Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/2005"Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 26 ' file:HN:1Apps1WEBDATAII ntemetlPlnAgendas\20051mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Commissioners Henn and Tucker were excused. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on July 15, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of July 7, 2005. Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the minutes as corrected. Approved Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, and Toerge Noes: None Absent: Henn and Tucker Abstain: McDaniel HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Bart' Saywitz Residence (PA2005 -085) ITEM NO. 2 5005 River Avenue PA2005 -085 Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of Condominium Conversion No. 2005 Denied 004, Parcel Map 2005 -021 and Modification Permit No. 2005 -042. The application would authorize the conversion of an existing duplex into a two -unit condominium complex allowing individual sale of each unit. Also included in the application is request for a modification to the Zoning Code to allow the installation of a partition wall ' file:HN:1Apps1WEBDATAII ntemetlPlnAgendas\20051mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 2 of 26 establish two single -car garage parking spaces with substandard width. comment was opened. Glowinki, resident of Corona del Mar, noted that if the garage spaces >minium conversions continue to shrink they become storage spaces. As c we to grow, such as the SUV types, he believes the garage space will not as garage and thus will be contradictory to managing the parking requirements ely owned residences. He urged the Commission to deny the appeal. comment was closed. Toerge asked for clarification of the appeal. James Campbell, Senior Planner stated: The appeal relates to the condition that the Zoning Administrator applied required the garages to comply with the minimum size standards. . The applicant is seeking relief from that condition through this appeal. r. Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney, added that the Zoning Administral termined under Section 19.64070i, the wall was required pursuant to making tl ding required by that section. What the applicant did, was apply for a modification ter to have a decreased space size in the garages. The Zoning Administrator refus grant the modification permit to allow the smaller size garages and required them wide the width as required by the Code. imissioner Cole asked about an alternative determination to uphold the appeal ify the approval by eliminating the garage separation. Campbell answered: . That is an option as the Municipal Code does not require a separation of a car garage. . It was required for the finding to approve the condominium conversion and felt it was necessary. . The Planning Commission can approve the two -car garage without the of the garages, but staff felt that would be detrimental. . The Zoning Administrator would not be willing to approve the conversion the separation of the garages. Temple added the reason why the Zoning Administrator takes that position fuse when we don't actually require that separation and the modifications to 1 ing to create standard spaces, the homeowner simply does it without pen wards. That is what people want, they do not want to share a garage, they w� own. was made by Commissioner Hawkins to deny the appeal without prejudice " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 3 of 26 the condition regarding the separation. Toerge noted that a yes vote is to uphold the appeal. Hawkins clarified his motion to deny the appeal and uphold the requirements and conditions. Harp added a supplement to the motion that the findings of the nistrator were correct under Section 19.640701 and 20.93030. Hawkins agreed. Toerge and McDaniel None Tucker and Henn None 3JECT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (PA2005 -032) ITEM NO. 3 One Hoag Drive PA2005 -032 iuest to approve a traffic study prepared pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Approved inance (TPO) for the development of 130,000 square feet of outpatient medical :e Campbell gave an overview of the staff report adding that staff feels that the ings pursuant to the Traffic Ordinance can be met and that we are not creating any itional significant impacts to area intersections. nmissioner Eaton stated for the record, even though 45% of the traffic is going to be ig Newport Boulevard north of Hospital Road, those intersections were not analyzed ause the TPO does not require the analysis of any intersections outside the City of iport Beach. The environmental document currently being done for the revision to master plan of Hoag will analyze those intersections. Edmonston agreed. Toerge, referring to page 9, item e, asked if the size of the site is correct. . Temple answered that Mr. Ramirez had sent a corrected resolution with item e ised to be consistent with the paragraph on page 4 that states, 'This project has ;n reviewed and it has been determined that all significant environmental concerns the proposed project have been addressed in the previously certified environmental ,lument (EIR No. 142, SCH #89061429) which remains the governing environmental ;ument. No additional significant environmental impacts were identified during the paration and review of the traffic study.' missioner Hawkins asked: . When was this environmental document done; what sort of document was it, and what was the development analyzed? Temple answered: " file: / /N:1Apps\WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 4 of 26 • The environmental document was a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was certified in 1990. • The project analyzed was the Hoag Master Plan, which incorporated the concept of three separate phases of development, each of which would have its own subsequent Traffic Phasing Ordinance review and approval. • Since this is within the Master Plan and within the anticipated phasing program, staff believes the EIR is sufficient to serve as the environmental document for this approval. nmissioner Hawkins then asked about the findings needed for this project ;rencing the TPO itself Section 15.40.030,. sub- section 61 . We are required to ke the following findings: 'Construction of the project will be completed within sixty ) months of the project approval.' I believe that is a finding and not a condition and I ik that should be inserted in the resolution as a finding. The second part is in the section that immediately follows that as B1 a, 'The project will neither cause nor ke worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary :rsection.' That also needs to be inserted into the resolution. Campbell answered those are good findings pursuant to the TPO and can be :rted easily in the resolution. Staff will make that correction. Aic comment was opened. Aic comment was closed. tion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to approve Traffic Study No. 2005 -001 ject to the findings and conditions as amended. yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge and McDaniel Noes: None bsent: Tucker and Henn bstain: None Domingo Villas, Inc. (PA2004 -243) ITEM NO.4 757 Domingo Drive I PA2004 -243 luest to approve a Condominium Conversion and a Tentative Tract Map that would Continued to vert an existing 8 -unit apartment complex into 8 units for individual ownership and :. The project also includes the interior and exterior renovation of the existing 08/04/2005 dences and detached garages and the installation of new hardscape, landscaping new exterior decks. The application also includes a request for a Modification mit (MD2005 -066) to allow expanded decks, a fountain, vehicular gates and a trash losure within the side and from setbacks. The project site is located within the MFR lti- Family Residential) zone. Campbell noted the applicant is prepared to present what they plan to do to the ect site that was constructed in 1966, is designated for multi - family housing and are seeking to convert the apartments into condominiums for individual sale. He noted that the applicant had revised his plans and had provided copies today, but they were left behind in his office. iirperson Toerge, referencing page 3 of the staff report, asked for clarification on the/ 'Tile://N:\Apps\WEBDATA\Internet\PlnAgendas\2005\mnO7-21-05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 5 of 26 encroachment into the front yard setback. Campbell answered: • The 4'9" is the remaining setback from the property line. • The existing