Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/18/2002• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2002 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Commissioners McDaniel, laser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley and Selich - AII present STAFF PRESENT: Patricia Temple, Planning Director Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Todd Weber, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Presentation was made to Commissioner Kranzley for his 7 +years of service on the Planning Commission. • Election of Officers: Chairman, Steven laser; Vice Chairman, Earl McDaniel; Secretary, Shant Agajanian Minutes: Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to approve the minutes of June 20, 2002 as amended. Ayes: McDaniel, laser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Public Comments: Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday, July 11, 2002. a Minutes Approved Q 7 Posting of Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2002 SUBJECT. Butler Residence 911 W. Bay Avenue • Modification Permit No. 2002 -018 (PA2002 -037) Appeal of the decision of the Modifications Committee's approval of Modification Permit No. 2002 -018. Commissioner Tucker noted that the Commission received a dossier of information that had to do with alleged miss steps, mistakes, etc, by staff and /or Commission that all had to do with a modification that came up last year that was not appealed. The modification, which came before us last year, was acted upon by the Planning Commission, but that action was not appealed to the City Council. We are done with that. Al that is before us tonight is the May 8, 2002 modification. I suggest that we view the matter as if we were starting over and the applicant had come forth with a request for that particular structure and decide what is appropriate. Commissioner Kranzley noted he wanted to define what could be acted upon tonight. Chairperson Kiser noted that, on advice of the City Attorney, we are to consider at this appeal or review hearing, only the some application, plans and project related materials that were the subject of the original decision. Tonight we have only one decision being appealed and that is the approval of Modification 2002 -018. Any additional information to be heard is to relate only to that. Public comment was opened. Lawrence H, Davidson, 537 Newport Center Drive, attorney for the applicant, Mr. Butler, noted the following: • Referring to page 9 of the staff report, staff has determined that the Planning Commission can make a decision in support of the appellant. • He then gave a history of the deck extension /patio cover application. • Private property rights. • Photographs depicting views from properties. • Modifications process and history. • Plans submitted for the modification application. • Referenced Exhibits 2 and 4 in the staff report. At Commission inquiry, staff noted this is a continued item and the notice had been placed about twelve days in advance of the previous hearing, which was scheduled for June 6m. The notice may have been removed since that time. Mike Clary, next -door neighbor to the east noted that his view corridor is the most affected then by any other neighbors. He noted the following: • Mr. Butler was given permission to build a patio cover. • A deck extension was specifically excluded. , INDEX • Item 1 PA2002 -037 Upheld decision of Modifications Committee U • . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2002 • The Modifications Committee decided on a compromise solution, essentially approving the west half of Mr. Butler's unauthorized deck extension, but required him to remove the railing, deck material, the electrical fixtures on the eastern half. He was also Instructed to open the eastern half of the patio cover to create an open beam structure. • I support the Modifications Committee May 8m decision for this compromise position that will give Mr. Butler more than what was originally authorized yet will protect our view corridor and privacy. • Should Mr. Butler still not agree with this conditional approval, then I would be in favor of the second alternative in the June bm staff report to require Mr. Butler to return the deck back to its authorized location in accord with Modifications Permit 5080. • At Commission inquiry, Mr. Clary stated that there is another two-story house In front of his house. Our view corridor is therefore off to the northwest, so we are looking down Mr. Butler's new extension. The extension infringes our corridors as well as the additional plants and trellis that were installed. The deck interferes with our view corridor. Blair Bryant, 909 yz West Bay noted his agreement that there has been a lot of misleading information. I encourage the Commission to enforce the laws and the codes, as they would uniformly do for the rest of the street. It is my opinion that the original permit should be enforced because I have seen a 'scoff law' type of activity • going on regarding this whole issue. Mr. Garcia, the Modifications Committee Chairman went out of his way to propose the compromise that was put on the table. He specifically talked about something that would keep the sun out, and so forth. These houses face north and it is a short three -story house that Mr. Butler lives in. You don't get sun on those first floors, so