Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-21-2005E L • 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 31 file://H:\Plaricomm\2005\072105.htm 08/19/2005 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 OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of July 7, 2005. ITEM NO. 1 Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the minutes as Approved corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, and Toerge Noes: None Absent: Henn and Tucker Abstain: McDaniel HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: Barry Saywitz Residence (PA2005 -085) ITEM NO.2 5005 River Avenue PA2005 -085 ppeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of Condominium Denied onversion No. 2005 -004, Parcel Map 2005 -021 and Modification Permit file://H:\Plaricomm\2005\072105.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 2 of 31 No. 2005 -042. The applications would authorize the conversion of ar existing duplex into a two -unit condominium complex allowing individua ale of each unit. Also included in the application is a request for a edification to the Zoning Code to allow the installation of a partition wal to establish two single -car garage parking spaces with substandard width. comment was opened. Paul Glowinki, resident of Corona del Mar, noted that if the garage spaces in condominium conversions continue to shrink they become storage paces. As cars continue to grow, such as the SUV types, he believes he garage space will not be used as garage and thus will be contradictory to managing the parking requirements on privately owned residences. He urged the Commission to deny the appeal. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Toerge asked for clarification of the appeal. Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner stated: . The appeal relates to the condition that the Zoning Administrator applied that required the garages to comply with the minimum size standards. . The applicant is seeking relief from that condition through this appeal. Mr. Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney, added that the Zoning dministrator determined under Section 19.64070i, the wall was required pursuant to making the finding required by that section. What the applicant did, was apply for a modification in order to have a decreased pace size in the garages. The Zoning Administrator refused to grant the modification permit to allow the smaller size garages and required them to provide the width as required by the Code. nmissioner Cole asked about an alternative determination to uphol appeal and modify the approval by eliminating the garage separation. r. Campbell answered: . That is an option as the Municipal Code does not require separation of a two -car garage. . It was required for the finding to approve the condominii conversion and staff felt it was necessary. • The Planning Commission can approve the two -car garage with( the separation of the garages, but staff felt that would file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \072105.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 detrimental. . The Zoning Administrator would not be willing to approve conversion without the separation of the garages. Ms. Temple added the reason why the Zoning Administrator takes position is because when we don't actually require that separation and modifications to the parking to create standard spaces, the homeov imply does it without permit afterwards. That is what people want, 1 o not want to share a garage, they want their own. was made by Commissioner Hawkins to deny the appeal e and uphold the condition regarding the separation. Toerge noted that a yes vote is to uphold the appeal. ssioner Hawkins clarified his motion to deny the appeal the Zoning Administrator's requirements and conditions. Harp added a supplement to the motion that the findings of the iinistrator were correct under Section 19.64070i and 20.93030. Commissioner Hawkins agreed. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge and Noes: None Absent: Tucker and Henn Abstain: None One Hoag Drive to approve a traffic study prepared pursuant to the City's Traffic Ordinance (TPO) for the development of 130,000 square feet of it medical office Campbell gave an overview of the staff report adding that staff feels the findings pursuant to the Traffic Ordinance can be met and that % not creating any additional significant impacts to area intersections. Commissioner Eaton stated for the record, even though 45% of the traffic is going to be using Newport Boulevard north of Hospital Road, those intersections were not analyzed because the TPO does not require the analysis of any intersections outside the City of Newport Beach. The environmental document currently being done for the revision to the master plan of Hoag will analyze those intersections. Mr. Edmonston agreed. Page 3 of 31 ITEM NO.3 PA2005 -032 Approved file: //H:\Plancomrn \2005 \072105.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 irperson Toerge, referring to page 9, item e, asked if the size of the is correct. Temple answered that Mr. Ramirez had sent a corrected resolution h item a revised to be consistent with the paragraph on page 4 that rtes, 'This project has been reviewed and it has been determined that significant environmental concerns for the proposed project have been dressed in the previously certified environmental document (EIR No. 2, SCH #89061429) which remains the governing environmental current. No additional significant environmental impacts were m ified during the preparation and review of the traffic study.' Hawkins asked: . When was this environmental document done; what sort of document was it, and what was the development analyzed? Temple answered: The environmental document was a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was certified in 1990. The project analyzed was the Hoag Master Plan, which incorporate 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 ect referencing the TPO itself Section 15.40.030, sub - section 131 . V required to make the following findings: 'Construction of the project be completed within sixty (150) months of the project approval.' I eve that is a finding and not a condition and I think that should be :rted in the resolution as a finding. The second part is in the section that immediately follows that as B1a, 'The project will neither se nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any acted primary intersection.' That also needs to be inserted into the Campbell answered those are good findings pursuant to the TPO and be inserted easily in the resolution. Staff will make that correction. comment was opened. comment was closed. SMotion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to approve Traffic Study No. 2005 -001 subject to the findings and conditions as amended. file: //H :\Plancomm\2005 \072105.htm Page 4 of 31 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 5 of 31 yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge and McDaniel oes: None bsent: Tucker and Henn BJECT: Domingo Villas, Inc. (PA2004 -243) ITEM NO.4 757 Domingo Drive PA2004 -243 guest to approve a Condominium Conversion and a Tentative Tract Continued to p that would convert an existing 8 -unit apartment complex into 8 units individual ownership and sale. The project also includes the interior 0810412005 1 exterior renovation of the existing residences and detached garages i the installation of new hardscape, landscaping and new exterior ;ks. The application also includes a request for a Modification Permit )2005 -066) to allow expanded decks, a fountain, vehicular gates and a >h enclosure within the side and from setbacks. The project site is ated within the MFR (Multi - Family Residential) zone. Campbell noted the applicant is prepared to present what they plan to to the project site that was constructed in 1966, is designated for multi - iily housing and they are seeking to convert the apartments into idominiums for individual sale. He also noted that the applicant had 'ised his plans and had provided copies today, but that they were left find in his office. (Chairperson Toerge, referencing page 3 of the staff report, asked for clarification on the proposed 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. )mmissioner Hawkins asked about the vehicular access control gates. part of that encroachment the gates, or is it pilaster, etc. as supporting uctures for those gates? . Campbell answered that the pilasters were there for aesthetic