Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/2007"Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2007 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 27 " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120071mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/20/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren: Commissioners Peotter and Toerge are excused, all others were present. TAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Principal Civil Engineer Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Brandon Nichols, Associate Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on April 13, 2007. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of April 5, 2007. ITEM NO. 1 Commissioner Hawkins suggested removing a portion of the text from Mr. Approved Lepo's discussion on the recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration on Page 3. Mr. Lepo answered he said it, but if the Planning Commission wants to strike that, he agreed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner McDaniel to approve the minutes as corrected. yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None Excused: Peotter and Toerge Abstain: None Page 1 of 27 " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120071mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Mariner's Mile Gateway, LLC (PA2006 -279) 100 -600 West Coast Highway )val of a Comprehensive Sign Program for the approved Bel N ping Center. The Planning Commission will also review the proje cape plan. In addition, the applicant has also requested Planr nission review of proposed changes to exterior elevations resul a redistribution of second floor building square footage. The Planr nission will determine whether the proposed changes are antial conformance with the previously approved project design Nichols, Associate Planner, gave an overview of the project: Noted that the project had been conditioned with the proviso that applicant submit a Comprehensive Sign Program and a Landsc Plan for review and approval by the Planning Commission; Staff. has reviewed the Sign Program and finds it in with the City's Sign Ordinance; Landscape plan was reviewed relative to the Ian( requirements of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. The satisfies all requirements; Changes to the project design are proposed. Revisions affect I exterior elevations of the project as a result of the re- distribution second floor retail space. The second floor has been divided ii two distinct areas, providing a better balance of the square foots and creates a more centralized open area. Staff feels the revisions can be found in substantial conformance with the appro% design and do not affect the approved square footage or cause I structure to exceed the approved height limit for the project. missioner Eaton asked about the e-mail he sent, staff answered: Signage - through the approval of a Comprehensive Sign Program is allowed to have additional signs or slight increases in allowab square footage due to architectural features, orientation of tF frontage or the length of the project frontage; Landscape plan shows a number of potted plants that are to t watered through a reservoir system and will be self- watering; Elimination of the access hallway on the second floor is on # current proposed exhibits; a freight elevator will serve both floors s a means of delivery of goods; for suites that do not have a sic entrance adjacent to the elevator; the goods will be loaded throuc the front door. lee Newman of Government Solutions, representing the We are bringing to the Commission, as part of the approved ITEM NO.2 PA2006 -279 Approved Page 2 of 27 "file: / /N:1 Apps1 WEBDATA1 InternetlPlnAgendas 120071mn04- 19- 07.htm 06120/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 3 of 27 Permit conditions, a Comprehensive Sign Program and Land: Plan; we are asking for a substantial conformance finding on we believe are positive modifications to the elevations; The sign program is attractively designed and is a complement to architecture and meets the standards set forth in the Sign Ordina for Comprehensive Sign program; The landscape plan meets the intent of the Planning Com original approval and meets the goals and objectives of the N Mile Design Framework and Vision; The proposed elevation modifications represent an ova improvement to the project and provide a better distribution of retail space allowing for a more expanded open public gathe area; She noted that they have reviewed the staff report and are in agreement with it and the resolutions; She then introduced the members of her team. nprehensive Sign Program nmissioner McDaniel noted his concern about the (Mariner's Mile) idor having ugly signs. He wants to know why there is a need for itional signage and until he knows who will be going in there, he is not ifortable with allowing more signs. Goldman of Allied Retail Partners, noted: Each space in the shopping center will be made up of in tenants, and each tenant will require their own sign identities; The sign program for the project is based on the architecture of tl center that is designed as a street with individual store fronts that a architecturally different; There is no uniformity where each space has the same amount frontage; each space is designed differently, so the sign allowar for each space was made on an individual basis. n Cole noted the applicant is proposing a deviation from v 20.67 allows as a means to enhancing the overall aesthetics of 9r. Lepo added the change is proposed for the second floor of I uilding, the arrangement of the facades and the location of the mass fn chat was originally proposed. These changes are what you are asked nd in substantial conformance with the original approval. Goldman noted the Code provides for 1 112 times the amount of :age of each space for a total signage for each and in no case is "file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas12007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 4 of 27 by any of the spaces. mmissioner Hillgren asked about a possibility of adjacent store ng lumped together with one sign. r. Goldman answered that each frontage is designed to be leased to nant. There is a provision in the staff report that, at the discretion of anning Commission, we can combine signs in certain locations. !rring to the exhibit, he referenced the frontages and noted whe cent store frontages could be combined for a single tenant. If there tenant in two frontages, a larger sign would be provided but in me �s, that combination could not be done. He then noted the business have signed leases for some of the spaces. Cole asked if staff determined that this sign program is conformance with Chapter 20.67, even though there are so Where there were deviations, was it due to architect Nichols answered "yes ". The Sign Code regulations are gea rds freestanding, individual businesses. The reason for prehensive Sign Program is to allow for deviations and innovai In for larger projects such as this one. It states that deviations ,ed as to number, size and type. In the opinion of staff, the itions are acceptable. There are a number of spaces where tectural element, such as the elevator tower, occupies a portion of it's frontage; in those cases they were allowed additional signs nmissioner Hawkins, referencing page 13 of the Sign Program, not second item, "Exception noted that it was at landlord's discretion" a sd if this is correct; Mr. Goldman indicated it was the Planni emission's discretion. Whose discretion is it? Nichols answered that