the whole concept of a patio cover to keep the sun out just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Public comment was closed. Chairman IGSer noted the following: • Staff report notes the neighbors' view. • The Commission has heard testimony and reviewed pictures. • A resident is affected by the deck extension; and, a resident wants the deck extension as part of his home. He asked for clarification of a right to extend into a setback. Ms. Clauson, Deputy City Attorney answered that only as established and authorized by the Zoning Code. There is nothing else other than the provisions of the Zoning Code that authorize the Modifications Committee and then the Planning Commission upon appeal to approve a modification pursuant to the findings required under that Section. The standard for the Planning Commission is substantial evidence on a review. Substantial evidence is what is needed to support your decision. The facts must be substantial to support whatever determination the Commission makes, whether to approve or deny this modification, it is up to you and it is the Commission's discretion. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2002 Commissioner Kiser noted: No compelling reason to encroach into the setback by any amount. The Modifications approval decision that gave basically a partial width deck extension into the setback seems to me very fair and would allow uses that the applicant wants, while it may not be as extensive a deck as he would like to have. Generally other structures in that area comply with the setback criteria. Commissioner McDaniel noted his agreement with the previous comments. He noted that he has not heard, nor seen any evidence that would cause him to overturn what the Modifications Committee has done. They have come up with a resolution and compromise. I could support to reduce that as well, but I see no reason to grant more than what has been recommended by the Modification Committee. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to uphold the determination of the Modifications Committee. Ayes: Tucker, Agajanion, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None SUBJECT: Caf6ltaliano 514 W. Balboa Blvd. . Use Permit No. 2002 -014 (PA2002 -076) Request for a Use Permit for a full service, small -scale eating and drinking establishment to exceed the established floor area ratio (FAR) and waive the off - street parking requirements associated with the conversion of a single, enclosed parking space to storage area. Chairperson Kiser asked about the three parking spaces behind the building. The staff report indicates that one of them is allocated to the residential units above and the other two are allocated to the restaurant. Isn't there a requirement for at least one parking space for each residential unit? Ms. Temple answered she does not know how the original determination was made; the original construction of the residences was done in association with a use permit. The Planning Commission at that time felt the arrangement was adequate; this was done in 1963. Public comment was opened. Mr. Dennis Stout, representing Nancy Nelson noted the following: • There are three garages in the unit and there are two apartments upstairs. One apartment has the garage on the end and the garage in the middle was allocated to the other apartment but was being used for storage. INDEX Item 2 PA2002 -076 Approved • 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2002 • This use was in place when Ms. Nelson bought the business and it was not disclosed that this arrangement was not in compliance. • Since then, she has made that one garage that was being used for storage back into a garage, so she has added a parking space for the apartment upstairs. Each apartment does have its own garage now. The cooler is in the last garage and that is the only place to store it. • The cafe is an asset to the community and provides opportunity for locals and walk -ins. • He concluded by asking that the Commission approve the application. Nancy Nelson, 514 W. Balboa Blvd., owner of the restaurant, noted the following: • She has leased the apartment upstairs. • The previous owner had told her when she bought the business that the two garages could be used for storage. • Inspectors from the City informed her of the problem. • This is primarily a neighborhood restaurant where people walk in. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Use Permit No. 2002 -014 (PA2002 -076) by adopting a resolution entitled: "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach Approving Use Permit No. 2002 -014 • (PA2002 -076) for Property Located at 514. W. Balboa Boulevard." Ayes: Tucker, Agaianian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None ■rx SUBJECT: Carnation Village 308 & 312 Carnation Avenue Newport Tract No. 2002 -001, Modification Permit No. 2002 -041, and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2002- 001(PA2002 -067) Request for a Tentative Tract Map, Modification Permit and Coastal Residential Development Permit to allow construction of six condominium units located in Corona del Mar. The condominium units will replace two apartment complexes consisting of fifteen units. Commissioner Tucker reviewed correspondence that was distributed to the Planning Commission by members of the audience noting that it appears to be all on a