building is well within the setback and these are additional encroachments related to architectural features that the applicant wants to install in the front of the property. Hawkins asked about the vehicular access control gates. Is part of that the gates, or is it pilaster, etc. as supporting structures for those gates? Campbell answered that the pilasters were there for aesthetic reasons as well as a ]ola across the drive approach; a vehicular rolling gate across the driveway that originally proposed staff and the traffic engineer do not support because it would :k vehicles out onto the public right -of -way. We met with the applicant and they e agreed to remove that rolling gate from their proposal due to the safety concerns. Dommissioner Hawkins, referring to page 4 of the resolution paragraph 3, noted, '... the granting of the application, with the exception of any vehicular access control gates', ie asked to strike with the exception of any vehicular access control gates and insert, ...the granting of the application, subject to the attached conditions...' because the ;onditions prohibit control gates. ioner Cole asked if any study had been done referencing the concern of apartment units for affordability versus condominiums? Campbell answered that the study that had been done looked at the Domingo Drive ea within the General Plan. The staff report indicates the area is developed with 238 its. Now there are 18 condominiums within the 238, so we are looking at 8 units out that, less than 4 %. Additionally, we have over 14,000 rental units within the City. e have been seeing the trend of providing condominiums or duplexes. In the overall using unit numbers, 8 is not a significant number to create a negative effect city-wide even within that particular area. McDaniel asked about guest parking and if there was any? Campbell answered each unit has two spaces on site. Beyond that, for guests or those with more than two cars, parking will be on the street. Edwards, architect representing the applicant, noted the following: • Revised site plan resolves the re- partitioning of the garages on the westerly mo courts, which allows for vehicular circulation. • Revised site plan also shows the elimination of the vehicular entry gate and the ownership is in agreement. • Other than the two spaces per unit with that requirement, there seems to be an abundance of on- street parking other than when there is an event at the facility across.the way. We have visited the site several times a week and have not noticed any issues relative to the parking during those times. • The pilasters that frame the motor -court entry will be enhanced with a pergola overhead that will tie into the canopy eyebrows on the sides of the project. " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 6 of 26 • He then referenced the colored renditions distributed to the Planning Commission in their packets giving an overview of the visual appearance of the proposed project. • At Chairperson Toerge's question, he answered the applicant has read, understands and agrees to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. rmmissioner McDaniel noted his concern regarding parking and asked for some type relief. He noted that this is an opportunity to get cars off the street to relieve the ngestion in the neighborhood. He noted that this project should have 4 guest parkin( aces and this project has none. Edwards noted that this area seems to be different based on his observation of r parking during on -site meetings. er McDaniel, referencing page 5 of the staff report, noted that there is a to provide 2 parking spaces for each unit and 4 guest parking spaces. Campbell answered that is what the current parking requirement would be if this e built today. As a conversion, the project needs to only require the parking that required at original construction, which is two spaces per unit. It is eligible to be sidered for a conversion at this time. There are several nonconformities with this icular building if that was relevant to your considerations as to whether the version would be in some other way detrimental to the community. McDaniel noted that this helps. He again noted that parking is such a issue. Temple noted that the City Council is aware of this problem and have recently )duced an ordinance that would require condominium conversion to provide current e parking, but they also very specifically allowed for, or provided for, a longer time ire that ordinance would become effective and to allow applications deemed iplete within that period to proceed under the existing rules. The Council did have opportunity to make those changes effective much more quickly, but it was clearly r intent to provide some accommodation for those applications already in the nmissioner McDaniel noted he would not hold up the project for this issue. ryone needs to know that in the future, this is an important issue that will need to ressed. Edwards reviewed the revised site plans noting: • The re- design shifts partitions and garages over to allow for proper ingress and egress to one garage in particular on the westerly end near a pathway and kiosk that is being proposed. • The plans show the elimination of the vehicular access gate to the property. Campbell noted that staff had met with the applicant and went over the plans and ditioned the resolution to make those changes to the satisfaction of the Traffic Hawkins noted similar concern regarding parking. He stated that "file://N:\Apps\WEBDATA\Intemet\PlnAgendas\2005\mnO7-21-05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 7 of 26 Iwithstanding the parking concern, this is a great project. He asked what restriction there to prohibit guests or tenants from parking in front of their garages. Edwards answered signage at the entrance might be an opportunity to signify vate property and that towing is an option if a car is improperly parked. Also, from Homeowners Association point of view that might be something to include in the CC d R's with shared ownership, entitlements and good neighborliness. Hopefully some that could be avoided with an abundance of parking opportunity on the street. Edmonston noted that the Fire Department works with homeowners complexes to iblish fire lanes. Campbell added that the Fire Department did not add a specific condition related to establishment of an official fire lane. There are no conditions within the project that ild prohibit parking in those particular areas. As the applicant indicated, there is cal enforcement of parking where there shouldn't be is taken up by the homeowners nmissioner Hawkins asked if a condition could be inserted that motor court yards or lanes are no parking and that would eliminate the potential for parking in front of the Campbell answered that we could recommend a condition that would require the ntification of the motor courts within the CC and R's as areas where parking is ctly prohibited and that would put all the future homeowners on notice. There could a condition for signage included; we could implement that through the Building -mit process. hairperson Toerge, referencing condition 8, noted that it suggests that uses of the arage for any purpose including the storage of household items that would preclude ie parking of vehicles shall be prohibited. That is a condition that is long overdue and would be an appropriate requirement of no parking in the motor court area to be ithin the CC and R's and the rules associated with them. Campbell noted that language barring parking in those areas can be included. ter Mitchell, speaking for the ownership, thanked the City for their work and asked this application be approved. He noted the ownership is in full agreement with all conditions and recommendations contained in the staff report. He noted the cern of parking and is in favor of those conditions being placed in the CC and R's. project is a beautiful project and will be a nice example for that neighborhood. Robert Record, tenant, noted the following: • His first objection is that proper notice was not given. He never received anythinc in the mail as the Code states. Postings on the property were inefficient. • The owners have allowed the property to deteriorate in the last year paying attention to only those areas that are visible to the public eye. For example, city records will show that there have been a number of notices to shut off the water supply, the last one being this week. • The site plan states that there are 16 garages in the written statement; however, someone were to count the number of spaces on the site plan, the number is 14. 