the landlord would have to approve any signa r to the building permit request being submitted to the City. Once t ling permit was submitted to the City, the Planning Department woe e!w it relative to the Sign Program to ensure that whatever the landlc approved was in conformance with the submitted program. Commission inquiry, Mr. Goldman noted that without knowing who t ants are, a number of signs have been provided for in addition to t ndard wall signs. Most tenants will utilize that, but we also provide t lity to do awnings in certain cases or to do a blade sign. Each of t ants are unique types of operations so we are putting together gram that has maximum square footage area that doesn't exceed t de. How it gets applied is what we have discretion over subject to t nning Department approval. Hawkins asked staff about the permit requirements. Nichols noted that each tenant must come in for a Building Permit for " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120071mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/1912007 Page 5 of 27 The Planning Department will review the signs pursuant to the and Program. )ner Hillgren asked for clarification on the wording in pursuant to deviations. Nichols answered that the deviations are defined in the Program Program is what the Planning Commission is approving. Goldman noted that for each and every space as defined in hics, there is specific criteria so that no sign can be more than a ce confirmed that the resolution restates Chapter 20.67. 1 ions would require the applicant to come back before the fission for modification of the sign program. iairman Cole noted receipt of a letter from a property owner above the oject who is concerned about lighting. He asked how the illumination will :addressed. >mmissioner McDaniel asked what time the lit signs will be turned off. r. Goldman answered that no illumination will extend above the property. ie retailers will be closing by 10 -11 p.m.; however, restaurants may be Pen later. We have not actually addressed when the signs would go off. ie sign lighting is designed to reflect back towards the building. They are ot internally lit channel letter signs; they are wrought iron and will be halo or back -lit. Is. Connie O'Connor of Sign Advantage, noted the sign designs h een created to be either back -lit, meaning the halo goes back against gall and washes the wall, or illuminated by goose neck lamp that shi own off the wall onto the sign. Nothing will be directed toward the sl s lighting is going against the wall and will not create lighting going up ill. ;loner McDaniel noted the concern of the neighbors regarding Is there a definite time when the lighting will be turned off? Nichols noted there is no condition on the hours of illumination. a restriction on internal illumination and is contained in the program. Pug Beiswenger, Principal of Allied Retail Partners, LLC, and Ma le Gateway, LLC, owner of the property, noted: All of the signs with the exception of those facing East or which is only three occurrences, face South and are approxi 150 -175 feet from the residences on the south -side of the Hic they do not face the homeowner who is concerned with the I shedding up the hill; The photometric calculations that were provided previously show " file: //N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120071mn04- 19- 07.htm 06120/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 6 of 27 light -shed that would exit the property, which was zero by the time got to the homes; that is the standard within which we intend conform for the signs as well; The signs will not be internally illuminated plastic channel signs I will be halo signs; a halo sign is one with a solid sign with fluorescent tube behind lighting the wall, but not projecting light c from the sign; The other types of signs we intend to use would be blade s signs that will be lit from the front with goose neck type shining back upon the sign; there will be no light bulbs pr( light out from the signs; they will all be lit towards the building; The hours of operation for the signs will be consistent with the CI Code and shopping centers similar in Newport Beach; there is intent to leave the signs on 24 hours a day except in the event the drug store is a 24 -hour operation; in that case, we could ag that only that sign would stay on 24 hours; The drug store has three signs, one each on the west side, side and on the east side. nissioner Hawkins asked that if there is a drug store that is a 24 -ho tion, we could condition the illuminated signs to go off at a certa at certain hours, is that correct? Nichols answered yes. iissioner Hawkins noted then it would be a tenant issue dealt they came in with an application. Lepo clarified that not all the uses within the center will be coming in me will not require a use permit. The drug store, unless they have be d wine sales, will not require a use permit. If there are specific locatio conditions that you want addressed, that should be done now so there question about it in the future. If that involves an absolute limitation storefront, it should be done now. nissioner McDaniel noted we could request the lighting issue o to us after a year to see if there have been any problems. If we it back in a year, we can address any issues that come up. Ir. Lepo noted this could be done; however, he would like to be able to ive a report if there are any problems that come up. McDaniel agreed. Beiswenger noted that none of the tenant signs will necessarily need on for 24 hours except for the drug store. The drag store is n nded to sell alcohol so there would not be a conditional use pem ilved. If the Commission would condition us for a review in two year if there were complaints about our signs, then we would come in for "file:HN:\Apps\WEBDATA\ Intemet \PlnAgendas\20071mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 7 of 27 w, but because the lighting from our signs read zero in our photos elation to adjoining properties except to McDonald's (for the drug only) we don't believe there would be any complaints. nmissioner Hawkins noted that to the extent there is any glare or lighl problems, those would come from over the parking lots. He asked it drug store will be a 24 -hour operation? Beiswenger answered yes to both. )lie comment was opened. )lie comment was closed. nmissioner McDaniel noted he does not have a problem with a two -year ew to look at the lighting issue. This will give us the opportunity to ress any issues. ;ioner Hillgren asked about the condition of no light crossing line. Lepo answered that was part of the photometric study done as part project approval itself. He suggested a condition that if necessary ate of the study be done to include these facade lights. Beiswenger agreed. imissioner McDaniel suggested a condition to bring the entire lig e back to the Commission in two years. irperson Cole asked if this could be done. Lepo answered "yes ", as you are finding substantial conformity t was approved before. it City Attorney Harp noted that the lighting is addressed n 10. This condition addresses both exterior on -site lighting area lighting. mer Hawkins suggested that the review could be done by Director and if necessary he can refer it to the Plan McDaniel and Eaton agreed. Plan Review mmissioner Hawkins asked for verification of the types of plant be placed on the project site. Nichols noted that the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan calls for a four -fc planter area along the frontage of the property. Within that planti r there are required species. The applicant