Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/24/19944 OX CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: ,,.___,. �A 1QQA 94 1Y161 G11 LY, 177Y ROLL CA41, INDEX Present All Commissioners were present. (Commissioner Pomeroy arrived at 7:33 p.m.) x : x EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney x x x William R. Uycock, Current Planning Manager Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary x s x Minutes of March 10, 1994 Minutes of 3/10/' Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the March 10, 1994, Ayes * * * Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Abstain Absent s s x Public Comments: Public Comments No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non - agenda items. x x x Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, March 18, 1994, in front of City Hall. x s s 94 4 iuI �. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH sx..__L �A innn aacuraa crry awT ROLL CALL INDEX VERBAL REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY Brown Act REGARDING CHANGES TO THE RALPH M BROWN ACT Bob Burnham, City Attorney, reported that changes to the Brown Act will become effective on April 1, 1994. He determined that the changes would not affect the procedures or the manner in hich the Planning Commission meetings are conducted. Mr. Burnham explained the changes in the Brown Act that were made in the definition of "Meeting" and off - agenda items. * ** Request for Continuance: Request for Director Hewicker stated that the applicant has requested that continue Item No. 2, Use Permit No. 3522, regarding property located at 1807 Westcliff Drive, be removed from calendar. Motion All Ayes * Motion was made and voted on to remove Item No. 2, Use Permit o. 3521, from calendar. MOTION CARRIED. * * Use Permit No. 21 (Public He Item No.1 equest to permit the establishment of an instructional facility UP3521 pecializing in Taekwondo, on property located in the RSC istrict. The proposal involves individual lessons as well as group Approved essons in the martial arts. CATION: Lot 1, Block N, Tract No. 323, located at 2800 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly corner of Goldenrod Avenue and East Coast Highway, in Corona del Mar. ONE: RSC -2- 4 G9�011�' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ll _L nA 1AAA 1V1A1GL LY, 17" ROLL CALL INDEX APPLICANT: U.S. Taekwondo Center, Laguna Niguel OWNER: Ernest George, Corona del Mar The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion . Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3521, All Ayes ub.ect to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A'. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed application is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. That adequate parking exists on -site for the proposed use. 3. That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3521 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health„ safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. NDITI N 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plans. ' -3- COMNIISSIONERS 4 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mo.rh 7d IOOd ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That all noise created from the martial arts instruction shall be confined to the interior of the building and all doors and windows within the building shall be closed while instruction is conducted, so as not to create a disturbance for the adjoining residential properties. 3. That the martial arts classes and private lessons shall be limited to between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.. 4. That all employees shall park on -site at all times. 5. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, ' safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 6. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. i K K Use Permit No. 3522 (Public Hearing) Item No. Request to convert an existing specialty food establishment into a UP3522 take -out restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages and incidental Removed seating on property located in the CN -H District. The proposal from also includes a request to expand the floor area of the existing calendar kitchen, and to waive a portion of the required off - street parking spaces. LOCATION: Lot 5, Tract No. 4225, located at 1807 Westcliff Drive, on the southwesterly side of Westcliff Drive, across from Westcliff Plaza. 4- COMMISSIONERS 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AiTorrh 7d 100d ROLL CALL WDEX ZONE: CN -H APPLICANT: Paul G. Taddeo, Newport Beach OWNER: Richard Dick and Associates, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, reported that the applicant requested that Use Permit No. 3522 be removed from calendar. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to remove Item No. 2, Use Permit All Ayes No. 3522 from calendar. MOTION CARRIED. • i i Variance No. 1183 (Continued 'c Hearing) Item No.3 v1187 Request to reduce the number of required off - street parking ' paces which are provided for an existing office building on property located at 503 32nd Street and which are located at an off -site off -site location at the rear of the Via Lido Plaza Shopping Center parking in the RSC -H District. Under the existing parking arrangement, cost ' d to 4 restricted parking spaces are provided to the customers and 4/7/94 usiness invitees of the office building. The applicants propose to No action educe the number of required off - street parking spaces to 12 and taken on emove the existing use restriction so as to allow tenants and variance mployees of the office building to also use the off -site parking paces. The proposal also includes a request to amend a reviously approved off site parking agreement consistent with the revised parking figures. LADCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 85 -1 (Resubdivision No. 516), located 3471 Via Lido, on the southwesterly corner of Via Lido and Via Oporto (parking site); and Lot 6, Tract No. 907, located at 503 32nd Street, on the northeasterly corner of 32nd Street and Via Oporto, adjacent to City Hall. -5- copm%aSSIONERS \ • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX NE: RSC -H APPLICANTS: Newport Via Lido Associates and 503 Lido Partners, Ltd., Orange and Newport Beach OWNERS: Same as applicants awes Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that since the application was filed, it was determined that a Variance was not required. The property owner is proposing to reduce the number of parking spaces for the 503 Building to be consistent with the parking requirements in effect at the time that the building was constructed. It is recommended that the off -site parking reement for 12 parking spaces in Via Lido Plaza be approved d the restriction on the tenants be eliminated so that the employees of the 503 Building may use the 12 parking spaces. 