reasc well as a pergola across the drive approach; a vehicular rolling gate ,oss the driveway that was originally proposed staff and the traffic gineer do not support because it would stack vehicles out onto the blic right -of -way. We met with the applicant and they have agreed to hove that rolling gate from their proposal due to the safety concerns. ommissioner 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', he asked to strike with the exception of any vehicular access control gates and insert, '...the granting of the file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \072105.htm 08/19/2005 0 9 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 , subject to the attached conditions...' because the prohibit control gates. sioner Cole asked if any study had been done referencing the of retaining apartment units for affordability versus Campbell answered that the study that had been done looked at the ningo Drive area within the General Plan. The staff report indicates area is developed with 238 units. Now there are 18 condominiums iin the 238, so we are looking at 8 units out of that, less than 4 %. litionally, we have over 14,000 rental units within the City. We have n seeing the trend of providing condominiums or duplexes. In the rail housing unit numbers, 8 is not a significant number to create a ative effect city-wide or 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, guests or for those with more than two cars, parking will be on the Edwards, architect representing the applicant, noted the following: • Revised site plan resolves the re- partitioning of the garages on the westerly motor 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. • 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 h the staff report. mmissioner McDaniel noted his concern regarding parking and asked some type of relief. He noted that this is an opportunity to get cars off street to relieve the congestion in the neighborhood. He noted that project should have 4 guest parking spaces and this project has Edwards noted that this area seems to be different based on his file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \072105.hhn Page 6 of 31 09/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 bservation of their parking during on -site meetings. Commissioner McDaniel, referencing page 5 of the staff report, noted here is a requirement to provide 2 parking spaces for each unit and 4 guest parking spaces. r. Campbell answered that is what the current parking requirement )uld be if this were built today. As a conversion, the project needs to fly require the parking that was required at original construction, which two spaces per unit. It is eligible to be considered for a conversion at is time. There are several nonconformities with this particular building at was relevant to your considerations as to whether the conversion wld be in some other way detrimental to the community. ;sioner McDaniel noted that this helps. He again noted that is such a major issue. Ms. Temple noted that the City Council is aware of this problem and have ecently introduced an ordinance that would require condominium onversion to provide current code parking, but they also very specifically allowed for, or provided for, a longer time before that ordinance would become effective and to allow applications deemed complete within that eriod to proceed under the existing rules. The Council did have the pportunity to make those changes effective much more quickly, but it as clearly their intent to provide some accommodation for those pplications already in the process. lissioner McDaniel noted he would not hold up the project for this Everyone needs to know that in the future, this is an important that will need to be addressed. 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 plans and conditioned the resolution to make those changes to the sfaction of the Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Hawkins noted similar concern regarding parking. He stated that notwithstanding the parking concern, this is a great project. He asked what restriction is there to prohibit guests or tenants from parking in front of their garages. Mr. Edwards answered signage at the entrance might be an opportunity Page 7 of 31 file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \072105.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 8 of 31 to signify private property and that towing is an option if a car is improperly parked. Also, from the Homeowners Association point of view that might be something to include in the CC and R's with shared ownership, entitlements and good neighborliness. Hopefully some of that could be avoided with an abundance of parking opportunity on the street. Mr. Edmonston noted that the Fire Department works with homeowners complexes to establish fire lanes. Mr. Campbell added that the Fire Department did not add a specific condition related to the establishment of an official fire lane. There are no conditions within the project that would prohibit parking in those particular areas. As the applicant indicated, there is typical enforcement of parking here there shouldn't be is taken up by the homeowners association. Commissioner Hawkins asked if a condition could be inserted that motor court yards or fire lanes are no parking and that would eliminate the potential for parking in front of the garages. Mr. Campbell answered that we could recommend a condition that would require the identification of the motor courts within the CC and R's as areas where parking is strictly prohibited and that would put all the future homeowners on notice. There could be a condition for signage included; we could implement that through the Building Permit process. Chairperson Toerge, referencing condition 8, noted that it suggests that uses of the garage for any purpose including the storage of household items that would preclude the parking of vehicles shall be prohibited. That is a condition that is long overdue and it would be an appropriate requirement of no parking in the motor court area to be within the CC and R's and the rules associated with them. Mr. Campbell noted that language barring parking in those areas can be included. alter Mitchell, speaking for the ownership, thanked the City for their ork and asked that this application be approved. He noted the ownership is in full agreement with all the conditions and recommendations contained in the staff report. He noted the concern of parking and is in favor of those conditions being placed in the CC and R's. The project is a beautiful project and will be a nice example for that neighborhood. Mr. Robert Record, tenant, noted the following: • His first objection is that proper notice was not given. He never received anything 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 file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \072105.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 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, if someone were to count the number of spaces on the site plan, the number is 14. • 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 ired. He then asked the speaker if he had received a public hearing ce approximately ten days ago. The speaker answered no. Mr. Campbell went on to say that the Municipal Code does require a public hearing notice to be mailed to the existing tenants pursuant to Section 196460. He has the sets of labels that would indicate the notices were not sent out to the tenants. He recommended that this item be continued to provide for proper notice. This provision of the Municipal Code needs to be satisfied, even though the tenants had some notice as they are here tonight. He apologized for not sending the hearing notice as required. comment was closed. i was made by Chairperson Toerge to continue this item for two to allow proper notice to the tenants. imissioner Eaton asked if the motion could include that staff verify the fiber of spaces. He then noted that there are two spaces per unit on project. He also discussed the amount of parking on the street that is lable with the exception of Sunday when there are services at Our y Queen of Angels. Toerge agreed. issioner Hawkins, noting the number of garages and spaces issue, under the condo conversion ordinance is there an ability to require nal spaces? Will we have the ability to make a change for nal parking? Ms. Temple answered typically on past approvals, we have discussed the Commission's ability to require a higher parking requirement than the Code would currently require of a project. We have usually advised the Commission that if the Code is being complied with, that should be Page 9 of 31 file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \072105.