has chosen a type that 'Tile://N:\Apps1WEBDATA\Internet\PlnAgendas\2007\mnO4-19-07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 8 of 27 oily pruned to comply with sight distance requirements. Referencing t )licant's exhibits, he noted the placement, style and type of plantings used. nmissioner Eaton asked for an explanation of the retaining % dscape and plantings and how they are to be served by water a inaoe. is Foley of Hirsch and Associates, Landscape Architect icing samples, noted the colored walls with planter pockets. T ig to a wall section exhibit, he explained the water treatment ge of the planters and distribution of the placement and depth of r pockets. ussion continued on types of material, height of wall, architectural ing, placement of iron railing, visual impacts, types of planting material palm trees. is comment was opened on the landscape plan. is comment was closed. stantial Conformance determination g Beiswenger, noted the following: Referencing the exhibits, he noted the prior approval concepts with an outdoor terrace area garden, and a corridor behind the second floor building mass; We are now proposing to separate the second floor building into two separate building masses, one of about 4,400+ square and one of about 7,000± square feet; Because the building lengths are short, and because it is most I each will be one tenant, instead of a five -foot corridor behind tl buildings, it would be in the interest of the development and public to transfer that area to the front of the buildings; To handle loading for these premises, a freight elevator will be L with access through the front corridor; The hours of delivery are restricted; referencing the exhibit, explained the route used for deliveries; The types of retailers will be high -end businesses; There are potted plants with a seat planter in the open area bet% the shops. Commission inquiry, he answered: The changes in design do not result in any additional height "file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas \2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 9 of 27 square footage from what was originally approved; If storefronts were combined it would probably be for a tenant; If there was outdoor dining with a restaurant, it would be consist with the Zoning Code, which generally allows an amount equal 25% of the interior area of the restaurant; Any restaurant that is in the project is subject to a conditional i permit; when that is applied for, the Planning Commission could k at the hours of operation and see when the peak demand wo occur and make decisions on the parking demand at that time; we not intend to put two restaurants that would compete with e: other; Provided parking meets Code to allow a permitted use without , other discretionary approval except for the conditional use permit a restaurant at 15% of the 56,000 square feet of building area; have 5 per 1,000 parking for the entire 56,000 square i development; The previously proposed lower level parking will not be built as it now determined to have no value and would result in cwnstructii and cost challenges; With the single level of parking being provided, there is actually 5 F 1,000 parking; the type of restaurant that comes into the project, t peak parking demand will determine the type of restaurant that most appropriate for our use; we are looking for higher e restaurant(s) with a lower parking demand and low turnover; The City will have the ultimate decision on which restaurant will be allowed in the center. .iblic comment was opened on substantial conformance determination. iblic comment was closed. otion was made by Commissioner Hillgren, and seconded by :)mmissioner McDaniel, to adopt Resolution approving Comprehensive gn Program CS2006 -012 with the modification that it will be reviewed in ,o years by the Planning Director; and, adopt Resolution finding that the oposed landscape plan is in conformance with the conditions of approval r the project and the landscape requirements of the Mariners Mile Specific an and the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework; and, e proposed changes to the approved project design are in substantial mformance with the building design approved under Development Plan ). 2004 -001 and Use Permit No. 2004 -025. yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None Excused: Peotter and Toerae " file: / /N:1 Apps1 WEBDATAIIntemet \PlnAgendas120071mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 BJECT: Balboa Inn LLC (PA2006 -270) Sienna Restaurant 105 Main Street uest to amend Use Permit No. 3158 to allow live entertainment anc ;ing in association with the existing restaurant use. Additionally, a ,er of the parking requirements related to the introduction of live rtainment is also requested. The property is located at 105 Main Stree is within the Retail and Service Commercial designation of the Centra ,oa Specific Plan (SP -8) District. me Murillo, Associate Planner, gave an overview of the staff report: The applicant would like to provide live entertainment as a way enhance their existing banquet operations for private events a provide a band in the interior courtyard on weekend afternoons the enjoyment of the general public and to attract additional cliente The applicant is requesting a waiver of 24 additional parking spaces; Staff recommends approval of live entertainment in conjunction private events only; these findings can be supported with spe< conditions of approval to control and mitigate noise impacts neighboring residences such as conclusion of events at 10:00 p. live entertainment contained in the interior dining rooms, requiring all windows and doors to remain closed during si events; An increase in parking demand is not anticipated as these pries events are already permitted to occur and the live entertainment u serve only to enhance these events and not increase the number persons attending these events; Staff recommends that the live entertainment request for weeke afternoons, or for any other activities open to the general public, denied as these events are intended to attract additional patrons the restaurant that would in turn generate an increase in park! demand, which is inconsistent with Coastal Land Use policies relal to availability of public parking; There is a concern that these events would attract additional vi: to the bar, which could result in additional calls for service demand for law enforcement in the area; The Police Department is supportive of staffs recommendation w the conditions placed on the project; per their request, condition should be amended to clarify that the use of a DJ or karaoke considered live entertainment and shall be prohibited uses activities open to the general public. then continued by answering the questions sent via e-mail from ITEM NO. 3 PA2006 -270 Approved Page 10 of 27 " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120071mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/2012008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 11 of 27 ssion: Live entertainment permit - issued in error to the applicants in and following research with the issuing Department, staff is not how it occurred; Total number of parking spaces required and provided on the hote expansion on 707 East Oceanfront; that project was required t( provide twelve spaces for the hotel rooms and retail square footage; they have actually provided 17 spaces with the condition on thi: project that the remaining 5 spaces be allocated to the 105 Mai( Street portion of the project; In 1985 there was a reconfiguration of the 105 Main