'Tile: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 • As a resident and an owner of one of the single garages, even if they were to do the proposed changes it would not fit with your code. • The permit for conversion has expired. I checked this out with Ed Holtz of the Building Department who had signed off on this effective July 7th. • He then asked for a postponement on this item until everything is in a final stage. Campbell noted he did not know what was meant by the permit was expired. He i asked the speaker if he had received a public hearing notice approximately ten s ago. The speaker answered no. Campbell went on to say that the Municipal Code does require a public hearing tice to be mailed to the existing tenants pursuant to Section 196460. He has the set: labels that would indicate the notices were not sent out to the tenants. He ;ommended that this item be continued to provide for proper notice. This provision o Municipal Code needs to be satisfied, even though the tenants had some notice as ;y are here tonight. He apologized for not sending the hearing notice as required. comment was closed. was made by Chairperson Toerge to continue this item for two weeks to allow notice to the tenants. sioner Eaton asked if the motion could include that staff verify the number of He then noted that there are two spaces per unit on this project. He also :d the amount of parking on the street that is available with the exception of when there are services at Our Lady Queen of Angels. Toerge agreed. nmissioner Hawkins, noting the number of garages and spaces issue, asked under condo conversion ordinance is there an ability to require additional spaces? Will have the ability to make a change for additional parking? Temple answered typically on past approvals, we have discussed the imission's ability to require a higher parking requirement than the Code would antly require of a project. We have usually advised the Commission that if the e is being complied with, that should be sufficient. When we discussed the last ar condominium conversion in Corona del Mar when the Commission was ;erned about parking, the general inclination of the Commission's action was to not lire additional parking, but to deny the conversion on the basis of community patibility concerns. Given that history, I would not think that staff would be Portable with the Commission trying to condition this project on providing parking and what the current Code requires for this approval. airperson Toerge noted he was opposed to the condo conversion in Corona del Mar an additional reason and that was for safety, as the cars could only exit their garage backing out onto the street. In this case, it is substantially different with two cars of king per unit and it is our current Code that allows this kind of development. He �n called for the vote. Eaton, Hawkins, None Tucker and Henn Page 8 of 26 ' file://N:\ Apps \W EBDATA \I nternet \Pl nAgendas\2005 \mn07- 21 -05. htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 9 of 26 WITIM Salud Restaurant (PA2005 -087) ( ITEM RIO. 5 211 62nd PA2005 -087 eal the Planning Director's approval of Use Permit No. 2005 -005 to change the Approved ling take -out restaurant to a full- service small scale eating and drinking blishment. Additionally, the use permit approval consists of a minor change in s of operation to change the closing hour from 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm and to allow addition of the second -floor office that will be utilized in association with the iurant personnel and manager. The additional floor area requested necessitates an -oval to allow the overall project to exceed the permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR) o up to a maximum FAR of 0.62 for the proposed enlarged building. The proposed struction will modify the interior floor plan and provide interior seating for up to 2 Toerge stated the three components of this application: . Change of the existing take out restaurant to a full service restaurant. . Change of the hours of operation. . Increase the FAR with the addition of a second floor office. Campbell noted the correspondence that had been submitted for consideration. I i gave an overview of the staff report adding that the neighbor directly to the rear property has appealed the Planning Director's decision, that this is a de no ring, and that the Commission is not bound by the Planning Director's actions. St :ves that the findings can be met for the various considerations for this applicati recommends denial of the appeal. person Toerge, referencing page 8 of the staff report, asked about the s office used solely as an office by the restaurant personnel and manager. To urant does this refer to, Spaghetti Bender, Salud or to both of them. Campbell answered in that condition we are referring to Salud. Nicholas Hamilton, appellant noted the following: • He filed the appeal because his property is the closest to the proposed pr and would therefore bear the brunt of any adverse effect. • He received a copy of a letter that the applicant had sent to his neighbors seemed to imply that his appeal was personal, which it is not. . He has received signatures from 37 households within a two block radius of site supporting his appeal as most of them believe that a restaurant is appropriate use, but question the need for a second floor office. . His appeal does not ask to stop the development but asks to approve 1 development without the allowance of a second floor. The second floor superfluous to running a restaurant. " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 10 of 26 At a meeting with the applicant several months ago, he had indicated that would be conducting personal business out of the office, and I believe that is motivation for building the second story. As far as technical issues and code issues, the weighted FAR as can approved is non- conforming. The staff report makes an error in saying parking was the only claim that I had to say that this building was currently conforming. There is a letter from Senior Planner Garcia to the applicant n that the FAR in the building as currently approved does exceed Code. Changing the use to a full service restaurant would bring the building int( conformance with the FAR requirements of Code at .49 but adding back a secon( story brings it up to .62, which exceeds the base allocation of the Code. Granted there is some discretion given to the Planning Department to exceed that bas( FAR, but again I believe a second floor office here is superfluous to the need t( run a successful business. . He is not against development and understands the needs of developers. . If the full service restaurant is allowed without the second story, we acoon two of three purposes of the section of Code dealing with non - confon namely, eliminating expansion of non - conforming uses and bringing the prc into conformity. Allowing the expansion would cause an increase in the conformity with the based development allocation. . Assuming the building was changed to a full service restaurant and bringing it conformance with the Code before adding the second story and it is i conforming only through the parking at this point, the structure may, per the C be enlarged by more than 10% only if all Code required parking is prov unless a wavier is granted. . None of the conditions for a parking waiver are met by the project and they be if the building is enlarged. . The staff report notes that the parking demand will not increase because the pri restaurant had 29 seats. However, the prior restaurant had seldom more than few dine -in patrons during the dinner hours and provided delivery service. . It is reasonable to expect that the new restaurant will be more successful drawing dine -in patrons and indeed that is the goal. . Due to the applicant's success with the Spaghetti Bender and the good job I does running it and the nice plans drawn up, it is clear that he wants to bring nice business to Newport Shores. I appreciate and encourage that but I don't s( the need for the additional structure. . The staff report also notes that if the project is successful and draws n patrons by car that parking is available on PCH and in the Spaghetti Ber parking lot. He disagreed and presented photos of the parking lot last Fri evening as well as the subject property parking lot and the parking lot aci 62nd Street, which really does not have much need for parking in the evening is somehow filled up with cars. There were photos of the residential stn " file:// N:1 