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 10 of 31 ufficient. When we discussed the last larger condominium conversion in orona del Mar when the Commission was concerned about parking, the eneral inclination of the Commission's action was to not require dditional parking, but to deny the conversion on the basis of community compatibility concerns. Given that history, I would not think that staff ould be comfortable with the Commission trying to condition this project n providing parking beyond what the current Code requires for this pproval. Chairperson Toerge noted he was opposed to the condo conversion in Corona del Mar for an additional reason and that was for safety, as the cars could only exit their garage by backing out onto the street. In this case, it is substantially different with two cars of parking per unit and it is our current Code that allows this kind of development. He then called for he vote. yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge and McDaniel oes: None bsent: Tucker and Henn bstain: None alud Restaurant (PA2005 -087) ITEM NO.6 211 62nd I PA2006 -087 Appeal the Planning Director's approval of Use Permit No. 2005 -005 to Approved change the existing take -out restaurant to a full - service small scale eating and drinking establishment. Additionally, the use permit approval consists of a minor change in hours of operation to change the closing hour from 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm and to allow the addition of the second -floor offs that will be utilized in association with the restaurant personnel and manager. The additional floor area requested necessitates an approval to Ilow the overall project to exceed the permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50 up to a maximum FAR of 0.62 for the proposed enlarged building. The proposed construction will modify the interior floor plan and provide interior seating for up to 25 people. irperson Toerge stated the three components of this application: . Change of the existing take out restaurant to a full restaurant. . Change of the hours of operation. . Increase the FAR with the addition of a second floor office. Mr. Campbell noted the correspondence that had been submitted consideration. He then gave an overview of the staff report adding he neighbor directly to the rear of this property has appealed Planning Director's decision, that this is a de novo hearing, and that Commission is not bound by the Planning Director's actions. file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \072105.htm 08/19/2005 i I* 0 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 :lieves that the findings can be met for the various considerations is application and recommends denial of the appeal. rperson Toerge, referencing page 8 of the staff report, asked second floor office used solely as an office by the rest :)nnel and manager. To which restaurant does this refer to, Sp; ler, Salud or to both of them. r. 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 proposed project and would therefore bear the brunt of any adve effect. • He received a copy of a letter that the applicant had sent to neighbors that seemed to imply that his appeal was personal, wl it is not. . He has received signatures from 37 households within a two blo radius of the site supporting his appeal as most of them believe th a restaurant is an appropriate use, but question the need for second floor office. . His appeal does not ask to stop the development but asks tc approve the development without the allowance of a second floor. The second floor is superfluous to running a restaurant. . At a meeting with the applicant several months ago, he indicated that he would be conducting personal business out of office, and I believe that is his motivation for building the sec story. . As far as technical issues and code issues, the weighted FAR currently approved is non - conforming. The staff report makes error in saying that parking was the only claim that I had to say t this building was currently non - conforming. There is a letter fr Senior Planner Garcia to the applicant noting that the FAR in building as currently approved does exceed Code. Changing the use to a full service restaurant would bring building into conformance with the FAR requirements of Code at but adding back a second story brings it up to .62, which exce the base allocation of the Code. Granted, there is some discre given to the Planning Department to exceed that base FAR, again I believe a second floor office here is superfluous to the rn to run a successful business. file : //H:\Plancomm\20051072105.htm Page 11 of 31 08/19/2005 0 U Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 . He is not against development developers. If the full service restaurant is allowed without the accomplish two of three purposes of the sectior with non - conformities namely, eliminating ex1 conforming uses and bringing the property into coi the expansion would cause an increase in the nc the based development allocation. Assuming the building was changed to a full service restaurant bringing it into conformance with the Code before adding the sec story and it is non - conforming only through the parking at this p the structure may, per the Code, be enlarged by more than only if all Code required parking is provided unless a wavi( granted. . None of the conditions for a parking waiver and they should be if the building is enlarged. . The staff report notes that the parking demand will not incre because the prior restaurant had 29 seats. However, the 1 restaurant had seldom more than a few dine -in patrons during dinner hours and provided delivery service. . It is reasonable to expect that the new restaurant will be m successful in drawing dine -in patrons and indeed that is the goal. . Due to the applicant's success i good job he does running it and that he wants to bring a nice appreciate and encourage that additional structure. vith the Spaghetti Bender and i the nice plans drawn up, it is cif business to Newport Shores. but I don't see the need for 1 . The staff report also notes that if the project is successful and draw more patrons by car that parking is available on PCH and in th Spaghetti Bender parking lot. He disagreed and presented photo of the parking lot last Friday evening as well as the subject properl parking lot and the parking lot across 62nd Street, which really doe not have much need for parking in the evening yet is somehow fille up with cars. There were photos of the residential streets wher there is no parking either. The photo was taken around 6:40 in th evening when people were coming home from work or havin guests over and that is when we need parking in the neighborhood. I don't see how the staff report can cor Bender parking lot can accommodate ti accommodate its own use and in fact the being used by Spaghetti Bender right now. file: //H:1Plancomm120051072105.htm Page 12 of 31 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 • None of this parking would be called into question if this structure were not enlarged, it only comes about because the structure i( being increased by more than 10 %. • The applicant has violated his Use Permit for the Kind Grin( restaurant including hours of operation and unauthorized outdoo dining area as shown in the photo taken yesterday and submitted t( the Commission. This unauthorized outdoor dining area is still ii use months after the applicant was advised of the violation in th( February letter from the Planning Department. • The applicant discusses using the second floor office for Salud an( for Spaghetti Bender. He had previously been advised that this wa( intended for on -site use and I think this demonstrates the rea motivation here is not to have a 600 square foot office for a 25 sea restaurant but rather for his own personal use and enjoyment. • Based on past and present behavior we can't assume that th( applicant will adhere to any conditions set forth in a Use Permit sucl as limiting the use of the upstairs on -site office. • With respect to that office, the exterior stairwell and exterio entryway make that office space very conducive to an independen office use. Whether that comes about from the applicant doing i himself in violation of the Permit or say