Street prop with an application to provide two separate restaurants; the total public area of the restaurants was higher than what previo existed so the parking increase was related to the increased public area. Hawkins asked how Revenue was handling the in -lie fees. r. Murillo answered the program is no longer active; however, the ,venue Department continues to collect the fee on an annual basis fron ose projects that benefited from the original in -lieu parking fee program. iey are paying as required, which is 24 spaces per year. The parking in u fee that was established at that time was $150 per space per year. nmissioner Eaton asked about the in -lieu fee charged if the waiver approved. Murillo answered that the condition to pay 24 in -lieu parking fees is y -over from the previous Use Permit. We are not requiring tional in -lieu fee for the additional waiver that they are requestir Lepo added that if the Planning Commission does not approve the tional waiver, the additional live entertainment request cannot be ted. There is no mechanism to collect fees for new waived parkins ;es as that program has been suspended. This program wa: )ended because the $150 per space wasn't buying a lot of property )ugh one lot has been purchased using fees accumulated over the Cole confirmed that even if the Planning Commission wanted this with a fee payment, it could not be done. Lepo answered, "correct ", we have no procedural mechanism for do! Harp added that the in -lieu parking fee is currently under analysis. "file://N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120071mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Murillo continued answering the e-mail questions: Applicant's brochures states accommodations for up to 200 gue on the first floor and an additional 125 guests on the second fk terrace; that would be inconsistent with the maximum occupar limit per the Building and Fire Codes; based on the total net put area of 2,273 square feet, the total occupancy is limited to 1 persons; there is a condition of approval (35) that requires sti adherence to the maximum occupancy limits and the applicant required to amend his brochure for consistency; Capacity of the Balboa lot where there are 614 parking spaces the lot; the parking is based on net public area and not maxims occupancy of meeting space or restaurant; additionally, there is assumption that for the private events, a number of people will carpooling and a number of hotel rooms are booked for weddir and other private events. Commission inquiry, he added that the live entertainment would a events and not increase attendance at a wedding. missioner Hawkins noted that the applicant asks for the rtainment as a means to bring more people into the establishment. Lepo answered that staff looked at this application and the idea is lance the venue with the likely outcome that there would be more eves year because people looking for a venue for a wedding would see 1 boa Inn as an attractive place and they like to have music for 1 lding reception. The size of the facility is not increasing with 1 iition of music; each event would not accommodate more people, tht Ad just be more events per year. He added that people who are looks venues for birthdays, weddings, etc. are looking for music. Murillo continued answering e-mail questions: Police Department's recommendation of denial had been drafted response to the applicant's original request for live entertainment i private events and other activities open to the public and in the bar the courtyard area; however, they are now in support of staf recommendation as the project is conditioned. imissioner Eaton asked about the area referred to as a courtyard tha a roof, but does not seem to be enclosed yet. If this is enclosed, as the icant indicated to me, could the entertainment be moved out there? it if the configuration is changed by the erection of a wall, would exitinc irements be affected? Or. Murillo noted what has been discussed is providing live entertainment ii he corner of the courtyard. We are requiring a condition that the applican eplace the existing open wrought iron gates along that courtyard exit out tc he boardwalk with double -paned sound attenuating doors and windows. Staffs recommendation is to limit live entertainment strictly within the nterior dining rooms only. Page 12 of 27 "file://N:\Apps\WEBDATA\Internet\PlnAgendas\2007\mnO4-19-07.htm 06120/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 13 of 27 Lepo added that a configuration by placement of a wall would be Mansion of capacity and that is contrary to what has been represer ight. Commission inquiry, Mr. Murillo noted that portions of the court uld be open to Main Street and we are requiring sound attenuation d ng the Ocean Front boardwalk to help contain sound as people exit er the dining rooms to go to the bar or buffet tables that might be loc the indoor courtyard. r. Lepo added that the sound transmission from there is the bigges oncern, whether it is up through the open courtyard or out the doors. One the reasons for the doors on the boardwalk side is to have an entry lock. its way there will be two sets of doors to protect the residences arounc e corner from as much noise as possible. ,ion continued on the sound problems and control, m occupancy and space taken up by band and musical e levels and sound. Or. Murillo added that on the 1986 plan, the courtyard dining area wa: imited to 286 square feet and the total first floor occupancy is 136 persons. the way the condition was written, they can divvy up their square footage anyway they want so long as they don't exceed the total net public area tha s permitted. ;sion continued on parking, occupancy, noise issues and the use time to address these complaints in the past. nmissioner Hawkins noted that the waiver of 24 parking spaces is the net public area. If we expand the net public area to i itional courtyard area then the number of parking spaces that d to be waived would increase. Staff concurred. nmissioner McDaniel noted the space that will be available to th nts will not be available for anyone else. Anyone else staying in the not be able to use the facilities. Lepo answered the restaurant will be there, but the events will scussion then continued on the use of all the space for private events ier patrons would not be able to use the facilities as they would be cic the public. imissioner McDaniel noted his concern with a patron staying at the I being able to use the restaurant or bar if it has been hired out to ate party. Craig Frizzell of the Police Department, noted: Not supportive of bringing live entertainment out onto the patio as ' file:// N:W ppst WEBDATAIInternetlPlnAgendas120071mn04- 19-07. htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 14 of 27 will increase the noise complaints from the surrou neighborhood; In the past they had live entertainment out there and also in lounge area; not only did it increase the complaints from the ne residents, it also served as a magnet, especially on weekend c for the boardwalk; folks strolling up the boardwalk on Satur Sunday or holidays, they want to be in there; Bringing it out from the confines of the restaurant into the open creates more problems; Introducing entertainment to the patio area, no matter what type of venue, will increase the calls for service. Baers, representing the applicant, noted: This is a mixed -use village with a lot of restaurants and bars; There are concerts in the park during the summer; This area is a noise environment as it on the beach; The applicant is attempting to pursue