Apps1WEBDATAI IntemetlPlnAgendas120051mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07121/2005 where there is no parking either. The photo was taken around 6:40 in evening when people were coming home from work or having guests over that is when we need parking in the neighborhood. . I don't see how the staff report can conclude that the Spaghetti Bender parking can accommodate this project when it can't accommodate its own use and in f the subject property is also being used by Spaghetti Bender right now. None of this parking would be called into question if this structure were enlarged, it only comes about because the structure is being increased by n than 10 %. . The applicant has violated his Use Permit for the Kind Grind restaurant includii hours of operation and unauthorized outdoor dining area as shown in the phc taken yesterday and submitted to the Commission. This unauthorized outdo dining area is still in use months after the applicant was advised of the violation the February letter from the Planning Department. The applicant discusses using the second floor office for Salud and for Spag Bender. He had previously been advised that this was intended for on -site and I think this demonstrates the real motivation here is not to have a 600 sq foot office for a 25 seat restaurant but rather for his own personal use enjoyment. Based on past and present behavior we can't assume that the applicant adhere to any conditions set forth in a Use Permit such as limiting the use of upstairs on -site office. With respect to that office, the exterior stairwell and exterior entryway make tt office space very conducive to an independent office use. Whether that com about from the applicant doing it himself in violation of the Permit or s something else happens five years down the road and the Salud Restaurant gone and someone else comes in to make this an independent office use. Y would have a building that serves a function other than what it was intended for. We are already subjected to a lot of noise from the other commercial prope and if the goal is to serve dual income families with dinners, than certainly t1 families should be eating their dinners by 10:00 p.m. and the hours of opera do not need to be extended. Someone who needs to eat after 10:00 p.m. eat at the Spaghetti Bender, which is open until 11, or they can go elsewhere. The downside to commercial use is increased traffic and increased park demand. Alternatively some had suggested a residential use could be built the site and that would be two story and the downside to that is obviously would have increased building bulk and square footage but that is balanced providing some relief to the traffic and parking burden of the commercial use. This proposed project with the second story addition would be detrimental to properties in the vicinity and it will subject those properties to high inta parking and demand in traffic and a bigger building with more bulk and sa footage and 1 don't think properties in the vicinity should be subjected to these detriments. Page 11 of 26 " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATAI Intemet \PlnAgendas120051mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 12 of 26 . He asked that the Commission disallow the second floor addition while allowi the conversion to a full service small scale restaurant and also not allow the hOL of operation to extend beyond 10:00 p.m. If my appeal is granted or if there merit to it, he asked that the City consider refunding the appeal fee paid to initi< this process. Cole asked if this development would be a detriment from a Hamilton answered yes, with people walking on the streets or to their cars. He now and prefers that it not get worse. Michael Hoskinson, property owner and applicant noted: • He has owned and operated the Spaghetti Bender for 36 years. • He then discussed his work on this project over the past few years. • He noted that the proposed project would add value to the commercial area. • He stated he has full support of the majority of the two homeowners' assoc in the area. McDaniel asked: . 10:00 p.m. as opposed to 11:00 p.m., what is your preference? Hoskinson answered he did not know what the needs of his customers would wanted the same flexibility to serve the same hours at both restaurants. He :e that 10:00 would not be a problem. Cole asked specifically what the second floor addition would be Hoskinson answered that his primary business is restaurants. He also doe: 3taurant development and property development on the side. He would be doing hi: siness which is primarily restaurant based there. His manager needs a larger space work and is transitioning to full time office and his mother needs a place to work a: :II. Currently his office is 6 foot by 10 foot and is essentially no more than a ledge ove the foyer at the Spaghetti Bender and does not accommodate all. With the dition of the new business we really do need the footage to accommodate us as wel a nice place for all of us to work. He affirmed that there will be 3 - 4 people on 3ular basis in that office and that they will be parking on site. He noted that the ijority of the folks would be working during the day when the Spaghetti Bender is ised so essentially, the parking lot is open all day long and available to them. mmissioner Hawkins asked where the Spaghetti Bender employees park. Is current requirement to have employees park on site? Hoskinson answered they park either on site or in the neighborhood. There is ant requirement other than to close at 11:00 p.m. " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 13 of 26 nuing, Commissioner Hawkins noted that the Salud employees are required on site as a condition. How many employees do you envision that Salud i Hoskinson answered he projects 4 -5 employees depending on the time of day. Hawkins noted that the employees could take up more than 50% of on site. Hoskinson agreed. :)ner Hawkins, noting the City-owned parking facility across Pacific asked the applicant if he would be amenable to a condition that n to park there. Hoskinson answered that he would support that as it is not a far walk for lovees and another local restaurant has that same condition. ntinuing, Commissioner Hawkins affirmed by reading that the condition for sole the restaurant personnel and manager clarifying that it was for this restaurant, ud. He asked if that condition was acceptable. Hoskinson agreed. :)mmissioner Eaton, referred to an email sent by the applicant that the office Ang to be used by personnel of the Spaghetti Bender. You are now saying that iree to a condition that it be limited to personnel of the Salud restaurant. Referen e email again, he noted that the applicant had offered a covenant that would tie o properties together naming the Spaghetti Bender and the Salud. The advant nuld be that it would be clear that the employees of the Spaghetti Bender could e office in the Salud and that the people of the Salud when the Spaghetti Bender, rt open would be able to use that parking. He asked the applicant if he would ac( condition requiring such a covenant be filed and that the City be a participant in rvenant so that it could enforce it if the properties were ever sold into sepa Hoskinson answered that his general manager of both places is also going to be retary as well for the new restaurant so she would be serving a dual function. ;ed also to a covenant being a condition. comment was opened. iairperson Toerge noted that this is not an opportunity to validate the reputation • of our great restaurants and their operators. This is a land use decision and thi • limit on testimony of 3 minutes. He encouraged the audience to speak to the le • aspect of this application. Leslie, resident of Newport Shores, noted his support of the application: The proposed use of the restaurant is no different than the previous Thai Wave. The Thai Wave did delivery and had 29 seats. " file: / /N:1 Apps1 WEBDATAI Intemet lPlnAgendas120051mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 14 of 26 . Most of the people who would patronize the Salud would be those who live Newport Shores and be walk -ins and not drive to the restaurant as opposed to 1 Spaghetti Bender. The Spaghetti Bender faces the highway and has promint signage on the highway. . It will be difficult for anyone driving along the highway to see the Salud so it has low visibility. . The owner wants to have an office on the second floor to be used for himself. will be on the premises whether there is an office there or not. Having an o will not create additional demand for