something else happens fiv( years down the road and the Salud Restaurant is gone an( someone else comes in to make this an independent office use. You would have a building that serves a function other than what i was intended for. • We are already subjected to a lot of noise from the othe commercial properties and if the goal is to serve dual income families with dinners, than certainly those families should be eating their dinners by 10:00 p.m. and the hours of operation do not nee( to be extended. Someone who needs to eat after 10:00 p.m. car eat at the Spaghetti Bender, which is open until 11, or they can g( elsewhere. • The downside to commercial use is increased traffic and increase( parking demand. Alternatively some had suggested a residentia use could be built on the site and that would be two story and the downside to that is obviously you would have increased buildin$ bulk and square footage but that is balanced by providing som( relief to the traffic and parking burden of the commercial use. • This proposed project with the second story addition would b( detrimental to other properties in the vicinity and it will subject thos( properties to high intensity parking and demand in traffic and s bigger building with more bulk and square footage and I don't thinl properties in the vicinity should be subjected to both then( Page 13 of 31 file : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \072105.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 detriments . He asked that the Commission disallow the second floor ado while allowing the conversion to a full service small scale restat and also not allow the hours of operation to extend beyond 1 p.m. If my appeal is granted or if there is merit to it, he asked the City consider refunding the appeal fee paid to initiate process. Commissioner Cole asked if this development would be a detriment a noise standpoint. Hamilton answered yes, with people walking on the streets or to i. He has that now and prefers that it not get worse. Mr. 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 thi commercial area. • . He stated he has full support of the majority of the two homeowner; association in the area. Commissioner 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 I )mers would be but wanted the same flexibility to serve the sar s at both restaurants. He did agree that 10:00 would not be iissioner Cole asked specifically what the second floor be used for. Mr. Hoskinson answered that his primary business is restaurants. He also does restaurant development and property development on the side. He would be doing his business which is primarily restaurant bases here. His manager needs a larger space to work and is transitioning tc full time office and his mother needs a place to work as well. Currentll his office is 6 foot by 10 foot and is essentially no more than a ledge above the foyer at the Spaghetti Bender and does not accommodate all. • With the addition of the new business we really do need the footage tc accommodate us as well for a nice place for all of us to work. He affirmec that there will be 3 - 4 people on a regular basis in that office and tha Page 14 of 31 file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \072105.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 15 of 31 hey will be parking on site. He noted that the majority of the folks w< • e working during the day when the Spaghetti Bender is closed ssentially, the parking lot is open all day long and available to them. imissioner Hawkins asked where the Spaghetti Bender employees Is there no current requirement to have employees park on site? Hoskinson answered they park either on site or in the neighborhood. re is no current requirement other than to close at 11:00 p.m. tinuing, Commissioner Hawkins noted that the Salud employees are aired to park on site as a condition. How many employees do you sion that Salud will need? Ir. Hoskinson answered he projects 4 -5 employees depending on me of day. missioner Hawkins noted that the employees could take up 50% of the parking on site. Hoskinson agreed. Commissioner Hawkins, noting the City-owned parking facility acro: Pacific Coast Highway, asked the applicant if he would be amenable to condition that requires employees to park there. Hoskinson answered that he would support that as it is not a far wi his employees and another local restaurant has that same condition. itinuing, Commissioner Hawkins affirmed by reading that the conditic sole use by the restaurant personnel and manager clarifying that for this restaurant, the Salud. He asked if that condition w: Hoskinson agreed. Commissioner Eaton, referred to an email sent by the applicant that ice was going to be used by personnel of the Spaghetti Bender. ' are now saying that you agree to a condition that it be limited to persoi of the Salud restaurant. Referencing the email again, he noted that applicant had offered a covenant that would tie the two propel together naming the Spaghetti Bender and the Salud. The advanl would be that it would be clear that the employees of the Spagl Bender could use the office in the Salud and that the people of the Si when the Spaghetti Bender was not open would be able to use parking. He asked the applicant if he would accept a condition requi such a covenant be filed and that the City be a participant in covenant so that it could enforce it if the properties were ever sold separate ownership. file : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \072105.htm 08/19/2005 is 0 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Mr. Hoskinson answered that his general manager of both places is ak oing to be his secretary as well for the new restaurant so she would t erving a dual function. He agreed also to a covenant being a condition. comment was opened. 'person Toerge noted that this is not an opportunity to validate ti ation of one of our great restaurants and their operators. This is use decision and there is a limit on testimony of 3 minutes. f .iraged the audience to speak to the land use aspect of tIF Leslie, resident of Newport Shores, noted his support of . The proposed use of the restaurant is no different than the previ restaurant, Thai Wave. The Thai Wave did delivery and had seats. . Most of the people who would patronize the Salud would be th who live in Newport Shores and be walk -ins and not drive to restaurant as opposed to the Spaghetti Bender. The Spag' Bender faces the highway and has prominent signage on highway. . It will be difficult for anyone driving along the highway to see Salud restaurant, so it has low visibility. . The owner wants to have an office on the second floor to be u for himself. He will be on the premises whether there is an of there or not. Having an office will not create additional demand parking or foot traffic. • He fails to see how the second floor office has any impact on i and parking. • Noise created by people walking by is to be expected. David Areth, resident of 61st Street noted his opposition: • He is concerned with parking. • He stated that employees from Cappy's restaurant park on street every morning and it is worse on the weekend. • He is concerned where the employees from both the Spa< Bender and the new restaurant will park. • He asked that the business hours be held until 10:00 p.m. as file: //H:1Plancomm\20051072105.htm Page 16 of 31 08/19/2005 • 0 9 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 is a lot of clean up time after the patrons leave and it can run late in the evening by the time the employees leave. He disagreed with comments regarding the Thai Wave. frequented the restaurant many times when there was only c other table full, it did seem like more of a take out type restaurant. There was never too much activity inside of it. Lakousky, resident of Newport Shores noted his support: There have been a number of restaurants in that area and nE several of them stated they had not been successful due to signage and restaurant type. . There is a major problem in that location. Commercial sites are good in that area. . The issue of closing at 10:00 p.m. is moot as there is a facility and a 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. hour. McHenry, resident of 62nd Street noted his opposition: . There are seven parking spaces in front of the proposed proji Every night when he comes home between the hours of 6 and p.m. five to seven spots have been taken. There is never an o spot. To think that the overflow parking from Salud can go to 