a private function venue for small groups (25 -125 people), and to offer live entertainment and dancing as an enhancement to these private functions; There is a real demand in the community for a small venue can accommodate weddings, class reunions, that type of rea that kind of space is not available in the community now; Being able to offer this type of venue is part of a business plan enhance occupancy; The request for this amendment came about because the restaur space has never been that successful.; what has been successful catering to these small private parties; For nine months out of the year, it is hard to attract customers a that is why the restaurant is not successful; by offering a small faci for private parties, the owners have found that it complements t hotel operation and provides a venue; Given the location in the village, and that this is an historical inn, 0 idea of having private venues with live entertainment makes sense; There will be no increase in capacity; Noise is an issue that comes from the attraction of. restaurant ar bar patrons; Balboa Inn wants to be a considerate neighbor and there a "file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007 \mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/20/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 15 of 27 conditions attached to the recommended approval of the request tI address issues such as noise attenuation methods, limit of hours operation, and staff training; we agree to all the conditions but ask reconsider the hours of operation; He asked that for the weekends, some consideration be given flexibility of hours; and asked for 11:00 on Friday and Saturdays live entertainment; With the addition of sound attenuation doors and windows, the standards are achievable; Members of the Balboa Improvement District board have recognize( that, with the conditions proposed on this request, the private even venue could be operated in a responsible manner, and the venue would be an asset to the community; He then read a letter he received from a local resident stating she knew what the noise problems were prior to her moving in has no problem with the noise; At Commission inquiry, he agreed with staffs amendment to condition that a DJ or karaoke is considered as live entertainment. nmissioner McDaniel confirmed that the applicant wants to augment -peak months. He noted that there are issues such as parking ;e but that the Commission wants to help the business. He asked H peak restaurant times were. Baers answered the summer months during June, July and August. ing the venue for private events is for when the people want them an( often be considered in off -peak months. :,ommissioner McDaniel noted his concern of the Fourth of July and there s no way he would support having 4 -5 days around that time. He would ;onsider an approval for this application if not during the summer time due o the testimony of the Police Department, residents and City staffs ;oncern with the extra activity from the boardwalk, with some availability hrough September to May. If those periods of time work we can give you he opportunity to come back and expand that time; however, approval' luring the summer time with the testimony on noise, parking, etc only nakes the problem worse. He noted he would be willing to support this amendment, but only for the non -peak months. 'ublic comment was opened. Ice Daugherty, local resident directly adjacent to the Inn, noted: Noise has always been problematic in the area; however, the Polic Department has taken positive steps to address complaints and have a positive influence in the area; " file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Intemet \PlnAgendas\2007 \mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04119/2007 Page 16 of 27 This Inn has gone through major construction and he looks to the opening; Even with restricting the loud music to the back room, the way it is our place, the noise is too loud and we cannot go onto our porch; if gets loud enough, we can't watch television in our front room, and s we have to go to the back of our place; however, the vibrations c through our whole place and there is no room to go for respite; Any improvements that are being done need to be done so as to be a public nuisance; If something can be done for everyone in the area, that would be best. tt McElroy, Director of Balboa Peninsula Business Improvement Distri :d his support of this application. The conditions on the approval ress the majority of the Police concerns regarding noise through t idor. By containing the noise in the interior area, you will not have ti smission of noise out onto the boardwalk. ip Siegel noted his support of the application. He noted that a lot nesses in the area had closed. If the noise is kept at a reasonal I, he doesn't see a problem. The management, through their allopment of the Inn, has created a huge improvement in the area a should bring in customers. lard Carnivary, a retail tenant at the Balboa Inn addition, noted he as an advantage for his business. He asked the Commission to nesses open at least six days a week. The Police Department is le and keeps crimes and criminals away. Sherrit, local property owner, noted: Last fall one of his tenants moved due to the loud noise in the the upstairs tenant has had to leave his apartment on Si afternoons due to the same noise problems; I have talked to the Planning Department, City Manager and Police Department about the noise problems; He went to the area last November when the concerts were going and it was so loud that standing next door he had to shout in order be heard; The following Friday night, his tenant called indicating at 11:15 p. he could not sleep because the noise and booming was so great; visited the tenant and confirmed that it was a zoo in the area; bouncer was at one of the doors to keep people out until someo left from inside, it was a horrible situation; the noise was booming; Staff has certainly responded to his concerns but his request " file: / /N:1 Apps\ WEBDATAI Intemet \PlnAgendas120071mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 17 of 27 be to not grant a permit because it has affected his tenant tremendously and he has lost money due to his tenants moving out; No afternoon activities are recommended by staff and the Department; He noted that if you grant this amendment and this noise contin to be problematic, does this go on indefinitely? How will it addressed? What is live entertainment? Does it include amplification of music? He noted that he had never had a problem the past 30 years last fall. missioner Hawkins asked if there was a concern of the tainment with private parties. Sherrit answered that if it disturbs the peace of his tenants, "yes "; that it happened in the past. comment was closed. missioner McDaniel asked how this would be enforced as a and not open to the public. It does sound that there are enfoi is from the testimony we have heard tonight. Lepo answered that if the police get called, they will be aware of ditions of approval so they can check to see if it is consistent with ditions. Code Enforcement will periodically check that very kind of tl see who is hosting the event, etc. Any violation of conditi )matically will necessitate the Use Permit being brought back to ininq Commission for review. rman Cole noted live entertainment is defined to include ampll c, karaoke and DJ music. No live entertainment that is open to c is allowed on weekend afternoons per staffs recommendation; being asked to approve private events be allowed to have lainment in the