parking or foot traffic. • He fails to see how the second floor office has any impact on traffic and parking. • Noise created by people walking by is to be expected. David Areth, resident of 61 st Street noted his opposition: • He is concerned with parking. • He stated that employees from Cappy's restaurant park on that street ever morning and it is worse on the weekend. . He is concerned where the employees from both the Spaghetti Bender and new restaurant will park. . He asked that the business hours be held until 10:00 p.m. as there is a lot clean up time after the patrons leave and it can run pretty late in the evening the time the employees leave. . He disagreed with comments regarding the Thai Wave. He frequented t restaurant many times when there was only one other table full, it did seem Ii more of a take out type of restaurant. There was never too much activity inside it. Lakousky, resident of Newport Shores noted his support: . There have been a number of restaurants in that area and naming several o them stated they had not been successful due to poor signage and restauran type. . There is a major problem in that location. Commercial sites are not good in area. . The issue of closing at 10:00 p.m. is moot as there is a laundry facility and liquor facility that stay open later. . We need to clean up this area and this project will be of benefit. . He asked that this project be approved with the 11:00 p.m. closing hour. McHenry, resident of 62nd Street noted his opposition: "file:HN:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 15 of 26 . There are seven parking spaces in front of the proposed project. Every when he comes home between the hours of 6 and 7:30 p.m. five to seven have been taken. There is never an open spot. To think that the overflow p from Salud can go to the Bender lot is absolutely absurd. . Both he and his wife park on the street half a block from his home. . If this restaurant is successful then I won't be able to park in my neighborh< when I get home. I will be the one across the Coast Highway in the City feeding my meter at 6:00 a.m. . That is not fair to the residents of Newport Shores. . I agree that we would like to see some positive development in this area but say that this is the only manner in which we can have positive development completely misleading. . Mr. Hamilton is the only one who has spoken to the issues requested by Chairman. No one else has addressed the codes, the laws, the violations, the inconsistencies. . There is no way to enforce the restrictions on that office use. It is supposed to for Salud restaurant use only, yet, when the applicant was questioned answered it would be for the Bender, it would be for the Salud and for all restaurant business and his development business. That is what he sta tonight. That is inappropriate. . If it is him and he is going to use the same manager for all his restaurants, is never going to be the possibility of enforcing it. . There is no reason for that office footage to be on site, he can lease anywhere in the city. Johnson, partner of the applicant and resident of Newport Shores, noted . There has never been a restaurant that has succeeded in that space. . The applicant is a great neighbor to Newport Shores and is the kind of person want to develop in that area. . With the development comes increase usage, less space and problems parking. . With the opportunity for the parking spaces at the Spaghetti Bender t available during the day, he asked that his application be approved as stated. Bolinger, resident of 62nd Street noted his full support of the project. Jo Rizo, resident of 62nd Street noted her support: . The biggest parking problem during the day is with people going to the beach. "file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/2112005 Page 16 of 26 . There was always a restaurant there so you knew there would be foot there. . These are not new issues. . Anyone who comes into this area will see this proposed project as a improvement with a nice new building with most patrons on foot. Hall, resident of Newport Shores, noted his support of the application. . We have a person who is going to invest a tremendous amount of money to a nice restaurant. • The land valuation in the neighborhood can be tied into what is in front. would love to see that whole area developed. • If the applicant is shut down on this, I am afraid no one will ever do it. • Parking is always an issue as the lots are not able to support a lot of parking. • He asked that this project be approved. Hamilton, appellant, noted: . He is not against the restaurant. . He knew there was a restaurant there and that it was opened until 10:00 p.m. . The applicant has said to this body that he intends to use that office space other uses not related to just the subject operation. . The applicant has not demonstrated a need for that space. . It would be great to have that area refurbished and cleaned up, made nice with successful business there. I don't see why a condition to that is having a secor floor office. . He asked staff to address the issue of non - conforming parking and increasing building by more than 10% without meeting the code required parking. . This is a code issue, we are not talking about opinion, how good the food is or character of the applicant. How do you get around that part of the code? comment was closed. rperson Toerge, noted Policy L suggests to promote prosperity in the area that wi ild encourage redevelopment in the area and I am favorably inclined to support thi Durant with the hours of operation reduced to 10:00 p.m. as the prior operation. 3e permits are not given to an individual, they are given to the land. That is thf on why we are here, even though this has a new owner and this has an existin< permit and this new owner is intending to piggy back on that use permit. I am ver ;erned about this expansion beyond the allowable FAR. Most of the emails an( 'Yle:HN:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 17 of 26 mments that I have received had to do with the restaurant and the desire tc develop the property and maintain the restaurant open. I support that, but I arr mcerned with the expansion beyond the allowable 50% percentage that it is allowec id to go to 62 %. Policy L does not include a provision that calls for the expansion o' or area beyond the FAR limits in an effort to promote the prosperity of the mmercial district. It is not part of the policy, yet that is what partly is being askec night. While a contract to allow some of the parking for the patrons of Salud to parts i Spaghetti Bender, may be procured by the applicant, I don't believe the capacity o' e Spaghetti Bender is adequate to handle any kind of parking demand of this neu staurant in the evening at all. Maybe during the day, but not at night, and there are nployees to park. The most significant component, what happens to this office if the operty is sold? This approval runs with the land, and furthermore, what happens i e property isn't sold but the restaurant is sold? I find it highly suspect and I am very :eptical about any restaurant operator that would occupy a 1,700 or 1,800 square foo staurant and need a 600 or 700 square foot office. It doesn't make sense to me and in't see how it would work. While I know the applicant has a fabulous reputation it wn and has been very well spoken and treated me with great respect when I met witt m, I do acknowledge that the condition states that the office will be used for Saluc staurant and he has openly stated that he intends to use it for uses beyond that. iat does not speak to the restaurant issue at all. Most of the people here want staurant and want the property re- developed, so do I. But, I am having difficulty stifying to my colleagues and to the residents of the City, why we should allow oui nits for floor area to be expanded. I don't see the justification for it. Again, I want tc state, these use permits run with the land and I don't see any reasonable way tc ovide a control or enforce how that property is used in conjunction with Saluc staurant, nor does it meet the test of logic with an office that large with ar dependent access, it is not even accessible through the restaurant, it is accessiblE rough the back. I am having real difficulty, not with the restaurant. It would be a eat addition to the neighborhood, the neighbors agree as does the appellant, but I arr ruggling greatly with the component of the project that calls for it to expand by 20% rger than it is allowed to. It is 10% FAR but 10% more of 50% is 20% increase and st don't see