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 neighborhood when I get home. I will be the one across the Ci Highway in the City lot 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 area but to say that this is the only manner in which we can t positive development is completely misleading. . Mr. Hamilton is the only one who has spoken to the requested by the Chairman. No one else has addressed the the laws, the violations, and the inconsistencies. file : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \072105.htin Page 17 of 31 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 • There is no way to enforce the restrictions on that office use. It i supposed to be for Salud restaurant use only, yet, when th applicant was questioned he answered it would be for the Bender, would be for the Salud and for all his restaurant business and hi development business. That is what he stated tonight. That i inappropriate. • if it is him and he is going to use the same manager for all hi restaurants, there is never going to be the possibility of enforcing it. • There is no reason for that office footage to be on site, he can leas office anywhere in the city. eff Johnson, partner of the applicant and resident of Newport Shore, noted his support: • There has never been a restaurant that has succeeded in the space. • The applicant is a great neighbor to Newport Shores and is the kin of person we want to develop in that area. • With the development comes increase usage, less space an problems with parking. . With the opportunity for the parking spaces at the Spaghetti Bende being available during the day, he asked that his application b approved as stated. Renee Bolinger, resident of 62nd Street noted his full support of th Jo Rizo, resident of 62nd Street noted her support: . The biggest parking problem during the day is with people going the beach. . There was always a restaurant there so you knew there would foot traffic there. . These are not new issues. . Anyone who comes into this area will see this proposed project as nice improvement with a nice new building with most patrons c foot. • Bob Hall, resident of Newport Shores, noted his support of application. Page 18 of 31 file : //H:1Plancomm120051072105.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 . We have a person who is going to invest a tremendous amount comment was closed. Chairperson Toerge, noted Policy L suggests to promote prosperity in the area that we should encourage redevelopment in the area and I an favorably inclined to support the restaurant with the hours of operation reduced to 10:00 p.m. as the prior operation. These permits are not given to an individual, they are given to the land. That is the reason why we an ere, even though this has a new owner and this has an existing us( permit and this new owner is intending to piggy back on that use permit. m very concerned about this expansion beyond the allowable FAR. Most of the emails and comments that I have received had to do with thr Page 19 of 31 file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \072105.htm 08/19/2005 money to make a nice restaurant. • The land valuation in the neighborhood can be tied into what is front. We would love to see that whole area developed. • If the applicant is shut down on this, I am afraid no one will ever it. • Parking is always an issue as the lots are not able to support a lot parking. • He asked that this project be approved. Nicholas Hamilton, appellant, noted: • He is not against the restaurant. • He knew there was a restaurant there and that it was opened ur 10:00 P.M. • The applicant has said to this body that he intends to use that off space for other uses not related to just the subject operation. S. The applicant has not demonstrated a need for that space. • It would be great to have that area refurbished and cleaned t made nice with a successful business there. I don't see why condition to that is having a second floor office. • He asked staff to address the issue of non - conforming parking a increasing the building by more than 10% without meeting the co required parking. • This is a code issue, we are not talking about opinion, how good t food is or the character of the applicant. How do you get arou that part of the code? comment was closed. Chairperson Toerge, noted Policy L suggests to promote prosperity in the area that we should encourage redevelopment in the area and I an favorably inclined to support the restaurant with the hours of operation reduced to 10:00 p.m. as the prior operation. These permits are not given to an individual, they are given to the land. That is the reason why we an ere, even though this has a new owner and this has an existing us( permit and this new owner is intending to piggy back on that use permit. m very concerned about this expansion beyond the allowable FAR. Most of the emails and comments that I have received had to do with thr Page 19 of 31 file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \072105.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 20 of 31 restaurant and the desire to redevelop the property and maintain thi restaurant open. I support that, but I am concerned with the expansioi beyond the allowable 50% percentage that it is allowed and to go to 62 %. Policy L does not include a provision that calls for the expansion of floo area beyond the FAR limits in an effort to promote the prosperity of the commercial district. It is not part of the policy, yet that is what partly is being asked tonight. While a contract to allow some of the parking for the atrons of Salud to park on Spaghetti Bender, may be procured by the applicant, I don't believe the capacity of the Spaghetti Bender is adequate to handle any kind of parking demand of this new restaurant in the evening at all. Maybe during the day, but not at night, and there are employees to park. The most significant component, what happens tc his office if the property is sold? This approval runs with the land, an( furthermore, what happens if the property isn't sold but the restaurant i,, old? I find it highly suspect and I am very skeptical about any restauran Aerator that would occupy a 1,700 or 1,800 square foot restaurant anc need a 600 or 700 square foot office. It doesn't make sense to me and can't see how it would work. While I know the applicant has a fabuloue reputation in town and has been very well spoken and treated me witt reat respect when I met with him, I do acknowledge that the conditior tates that the office will be used for Salud restaurant and he has openly tated that he intends to use it for uses beyond that. That does not speal o the restaurant issue at all. Most of the people here want a restauran nd want the property re- developed, so do I. But, I am having difficult ustifying to my colleagues and to the residents of the City, why we shoulc allow our limits for floor area to be expanded. I don't see the justificatior or it. Again, I want to restate, these use permits run with the land and on't see any reasonable way to provide a control or enforce how tha property is used in conjunction with Salud restaurant, nor does it meet the est of logic with an office that large with an independent access, it is no ven accessible through the restaurant, it is accessible through the back. I am having real difficulty, not with the restaurant. It would be a grea ddition to the neighborhood, the neighbors agree as does the appellant ut I am struggling greatly with the component of the project that calls foi t to expand by 20% larger than it is allowed to. It is 10% FAR but 10% ore of 50% is 20% increase and I just don't see the justification for it. He noted that he would propose that the restaurant close at 10:00 p.m and that condition 22 restricts deliveries after 10:00 p.m. and before 7 a.m. Deliveries need to be limited to more reasonable hours and I arr thinking more like 7:00 p.m. for deliveries. Eaton asked: . The floor area ratio is a flexible base and extra could be added w .a use permit and it has to do with the traffic and the over statistical area. The floor area was done in part to ensure t implementation of consistency of the General Plan Land Use w • the circulation so there was a way of controlling the total amount traffic generated out of the area if you had lower traffic generati uses you could have a higher floor area ratio. If you had high file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \072105.