inside dining room area only. Staff agreed. missioner Hawkins, referring to Site and First Floor Plan col ts, asked for specifics. If we allow live entertainment in a le re footage, are we still going to need the 24 space parking waiver? Murillo answered that private events with live entertainment would o permitted on the first floor north and south dinging room areas. The ice waiver is the difference in the total net public area permitted due live entertainment. Lepo answered that based on the difference of 1 space per 50 sq per restaurant and 1 space per 35 square feet for area with :rtainment and with the square footage for the live entertainment lin "file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA\Internet \PlnAgendas \2007 \mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 18 of 27 that of the north and south dining rooms, the number of parking lived would be reduced. ,ommissioner Hawkins noted he understands the need for the proper )wner to see a return on their substantial investment, but we have al., ieard substantial concerns about the noise, etc. He asked about a reduce Brea, for instance, that the north dining area be allowed for li) entertainment only. If that works, then either the applicant can come ba( or an additional application to cover the south dining area, or we include ;ondition that allows for that re- visitation a year after this plan mplemented. I would like to see if there is support for a diminish( Illowance for live entertainment. The reason is the parking waiver of spaces should not be allowed, particularly not in this area. mmissioner McDaniel noted one of the major problems with ertainment is drums. No matter how many doors you shut, the t m will travel across the cement and it is very annoying. If we are g allow this amendment, he recommends that we condition it witt ms for live entertainment. That doesn't mean you can't have an ele m as their sound does not transfer through the foundation. The K e with parking will be real difficult for the area and he would like to F4 they operate with off -peak months before allowing the peak see Eaton noted: It is reasonable to go to 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights because a lot of wedding receptions go that late; What would be the parking waiver if the entertainment was allowed in the dining room? He questions whether it could be limited to the northern dining room only, because one of the conditions is that the partition be taken out and staffs opinion was maybe ropes or something could be used to keep the occupancy out of the one where they are required to do so by the existing conditions; Talking about live entertainment, using ropes is not going to hav much of an effect; ]:think you are going to have to allow probably th whole dining room to be allowed and is that less than the 24 waiver. Lepo noted that the net public area and the number of parking spa( lived could be reduced by applying the required 1 per 35 just to the 1,: uare feet of 1 st floor dining rooms. Murillo agreed that applying the difference between 1 to 50 and 1 to the two dining room areas (543 plus the 652) would result in an 11 sp< rking waiver. ,nmissioner Eaton noted this is more reasonable than 24. noted a one -year review. " file:// N:1 Apps1WEBDATAIinternet \PlnAgendas120071mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 19 of 27 issioner Hillgren asked if there could be public dining at the bar in side area if there was a private venue at the same time and I it be enforced? Lepo answered there was nothing physically or otherwise that lude service at the bar. Murillo added that the Inn would have to comply with the t panty constraints which for the two in -door dining rooms Dximately 87 persons. Lepo added that the Fire Marshall would get called out and if there is ition, the place would be closed down. hairperson Cole asked if the long term occupancy of the space, based e design and conditions, is not anticipated to generate any additic irking demand? Is the assumption if there are private parties in staurant that they would not generate more parking than a restaur ould provide? What about the parking availability on weekends? Is th parking concern, other than the waiver? Murillo answered that when a private event occurs, the restaur d function as a banquet facility. Total occupancy is still restricted 1 ling and Fire Code. When there are private events, there will be er parking demand for this facility related to live entertainment. S1 conditioned this to prohibit that activity on the weekend days due ina and noise. Lepo added that there are no parking problems that we know of to exis vided this is off -peak uses in the peak seasons. So you are not having rning and afternoon events on weekends when the demand for parkinc nes from beach access. The peak season would be the summer. Ron Baers, noted: Restriction of private parties to the off - season would n accommodate the peak season as the most demand for weddings June; This would put a major stumbling block into the business plan promoting a boutique inn for a private venue such as this; The demand for parking in the peak season comes from passengers of the Catalina Flyer and beach - goers; There is an interior space that is set up for dining where the li, entertainment is; a ground -floor courtyard is a mingling area but someone wants to use that space during a wedding, that would al; be a component of their serving area and a buffet could be set up that space; Depending on the event, someone could book the bar, the ' file://N:1Apps1WEBDATA1I nternet\PlnAgendas120071mn04-19-07. htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 20 of 27 and the interior space and utilize all of those functions; if that happened, sometimes the upstairs terrace can be used for dining by hotel guests; that has been done in conjunction with events and then there is no conflict. nmissioner McDaniel noted the previous testimony on the level of n Sundays when you were operating before. How will you contain ae so that your neighbors will be happy as you are opening this out area for buffets. What protection do you offer the neighbors from >e when you haven't in the past? Baers answered that the nature of the operation is changing from one :h was an open venue with live entertainment that attracted people it out which generated noise and complaints. All that will be eliminate( this will not be a public venue for entertainment in the courtyard. itionally, there will be sound attenuation improvements made to the ,lure. For the private events where the music has been inside, recen e readings taken show noise standards were being met. Complaint; e from the past and this is different now with more control and differen of people. nissioner Hillgren asked what the difference is between a public ev g versus a private event exiting. The primary parking is on the ds the beach, so people have to walk across so the noise will be th though the events are private. Baers answered the conditions are such that the exits and openi the boardwalk will be secured so there will not be a spillover out ( public walkway. I think the noise is when people come out of tina bar or in front of any other bar venues. aan Cole asked what is different about that now? Even in a there is no difference. Baers answered there is a condition about a security plan that has to b( place for these events. Part of that plan will be noise and crowd control. e other factor is there will be training of employees serving alcoho verages and they will have the knowledge to do that in a responsibl( :hairman Cole noted there is a suggestion to consider approving this ubject to not allowing the live entertainment in the peak season, being ummer and also prohibiting real drums with electronic drums bi (lowed. Lepo noted that Code Enforcement did the noise measurements ai ay registered 52 decibels at 9:30 to 9:45 p.m. Had they stayed 15 mo nutes and registered that same level, that would have violated the Noi dinance on the residential property line. That is why we put in to end tl tertainment at 9:30 p.m. and close at 10:00 p.m. The precision is goii vary because a lot of noise at 53 decibels was speech. One pers( aking noise outside on the sidewalk set off the meter. 