Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc minutesPlanning Commission Minutes 03/22/2007 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2007 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 11 file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2007 \03222007.htm 04/06/2007 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren: Commissioner Eaton was excused, all others were present. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director aron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Principal Civil Engineer Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Daniel Campagnolo, GIS Analyst Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None ING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on March 16, 2007. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of March 8, 2007. ITEM NO. 1 Chairperson Cole noted technical problems with the printing of portions of Items 4 Approved and 5 of the minutes had been corrected. Commissioner Hawkins asked that under Public Comment, the following be added: after it, add,... and corrected that omission, to identify that the correction o he agenda. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Toerge to app rove the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Excused: Eaton ITEM NO.2 PA2006 -279 OECT: Weekes Residence (PA2006 -219) 709 Kings Road Continued to date uncertain Request to allow a residence to exceed the height limit by six inches pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 20.91. Page 1 of 11 file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2007 \03222007.htm 04/06/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 03/22/2007 Page 2 of 11 Lepo noted the applicant is revising the design in hopes to avoid the need for a ight variance so, he has requested that this item be removed from the calends be brought back only if there needs to be a variance. iblic comment was opened. • uce Trotter, local resident, noted his opposition as: • His best view overlooks the applicants house; • Protect unique qualities of the neighborhood; • A height variance to 4 stories is not compatible; • Bluff side homeowners should have the courtesy to conform to height limits so that everyone on the street can have some views also; • Circulation; and • poor design leading to health problems. David Lumberg, local resident ,noted his opposition: • House is already in the range of 5,000 square feet; • Views will be impacted; • A larger house will contribute to more weight on the cliff creating a potential for the cliff to break away and slip onto Pacific Coast Highway; already has been extensive cracking and crumbling over the years. • The City could be financially responsible if this cliff should fall. nn Bloomberg, local resident, noted her opposition: • The owner does not take care of his property; • Her view will be lost. athy Schuller, local resident, noted her opposition as her view will be impacted. ablic comment was closed. iairman Cole asked how the notification for continued hearing will be done. Will ase comments be included in the next staff report if this comes back for review? r. Lepo noted in this instance, as the continuance is not to a date certain, the sidents will be notified of that new hearing. The comments will be made part of s staff report in that event. otion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissione • awkins to continue this item indefinitely. file : //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2007 \03222007.htm 04 /06/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 03/22/2007 Page 3 of 11 (Noes: I None ITEM NO.3 Eddie V's Wildfish Restaurant (PA2005 -036) PA2005 -036 1370 Bison Avenue Approved twelve -month review of the restaurant's approved valet/parking Ung gave an overview of the staff report, noting: • Wildfish Restaurant is not operating in compliance with conditions 37 and: of Use Permit and have been operating without an approved valet parkii management plan since July 2006; • The twelve month review is now 4 months overdue; • Staff has received a revised valet parking management plan that has bey approved by both the restaurant operator and The Irvine Company; • It is under review by the City's Traffic Engineer and, because of that, staff recommending that the Commission allow additional time to allow tl restaurant operator to address staffs concern and to revise the pl, accordingly. imissioner McDaniel stated that this shopping center is parked in the zoning for the City of Newport Beach. Ung noted the entire shopping center has a surplus of twenty -one (21) parki •es beyond what the City of Newport Code require. The shopping center w ally designed and approved under the City of Irvine jurisdiction. Due oration, this shopping center is now under the jurisdiction of the City port Beach. The City of Newport Beach approved the Use Permit for I 3urant. )mmissioner McDaniel noted that there are enough parking spaces there. :�t that this is a popular shopping center is not the responsibility of )mmission. He noted that this issue should be settled between The Ir )mpany and the tenant. This is not an issue that the City of Newport Be ould be involved with. If this