template from members of the China Cove Condominium Association and focus on the consequences of construction. They are not germane to the Tract Map, Coastal Residential Permit or Modification Permit approvals; they seem more like public works types of items. Perhaps Mr. Edmonston could respond to these concerns. LJ INDEX Item 3 PA2002 -067 Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • July 18, 2002 INDEX Public comment was opened. Andrew Goetz representing the applicant, noted he has read the staff report and offered a suggestion on one of the conditions related to the sidewalk /landscape area. Public Works had suggested a five -foot sidewalk on this project. This particular portion of Carnation is at the end and is basically a private street at this point. That sidewalk really goes nowhere since the adjoining condos all have driveways that slope down steeply into their garage. From an aesthetic standpoint, we feel that perhaps doing away with the requirement and putting a planter in the yard would look nicer. The owner of this property has been talking to the neighbors and there seems to be no concerns. At Commission inquiry, he added that the length of the sidewalk would be approximately 100 feet that we are proposing not to put in, as there are no sidewalks at either end of this property. Mr. Edmonston noted that • This suggested condition for the sidewalk is based on one of the historic issues in this area and that has been parking and how people park. • That portion of Carnation, as well as the alley that serves the rear of this property, are private and the City has very limited regulatory authority. • This has been very contentious in the past as property owners park perpendicular or parallel in front of their properties. • One of the ideas with the five foot sidewalk, is that it makes it look a little more like a public street and if you do park parallel, there is room to actually open a door and get out of a vehicle without stepping Into a flower bed. Maybe some lesser dimension would work. • Five feet is the City's standard width for a sidewalk that is back of curb. It is not a continuous sidewalk. There are no further plans that I am aware of to provide public access down to Bayside Drive, etc. • The letter from the Association, again because they are private streets and alleys, the Public Works Department has no authority to regulate the traffic use of those alleys in terms of construction traffic. • Discussion continued on providing an alternative to the sidewalk with grass. Terry Senko, 325 Dahlia Place spoke as a resident and as a member of the board for the China Cove Condominium Association, noting: • The sidewalks start and stop and are not sufficient in the neighborhood. • She received the notice for this hearing and stated concern about the alley being blocked during construction and demolition. • Has no problem with the way the project is laid out. • The alley is the only access. Commissioner Tucker noted that construction issues do not fall within the Planning Commission jurisdiction. We plan the projects; when it comes to constructing them we have no control. Since this is on private property, it falls within someone else's jurisdiction. • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2002 Assistant City Attorney Clauson added that when the building permit is applied for, it might be fruitful for the neighbors to let the building official know. Then when the official is reviewing the permit plans and the Fire Department looks at it, the building official may come up with some regulation on how they conduct construction. Bill Robertson, 321 Dahlia noted: • Increased risk of damage to the corners of the building. • No vehicular access use is being made from the front. • Currently there are nine parking spaces and it is being increased to 15. • What contribution is being made to our alley that is bearing all of this heavy traffic? Staff noted there is a condition that requires at least half reconstruction of the alley. Ellen Kuntz 2520 Seaview noted she disagrees that there will be no impact due to the increased parking. There is parking in the red zone between the buildings. The construction blocks entrance into buildings. There has been damage to the area resulting from the construction workers and truck traffic. She asked for parking in the front. • Art Pease, 348 Dahlia noted: • His access is off the alley. • Additional parking will be a problem. • If you don't put a sidewalk in, the area will not be aligned for the rest of the block and the access will only be for people to walk in a grass area or in the street. • Suggested subterranean parking. • The increased burden being created will be a problem for the existing owners. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Selich noted: • His opinion that this was a well - designed project. • The design of the parking spaces on the alley preserves the look as single - family structures. • I don't see the need for a sidewalk as there are no sidewalks on the street. • I would rather see landscaping, either shrubs or grass. • I don't think there are going to be more problems, it should be better because there will be less units with less trips. Commissioner Tucker noted: • I would prefer to see the look of the exterior of this as opposed to having • the applicant redesign this for a few parking spaces. • We are not authorized to redesign the project for the applicant. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • July 18, 2002 INDEX • Supports the application and favors the flat grass area as every square Inch of permeable surface has become valuable. Discussion continued on low- income housing /Coastal Zone statutes /In -lieu fees /low income housing loss /State laws and City codes. The project does not displace any low- income households, therefore there is no replacement requirement. Additionally there is no inclusionary requirement, as the project does not propose 10 or more units. Commissioner McDaniel noted his support of the project stating he prefers a cement sidewalk for walking. Chairperson Kiser stated this is a well- designed project. The developer should re- do the full width of the alley Instead of the half width. I propose a modification to condition 11 with respect to that. I would prefer to see either a mandated flat grass strip or the sidewalk in front. Mr. Edmonton noted that the reason the developer is improving half of the alley is that our understanding is that's as far as this property owner owns, to do the other half he would be on someone else's property. Commissioner Tucker noted he is not in support of the full width improvement. One property owner should not be burdened with the problems of another • property owner. If they damage the other side during construction, they do have a duty to repair that damage just as a legal matter. I would like the motion to not have the full width requirement. A yes straw vote was conducted for half width alley. reconstruction only - Commissioners Agajanian, Kiser, Selich, Kranzley and Gifford. Motion was made by Chairperson Kiser to approve Newport Tract No. 2002 -001, Modification Permit No. 2002-041, and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2002 -001 (PA2002 -067) by adopting resolution entitled: "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach Approving Newport Tract No. 2002 -001, Modification Permit No. 2002 -041, and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2002 -001 (PA2002 -067) for Property Located at 308 & 312 Carnation Avenue." Exhibit A. condition 1 the date of the plans shall be changed to 7- 27 -02. Mr. Goetz stated that the plans are consistent. Staff had asked for small size plans to be printed up and on his computer, that date was updated. The full size plan set dated April 27, 2002 and the reduced set reviewed for this meeting dated 7/27/02, are the same plans. Chairperson Kiser continued noting that the motion includes not revising condition one and on condition 11, eliminating the second sentence, A five -foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed along the Camation Avenue frontage. Commissioner Gifford asked if a new sentence could be added to replace the • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2002 deleted sentence, A three -foot flat grass parkway shall be installed adjacent to the curb. The maker of the motion agreed. Ayes: Tucker, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Ms. Wood noted that the surrounding neighbors have legitimate concerns about having their access blocked during construction. Staff will arrange a meeting with the Planning, Building and Fire Departments to see if some ground rules can be set to keep that interference to a minimum. SUBJECT: Martin Potts & Associates 1300 Bison Avenue Use Permit No. 2002 -020 (PA2002 -089) A Use Permit to allow up to seven (7) eating and drinking establishments within the proposed Bluffs Shopping Center currently under construction at the comer of MacArthur Boulevard and Bison Avenue. The request includes the potential sale of alcoholic beverages limited to beer and wine subject to specified limitations. • Senior Planner Jim Campbell noted the following changes to the conditions: Condition 2 - Site plan to be replaced by the term Overall Lease Plan. Condition 6 - delete the term alcoholic beverages and replace with beer and wine. Condition 25 - delete the word restaurant. Discussion proceeded on the table used in condition 5 as it relates to any sound. The third sentence of this condition shall be changed to read, All music shall terminate at 10:00 p.m. Sound levels shall not exceed the decibel levels as outlined in the following table. Commissioner Tucker noted he had suggested that there be something in condition 5 regarding outdoor music being provided between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Following a brief discussion it was decided that in condition 5 to start the third sentence, Music may be provided between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and add, All outdoor music shall terminate at 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Gifford noted she would like to have the outdoor music start at least by 8 a.m. or 9 a.m. Public comment was opened. Mr. Jerry Engen, Senior Vice President of Development for the Irvine Company, Retail Properties Division, 550 Newport Center Drive noted: • Would like to hear all the changes proposed to the conditions. INDEX Item 4 PA2002 -089 Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes . July 18, 2002 INDEX Chairperson Kiser stated: • Condition 2 - Site plan to be replaced by the term Overall Lease Plan. • Condition 5 - Change third sentence, Music may be provided