'In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. ewicker replied that the intent is to return the Variance application fee. He further replied that the off -site parking geeement is with Via Lido Plaza, and staff received a copy of the agreement just prior to the Planning Commission meeting. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. ewicker replied that Exhibit "A" was prepared as the applicant requested. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Jack Jakowski, 1042 West Bay Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission as property owner of 503 - 32nd Street and as co- applicant. He said that the off -site parking agreement would correspond with the current usage. Mr. Jakowski addressed the revious parking arrangement between the City of Newport Beach, property owners of the Via Lido Plaza shopping center, and property owners of 503 - 32nd Street. He stated that after reviewing the existing parking spaces adjacent to the subject property, and by restructuring the off -site parking agreement to 12 parking spaces on a non - exclusive basis in the Via Lido Plaza -6- 1 L COI DMSIONERs .op,�, a�o� ����O�\WNR l0 MIN UTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 19 -.s. 11A 1onn 1Y161VL GT, 1JJT ROLL CALL WDEX shopping center parking lot, that it would more than take care of the needs of the tenants and employees of the 503 building. The parking spaces adjacent to the subject property would meet the demands of the invitees of the building. Mr. Pat Galvin of the Fritz Duda Company, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the property owners of Via Lido Plaza. In reference to Exhibit "A ", Mr. Galvin addressed Finding No. 2, and he stated that ...entered into an appropriate lease... should be corrected to ..entered into an appropriate easement. In reference to Conditions No. 2 and No. 3, Exhibit "A", Mr. Galvin stated that the proposed off -site parking agreement is different from the language contained in the Conditions inasmuch as the agreement does not provide for 12 exclusive parking spaces for the 503 32nd Building. He said that there is a provision in the agreement that states that if other parking is available in a similar location to Via Lido Plaza, i.e. a parking structure, that parking off -site could be provided to the property owner of the 503 Building at another location. In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Hewicker explained that the Planning Commission is being asked to make a finding stating that the off -site parking area is located so it would be useful for the people located in the 503 - 32nd Street building, and he questioned where the 12 off -site parking spaces would eventually be located. In reference to Mr. Galvin's request to change "lease" to "easement ", Commissioner Ridgeway explained that an easement cannot be changed unilaterally by one party. Mr. Galvin explained that there is a radius restriction that would prohibit the relocated parking spaces from being any further from the 503 Building than they currently are. There is an agreement between the owners of the respected properties that the easement would be able to be relocated. It would continue to burden the Via Lido Plaza parking area; however, they are obligated to provide the parking spaces. -7- COIV MSSIONERS \1 a 4 t 1 q, eo 14 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4 lYlQl bL G1, 177 ROLL CALL INDEX Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission, Mr. Galvin, and staff with respect to continuing the item for further review and clarification. In response to a request for clarification by Mr. Galvin regarding Condition No. 4, Exhibit "A ", Chairman Merrill explained that the condition requiring that the circulation systems be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer is a standard condition. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion All Ayes * Motion was made and voted on to continue the subject off -site parking agreement to the April 7, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. (No action was necessary on Variance No. 1187). MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 1715 (_Amended) (Continued Public Hearing) Item No. Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the remodel of an existing restaurant, the addition of on -sale alcoholic beverages, the establishment of restaurant uP1715A Denied parking spaces within an adjoining Residential District, and the use of tandem and valet parking on property located in the 'Retail and Service Commercial' area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. The proposed amendment includes a request to allow the use of an outdoor . loud speaker used for paging restaurant customers. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 67 -27 (Resubdivision No. 446) located at 2110 Newport Boulevard, on the northwesterly corner of Newport Boulevard and 21st Street, in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. -8- 4 • L MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 11X.... -U')A Irma 1�1Rl bL 4T, 1JJT ROLL CALL INDEX ZONE: SP -6 APPLICANT: The Old Spaghetti Factory, Portland, Oregon OWNERS: Dussin Investment Co. and The Old Spaghetti Factory International, Inc., Portland, Oregon Commissioner Pomeroy asked if the use of an outdoor paging device could be limited to certain hours to minimize the disturbance to the neighbors. James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that it would be difficult to know the living habits of the residents residing adjacent to the restaurant. He stated that restaurants throughout the City use alternate means of paging patrons and he questioned why the subject establishment needs to have an outdoor speaker. ' Mr. Kirk Michael appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Michael stated that because of the customer volume that exists at the restaurant that the paging system would not work for them. He determined that to manage 200 pagers would not work for them and they are also very expensive. The system would cost $17,000 to install and approximately $2,000 to $3,000 a year to maintain. Mr. Michael, Chairman Merrill, and Commissioner Ridgeway discussed the number of patrons waiting to be seated and the length of time that they wait during peak hours of operation. Mr. Michael stated that the restaurant changed the outdoor speaker so that the paging volume would not go beyond the property's boundaries inasmuch as it is not the intent to make the neighbors angry. The neighbors have not complained of the outdoor speaker system to the restaurant's management staff. Commissioner Gifford asked if it would be possible to hire an employee to circulate in the parking lot to page parties without spending a huge amount of money. Mr. Micbael replied that the -9- • L COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Marnh 7d 100d ROLL CALL INDEX idea bad been considered, and it would cost approximately $13,000 per year. He further replied that the proposed speaker system would be more effective, and it would not be as expensive. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Michael said that the current paging system is an employee standing at the door and verbally paging the parties. He further replied that the restaurant is not able to seat their guests as quickly with the current system; however, their gross sales have not been affected. The proposed system was set at maximum volume and it could not be heard outside the property line. The system would not affect the neighbor's quality of life. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Michael stated that the restaurant has had an outdoor paging system for 19 years. The paging system was removed after the Code Enforcement Office contacted the restaurant upon receiving ' complaints from the adjacent residents. The restaurant purchased and installed a new paging system but it is currently not being utilized as requested by the City. The new system consists of a small, isolated speaker. Mr. Michael further explained that the purpose of installing a new paging system prior to the Commission's approval was to be able to show that the restaurant is attempting to cooperate with the neighbors by installing a system that would not interfere with their quality of life. He replied that he was not aware if other restaurants in the City used outdoor speakers. In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Michael replied that the existing speaker system cost approximately $300.00. He further replied that many of the customers have a desire to wait outdoors instead of the indoor waiting area. Commissioner DiSano commented that if the restaurant would be allowed to use outdoor speakers, it could set a precedent for other restaurants in the McFadden Square area. He indicated that there are paging systems available that the restaurant should consider. -10- �Hppf- t�3p'Pd�9'1'p CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Maich N, 1M ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Michael said that the Crab Cooker Restaurant currently has outdoor speakers that can be heard at the subject site. Mr. Michael concluded that it was not the intent of the restaurant to disrupt the neighborhood, and if the residents had complained to the restaurant regarding the sound system, the issue could have been resolved. The proposed speaker system would not interfere with anyone outside their property. He said that the restaurant has been in the City for 20 years without any previous complaints. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the City is trying to protect the residents from noise. He suggested that the restaurant be allowed to try their proposed outdoor speaker system and the Commission could review the system within a specified period of time. Mr. Hewicker pointed out that Condition No. 6, Exhibit "A" , allows the Commission to call up the use permit so as to modify conditions • if the operation would be detrimental to the community. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Michael explained the procedures that were taken after the Code Enforcement Officer contacted the restaurant regarding the complaints. Mr. Michael said that he is absolutely sure that the existing speaker system would not interfere with the neighbors. Mr. Sid Sofer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission. He said that he was always under the assumption that an outdoor speaker was illegal. The new Adult Ordinance states that no sound can extend beyond a property line or it would be a misdemeanor. He suggested numbering systems that could be used outside the door that. would not make any sound. Mr. Thomas Reynolds, 218 - 21st Street, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the application. He stated that the neighbors have complained about the paging system to the restaurant over an extended period of time. He submitted a petition from the neighbors regarding their complaints. He stated that the outdoor speaker could set a precedent in the area, and he • -11- z \V0 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH M h 24 19 , 94 arc ROLL CALL INDEX pointed out that the Crab Cooker Restaurant uses a paging system but there is not a residential area adjacent to the restaurant. He objected to the restaurant's traffic on 21st Street and adjoining streets on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights. At the request of Commissioner DiSano, Mr. Michael reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Michael explained the procedure that the restaurant took after the Code Enforcement Officer contacted the restaurant regarding the outdoor speaker. Commissioner DiSano stated that there are other alternatives that are available to the restaurant, and he did not feel it would be appropriate to burden the residents with the potential of the spill- over of noise. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Michael stated that the restaurant considered the numbering system as suggested by Mr. Sofer; however, the restaurant does not ' seat groups in numerical order; it seats according to the number of people in the party. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Hewicker replied that it would be feasible for the Planning Commission to approve the outdoor loud speaker system as proposed, and if as a result of the system, it would create a problem of the adjacent residents then the Planning Commission has the ability to call the use permit back for review. Commissioner Glover stated that if the proposed system would not be workable then it would be up to the restaurant to find a method that would be acceptable to the residents. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Gifford opposed the use of the outdoor speaker. Based on the staff report and testimony there has been a problem in the past, and the potential for future problems is very serious. She addressed the adjacent residential and commercial areas, and the need to balance the interests of the residents and business ID -12- L r L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES - -,. I. ,fl I iviarcn a4, ryy4 ROLL CALL INDEX eople. The burden is not on the residents to come forward again o complain because paging systems are difficult to regulate; erefore, it puts a burden on the restaurant to come up with an ternate system. Motion Wotion was made to deny Use Permit No. 1715 (Amended) Ayes iubject to the findings in Exhibit "B ". Noes hairman Merrill said that when a commercial use is adjacent to residential use that it is necessary that the commercial business e considerate of the adjacent neighbors. ommissioner Pomeroy did not support the motion. A solution can e arrived at that would not disturb the residents and by arbitrarily aying that outside paging cannot be used is not the point. The oint is not to disturb the residents and the restaurant is not being ' 'ven a fair chance. ommissioner DiSano supported the motion. The City is trying to ncourage business; however, there are alternative ways in egulating the patrons. He said that a precedent could be set for he restaurants in the immediate vicinity, and they could mmediately request outdoor loud speakers. Many of the estaurants in the McFadden Square area are located on the roperty lines and not set back from the street as is the subject estaurant. ommissioner Ridgeway supported the motion. He concurred that e burden is improperly on the residents and it should not be. ound travels in the areas that are adjacent to the water, and it ould be very difficult to retain the sound system on the property. There are reasonable alternatives and they may be more expensive; however, he said that he was not convinced that the applicant was addressing the financial part of the issue. Motion was voted on to deny Use Permit No. 1715 (Amended) ubject to the findings in Exhibit '% ". MOTION CARRIED. -13- 4 t COIVIIVIISSIONERS IOC �d�D's MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A.t.�A, ')d 100e ROLL CALL INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed change in operational characteristics of the restaurant to include the use of an outdoor speaker for the purpose of paging patrons, will cause discomfort and annoyance to persons residing in the area and is not compatible with the adjoining residential uses. 2. That alternate means of paging patrons exist, other than the proposed outdoor speaker. 3. That a stipulation that the proposed outdoor speaker be limited to a muted volume would present an enforcement problem from a planning standpoint. 4. That the approval of the applicant's request may set a precedent for other restaurant operators within the City, ' who might desire outdoor paging systems for the paging of patrons. 5. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of building applied for will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. -14- • �s,, o 4 L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March ZA, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX A. General 1 Amendment No. 94-1(F) i sin item No. equest to initiate an amendment to the Land Use Element of the GPA 94 -1: eneral Plan for Pacific View Memorial Park, establishing a eparate development allocation of 30,000 square feet for support Initiate acilities including a chapel, funeral home, administrative offices, ales offices, maintenance facilities, garages and miscellaneous torage. In addition to this allocation, mausoleum structures shall e permitted, the location and building envelope of which shall be stablished on the site plan accompanying the approval of a use ermit. AND 3. Use Permit No. 3518 (Continued Public Hearin UP3518 1 equest to approve a master plan of development for the ultimate Removed uild -out of the Pacific View Memorial Park, located on property n the R -3 -13 and Unclassified Districts. The proposal includes: e establishment of six additional building sites which will be eveloped with future mausoleum facilities; the establishment of adding sites for the construction of a future maintenance u lding, a future garage and sales facilities; and the location of ture road construction as part of the interior vehicular �irculation of the park. The proposal also includes a request to ermit the use of a temporary building to be used in conjunction with the continuing sales activities. AND . Site Plan Review No. 6 (Public Hearing) site Plai Review 6'. equest to establish grade on one or more of the proposed ausoleum building sites on the Pacific View property. Removed CATION: Portions of Block 96 and 97, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 3500 Pacific View Drive, at the southeasterly terminus of Pacific ' -15- 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES L l --- U nA lnnn lYlQA lL G4, 177T ROLL CALL INDEX View Drive, adjacent to the Harbor View Hills Planned Community. ONES: R -3 -B and U APPLICANT: Pacific View Memorial Park, Glendale WNER: Pierce Brothers, North Hollywood ames Hewicker, Planning Director, reviewed the subject pplication. He stated that the staff has been working with the pplicant and their consultants for about one year. The applicant as been cooperative with staff and they have complied with staffs equests concerning the project. Mr. Hewicker referred to the ocument containing questions and answers that were previously istributed to the Planning Commission. The document ummarized the history of Pacific View Memorial Park (PVMP) ' is follows: the existing use permit was approved on July 8, 1958 by he Orange County Board of Supervisors; the original PVMP site onsisted of 140 acres; the lower portion of PVMP was annexed n 1969 and the balance was annexed in 1973; Spyglass Hill evelopment was approved on June 14, 1971; Broadmoor Seaview evelopment was approved on January 12, 1976; PVMP currently as 45 acres; 58 percent or 25.9 acres of the PVMP site is rrently developed; the General Plan designations and limitations were placed on PVMP on October 24, 1988; and the use permit as not been amended in the past 36 years. . Hewicker stated that the use permit is 36 years old and PVMP ite is 68 percent smaller than initially envisioned in 1958. It is ow bordered on two sides by residential development which was t one time planned for cemetery use. It is the opinion of the staff at now is the time to address the buildout of the cemetery use d to consider the difficult issue of how the residential and the VMP can interface with each other. It was the original position f the Planning Department that a General Plan Amendment GPA) would not be required in order to accomplish the goals of VMP. In reference to the Health and Safety Code of the State, ' -16- COMMISSIONERS 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH t�rarrh 7d 100A ROLL CALL IlvDEX the definition of the term "cemetery" includes facilities for ground internments, mausoleums, and structures for the internment of cremated remains. Staffs initial position on the square foot limitation as contained in the General Plan was that it was a figure that was to be used for support facilities. The City Attorney subsequently indicated that the City should also consider the future locations of the garden crypts as well as their relationship to the surrounding community. Therefore, it is necessary to initiate a GPA. Staff has suggested that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that a GPA be initiated and that the use permit and the site plan review be removed from calendar at this time. It would be the intent to return to the Planning Commission on April 21, 1994, after new public notices are mailed to the property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and to the adjoining Community Associations. New public hearings would then be held on the GPA, Use Permit and Site Plan Review for the project. Mr. Hewicker pointed out that there may be ' persons in the audience who would like to comment and since it is a public meeting the Brown Act requires that they be able to comment as they so desire. However, if the two hearing items are removed from calendar, the Planning Commission may wish to indicate the removal now, in which case testimony could be taken on April 21st on the Use Permit and Site Plan Review. The Planning Commission may desire to devote their discussion on the initiation of the GPA. Mr. Hewicker referred to copies of correspondence that the Planning Department received from residents living adjacent to or are in close proximity to PUMP. He pointed out that the request to initiate the GPA was recommended by the staff and it was not filed by the applicant. Staff believes that the GPA is necessary so as to proceed with the Use Permit and Site Plan Review application. In response to comments by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Hewicker explained that in February, 1994, the Planning Commission and City Council recommended a series of General Plan Amendments. General Plan Amendments are generally initiated three times a 10 -17- • 4 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Aii�rrh 7d 100d ROLL CALL INDEX ear; however, it is possible to include General Plan Amendment No. 94 -1(F) to the General Plan Amendment initiated by the City Council and Planning Commission in February, 1994. Mr. Hewicker explained that when the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that a GPA be initiated, and if e City Council concurs to initiate a GPA, that it does not mean at the GPA is approved. It means that the GPA has only been processed through the first phase. The GPA comes back to the Tanning Commission and back to the City Council after the Tanning Commission public hearing for the purpose of etermining whether or not the GPA and any other applications that are being processed with it concurrently are going to be approved. Chairman Merrill asked if the Planning Commission considered only the GPA, would it be appropriate to take testimony even if t is a discussion item inasmuch as there have been two meetings between the residents and the applicant concerning the project. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, replied that to initiate the GPA is a discussion item only and there will be at least two public hearings at a later date. There will be a public hearing before the Planning Commission and a second public hearing before the City ouncil on the GPA and the appropriateness of the Use Permit d the Site Plan Review. Testimony on whether or not the GPA hould be approved as submitted or with regards to the other applications would not be appropriate. ommissioner Glover stated that inasmuch as the use permit and ite plan review were noticed as public hearings that the majority f the people were of the correct assumption to speak to the issue. he said that it would not be a wise thing not to hear testimony if here is enough data. Mr. Hewicker stated that since the public otices were mailed regarding the public hearing on the use ermit and site plan review it has been determined that a GPA is equired. He said that hearing the use permit and site plan review utside the context of a package that includes the GPA may be remature. Mr. Hewicker said that without the GPA the Planning .18- • L 4 COPIEWSSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 24, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX Commission cannot approve the other items. Ms. Flory said that the request to initiate the GPA is an issue that was recently decided by the City Attorney's Office. She said that further review of the GPA should be processed before the use permit or at least concurrently with the use permit application. It was not an action that the applicants have done to avoid or postpone the public hearing process. In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Hewicker explained that in 1988 when the Land Use Element of the General Plan was amended, the Planning Commission went through every development and every parcel of land in the City and assigned a density limitation, a floor area limitation, etc. on every parcel because the City is required by State Law to make the Land Use Element, and the Circulation Element all internally consistent. In reference to the allowable 50,000 square feet of floor area on the PVMP site, and the current amount of square footage ' on the ground, Mr. Hewicker explained that aerial photographs were probably taken of the site to determine the approximate square footage of PVMP and staff determined that the square footage was probably appropriate for the subject property. Staff, the Planning Commission, or no one on the City Council at that time knew what the specific needs would be of the cemetery or hat the future plans of PVMP were in terms of their construction eeds. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to the memorandum that was distributed by the City Attorney's Office to the Planning Commission regarding the project. He. inquired if it was the cemetery's position that they are not subject to City's control over mausoleum buildings, and that staff has interpreted that the City as not in control of the buildings until recently. Ms. Flory oncurred. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to a sentence in the memorandum stating ..We recognize, however, that a court ould determine, as other states have, that a legal nconforming cemetery can add mausoleums where they 14 just as they may with cemetery plots without her review of the City. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that changes have affected the cemetery industry during the past -19- 4� 4 IM i 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1Vla,l:,1 L-t, 177'4 ROLL CALL MEX years from burial plots to mausoleums. He said that from his knowledge that the industry could not have predicted the need for mausoleums in 1958 when the use permit was rust approved because of the change in the industry. Motion Motion was made and voted on to remove Use Permit No. 3518 All Ayes and Site Plan Review No. 69 from the agenda. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Gifford and Mr. Hewicker reviewed the procedure to consider initiation of the GPA, and the public hearings after the approval of the initiation by the City Council concerning the GPA, the use permit, and the site plan review. Commissioner Gifford stated that it would be difficult for the Planning Commission to take testimony this date regarding the GPA because the Commission does not know what form the GPA would take based on subsequent discussions between the residents, the applicant, and staff. Chairman Merrill concurred. Commissioner Edwards stated that on the foregoing basis and given the fact that the public would have an opportunity to testify at a later date, and because the Planning Commission does not have anything that has been studied in terms of an initiation of anything at this point in time, motion was made to initiate General Plan Amendment No. 94 -1(F). Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the public has come to the Planning Commission meeting to testify, and the letters that were received by the Planning Commission were very articulate and very well done; however, he agreed with Commissioner Edwards. The Commission will have a public hearing at a future date to hear all of the testimony. Commissioner Ridgeway referred to the City Attorney's memorandum stating ..Staff initially interpreted the land use element to not include mausoleums in the floor area restriction. Recent review of the Land Use Element by the City Attorney determined that we must conclude that mausoleums are included in the 50,000 square foot floor area limit, and therefore any expansion -20- • COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mnrnh 7d tOOd ROLL CALL IIQDEX beyond 50,000 square feet would require an amendment to the General Plan Commissioner DiSano supported the motion. In response to a question posed by Commissioner DiSano, Ms. Flory explained that PVMP agreed to submit to the process and the City is in a better position to go through the process and to cooperate with them, and to see if something can be worked out rather than go to Court and potentially lose all control of any future development on the site. Chairman Merrill stated that the neighbors would also be able to enter into discussion with the applicant concerning the GPA. Ms. Flory concurred. She said that there would be more discussion regarding the appropriateness of including the mausoleums in the floor area and why the GPA is necessary. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that it is in the best interest of the residents that the City have proper control so PVMP can be planned properly. Since the applicant has agreed to abide with the process that would be the best method of assuring that a good plan could be developed and one that would be compatible with the neighbors. He said that the meeting was advertised as a public hearing and inasmuch as the people came to testify, he would be willing to let any one speak who wants to speak. Commissioner Edwards stated that without a GPA or without a GPA initiative, not only would the City lose control but the people on Spyglass Hill would lose any potential for control over what surrounds them. It is in the best interest to initiate a GPA. Motion Motion was voted on to initiate General Plan Amendment No. 94- All Ayes 1(F). MOTION CARRIED. i R ! The Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. -21- L MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AS-11. nn innn 1Y161 bL LT, 1JJT ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the initiation of General Plan Amendment No. 94 -1(F) be open for Public Comment. Discussion followed between Commissioner Pomeroy, Commissioner Glover, and Ms. Flory with respect to opening up General Plan Amendment No. 94 -1(F), for Public Comment at the end of the agenda after the remaining items on the agenda have been heard. Commissioner Glover emphasized that the Planning Commission should allow Public Comment inasmuch as the people came out to the Planning Commission meeting to make public comments and they have a right to be heard. Following comments by Commissioner Pomeroy, the decision was made to allow the people in the audience to make Public Comments after the remaining agenda had been heard. PUBLIC COMMENTS (CONTINUED AFTER ALL OF THE AGENDA ITEMS WERE COMPLETED): The following individuals spoke before the Planning Commission in opposition to the initiation of General Plan Amendment No. 94- 1(F). Their reasons to oppose the initiation of the GPA are as follows: the cemetery did not submit reasons to support a GPA or use permit application; the use would adversely affect the adjacent homeowners' use of their property and their property values; current cemetery owners should have known that the original use permit permitted one mausoleum and the site was allowed a maximum floor area of 50,000 square feet when they purchased the cemetery property; the current cemetery owners did not advise the homeowners that they would build more than a small addition on to the existing mausoleum; the land and views have deteriorated because the new owners changed the grade by piling dirt on certain areas and there are tall weeds adjacent to some of the adjoining residential properties; the cemetery owners have not shown the proposed plans to the property owners; Spyglass Ridge properties would also be impacted by the cemetery; the commercial use should yield to the residents; the trees in the cemetery impede the residents' views; the Service Corporation did -22- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mnr,h 7d 10ad ROLL CALL MEX not communicate with the residents regarding their future plans, they are not good neighbors, and they are not to be trusted; the mausoleums would not be aesthetically pleasing; an EIR should be required; the mausoleums should not be constructed on the slopes adjacent to the neighbors; and the mausoleum walls should not replace the park -like setting of the cemetery. Karl Wolf, 17 Carmel Bay Drive Jane Hitzelberger, 11 Carmel Bay Drive H. Ross Miller, 1627 Bay Cliff Circle, Spyglass Ridge Eddie Allen, 21 Carmel