioner Hawkins noted that parking is at a premium there. If there some way to re- capture that one space I would like to see that. :aff noted that the concept of compact parking was eliminated from the Pub Forks Parking Standards and that the standard parking space for all parking feet 6 inches. Tucker noted that what we can suggest that the pa be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer for not less spaces. Carson noted that the noise created on the patio will be going out onto a :ing lot. He would be in favor of closing at 1:00 a.m. and maybe work their back to 2:00 a.m. He noted that patrons are not allowed to smoke inside sc have to go outside to smoke. When they are outside we lose control so i are inside we can do our job and make sure that everything runs smoothly. other conditions we are fine with and have no problem. nmissioner Hawkins noted a change needs to be made to condition 23 discussion of opening hours. • ICommissioner McDaniel noted he is still in favor of the midnight hour file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \030305.htm 04 /12/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Commissioner Cole noted condition 20 needs to be clarified that entertainment is within the facility and has to cease at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Ramirez noted staff will amend the conditions accordingly and add additional conditions related to the live entertainment. Commission inquiry, staff noted that if there are complaints or other forms nmunication that the conditions imposed are inadequate to maintain :eptable operation of the business for the area, then the Commission has t It to call an item for review and to impose/change conditions or initic ,ovation proceedings. We can use the concept of condition 25 where t edition authorizes the Director to further restrict hours when the retractat if, wall, doors or windows are permitted to be open. This option includes t tton of requiring these features to remain closed at all times except for t ress and egress. A similar condition can be drafted regarding the patio, whi iply says that if you are authorizing whatever hours on the outdoor patio tt roblems are incurred that the Director has the authority to reduce the hours ommissioner Toerge noted he finds the applicant's position rather compellir bout the smoking and control of the patrons as they go outside and the abili o control them on the patio. Maybe the 1:00 a.m. is more reasonable, he ju has a problem with closing at 2:00 a.m. So long as we expand that condition ay ake it very clear that should there be complaints, we will call it up for review. �.Vould be more inclined to accept the applicant's request for the patio closu {time. rperson Tucker noted that the proposal is now for 1:00 a.m. with :ional condition that the Planning Director, if there are problems, has V to modify the hours of operation. So basically instead of 12:00 it is with what was suggested by staff. Temple noted that either the Director on his /her own authority has 1 Aty to reduce the hours, or that the Director clearly has the obligation i this back for your review. We can do it either way, it is just how much y the Commission needs to be involved. )mmissioner Toerge noted that if there is an issue, then we can review it. If not an issue, then we don't see it. With that in mind if we modify the languac include the outdoor patio, I am in favor of 1:00 a.m. closing the patio ar rified that he is changing condition 25 to add the outdoor patio. Commissioner McDaniel stated that the parking lot belongs to these people too. There was a place in Corona del Mar where there was noise and people throwing trash and such and we made them put guards on the gates, etc. an< run people off that were drinking out there and causing trouble. My concern is that these people, whatever they are doing at midnight, if they are going outside that is still going to be a problem in the community that is happening on thei property. He really believes midnight is plenty late at night for this establishmen Pnot to be causing trouble in the neighborhood. Page 14 of 19 file: //H:\Plancomm\2005k03O3O5.htm 04/12/2005 ,N Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Chairperson Tucker then canvassed the Commission: Commissioners Ea •and Selich were okay with 2:00 a.m. so they are okay with 1:00 a.m. Commissioner Eaton answered yes, as long as the language is added condition 25 to add the patio. 