between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and add, All outdoor music shall terminate at 10:00 p.m. The last sentence starts with the word, Sound etc. • Condition 6 - delete the term alcoholic beverages and replace with beer and wine. • Condition 25 - delete the word restaurant Continuing, Mr. Engen listed some of the restaurants that have leased, Baja Fresh, Pasta Bravo, Wausau Sushi and Daphne's. He stated he has no objections to the proposed conditions as outlined. At Commission inquiry he added that most eating establishments serve beer and wine during normal operating hours and he does not want to restrict any merchants against any of the other restaurants in the local jurisdiction that don't have any restriction on beer and wine service. Commissioner McDaniel noted that after 10:00 p.m. that seems to be the time when there is problem with consumption of beer and wine. He is concerned about not having oversight with what happens after 10:00 p.m. with the beer and wine service. What percentage of people ore you looking at that will need beer and wine after 10:00 p.m. because most of the people do not eat after that time? The cart blanche is what I am having trouble with. It is our job to look at the alcohol service • after 10:00 p.m. Mr. Engen answered that they are not requesting a change in the laws as they relate to the service of alcohol. He is asking that the CUP's be under this master permit use permit so that a quick service restaurant that happens to have beer and wine as an ancillary part of their business does not have to go in front of the Planning Commission. That is the intent of the application, not to restrict or determine the hours that they can serve alcohol. Chairperson Kiser asked what happens with this Master Use Permit if there is a breach of conditions by one of the users, will this be an enforcement problem? Are we delegating to the Planning Director authority to issue use permits for this particular center as long as they conform? Mr. Campbell answered that staff has structured this Use Permit to authorize the Planning Director to issue separate Use Permits to the individual tenants pursuant to these conditions. Enforcement is not really an issue if one tenant breaches it and we would bring that use permit to bear or other sections of the Municipal Code and it would not affect other use permits. Ms. Temple added that the City has over many years used the concept of a Master Use Permit or a Master Planned Use Permit. It is not specifically defined in the Code, but we have used this kind of tool to allow staff to allow a continued progression of development in areas under the auspices of a generalized or master use permit and only require amendments to that master permit when the operation changed • 10 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2002 outside the specific limitations of that approval. For example, churches and schools have been authorized under that concept so that their operations could change over time within certain parameters. The applicant came to us to seek a strategy to attempt something like this. If the Commission were uncomfortable with this, then the position would be simply to require each individual restaurant to come before the Commission with separate applications. Ms. Clauson added that you could approve authorization for the Planning Director to Issue Individual use permits within the parameters that you have in here and you make it clear that whatever parameters that the use falls out of, that the Planning Director doesn't have the ability to issue a use permit. For instance, if a parameter is made that the alcohol may only be served until 10:00 p.m. and if the use wants to serve after 10:00 p.m., then the Planning Director has to bring that application to the Planning Commission for evaluation. Chairperson Kiser noted another suggested change to the resolution: add to Section 3, paragraph 4 - Each Use Permit issued by the Planning Director shall include those Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A which are applicable to the Use Permit being issued. Any changes to this Use Permit or the Conditions of Approval may only be made by the Planning Commission or the City Council. Staff agreed that this would be a good addition to the resolution. • Ms. Temple added that in this particular case, we do not have floor plans of each individual tenant space. We felt that follow -up Planning Director's issuance of a suite specific use permit would then allow us to identify a floor plan, which could not be changed without a subsequent amendment. Commissioner Gifford asked if it is not necessary that the outdoor music would start later than 7:00 a.m. Mr. Engen stated that a coffee use would be coming into the area and they generally have outdoor seating area and would like to have soft music. Looking at the location of the property, the distance to any residential use is quite far. The closest residential use is the Bluffs Apartment building high up on the bluff. The limits as outlined in the staff report table the ambient noise is three times that sound level. Whether it is 7 a.m. or 8 a.m. is not going to be a deal breaker for us, but I just would not want to restrict a tenant from providing a nice ambient environment for its patrons. I don't think it will be an issue. Commissioner Tucker stated: • He has no desire to see use