Bay Don Olson, 9 Monterey Circle Paul Hitzelberger, 11 Carmel Bay Drive Dave March, 1 Twin Lakes Circle Carolyn Miller, 19 Carmel Bay Sandy Fix, 11 Sky Sails Bill Seca, 1 Monterey Circle Joyce Olson, 9 Monterey Circle Barry Rupp, 2 Twin Lakes Circle Claire Schwan, 75 Montecito Mr. Steve Schatt, General Manager of Pacific View Memorial Park appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the applicant intends to listen to the property owners' concerns and to work with staff. The greenbelts would be retained and several concessions have been made to make a compromise with the residents. • -23- 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Uarnh 7d 100d ROLL CALL INDEX Amendment No 795 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.6 Request to consider amendments to Titles 19 and 20 of the A795 Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to reduce the required (Res 1350 appeal period for Planning Commission actions to less than 21 days. Approved INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion All Ayes * Motion was made and voted on to recommend the approval of Amendment No. 795 (Resolution No. 1350) to the City Council. MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 798 (Public Hearing) Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Item No.7 A799 Beach Municipal Code so as to provide more specific wording in (Res 1351 the Code that restricts roof heights above top of curb on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. Approved INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion * Motion was made and voted on to recommend the approval of All Ayes Amendment No. 798 (Resolution No. 1351) to the City Council. MOTION CARRIED. • -24- COMOSSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Marrh 'ld 1994 on ROLL CALL INDEX Discussion Items: Discussi Use Permit No. 1956 (_Amended) Items UP1956A Request to consider initiating the revocation of Use Permit No. 1956 (Amended), for failure to comply with specific conditions of PH set f approval, or to consider adding or modifying conditions of 4/21/94 approval to said use permit. The approved use permit permitted the establishment of Bacchus, a restaurant /nightclub facility with on -sale alcoholic beverages, two separate dance floors, live entertainment, pre- recorded music, the installation of eight billiard tables, and the use of tandem and valet parking spaces. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 2, Tract No. 1117, located at 3505 Via Oporto, on the southeasterly comer of Central Avenue and Via Oporto, in Lido Marina Village. ZONE: RSC -H APPLICANT: Bacchus, Newport Beach OWNER: Lido Marina Village, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that representatives of the applicant prepared a response to the report that was prepared by the Police Department, and it was submitted to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting. The issue is to determine if the lanning Commission would want to seta public hearing for the purposes of revoking the use permit or amending conditions of approval so as to address some of the problems that have been occurring at the business establishment. If it is the desire to have hearing, then it is necessary to give a public notice at least 10 days prior to the meeting, the hearing would be held, and the ecommendation would go to City Council. The City Council would have 60 days to act after receiving the Commission's recommendation. -25- on CONEWSSIONERS 4 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A.r --- t �e innn 1Y141 ML LT, 1JJT ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Pomeroy stated that after reviewing the applicant's response it appears that the new ownership has taken aggressive steps to correct the problems. He suggested that the issue be continued for 30 days to see the impact of the new management. Chief of Police Bob McDonell appeared before the Planning Commission. He addressed the report that the Police Department distributed to the Planning Commission that outlined their experiences with the Bacchus nightclub that opened in 1993. The report identifies 48 separate incidents which the Police Department believes are attributable to the establishment and the manner that it has operated. In a separate list there are other documented incidents which the Police Department believes may be attributable to Bacchus, although they cannot draw that solute distinction which is why the lists are separated. There is no doubt there is an accumulative impact from the intensity of use as a result of the number of nightclubs in the area. The Police Department has tried over the months that Bacchus has been in usiness to work with the owners and managers in an effort to minimize the impact on the Police Department's services and on he community; however, the Police Department has not been successful. The Police have received all of the right reassurances of a new direction, a more responsiveness to their expressed concerns, but no consistent positive change has occurred. To the ontrary, the Police are told one thing one day and something else mother. On March 14, 1994, at the Study Session, the Bacchus oup told the City Council that they would do anything necessary o comply with their use permit and the other City codes, and to e contrary, three days later they were_ operating three dance oors vs. the two dance floors that were authorized by the use ermit, and they were displaying two large canvas signs that were raped on the side of the building. Both were in violation of the se permit and the Municipal Code. In addition, the Code nforcement Officer pulled down handbills from poles advertising he next event at Bacchus. When the establishment was first roposed, the applicant indicated that it was going to be a first- lass Italian restaurant, and with some associated nightclub activity. t is obvious that neither commitment has been made. -26- c�y��lr \moo • 4 L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES u__ -t nA anne lYlQl{iL Gam, 17T ROLL CALL INDEX hief McDonell stated that the Police report does not indicate the ountless hours and the officer hours that have been spent atrolling the area in an effort to keep the list of activity as small it is. Without that attention, Chief McDonell said that he could sure the Planning Commission that the list would look worse an it does. The Police Department is also concerned that the otential exists given the track record involved for more serious onsequences if the issues raised are not addressed. The Police epartment feels an obligation to the community, who now more an ever, needs their resources to be available to deal with other rime