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 21 of 31 traffic generating uses than the base ratio was the more appropriate. Was that part of the mix? . Apparently, originally the restaurant at this location was considerec a take out restaurant even though it had a lot of indoor seating and i required significantly more parking than the proposed restaurant which also had a take out operation and a little bit less seating. Yet the parking requirements apparently were quite different requiring e waiver of 20 spaces a number of years ago. Can you explair whether those two sets of parking requirements are consistent a' all? Should this be something for the zoning committee to consider? Mr. Campbell stated that the Code allows by right someone to develop ul to .5 based upon the lot area, assuming that they can provide all the setbacks and other requirements that go with it. The Code provides tha he Planning Director, through the issuance of a use permit, can allow e project to exceed that base development allocation up to what is knowr as the maximum allocation. For this particular area it is .75. There is c procedure through which we can enlarge the building. That does relate back to a trip generation factor, looking at traffic and the whole FAF ystem is based on traffic generation of development, and it relates tc building bulk as well. The findings before the Commission for tha onsideration are looking at whether or not that entire statistical area o Newport Shores is built out and /or if it is likely to be built out. We don' elieve that it is close to being built out and we do not believe that there are any properties of sufficient size that if developed would then build ou that area and therefore we would then exceed traffic assumptions of the General Plan. We believe the findings can be made for tha consideration. How do we allow the expansion of the building and no require additional parking gets to the point that if this office area is onsidered part of the restaurant but is not considered net public area here is no parking required for it. So that is how this addition could gc forward without requiring additional parking. Now, if indeed that office area is not associated with the restaurant and would be associated wits other general office uses then it would require parking and that ther would trigger the need to provide additional parking and would require < parking waiver, which is not before us this evening, nor is it noticed. These issues are fairly complex and inter- related but I think if the Commission can see that office area is part of the restaurant operation i would otherwise not require parking by the Code and the applicatior could proceed forward. This particular procedure would allow flexibilitl and allow projects to be even larger than the base allocation if the rest o he neighborhood is not built out and again maintain that relationshil between the Land Use Element and the Traffic and Circulation Elemen o that we are not exceeding those assumptions that are built into the Circulation and Land Use Elements. rre en the original restaurant went in it was classified as a take tau rant in its entirety with 29 seats based upon the plans that we h file. That requirement was a much higher parking ratio, 1 space file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \072105.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 22 of 31 very 50 square feet of gross floor area and that is the considerat ranted by the Planning Commission many years ago when t restaurant was established. The operation, based upon our current i classifications, staff did not feel that it is a take out restaurant anymi although we recognize all restaurants have a certain component of is out. We did not feel that was going to be the primary focus of t particular land use. The parking requirement for take out still exists in I Code and if that is the primary activity of the eating and drinki establishment then yes, we would utilize that. However, we do not f that the primary focus of this restaurant is take out, we believe it will be own based upon its floor area and the operational characteristics tl have come forward through the process of reviewing the application. Temple added at the time the original use permit was approved the only two classifications for what were then called restaurar iitionaly in the Code; it was restaurant or take out restaurant. Whi Zoning Code was updated in 1997 we expanded the number sifications that would allow us to look at them more specifically ai actly as to their operational characteristics. Staff does not find 'using and additionally it provides the City and applicants great bility in being able to establish small eating and drinki blishments within standing commercial buildings. Eaton noted: . The floor area ratio is not as great or hard based an issue portrayed by the Chairperson and has more to do with an ove look at the traffic generation in the area. The Code has flexibility built into it. . Parking is a substantial issue in the evening. . The application would be beneficial to the area provided that we the condition that a covenant be recorded between the properties allowing the office and the parking to be used by e properties. . If there is a condition that at least in the evenings employees required to park with permits in the City owned parking lot acre Coast Highway that would help allowing the patrons to use both the lots. . With those two revisions and the 10:00 p.m. limitation and the oth limitations in the proposed permit, I think is a reasonable proposal. Chairperson Toerge asked under that proposal with a cross tie of the . properties, what would be your proposal for the use of that office sr hould the properties be sold separately or come under diffe wnership; or if the restaurants come under different ownership? file : //H:1Plancomm120051072105.htm 08/19/2005 0 0 u Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 ommissioner Eaton answered that if such a covenant was recorded e office would then be auxiliary to either of the two restaurants and they were in separate ownership it would be so used as auxiliary. Harp answered that the condition requiring for it to be used Salud restaurant will be very difficult to enforce. nmissioner Hawkins asked would you be able to transfer the office restaurant Salud independently without some sort of additio Iroval such as a subdivision approval or something else. Would y able to transfer one unit without the other without going through soi litional approval? r. Campbell answered, if this covenant was prepared as described ar the properties were then sold, the recipient of the Salud property wou ave a restriction pursuant to that covenant that would allow a right by tt ijacent property owner and /or the user of that restaurant to occupy th articular office space or use it in some fashion. An informed buyer wou ave to look into this to see if it would work. Would the owner then wa i separate the two properties then he is left with a condition that he N 3reed to and has applied that covenant to his own property and he ping to have to live with these two different parties. It soun( )mplicated, legally can it work, I think we can require the covenant to c iis, but I am not sure it would be easy to enforce. It would be benefici it the parking lot to be shared in that fashion. The main difficulty wou if these properties were sold independently would be the office spa( se. When the parking at the Spaghetti Bender is open and is availab lunch time there is a parking resource that could be utilize, obviously is not available, the parking is not going to work. Staff recognizes ar -knowledoes that. 