permits on every one of these applications or on any of them. • The Planning Director with the additional conditions on the resolution we are imposing tonight knows what the conditions have to be on the use permits. • Each beer and wine service request actually has to go through a use permit with the Planning Director that is appealable to the Planning 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • July 18, 2002 INDEX commission. • It ends up being something that we will be seeing in our weekly distribution of staff approvals, so if there is something that looks odd, it can be called up. • I urge the Commission to cut down on our workload. • Leave the operating hours up to the merchant. • Distilled liquor uses will come before the Planning Commission in all events. Commissioner Agajanian noted: • No problem with the use of a master use permit process. • Is the applicant going to come back with another master use permit for the other spaces? Staff answered that the plan on page 13 shows the general location of the quick food uses. The condition that is written is general; there may be larger sit down restaurants in the corner pad. If we did have a large sit down restaurant larger than 5,000 square feet it would come to the Commission as a separate use permit. Commissioner McDaniel noted that his concerns had been satisfied. Mr. Engen added that there is a maximum amount of square footage of restaurant food type uses allowed on the property given the parking demand and supply. I would like to not necessarily limit it to seven or to a specific number but more than • the maximum allowable square footage on site. For instance, if we make some of these food uses smaller, there could be more than seven, but still not exceed the total maximum allowable. One of the differences where it would come up before the Planning Commission would be if it is greater than 5,000 feet, or goes beyond beer and wine, which is what a typical sit down restaurant would more than likely have. We put the number seven in the application, but now that I am looking at the site plan I realize one space that was going to be combined into three is now going to have one use there. Chairperson Kiser clarified with staff that we would have to renotice this item for another hearing for this change. Tonight all we can work with is the seven number and the square footage. Mr. Engen noted that given the time constraints of re- noticing and that there are tenants already to go in, he will not ask for a continuance. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Gifford questioned the term 'quick term service' is not in our Code. How is this determined? Mr. Campbell answered that this site is governed under the Bonita Canyon Planned Community. Parking, which generally is dependent upon a use classification, is, not relevant here because it is all based upon a gross square footage of the individual tenant. The term 'quick food' is being used by the applicant in their marketing and • 12 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2002 INDEX has no bearing upon the application of the regulations of the Bonita Canyon Planned Community. This master use permit will authorize any existing and drinking establishment from a low turnover restaurant, a high turnover restaurant to a limited category. Commissioner Gifford stated she understood that this master use permit was for quick service type of restaurants and would like something in the conditions of approval that limit this to that type of restaurant that was discussed in the staff report and the applicant's exhibit. Ms. Temple noted that of the tenants listed, two at least provide tables and chairs, and some that operate similarly where people take food out. Staff was describing operational parameters and size limits that would generally characterize these not traditional fast food, but the typical quick service kinds of restaurants that provide and typically have seating for dine in. Ms. Clauson noted that it could be drafted so that this use permit is for seven eating and drinking establishments and you can identify which ones could be an option using the Code Sections. The resolution says that they are not going to be bars and taverns, but there is no restriction in here. • Commissioner Gifford stated that she did not want to authorize just any of the categories as not defined in the Code. Ms. Clauson read from the Municipal Code Section 20.05.050 K (Commercial Use Classifications). At Commission inquiry, staff explained that the 19,694 square feet restriction applies to a portion of the restaurant entitlement for the 52 000 square foot center. There is still an additional amount that would be allocated for what we would traditionally call full service, low turnover restaurants phase. Chairperson Kiser noted that this allocation is for some portion of the restaurant space; do we need to specifically define what that portion is that we are allowing seven restaurants to go in under? It all relates to the parking requirements where restaurants of some type cannot be put in more than 19,694 square feet of this shopping center. We need to know what this restaurant is so we know what we are approving tonight. The maximum seven is what the applicant asked for and everyone basically agrees; but is not relevant, you cannot put in more under current entitlement more than 19,694 feet of whatever this is that we are about to approve. Ms. Clauson answered that goes into the applicant's request and that there different uses will be different square footages and they may end up with more than eight. Mr. Campbell noted: • Parking requirement in Bonita Canyon is the same, whether It is a full scale, small scale or a low turnover restaurant or a take out establishment. 