9:30 p.m. is not )itrary hour that we chose, it was that once you get to 10:00 p.m. noise " file: / /N:\Apps1WEBDATA\ Intemet \PlnAgendas\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 21 of 27 E)ighted by that factor of 5 decibels to reflect people's greater sensitivity e later evening hours to noise. What realistically could we do to keep )m automatically becoming a noise violation? So we say that music stor 9:30 p.m. and people leave and are gone by 10:00 p.m. We ak iderstand that patrons from the Cantina and other places on the sidewa fused the meter to jump so we couldn't attribute all the noise absolutely is location. We are concerned that the Noise Ordinance would t Commission inquiry, he stated the entertainment was located inside inq room at the time the noise levels were taken. mmissioner McDaniel noted a similar problem with an inn on Balbo md. The fact that you live at the beach, you know you have to put u h the noise on Friday and Saturday nights. Patrons will be loud an iing a good time. If that comes and goes very quickly it is better, so ee with the 9:30 p.m. hour. mmissioner Hawkins noted the hours were dictated by the Noise finance. It was confirmed that it is 10:00 p.m. seven days a week. mmissioner Hillgren noted: The primary use is an Inn; An appropriate ancillary use to that is a dining facility; appropriate functions are private events that would occur; if it is allowed every single night, you cross the line; I think there needs to be limits as to how often this can occur, how we contain sound is a challenge; The concept of putting in doors and managing hours is helpful you can limit it; We need to limit the number of times we are subjecting neighbors to all these folks flooding through the neighborhood; Some reasonable limit starting with 8 times a year and a number o nights per week are appropriate to be considered as this relates to how often this kind of use would be allowed down there. erson Cole noted: He agrees this is an important historical landmark of the City; Staft's recommendations with the additional conditions seem to be a reasonable as these will better the existing situation; We are now talking about not having any live entertainment at all Saturday and Sunday afternoons, and they are improving the sot attenuation and I believe this is vital to the district; " file:l /N:\Apps\WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 22 of 27 If we put too many restrictions on it, it seems to unfairly burden th operator; He noted he is in favor of approving staffs recommendation even considering extending the hours to some extent for t events as 9:30 seems to be arbitrarily early. missioner Hawkins noted that if we give them a permit to go to 11 and there is a noise violation, they will have to be brought i Lepo answered: The caveat is not knowing where the patrons come from and asi from the noise of drum with the boom, boom boom of the amplifi music that is going to cause the meter to show there is a violation the noise ordinance; Yes, we can deal with it by imposing the condition closing 1 boardwalk side doors; the applicant would have to put an alarm because that is an emergency exit; It gets down to the minutiae of what you deal with; we can try enforce this, but there is no promise the conditions will work mirE and staff may need to come back for another review. ,ommissioner Hawkins again asked if we impose a condition that ive music to 10:30 p.m. and close at 11:00 p.m., and if the decibel sxceeds the allowable noise at 10:01 p.m., can we still go in and shut r. Lepo answered it is just not that simple. Mr. Sheritt's comments and t )stairs tenants comments about the structural -born sound that is going measured differently. The boom, boom boom thing is not going gister on the sound meter. It's there and that will drive you crazy. That e caveat I am putting in here. If you want to do this, I suggest that yl intinue this item and staff will come back and based on what you tell u want us to accomplish, and offer conditions on how we will deal wi ese matters such as structural vibration and sound; and, measuremer r noise violation on the public sidewalk between the Balboa Inn and ti sidential property to the west. We have to be very careful; that is a pub Iht -of -way. Discussion continued. n was made by Commissioner Eaton and seconded iissioner Hawkins, to approve the request with all of the conditions mended by staff, with the following modifications: The live entertainment be allowed a maximum 8 times per excluding July and August; The live entertainment occurs only within the dining rooms; " file: //N:1 Apps1 WEBDATAIInternet lPlnAgendas120071mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 23 of 27 A waiver of 11 parking spaces, and not the originally requested spaces; The live entertainment to go to 11:00 p.m. on Friday and evenings, and; There will be a one year review. missioner McDaniel asked that the drum portion be added to Eaton refused and said the a substitute motion would be made. immissioner McDaniel noted the drums are problematic and the sound is rried by the cement and there is nothing that can be done about it. immissioner Eaton noted this would be micro managing if this was put in. immissioner Hillgren asked if there was a way to monitor the vibration? immissioner McDaniel asked staff about their opinion on the drums. Has s been a problem in the past? Lepo answered that it is structural born vibrations such as do iplified music and percussion music that are problematic. I am sa pand on that, it is a big problem as you have heard from the tenant idlord. Just be clear as to what you want us to do relative to struc rn transmissions. McDaniel asked if this was part of the motion. imissioner Eaton answered, "no ", it is micro - managing entiary record of how that could be measured. nmissioner Eaton repeated the motion to approve the request with all conditions as recommended by staff, with the following modifications: The live entertainment be allowed a maximum 8 times per excluding July and August; The live entertainment occurs only within the dining rooms; A waiver of 11 parking spaces, and not the originally requested spaces; The live entertainment be extended to 11:00 p.m. on Friday Saturday evenings, and; There will be a one year review. issioner Hawkins asked staff if they are comfortable with the 11 " file: / /N:\Apps\WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas \2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 24 of 27 parking waiver. Ir. Lepo answered that we will have the exact numbers based on ining areas ( which is 1,295 square feet of net public area). missioner Eaton amended his motion to clarify that with the 11 pa e waiver subject to the confirmation that it is based upon the differ een 1 per 50 and 1 per 35 in the dining room only. The amend seconded. missioner McDaniel noted that if there are violations before the ;s back, there should be an