the justification for it. He noted that he would propose that the restauran )se at 10:00 p.m. and that condition 22 restricts deliveries after 10:00 p.m. and beforE a.m. Deliveries need to be limited to more reasonable hours and I am thinking morE e 7:00 p.m. for deliveries. Eaton asked: . The floor area ratio is a flexible base and extra could be added with a use perr and it has to do with the traffic and the overall statistical area. The floor area w done in part to ensure the implementation of consistency of the General PI Land Use with the circulation so there was a way of controlling the total amount traffic generated out of the area if you had lower traffic generating uses you cot have a higher floor area ratio. If you had higher traffic generating uses than t base ratio was the more appropriate. Was that part of the mix? . Apparently, originally the restaurant at this location was considered a take restaurant even though it had a lot of indoor seating and it required significe more parking than the proposed restaurant, which also had a take out operE and a little bit less seating. Yet, the parking requirements apparently were c different requiring a waiver of 20 spaces a number of years ago. Can you exr whether those two sets of parking requirements are consistent at all? Should be something for the zoning committee to consider? " file: / /N:Wpps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 18 of 26 Campbell stated that the Code allows by right someone to develop up to .5 basec >n the lot area, assuming that they can provide all the setbacks and other uirements that go with it. The Code provides that the Planning Director, through the aance of a use permit, can allow a project to exceed that base developmen nation up to what is known as the maximum allocation. For this particular area i 75. There is a procedure through which we can enlarge the building. That doe; rte back to a trip generation factor, looking at traffic and the whole FAR system i; ;ed on traffic generation of development, and it relates to building bulk as well. The lings before the Commission for that consideration are looking at whether or not tha ire statistical area of Newport Shores is built out and /or if it is likely to be built out. don't believe that it is close to being built out and we do not believe that there are r properties of sufficient size that if developed would then build out that area anc refore we would then exceed traffic assumptions of the General Plan. We believe findings can be made for that consideration. How do we allow the expansion of the Iding and not require additional parking gets to the point that if this office area i; isidered part of the restaurant but is not considered net public area, there is nc king required for it. So that is how this addition could go forward without requirinc iitional parking. Now, if indeed that office area is not associated with the restauran J would be associated with other general office uses then it would require parkins I that then would trigger the need to provide additional parking and would require king waiver, which is not before us this evening, nor is it noticed. These issues are ly complex and inter - related but I think if the Commission can see that office area is t of the restaurant operation it would otherwise not require parking by the Code an( application could proceed forward. This particular procedure would allow flexibilit7 I allow projects to be even larger than the base allocation if the rest of the ghborhood is not built out and again maintain that relationship between the Lan( a Element and the Traffic and Circulation Element so that we are not exceedinc se assumptions that are built into the Circulation and Land Use Elements. hen the original restaurant went in it was classified as a take out restaurant in itirety with 29 seats based upon the plans that we have on file. That requirement M much higher parking ratio, 1 space for every 50 square feet of gross floor area a at is the consideration granted by the Planning Commission many years ago wh is restaurant was established. The operation, based upon our current L )ssifications, staff did not feel that it is a take out restaurant anymore although cognize all restaurants have a certain component of take out. We did not feel tl as going to be the primary focus of this particular land use. The parking requireml r take out still exists in the Code and if that is the primary activity of the eating a inking establishment then yes, we would utilize that. However, we do not feel that i imary focus of this restaurant is take out, we believe it will be sit down based upon or area and the operational characteristics that have come forward through 1 ocess of reviewing the application. Temple added at the time the original use permit was approved there were or classifications for what were then called restaurants definitionaly in the Code; it w; aurant or take out restaurant. When the Zoning Code was updated in 1997 v anded the number of classifications that would allow us to look at them mo 3ifically and correctly as to their operational characteristics. Staff does not find fusing and additionally it provides the City and applicants greater flexibility in bell to establish small eating and drinking establishments within standing commerc Eaton noted: "file:HN:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005\mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 19 of 26 . The floor area ratio is not as great or hard based an issue as portrayed by t Chairperson and has more to do with an overall look at the traffic generation the area. The Code has this flexibility built into it. . Parking is a substantial issue in the evening. . The application would be beneficial to the area provided that we add the conc that a covenant be recorded between the two properties allowing the office the parking to be used by either properties. . If there is a condition that at least in the evenings employees be required to with permits in the City owned parking lot across Coast Highway that would allowing the patrons to use both of the lots. . With those two revisions and the 10:00 p.m. limitation and the other limitations the proposed permit, I think is a reasonable proposal. rperson Toerge asked under that proposal with a cross tie of the two propert l would be your proposal for the use of that office space should the properties separately or come under different ownership; or if the restaurants come un ent ownership? ssioner Eaton answered that if such a covenant was recorded that the ofl then be auxiliary to either of the two restaurants and even if they were to ownership it would be so used as auxiliary. Harp answered that the condition requiring for it to be used for only the Durant will be very difficult to enforce. issioner Hawkins asked would you be able to transfer the office or the rest; independently without some sort of additional approval such as a subdi al or something else. Would you be able to transfer one unit without the t going through some additional approval? Campbell answered, if this covenant was prepared as described and if th perties were then sold, the recipient of the Salud property would have a restrictio suant to that covenant that would allow a right by the adjacent property owne I /or the user of that restaurant to occupy that particular office space or use it in som hion. An informed buyer would have to look into this to see if it would work. Woul owner then want to separate the two properties then he is left with a condition the has agreed to and has applied that covenant to his own property and he is going t fe to live with these two different parties. It sounds complicated, legally can it work, ik we can require the covenant to do this, but I am not sure it would be easy t orce. It would be beneficial for the parking lot to be shared in that fashion. Th in difficulty would be if these properties were sold independently would be the offic ice use. When the parking at the Spaghetti Bender is open and is available at lunc a there is a parking resource that could be utilize, obviously if it is not available, th king is not going to work. Staff recognizes and acknowledges that. iairperson Toerge asserted that history and experience of the property suggest that not available at night. 