'son Toerge asserted that history and experience of the that it is not available at night. McDaniel noted: . A covenant does not work and I of those two pieces of property park in those places anyway. think it will convolute the ownersh when in fact people are going . There is a viable restaurant there now. The space upstairs roughly 600 square feet with 4 people plus a hallway, bathroom ar copier. We need to look at some consideration for this application. . I don't see that there is a lot for us to do to fix the parking there. P matter how much parking you could put there, it would still be problem. . A lot of people park on the streets and that is why we push � hard on condo conversions to try to accommodate not only two Page 23 of 31 08/19/2005 i 0 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 parking for people who live there, but places for people to park are not on the street. . This is not the case and if people choose to park on the street whatever reason that is still available. . That area is going to be congested, people are going to both beach and restaurants in the area. . This application does not change any of those issues. The 1 p.m. is an issue, especially as an accommodation to the neighl for the cleaning up and trash. . The net is this proposed project is better than what is there now. Someone is going to spend money to fix this area and if there is ar office building there it is only 600 square feet and I don't think i makes that much difference in that respect. . The noise factor is not changed especially if we change the to 10:00 P.M. . I am in favor of this project and going forward. I would like to some pots with plants to make the place look a little nicer. I re: there is no dirt, but there might be an opportunity to dress up place a little bit. mmissioner Hawkins noted the current condition of the property 'ible and the project will improve both the look and character of 1 a immensely. There was testimony during public hearing regard! nage and the thought was earlier restaurants failed because there 'A signage on PCH. Does the applicant with the dual ownership of 1 aghetti Bender and this property have the opportunity to put signa this restaurant on PCH? Campbell answered no. Hawkins continued: Referencing page 38 paragraph 6 regarding the net public area v a minimum parking space for each 422 square feet of floor area 4 parking spaces. The requirement is for 4 parking spaces, but staff report noted there were 7 parking spaces. Could staff cla that? r. Campbell answered that the other 3 spaces on site were for the N Grind restaurant established with that Use Permit and this • memorializing that the remainder of the parking spaces would be for restaurant. There are a total of 8 spaces out there in a non - conforn configuration. A disabled access space is required and will Page 24 of 31 file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \072105.htm 08/19/2005 0 • 0 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 ;mented with a new building permit for this new restaurant. necessitate the elimination of one parking space and the staff indicated that administratively that has been done. A loss e is not what we relish but it is necessary to achieve a meas )liance with the Disable Access requirements. Temple added that the existing on -site parking lot with seven function as parking for the two uses on the property, there v yes designated for one or the other use. So if a handicapped ies to either establishment, that handicap space would be 1 them. mmissioner Hawkins noted that the net public area that is basically tt taurant area that the public can use is 635 yet the entire project ng to be over a 1000 square feet larger than that. The question at is all that square footage needed for and I did ask the applicant wt icated that there were Health Department requirements and so forth. ie difficulty with what I regard as sort of excess space. On the oth B I would encourage that no employee parking be allowed on the I i that they be required to park across the lot on PCH throughout tt F. Is that viable and /or does it impose an impossible burden on tt r. Campbell answered that the condition requiring employees to park ii municipal lot has been done with the Zinc Cafe in Corona del Mar. Th( )ndition requires that the employees be provided city passes and direct: e applicant to ensure that his employees park there and if they don't an( a have complaints, then we have the administrative citation process o )de enforcement proceedings that could be initiated against the staurant operator and not against the person parking. About the interio )or area, the net public area is really the dining area and doesn't includ( e area behind the bar for employees, nor the hallway down to the strooms nor the restrooms and obviously the kitchen and register area. may seem like there is a lot of square footage for that, but it doesn' )pear out of character for other restaurants that I have reviewed. Temple added that having employees park in the municipal lot can 9. There will undoubtedly be some times when employees will an seek out parking in that lot and find that there are no spaces availa Bcially if it is a really busy weekend day. There is a possib :cially in that circumstance that the business employees would sE :r street parking or on the business lot. mmissioner Hawkins noted he would change the requirement finings only for the employee parking because that would be a doal uirement whereas daytime parking on a beach lot might )ossible. I would request that condition be made to the extent that + going to approve this application. Continuing, he noted his concern upstairs office. The applicant indicated that use of the office is goi be for the Salud restaurant, Spaghetti Bender restaurant and off file : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \072105.htm Page 25 of 31 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 26 of 31 fuses. I appreciate that candor, I am not sure that he could comply wi • hat condition that is before us in the staff report. I have a problem wi he control the restriction places on the applicant's proposed use and it a significant problem. It is so significant that I may choose to vote wi he appellant. missioner Cole asked: . Why a parking waiver or modification was not required as this is new application? Mr. Campbell answered: • There was a prior parking waiver approved by the Plannin! Commission and the reclassification of the restaurant. The Codi required fewer parking spaces. • The addition, while we are debating whether it will be related to th4 restaurant, and if determined to be related to the restaurant in ani of itself would not require additional parking by the Code because is not net public area. Continuing, Commissioner Cole noted: • His concern of the parking. • He is in favor of the restaurant and appreciates the communit, coming out to support it. • It is a new restaurant being proposed at 1,750 feet. The Cody requires 9 parking spaces for that restaurant. • If you believe what we heard today, the office space above, abou 750 feet, is going to be used for other uses than just the restauran use that would require approximately 3 spaces if it was a separate office area. That puts us up to a Code requirement around 1: spaces for this application. We know that there are only 7 parking spaces on site and 2 of those are allocated to an existing coffe( house 'so that leaves 5 remaining spaces again with a need of 12. That is a 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 wen used and most of the adjacent restaurant was full. • He can not approve this although this is a good project an( suggested a re- design without the office space as something N • could support. Chairperson Toerge noted: file : //H:\Plancomm\20051072105.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 • Where that proposed agreement falls short is the applicant'; express indication that he plans to use this office for uses other that either one of those restaurants. • The tying of it to the Spaghetti Bender, I am not sure that we can do that. Even if we could, it doesn't at all address the other uses the applicant has indicated he plans to use on the site. • He agrees with previous comments about 600 square feet as small amount of space. If this was 100,000 square foot facility thi: 600 square feet might get lost. But it is not, it is a less than 3,001 square feet and 600 square feet is 20% of it. • If we were to allow without clear founded reason any structure in the community to be expanded to 20% based upon some of the Iogii presented tonight, we would not be doing our jobs. • While it is a small amount of space, it is a small lot and a smal building. I believe that impact is significant. • He would not support a joint agreement as it would not address the bigger issue of land use and it creates an impractical situatioi should the possibility at some time in the future the property or the business be sold. The business, while related to the Spaghetl Bender, is a separate business and has separate partners, is a separate entity, and creating an agreement in that regard is no workable, difficult to enforce and does not address the practice issue if either the properties or restaurants changed ownerships. • Sometimes properties change ownership for reasons that aren't o the owner's initiation and aren't within the owner's control, that is rare, but this is a land use issue and is not about the personalities involved. • The applicant stated tonight and in writing that he intends to use the office for both facilities and for his other separate businesses. Commissioner McDaniel noted that if we don't go forward with somethinc like this that the encouragement to invest in that part of town will be severely damaged. I realize that 600 square feet might be 20% but that is he number that you need to put an office in. This is sorely needed in the community and I want to support it. If there is some way to make this thing come together with the Commission I would like to see it. The proposed restaurant is set back and if it fails at least we will have a nice looking building when this is done instead of the one that is there now. he net is positive, the parking where people access the beach will be ful f cars no matter where you go in the area. We live at the beach and i oesn't matter what time of day or night, there is always a parkins Page 27 of 31 file : //H:1Plancomm120051072105.