13 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2002 Al based on gross square footage. No difference between the parking requirements that we would authorize today within the 19,694 square feet versus what would come in the remaining allocation, which is approximately another 11,000 square feet. We wanted to reserve the right and ability for larger sit down restaurants that could potentially have live entertainment and /or bar areas with full serve alcohol to come back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Clauson suggested that where this uses the term restaurant, use the term eating and drinking establishment as that is consistent with the definition of the Code and you do not have to continue to say the service of food and beverage because that is the definition of an eating and drinking establishment. Following a brief discussion it was determined to remove the term restaurant from condition 6 and the first sentence will read, 'The principal purpose for the use permit is to permit eating and drinking establishments with the sale and service of beer and wine incidental to the food use during the specified hours of operation. The approval will also allow the use of outdoor dining areas in conjunction with food service. Commissioner Tucker noted that the issue Is beer and wine service, less than 5,000 square feet and the Planning Commission can call any matter up. Mr. Engen asked that in condition 25 the term restaurant be replaced with eating and drinking establishment. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve Use Permit No. 2002 -020 (PA2002 -089) by adopting resolution entitled: "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach Approving Use Permit No. 2002 -020 (PA2002 -089) for Property Located at 1300 Bison Avenue as amended. Ayes: Tucker, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None �sx SUBJECT: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance Code Amendment No. 2002 -003 (PA2002 -126) The City is proposing changes to Chapter 20.64 of the Municipal Code consistent with the changes in designation made for the Transportation Demand Management regulations administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The changes also include the addition of a section outlining enforcement of the TDM regulations. Public hearing was opened. Public comment was closed. 14 INDEX 0 Item 5 PA2002 -126 Recommended for approval • 49 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2002 Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to recommend that the City Council adopt the changes as proposed. Ayes: Tucker, Agajanian, Kiser, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Absent: McDaniel SUBJECT: Real Estate Signs A request to amend Zoning Code Chapter 20.67, Signs, to allow the addition of a single 'rider' sign and a single 'brochure box' per property in conjunction with an approved temporary real estate sign. Ms. Temple noted this is an initiation item only and will come back for public hearing at the next available Planning Commission meeting. A brief discussion followed on enforcement issues and common practice of brochure boxes. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to initiate an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code pertaining to Section 20.67, Temporary Real Estate Signs, on residential property. Ayes: Tucker, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood noted at the last Council meeting, heard the Hoag Memorial Hospital PC amendment and the matter was continued to August 13th. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - received a report from the City's consultant noting disparity of retail sales and square footage and restaurant sales in different areas of the City. c) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - no meeting. 15 INDEX Item 6 Recommended for Initiation Additional Business City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2002 d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - no meeting. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. f) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. g) Status report on Planning Commission requests - no updates. However, Ms. Temple reported at the request of Commissioner Agajanian that staff is pursing code enforcement on Overstreet Wine Merchant for advertising regular live entertainment when it was prohibited in their use permit. Mr. Campbell stated that he got a call from the operator who indicated that ad was printed in error. A follow up call from the Daily Pilot noted that the advertisement was run in error. The owner will not have any more advertisements inconsistent with their use permit. h) Project status - none. i) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Tucker noted he would not be at the meeting of August 8m. ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 p.m. SHANT AGAJANIAN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Iri IZI9741 Adjournment 0 0 r.