0 Selich answered yes, Cole answered yes. Toerge answered yes. Ion was made by Commissioner Toerge to approve Use Permit Modification Permit No. 2004 -089 (PA2004 -273) subject to the fir litions of approval contained within the resolution with the • Live entertainment be permitted inside until 10:00 p.m. • The hours of operation be from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. • The patio is obligated to close at 1:00 a.m. • Restrict the access and the use of the second floor patios from the use of restaurant patrons. • The 27 car parking is adequate. • Condition 25 shall be edited to include outdoor patio. • Live entertainment permit needs to be allowed by the City Manager prior tc live entertainment at the establishment. • Delete conditions 42 and 43. • Add the standard condition reaardina Water Qualitv Management Plan. None None None 500 31 st Street applicant requests the establishment of a height limit in excess of the base limit pursuant to Section 20.65.055 of the Municipal Code. cant proposes to construct a mixed use building with an average roof he i feet and 9 inches and a peak height of 32 feet approximately iairperson Tucker asked about the width of the sidewalk in the public right- ly that is next to this building and whether there is enough room for two peol walk side by side down the street. I observed the location and the Canne fts space and it looks to me like the sidewalk at Cannery Lofts is about ' >t wider. The pedestrian elements seem to be quite wide on the west side a street and this side is kind of narrow, but looking at the plan it looks Ii ;re was a little bit of a setback off the property line for the sidewalk area tt Auld bring it up to more than just the minimal three feet. Page 15 of 19 ITEM NO.5 PA2005 -001 Approved file: //H:1Plancomm120051030305.htm 04/12/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page 16 of 19 Mr. Rich Edmonston answered that the Public Works Department did ar xtensive review of sidewalks on Villa Way in conjunction with some of the • omments regarding the Cannery Lofts project. There is no clear pattern todal ut there and again the development patterns are such that it is very difficult tc rovide the sidewalks we would like to have other than by narrowing the streets. In fact alongside the Cannery Lofts area we did narrow the streets slightly tc ive a little more room to the sidewalk but still maintain the minimum amount it he street in order to keep from losing ten additional parking spaces along the treet. It is a very challenging area and clearly there are some tradeoffs tha ave been made to try and make it work. rperson Tucker noted that there appears to be four feet between the and where the building would go. Edmonston answered he understood that as well. It has b nmended to replace the sidewalk there and is typically so where there cuts, etc. that have to be either moved or closed. comment was opened. Glen Gellatly, project designer with Bissell Architects and representing tl applicant, noted the following: • This is a high quality solution to building in the Cannery Lofts area. 0 . This projects fits in the area and resolves issues such as open spac setbacks, bulk, mass and street curb appeal. • The ground level has a commercial component of 750 square feet wi three parking spaces one being handicap parking. • There is also a two story parking element for the 2nd story residenl above. • The residence is designed on a loft concept with most of the squa footage on the first floor with a master bedroom suite on the third level. • We have provided additional setbacks on the front and side in order break the scale of the building as much as possible in responding concerns of nearby residents. • We are here for the increase in height that is necessitated by the natur grade that is low and the first floor elevation is approximately 18 inch above natural grade, which causes us to have to raise the building up bit. We have mitigated most of the concerns that resulted from that. • • At Commission inquiry, he noted that along Villa Way it is allowed to hal a zero setback; however, they have increased that to six inches whit provides a clear space between some of the parking meters of 3 feet file : //H:\Plancomm\20051030305.htm 04/12/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page 17 of 19 inches. The ADA code is 3 feet. Where you are not walking by a meter.. . we have maintained that pretty much along the way and it approaches 4 feet depending on the width from face of curb to property line is. Campanili, of 403 Orion Way and property owner next door to this sit 1 that the street improvements section states that the City was going r a modified cut off of 5 feet at the southeast comer intersection of 31 ,t and Villa Way. It seems that might be the standard that might apply to , cut offs for the intersection, and perhaps any other future applications th t come before the Public Works Department or perhaps the Plannir mission could use the same design. -on Tucker asked if this was something within the purview of Commission or is this information only. Edmonston answered that the dedication requirements are within ew of the City Council. comment was closed. Chairperson Tucker noted the basis for the Use Permit is for the height limit dui to the design characteristics that make the site design better than if the applican had stayed with the same amount of FAR but did not seek the Use Permit. I looks to be a handsome, well thought out project that is consistent with thi aterials that are called for in the Specific Plan in this area, like them or not. This applicant has been consistent with what the Code says. nmissioner Toerge noted his agreement and added that the increase ding height results in more public visual open space and views than uired by the regular standard height restriction. He also believes it results re desirable architectural treatment as displayed in the plans and me realing visual character. Continuing, he noted that the increased buildi ]ht would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale in relationship consideri Cannery Lofts across the street. The building does not provide anymc or area than what we be achieved without the height variance. He then nob support of this item. Gellatly, at Commission inquiry, noted he is in concurrence with all Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to approve Use Permit No. 2005 01 (PA2005 -001) subject to the findings and conditions of approval contained in the resolution. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None • Abstain- None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL I file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \030305.htm 04/12/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 Page 18 of 19 City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that at the last City Council BUSINESS meeting they adopted the Ordinance regarding the increased parkin requirements for medical office; and, established the ad hoc committee fo revisions to the Zone Code. b) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the development Committee - no meeting. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General ite Committee — no meeting. d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coas Plan Certification Committee - Commissioner Toerge noted that at the IE meeting public access and coastal bluffs were discussed. He noted that the are a lot of thoughts and concerns with how to deal with coastal bluffs, tl process is on- going. He noted that issues such as string line and predominz line of development were discussed and since the City is essentially develope ere was a suggestion to create a graphic that shows specifically wt properties are in the coastal bluff area and maybe we could ask staff to come with examples of existing situations, not hypothetical, from which we can start raw some conclusions. Since we are doing the Zone Code and the Lo( Coastal Program now and this body has dealt with the coastal bluff issue umber of times, that it might be a good idea to go through that process on e slopes in the City that meet that criteria now as a body and determine how ddress them all now and not do in piece meal as the applications are F cIward. This will be discussed further at our next meeting and I am hopeful tt e will have a graphic to work from. He then proceeded to give an overview hat the group hopes to address in the near future. s. Temple noted that staff met with the Coastal staff last Friday to discuss the LCP application status and some of the issues that they have seen to date. Th< principal Coastal Analyst who was working on our project left on maternity leav( and is now returning on a part time basis starting this week. That person will bE working principally on our Land Use Plan. The staff gave us a verba commitment that they would have comprehensive comments on the submittec and Use Plan by the end of April and that would include the comments fron heir legal staff in San Francisco. Their intent was to provide us with som< mount of time that would allow them to schedule the initial hearing at thei eeting in June, which is in Long Beach. Their staff reports go out May 8th hich means they are giving us a week, which is not probably sufficient time. e did talk about still wanting to get the comments and have some meeting, during the month of April and try to have some sort of final comments. Depending on what happens in April, we may or may not be able to make th< eeting in June. If we end up slipping to July, the Coastal Commission meetini s in San Diego and in August it is in L. A., so it is staying south for almost al ummer. Depending on the nature of what we are confronted with, we will no have to deal with a two month delays that have been an outgrowth altematini tween northern and southern California. Our staff would not want to see it g< any later than July, but there is a possibility that we may need to go back to the ity Council if there are significant policy alterations which we feel they woul( file: //H:1Plancomm120051030305.htm 04/12/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 03/03/2005 0 d to consider. If it has to go straight to Council, that is where it will go due time constraints. e) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - Commissioner Toerge asked about the subject of ti ntroduction of one way streets in Corona del Mar. Mr. Edmonston stated i would be happy to sit down and share his thoughts and history about this issi and suggested that he call. f) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a agenda for action and staff report - none. g) Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - none. h) Project status — Chairperson Tucker noted that the School District will I laving three hearings on the parking situation. At the first meeting of April th vill be considering a vote on an agreement assuming it gets that far. A tape v )e made available for anyone on the Commission who would like to view it. im concerned how the nature of this is playing out. i) Requests for excused absences - none. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 19 of 19 file : //H:\Plancomm\2005\030305.htm 04/12/2005