'Tile://N:\Apps\WEBDATA\Internet\PlnAgendas\2005\mnO7-21-05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 20 of 26 McDaniel noted: . A covenant does not work and I think it will convolute the ownership of those N pieces of property when in fact people are going to park in those places anyway. . There is a viable restaurant there now. The space upstairs is roughly 600 sq feet with 4 people plus a hallway, bathroom and copier. We need to look at s consideration for this application. . I don't see that there is a lot for us to do to fix the parking there. No matter much parking you could put there, it would still be a problem. . A lot of people park on the streets and that is why we push very hard on cc conversions to try to accommodate not only two car parking for people who there, but places for people to park that are not on the street. . This is not the case and if people choose to park on the street for reason that is still available. . That area is going to be congested, people are going to both the beach restaurants in the area. • This application does not change any of those issues. The 10:00 p.m. is issue, especially as an accommodation to the neighbors, for the cleaning up a trash. • The net is this proposed project is better than what is there now. Someone going to spend money to fix this area and if there is an office building there it only 600 square feet and I don't think it makes that much difference in tl respect. . The noise factor is not changed especially if we change the closing to 10:00 p.m. . I am in favor of this project and going forward. I would like to see some pots plants to make the place look a little nicer. I realize there is no dirt, but t might be an opportunity to dress up the place a little bit. missioner Hawkins noted the current condition of the property is terrible and the ct will improve both the look and character of the area immensely. There was nony during public hearing regarding signage and the thought was earlier urants failed because there was no signage on PCH. Does the applicant with the ownership of the Spaghetti Bender and this property have the opportunity to pu ige for this restaurant on PCH? Campbell answered no. Hawkins continued: Referencing page 38 paragraph 6 regarding the net public area with a minims parking space for each 422 square feet of floor area for 4 parking spaces. T requirement is for 4 parking spaces, but the staff report noted there were parking spaces. Could staff clarify that? "file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/2112005 Page 21 of 26 Campbell answered that the other 3 spaces on site were for the Kind Grin ,taurant established with that Use Permit and this is memorializing that the remaind( the parking spaces would be for this restaurant. There are a total of 8 spaces of )re in a non - conforming configuration. A disabled access space is required and w implemented with a new building permit for this new restaurant. That doe cessitate the elimination of one parking space and the staff report has indicated the ministratively that has been done. A loss of one space is not what we relish but it cessary to achieve a measure of compliance with the Disable Access requirements. . Temple added that the existing on -site parking lot with seven spaces will furn parking for the two uses on the property, there won't be spaces designated for the other use. So if a handicapped person comes to either establishment, idicap space would be there to serve them. nmissioner Hawkins noted that the net public area that is basically the restauran � that the public can use is 635 yet the entire project is going to be over a 100( are feet larger than that. The question is what is all that square footage needed fo I did ask the applicant who indicated that there were Health Departmen airements and so forth. I have difficulty with what I regard as sort of excess space. the other side I would encourage that no employee parking be allowed on the to that they be required to park across the lot on PCH throughout the day. Is tha de and /or does it impose an impossible burden on the applicant? Campbell answered that the condition requiring employees to park in a munic has been done with the Zinc Cafe in Corona del Mar. The condition requires employees be provided city passes and directs the applicant to ensure that ployees park there and if they don't and we have complaints, then we have ninistrative citation process or code enforcement proceedings that could be initi< iinst the restaurant operator and not against the person parking. About the inte >r area, the net public area is really the dining area and doesn't include the find the bar for employees, nor the hallway down to the restrooms nor the restroc i obviously the kitchen and register area. It may seem like there is a lot of sqi tage for that, but it doesn't appear out of character for other restaurants that I h Temple added that having employees park in the municipal lot can be done. TI undoubtedly be some times when employees will arrive and seek out parking in and find that there are no spaces available especially if it is a really busy weel (. There is a possibility especially in that circumstance that the business emplol, uld seek other street parking or on the business lot. mmissioner Hawkins noted he would change the requirement to evenings only employee parking because that would be a doable requirement whereas daytir 'king on a beach lot might be impossible. I would request that condition be made extent that we are going to approve this application. Continuing, he noted I icern of the upstairs office. The applicant indicated that use of the office is going for the Salud restaurant, Spaghetti Bender restaurant and other uses. I appreck t candor, I am not sure that he could comply with that condition that is before us staff report. I have a problem with the control the restriction places on t Acant's proposed use and it is a significant problem. It is so significant that I m )ose to vote with the appellant. " file:// N:1 Apps1WEBDATAI IntemetlPlnAgendas120051mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 22 of 26 Cole asked: . Why a parking waiver or modification was not required as this is a application? Campbell answered: . There was a prior parking waiver approved by the Planning Commission and reclassification of the restaurant. The Code required fewer parking spaces. . The addition, while we are debating whether it will be related to the res and if determined to be related to the restaurant in and of itself would not additional parking by the Code because it is not net public area. Commissioner Cole noted: . His concern of the parking. . He is in favor of the restaurant and appreciates the community coming out support it. . It is a new restaurant being proposed at 1,750 feet. The Code requires 9 spaces for that restaurant. . If you believe what we heard today, the office space above, about 750 feet, going to be used for other uses than just the restaurant use that would requl approximately 3 spaces if it was a separate office area. That puts us up to Code requirement around 12 spaces for this application. We know that there a only 7 parking spaces on site and 2 of those are allocated to an existing coff house so that leaves 5 remaining spaces again with a need of 12. That is significant impact that will go to the streets in the area. . I was there this evening at 6 p.m. and six of those spaces were used and most the adjacent restaurant was full. . He can not approve this although this is a good project and suggested a design without the office space as something he could support. Toerge noted: . Where that proposed agreement falls short is the applicant's express indicatior that he plans to use this office for uses other than either one of those restaurants. . The tying of it to the Spaghetti Bender, I am not sure that we can do that. Even we could, it doesn't at all address the other uses the applicant has indicated F plans to use on the site. . He agrees with previous comments about 600 square feet as a small amount o space. If this was 100,000 square foot facility this 600 square feet might get lost. But it is not, it is a less than 3,000 square feet and 600 square feet is 20% of it. . If we were to allow without clear founded reason any structure in the "file:HN:\ Apps\ WEBDATAIintemet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 23 of 26 to be expanded to 20% based upon some of the logic presented tonight, would not be doing our jobs. . While it is a small amount of space, it is a small lot and a small building. I that impact is significant. He would not support a joint agreement as it would not address the bigger is of land use and it creates an impractical situation should the possibility at sc time in the future the property or the business be sold. The business, w related to the Spaghetti