means we remove Conditions 37 and 38, then what the Commission should do. imissioner Hawkins noted he is not in favor of deleting those conditions. -e are parking problems in the center. It seems as if the landlord and tenan come to some sort of agreement, and if we can get it solidified by City staff would be excellent. irman Cole discussed previous Planning Commission deliberations on Ung noted that the other restaurants within the shopping center do not have .ing management plans; however, staff did have a concern with the parkir iirements at the time the restaurant Use Permit was processed. That is whe requested an informal parking study, which the applicant prepared. Tf indicated that for a short period of time, from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Friday, tt g supply dropped down to 90, which is 9 parking spaces short for parking size restaurant. A parking management plan is designed to address th -tfall and allow the applicant to provide valet services, which their patror file:HF: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2007 \03222007.htm 04/06/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 03/22/2007 Page 4 of 11 airman Cole noted the previous traffic engineer noted that parking demand is a namic situation and accommodating demand would be something worked out sr a period of time. This is a landlord /tenant issue and not an area in which the y wants to be involved. • mmissioner Toerge noted that there is a use permit requirement for a traffic magement plan, and apparently it is not being adhered to so the applicant is in lation of that particular condition. He asked that in the event the Planning immission feels revocation of the use permit is determined, what would be the >cess? Lepo answered that the applicant would be notified, the hearing set and the Lion could be revocation based on findings consistent that the operation of this tablishment is detrimental to the community, which could include the adjoining tablishments, and find that the restaurant is operating in violation of those nditions. If the facts support the findings that the operation of the restaurant is ntrary to the terms of the use permit, you can change the conditions, including auction of hours. mmissioner Toerge noted he is not in favor of revocation, but it is clear that this a potential option. Moving in that direction would compel the parties to a mpromise and figure this out. He is happy to hear that the restaurant and The ine Company have come to some agreement. blic comment was opened. chael Cho, Esquire, representing the applicant, noted: • The plan currently implemented by the valet company has changed from • what was originally approved at the Planning Commission hearing in 2005; • The plan provided was one that was created without the benefit of any real work experience or operation, as the restaurant had not been constructed yet; • Since the restaurant has been opened, the valet company, The Irvin Company and the tenant have been working together to best operate the valet plan in the Center; • What has been provided to staff is the current operational plan that has been approved by The Irvine Company, tenant, and the valet company; • We will cooperate with staff if it is determined that this matter should be continued to study this plan and to ensure that it is to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineering; • The only issue at hand is the drop off and pick up area that is current) directly in front of the restaurant. The traffic engineer prefers there is a system whereby there is no obstruction of the drive aisle as a result o someone stopping to give their car to the valet; • The original plan was to have this valet area in back of the restaurant but it became problematic with the backing up and creating a safety problem; • The Irvine Company assigned 99 valet parking spaces in the area in front o the restaurant. The current plan now calls for 82, which frees up 17 spaces for the general public; • Not all restaurant customers use valet parking; • He then introduced his team members who would be available to discus any pertinent questions. • rmmissioner Hawkins, referencing Exhibit 2, noted there appears to have been 1 spaces, not 99 as indicated. Why was there a difference? file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2007 \03222007.htm 04/06/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 03/22/2007 Page 5 of 11 Cho answered that under the terms of the lease, the tenant was entitled to 13 ces designated as part of the lease exhibit. When the applicant came to th fining Commission, and working with staff, it was determined that only 9 s were actually required with the practice that as the evening wore on, an s that became available out of the 99 would then be relinquished. The e not used all 99 spaces. He then gave examples. With valet and stackin should accommodate the restaurant needs while complying with the Cif Arement that no double stacking is used. irman Cole noted this is a revised plan that has just now been formalized Irvine Company, the tenant and the valet company. He noted a number rs from other shopping tenants describing parking shortages. Will this n address