related issues. From a planning perspective, the Police epartment feels that businesses such as this should not be . lowed to continue to drain the City's services which have been d are continuing to be reduced to the fiscal realities. He ecognized the economic development issue, but from the Police epartment's perspective there is a negative imbalance. From the ' ty staffs perspective, the Police Department has made a sincere ffort to work with the issues involved but to no avail, and as a esult, the Police have asked the Commission to consider the roposed revocation of Use Permit No. 1956 (Amended). . Rob Mitchell, 408 Bellvue, appeared before the Planning ommission on behalf of the applicant as one of the nvestor /owners and he indicated that he has been acting as nagement during the past 16 days. He agreed with the Police epartment. He did not disagree that Bacchus has been a problem or the community and the Police Department; however, he placed he blame on past management. The document that Bacchus stributed gives a brief summary of the sequence of events that append since the opening of the club in September, 1993. The dividuals that were hired to run the club had given the mpression that they were professionals and that was not the case. e investors /owners are taking an active management role to urn things around at the club. He explained that during the past 6 days they have been working with Lido Marina Village and the Warehouse Restaurant by implementing a new security system. e club has doubled up their security guards and they have mployed a new security system. The security system has educated -27- ' � c ,�' cool' hod ��' s �a MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH w.r --- U 11e inns ivaaavu s.�, a7Tr ROLL CALL UMEX the employees in a recognition and identification program for drugs and alcohol so as to eliminate problems that could occur later in the evening. Mr. Mitchell stated that a new valet service has been hired. He said that the club has cooperated with the Police Department and Lido Marina Village by redirecting the patrons into the parking structure, and it would appear that the new circulation is successful. He said that during the past 16 days the club purchased new security uniforms and jackets, and they have doubled their security inside the club to 14 to 16 people per evening. A new general manager, a new restaurant manager, and two full time marketing directors who will work with charity events and outside promotions, have recently been hired. He indicated that the image of the club will be changed to magic /comedy with dinner early in the evening, and to the initial conception. He stated that with the new management the nightclub could work. Approximately 90,000 people have come to the club and Lido Marina Village during the past 6 months according to the count at the door. Commissioner Ridgeway referred to the club's response, Item No. 6, Parking Violations, indicating that the Club is able to park 60 - to 80 cars in the adjacent parking structure per night; however, he stated that many more parking spaces are required. Mr. Mitchell stated that the exact requirement is 168 parking spaces; however, they do not have unlimited use of the parking structure and when the valets are parking the automobiles all of the assigned parking spaces are taken. The valets have to park automobiles in the surrounding parking lots so that at the end of the evening it takes twice as much time to retrieve the automobiles. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Mitchell explained that there are potentially 168 parking spaces for the club's use in the parking structure, but they are not designated parking spaces. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Hewicker explained that he did not believe that the City has ever allowed a business operator or a restaurant operator to specifically designate stalls in a parking structure for their -28- 4 PF 0\10X� Omro\ MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1k.f--..1. 7d 100d ROLL CALL ESMEX exclusive use; otherwise a parking structure may not function properly. Commissioner Ridgeway said that it would appear that the restaurant is under - parked. The original use permit was based upon the analysis of the parking spaces that the public were not using but they are now using. It would appear that the under - parked situation is causing a problem at 2:00 am. Mr. Hewicker said that it is typical that when an event is over everyone leaves at once. Commissioner Ridgeway suggested the reevaluation of the public use of the parking structure and the restaurant's parking requirement. Mr. Hewicker concurred. In response to comments by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Mitchell said that the Warehouse Restaurant and the club use the parking structure; therefore, everyone exiting the restaurants are waiting for their automobiles simultaneously in Lido Marina Village. Chief McDonell reappeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that on December 14, 1993, there was a meeting with employees from Bacchus and the Police Department. Fourteen (14) of the 17 people in attendance were from City staff and the Department of Alcoholic Beverage and Control to deal with the issues. Three people representing Bacchus were Rob Mitchell, Eric Beneker, and Michael Shahal, and they were also the management in control on Thursday, March 17, 1994. From the perspective of the Police Department, there has not been a significant change in personnel which speaks to the Police's frustration. ommissioner Edwards stated that there is sufficient information to initiate a study of Use Permit No. 1956 (Amended) which may Motion mean an amendment or revocation. Motion was made and voted All Ayes on to set Use Permit No. 1956 (Amended) for public hearing on April 21, 1994, in order to consider modifying or adding conditions of approval, or to consider recommending to the City Council evocation of the use permit. MOTION CARRIED. -29- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH M h 24 1494 arc , ROLL CALL INDEX Review of the Planning Dgpartment Woddoad and Prgposed Joint PC CC Mtq Agenda for the Joint Meetinp- with the City Council on March 28 1994 No action was taken in connection with this item. ADDITIONAL BU Add ' l Motion Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner Edwards Business All Ayes from the April 7, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION Edwards CARRIED. excused ADJOURNMENT: 10:25 p.m. Adjourn Adjourn to a Joint meeting with City Council at 2:00 p.m. on Monday, March 28, 1994. ANNE K. GIFFORD, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -30-