Bender, is a separate business and has sepal partners, is a separate entity, and creating an agreement in that regard is workable, difficult to enforce and does not address the practical issue if either properties or restaurants changed ownerships. Sometimes properties change ownership for reasons that aren't of the owl initiation and aren't within the owner's control, that is rare, but this is a land issue and is not about the personalities involved. . The applicant stated tonight and in writing that he intends to use the office both facilities and for his other separate businesses. nmissioner McDaniel noted that if we don't go forward with something like this tF encouragement to invest in that part of town will be severely damaged. I reali 600 square feet might be 20% but that is the number that you need to put an offi This is sorely needed in the community and I want to support it. If there is son to make this thing come together with the Commission I would like to see it. TI )osed restaurant is set back and if it fails at least we will have a nice lookii ding when this is done instead of the one that is there now. The net is positive, tl cing where people access the beach will be full of cars no matter where you go area. We live at the beach and it doesn't matter what time of day or night, there Sys a parking shortage. ;hairperson Toerge stated he does not look at this application as an either or situation. don't believe that this property will not be developed because we don't allow for thi: (rice and I think there is tremendous consideration given to this applicant based upor ie current parking availability on the site and the demand for parking of the usinesses. This has nothing to do with dissuading people from developing, frankly, ill continue to dissuade people from developing property in our. City at over 20% ove ie allowable FAR limits. That is one of our jobs. If I thought this property woude :main in its current condition in perpetuity because of disallowing the office it migh ffect my decision, but I don't believe it for a second. I believe this property will be ;developed but I am more concerned with the message that we are sending to othe evelopers or property owners in the area that we might compromise resident comfor nd the quality of life in our community by the piecemeal erosion of our very owr ,odes. For that reason I can not support the office. I feel we are pushing the limi ccepting the current parking waiver and accepting the demand of the parking of thia :staurant would generate. Given the history of this applicant, it will be phenomenally uccessful in that location and the profile of the use of that property is going to change ith what is there today. That is completely subjective, but that is my opinion. I don' se this as an either or, I don't think this property is not going to be redeveloped simply ecause we don't allow this applicant to exceed the floor area ratio limit that is in ou oninq Code. " file: /lN:lApps\WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 24 of 26 �mmissioner Hawkins, noting he supports prior concerns, asked about the the appeal fee as requested by the appellant. s. Temple answered that has never been considered by the Planning Commission. ie Code actually makes no provision for the refund of fees that have proceedec rough the full process. The fee is not intended to dissuade people from appealing bu intended to cover the costs of preparing the appeal. The City Manager can authorize refund. It is the Planning Commission's choice but you would be hurting us the City we do try to cover our costs with the fees. The appeal fee is established far les: an what our true costs are, but if the Commission wishes to ask for a refund, I woul( ive to check. imissioner Hawkins noted the refund issue is a policy determination and that is Council and City Manager purview. He asked that the Planning Departm stigate the possibility of a refund if the appellant is successful and asked that it of the motion. person Toerge asked should we move forward with a motion to approve tl rant and allow the applicant to move forward without the second floor office, it to require substantial redesign of the project. I am not sure that the applica to go ahead. Is that something we can do tonight or should we straw vote this :t the applicant that we aren't interested in the second floor and would r ie a second floor and have them come back? Or do you feel it's reasonable )rove the second floor and then leave the discretion of the balance at tl ng Department level? Temple answered staff believes well articulated parts of the motion that woi intially grant the appeal and set forth the things that specifically like to than( ,h is elimination of the second floor office, and the reduction in the hours ,ation to 10:00 p.m. With a re- designed project if staff had any question if it w sistent with the Commission direction and decision we would likely bring it back for review for substantial conformance with your action. Harp noted the proper motion would be to reverse the decision of the Plar ator and uphold the appeal. You are required to make the same findings pally made so that may be something you wish to continue for two weeks and I so that we can assure that those findings are appropriate. Temple noted her concern as she believes the applicant is likely to appeal >ion. I don't want to set up a situation where we don't know when the ap d runs either. If you would like to see the revised findings then the Commis Id continue it. iairperson Toerge noted he appreciates that but he doesn't want to rehear the the Planning Commission level. was made by Chairperson Toerge to uphold the appeal with these conditions: • the expansion of the square footage of the building be disallowed, essentially removes the second floor opportunity, • the hours of operation be from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. • deliveries be restricted between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. " file:// N:1 Apps1WEBDATAI IntemetlPlnAgendas120051mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 25 of 26 . require all employee parking after 5:00 p.m. to be located in the municipal lot across the street and not on the site and not in the neighborhood. Harp added that you need to make the findings related to why you are appeal as set forth in Section 20.63.040c. erson Toerge noted that as part of the motion is validated because he can the findings as listed on handwritten pages 46 and 47 and would incorpo issioner McDaniel noted he can not support the motion for reasons and as the problem has not been solved. Eaton noted he can not support the motion for reasons yes: Hawkins, Cole and Toerge Noes: Eaton, McDaniel bsent: Henn and Tucker bstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - no meeting. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Developmen, Committee - Ms Temple reported that they considered the land use alternative: being reviewed by the General Plan Advisory Committee. EDC made a number o• recommendations on some of the areas and those recommendations will be repor to the General Plan Advisory Committee at their next meeting this coming Saturday. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Committee - no meeting. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plar Certification Committee - no meeting but Ms. Temple stated that she had beer informed by Coastal staff that we were not going to have the hearing at the Augus meeting at the Coastal Commission as anticipated. Coastal staff has been unabl( to complete their analysis and we were informed that the earliest it could be heard is their meeting in October as they feel they need the time and it is a local meeting. The September meeting is in Eureka. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoning Committee Commissioner Eaton stated that there had been no meeting since the last F meeting, and that staff had received only response to their request for consulta qualifications, and that staff and members of the Committee were going to interviE those consultants in the next few days, to attempt to get the program underway. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - none. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda action and staff report - none. "file:HN:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 26 of 26 Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - none. Project status - none. Requests for excused absences - none. M. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas12005\mn07- 21- 05.htm 06/25/2008