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Chairperson Toerge stated he does not look at this application as ai ither or situation. I don't believe that this property will not be developer because we don't allow for this office and I think there is tremendous onsideration given to this applicant based upon the current parkin( availability on the site and the demand for parking of the businesses . his has nothing to do with dissuading people from developing, frankly, ill continue to dissuade people from developing property in our City a over 20% over the allowable FAR limits. That is one of our jobs. If thought this property would remain in its current condition in perpetuity because of disallowing the office it might affect my decision, but I don' believe it for a second. I believe this property will be redeveloped but m more concerned with the message that we are sending to othe developers or property owners in the area that we might compromise resident comfort and the quality of life in our community by the piecemea rosion of our very own Codes. For that reason I can not support the office. I feel we are pushing the limit accepting the current parking waive nd accepting the demand of the parking of this restaurant wouk enerate. Given the history of this applicant, it will be phenomenally uccessful in that location and the profile of the use of that property is oing to change with what is there today. That is completely subjective ut that is my opinion. I don't see this as an either or, I don't think this roperty is not going to be redeveloped simply because we don't allov his applicant to exceed the floor area ratio limit that is in our Zoninc Commissioner Hawkins, noting he supports prior concerns, asked he repayment of the appeal fee as requested by the appellant. s. Temple answered that has never been considered by the Planning )mmission. The Code actually makes no provision for the refund e es that have proceeded through the full process. The fee is no fended to dissuade people from appealing but is intended to cover th( ssts of preparing the appeal. The City Manager can authorize a refund. is the Planning Commission's choice but you would be hurting us th( ty as we do try to cover our costs with the fees. The appeal fee is ;tablished far less than what our true costs are, but if the Commissio( shes to ask for a refund, I would have to check. )mmissioner Hawkins noted the refund issue is a.policy determina id that is the City Council and City Manager purview. He asked that anning Department investigate the possibility of a refund if the appel successful and asked that it be part of the motion. hairperson Toerge asked should we move forward with a motion approve the restaurant and allow the applicant to move forward with he second floor office, it is going to require substantial redesign of roject. I am not sure that the applicant wants to go ahead. Is t • omething we can do tonight or should we straw vote this to instruct pplicant that we aren't interested in the second floor and would approve a second floor and have them come back? Or do you feel Page 28 of 31 file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \072105.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 29 of 31 reasonable to disapprove the second floor and then leave the discre of the balance at the Planning Department level? Ms. Temple answered staff believes well articulated parts of the mor that would essentially grant the appeal and set forth the things 1 specifically like to change, which is elimination of the second floor off and the reduction in the hours of operation to 10:00 p.m. With a esigned project if staff had any question if it was consistent with Commission direction and decision we would likely bring it back to you review for substantial conformance with your action. Harp noted the proper motion would be to reverse the decision of t fining Director and uphold the appeal. You are required to make t e findings she basically made so that may be something you wish inue for two weeks and bring back so that we can assure that the ngs are appropriate. Temple noted her concern as she believes the applicant is likely ;al the decision. I don't want to set up a situation where we do v when the appeal period nuns either. If you would like to see 1 ;ed findings then the Commission should continue it. Chairperson Toerge noted he appreciates that but he doesn't want rehear the issue at the Planning Commission level. Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to uphold the appeal with the . the expansion of the square footage of the building be which 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: a.m. . require all employee parking after 5:00 p.m. to be located in t municipal parking lot across the street and not on the site and not the neighborhood. Harp added that you need to make the findings related to why you olding the appeal as set forth in Section 20.63.040c. airperson Toerge noted that as part of the motion is validated becaus can not make the findings as listed on handwritten pages 46 and 4 1 would incorporate those. • Commissioner McDaniel noted he can not support the motion for previously stated and as the problem has not been solved. file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \072105.htm 08/19/2005 • E L� Planning Cotmnission Minutes 07/21/2005 missioner Eaton noted he can not support the motion for Page 30 of 31 Ayes- Hawkins, Cole and Toerge Noes: Eaton, McDaniel Absent: Henn and Tucker Abstain: None NESS: City Council Follow -up - no meeting. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Econom Development Committee - Ms Temple reported that they considers the land use alternatives being reviewed by the General Plan Adviso Committee. EDC made a number of recommendations on some the areas and those recommendations will be report to the Gener Plan Advisory Committee at their next meeting this coming Saturday. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the Plan Update Committee - no meeting. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Lc Coastal Plan Certification Committee - no meeting but Ms. Terr stated that she had been informed by Coastal staff that we were going to have the hearing at the August meeting at the Coa Commission as anticipated. Coastal staff has been unable complete their analysis and we were informed that the earliest it cc be heard is their meeting in October as they feel they need the t and it is a local meeting. The September meeting is in Eureka. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zov Committee - Commissioner Eaton stated that there had been meeting since the last PC meeting, and that staff had received response to their request for consultant qualifications, and that and members of the Committee were going to interview th consultants in the next few days, to attempt to get the prog underway. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on a subsequent meeting - none. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on future agenda for action and staff report - none. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - none. Project status - none. Requests for excused absences - none. file : //H:1Plancomm\20051072105.htm BUSINESS 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2005 Page 31 of 31 . ADJOURNMENT: 9:20 p.m. BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION f ile : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \072105.htm 08/19/2005