opportunity for neighbors to have re i that year. Lepo suggested that we can come back within the first year if ning Department receives complaints. The maker of the me Baers asked if they could have July and August for the bookings. ns is fine. nmissioner Hillgren noted from the original presentation, the concept ing this special opportunity was to be sure that the Inn had busing ng the non -peak periods. The summer is a peak time and I do erstand why you have to have it during the summer as that is the tir business is doing the best. Baers noted he did not mean to imply that the enhancement was only the off -peak season. It is an enhancement for the peak season as well. wasn't trying to imply everything works fine during the peak season tha do not need to have this special venue and that it would operate wel y within the off -peak time. If you are offering this type of venue you can' someone they can't do it during July and August and they have to gc newhere else. ommissioner Hillgren said, "yes ", you could. If your business is successfu ring the peak time of season, then you can say you don't need tha siness and limit it to the off -peak periods when you need to have the ditional business happen. Baers stated he thought the issue was to put a limit on the number Jal events. We are willing to say instead of 8 to make it 5. mmissioner Eaton noted his intent was to also eliminate a conflict t s the potential to get out of hand and be egregious, and that is during nths of July and August. It might also be during June too, but he v ing to concede June because there is no arguing that is a prime mo weddings. I would not want to change my motion. sioner McDaniel noted he has come so close to voting no on tI hope the applicant will accept this and I really believe we he 1 to give the applicant the opportunity to do what you need to do " file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA \Internet\PlnAgendas \2007 \mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 25 of 27 "ove yourselves as opposed to just voting "no" on the whole thing. You 30 have the parking, you're experience for noise in the neighborhood has )t been pleasant and the Police Department says they have been called iultiple times, and I think this Commission has stretched to give you this :)portunity to prove yourself that this will work. My point to you is that this either a "yes" or "no ". ommissioner Hawkins noted there are 8 times a month during the off -pea :asons except for June. The applicant is looking for special events during ily and August; we can ratchet the numbers down to two in July and ugust. This way they are not dark and the restaurant has been given lance. He made this into a Substitute Motion with everything else in the iginal motion. ubstitute Motion failed for lack of a second. r. Baers noted his concern for the events already booked for July and ugust. And asked if the months of July and August could be waived this gar. ommissioner Eaton amended his motion for those specific 5 dates as )ted on handwritten page 31. hairman Cole asked if the applicant is in agreement with the motion and -nendments. r. Baers answered he agrees. ommissioner Hillgren asked if the doors and windows would be in place -ior to these 5 events. r. Baers answered the work has not been done yet and so could not give definite answer. ommissioner Eaton noted his amendment would include that this work be )ne in order to waive those five dates in July and August. ommissioner McDaniel seconded this amendment. ommissioner Hawkins noted that the noise attenuation improvements aed to be made prior to any live music going in. r. Baers answered there is an event scheduled for April 21st and 28th. ,iey are willing to work with you on a trial basis and come back. hairman Cole asked when the improvements would be completed. r. Baers answered 60 days. ommissioner Eaton noted his reluctance to make this part of the motion what they have been doing is not permitted under their existing permit. le revocation has only been stayed pending this meeting tonight. I don 'Tile: / /N:\Apps\WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 ant to have the Planning Commission take on the responsibility for allowing those. events to continue without the conditions in effect. Commissioner McDaniel noted his agreement stating the Commission has bent over backwards to try and make something happen. I have stretched farther than I intended and for them to ask permission after the fact, I have rouble with that. I think our motion is accepted, or we vote "no ". Chairman Cole noted the motion has been amended to allow these April vents only if all the improvements outlined in the staff have been competed. Commissioner Eaton noted he did not say completion, only conformance. How staff interprets conformance is up to them. Mr. Lepo answered that he agrees the doors should be installed by May 15th. We will work with Building Department to get the permits done. Mr. Baers stated he agrees with the further provisions that the door improvement be completed by May 15th as well as the other changes to staff recommendations as proposed. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: None Excused: Peotter and Toer e SUBJECT: Orchid Plaza (PA2005 -098) ITEM NO.4 3600 E. Coast Highway PA2005 -098 Project Update - discussion item only. Discussion Item only Mr. Lepo stated that the staff report is included as a response to Commissioner Hawkins request at the last meeting for an update on the use permit at 3600 East Coast Highway. Grading of the site is underway and nothing has been built. Commissioner Hawkins asked if the condition for the commencement of work being done within 24 months has been met. He was answered yes. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up. Mr. Lepo noted that at the last meeting, the City Council heard the appeal of the Planning Commission decision on the Newport Beach Brew Company because there was concern on the detail an specifics of the resolution, this item was continued to May 22nd; and a consideration of an acceptance of the revised appraisal for purposes of increasing the park fee was continued to April 24th at the request of the Building Industry Association. Page 26 of 27 "file: / /N:1Apps\WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120071mn04- 19- 07.htm 06120/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/19/2007 Page 27 of 27 Development Committee Commissioner Hawkins noted there was a report from Glen Ever regarding business license fees. One of the concerns noted that there are a lot of LLC's, LLP's and other legal, fictional eni are being assessed business license taxes and that they thought was unfair. Mr. Everroad explained the nature and rationale. General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Commissioner Eaton noted that both the Zoning re -write consultE and the Technical Advisory Committee members were in attenda and they went through a general expectation session. Most of advisory members would like to have priority given to their conce such as the grade and height. It was determined the first issue committee review will be the coastal bluff issue at the next mee on the 23rd Intensive Residential Occupancy Committee None. at,subseouent _meeting None. future _agenda for action and staff report None. Proiect status None. Requests for excused absences None. ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 P.M. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION "file://N:\Apps\WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas \2007\mn04- 19- 07.htm 06120/2008