those concerns? Cho answered that there will never be a situation wherein every tenant mfortabie with the parking. The problem is that the shopping center is ccess and tenants' sales have increased. This restaurant was brought in a: finer time restaurant with no lunch business as a way to have a restaurant it ccessful center with adequate parking. Currently, the plan gives back aces to the overall shopping center. The biggest change in the middle of t rking field is giving up the valet parking so the traffic circulation is improved it area. We believe that it is most efficient to pickup the cars in the front, a II work with the Traffic Engineer to come up with a suitable solution. Miyaoka, Vice President of The Irvine Company Retail Properties, noted: . They have an important interest in the success of this center; The Wildfish building was vacant for two years after the center was opei At that time, lunch and daytime business was brisk, causing the parkin! to fill to capacity; at dinner in the evening there were always unused par spaces; . We chose a dinner restaurant operation only to complement the tenant and the reality of the parking situation; . Their success does come with certain parking pressures during certain c and hours. Because of this, we conducted a parking study over a 4 -m period on Thursday, Friday and Saturdays; . We are confident that the proposal before you with 99 spaces is the answer; • This center had been parked at 9 spaces per 1,000 square feet versus 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet; • The average valet parking demand during the peak period of 6 p.m. to p.m. is 36 cars with a peak of 79 cars; • Since Wildfish's opening, sales in the center were up 18 %; • This modification allows for a reasonable amount of valet parking tt balances the needs of the entire center; • He asked that this plan be approved. Commission inquiry, he noted that parking is challenging from time to time. ichael Bonfa noted that parking is challenging in the center. It is important is matter is continually monitored so that parking is available for all patrons. It Fishman, regional manager with Islands Restaurant, noted the Center :essful. The issue we have at night is that our guests are passing spac rved for valet parking while there are no other spaces left. He recommen there be free valet for the entire center. file: / /F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007 \03222007.htm 04 /06/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 03/22/2007 Page 6 of 11 Miyaoka, noted as it relates to free valet: • The revised parking plan will reduce the total number of spaces that were being blocked off; • • Free valet won't work primarily because customers use it during the beginning of the dinner hour at 5 -5:30 and by 6:15 p.m. the entire valet area will be filled; therefore, customers coming to dinner at a later hour will probably be faced with a valet that is filled and be more frustrated with finding a place to park. nmissioner Hawkins asked how the free valet operated during lunch, who s? Capacity issue? Miyaoka answered that the fee is passed on as a common area cost to all the ants. We want to offer customers a choice, as some customers don't use vale Ung. lic comment was closed. airman Cole noted an option would be to give the applicant additional time to mit a plan (which they are in the process of doing) that would satisfy the one - r review and then have the option of asking him to come back again. Ung answered, yes. nmissioner Toerge noted the parking plan has not been reviewed by the ming Commission. Ung noted the latest plan is being reviewed by the Traffic Engineer. • nmissioner Hawkins asked if staff is comfortable with the revised number o (ing spaces. Ung answered staff is comfortable with the numbers on the latest plan, the r issue is the drop -off location. `.ion was made by Commissioner Hawkins, and seconded by Commissioner titer, that the Traffic Engineer, approve to the extent he can, the modified plan then the Planning Commission will review the plan within a year. He noted his cern that the shopping center has parking problems, but we do not need to ew in detail, the parking plan. The earlier plan that was approved was done ugh the Public Works Department without our input and it proved very servative and required modification. nmissioner Hillgren noted this is a landlord issue and that if a tenant is to be )onsible for a parking management plan, the tenant would also have to control common parking area which is, in fact, controlled by the landlord. The landlord tenant have to work this out and this is not something that this Commission ds to see again, year after year. I would like to see that this is dealt with at the f level and, ultimately, just between landlord and tenant. >stitute Motion was made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by nmissioner Hawkins to allow staff to approve the modified parking plan and there be no further requirement for review. nmissioner Toerge noted it needs to be clear that the Traffic Engineer needs tol ew the plan and add conditions and then approve it if it is acceptable; however, file: / /F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2007 \03222007.htm 04 /06/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 03/22/2007 is a requirement that a parking management plan 'be kept in place and Die. There has been language in the staff report stating there has been g management plan for a few months. There is a process whereby < ier of the public can bring action before us. I support the substitute mot oes not need to come back to us. If it does become a problem, action will for this to come back for review. nissioner Peotter noted conditions 37 and 38. Condition 38 requires a twe i review by the Planning Commission from the date of opening, which satisfied tonight and that will go away. Condition 37 stays in effect that ved valet/parking management plan shall be implemented by the appli( r future operator. )wing a brief discussion, Mr. Lepo noted the motion would be to accept ve -month review and accept the traffic plan that has been submitted Iment of the twelve -month review. rson Cole asked if conditions could be amended by this action. was "no" as amendment of Use Permit was not publicly noticed. Lute Motion was restated that the Commission is accepting the rr / submitted parking management plan, that the plan shall be subject to s and approval, that staff shall continue to monitoring parking, and that thl constitute fulfillment of Use Permit Condition requiring 12 -month review. Hawkins noted he could not support the substitute motion. Other tenants n here tonight to express their concerns of the parking issues. He noted n this change, Commission needs to see if there are enough spaces I fled and if the drop -off location works. )mmissioner McDaniel noted that from a zoning standpoint there are an extra 2' rking spaces. For the City of Newport Beach, that should be adequate for wha going on. We are penalizing one tenant for the success of the entire center. ere is plenty of parking there, and they need to work to make it happen. on substitute motion yes: Peotter, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: Hawkins Excused: I Eaton, The Wine Gallery (PA2006 -271) 2411 E. Coast Highway uest to allow the expansion of an existing retail wine store that currently ha: :ssory, on -site wine tasting, pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 20.8£ Dholic Beverage Outlets). The applicant also is requesting to extend the ing hour of the store from 9:00 pm to 10:00 pm on Fridays and Saturdays only. me Murillo gave an overview of the staff report. He noted the • First page of the staff report regarding the proposed expansion results i 64% of floor area, should be 281 % increase. Condition 9 should limit the delivery of stock to between the hours of 8 a. and 6 p.m. PA2006 -271 Approved Page 7 of 11 file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvaiin\PC min etal \2007 \03222007.htm 04/06/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 03/22/2007 Page 8 of 11 Cho, representing the applicant, noted they agree and accept the )mmendations for approval. They also agree to the proposed changes to the ditions. nmissioner McDaniel asked why do you need 10:00 p.m. on Friday and • irday. Cho answered that there have been requests from various organizations to do cial events, particularly charities, that want something that is unique for fund ing. The later hour was requested for those types of events and tastings. ilic comment was opened. rlic comment was closed. Lion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner rge to adopt Resolution approving Use Permit No. 2006 -038 allowing the ansion of the existing retail wine store and expansion of operating hours with following changes: • Page 16 on Resolution, insert in third line'... and permitted, so as to read, "WHEREAS, an application was filed by S & O Wine Merchants, with respect to property located at 2411 E. Coast Highway, and legally described as Lot 2 of Block B, of Tract No. 740, requesting approval to expand an existing and permitted retail wine store that includes on -site wine tasting as an accessory use....." • A new fact in Resolution, in support of Finding 2, to be inserted and numbered as letter "d" • level, Limiting wine tasting to the street level, and limift the basement use to storage use only, the Building Department and the Fire Department find and recommend that this application comply with all exiting requirements. • Condition 1 - add, '......built and operated in substantial conformance...', so as to read, so as to read, "The development shall be built and operated in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plans, stamped an dated March 22, 2007, except as modified by the conditions set forth herein." • Condition 5 - add at the end of the sentence, '......and shall be the only area where such tasting is permitted, so as to read, "The wine tasting area on the street (main) level shall not exceed 233 square feet in area, and shall be the only area where such tasting is permitted." • Condition 7 - add at the end,'... However, any such Special Events Permit shall be subject to Condition 6, so as to read, "A special events permit is required for any wine tasting event or promotional activity outside the normal operational characteristics of this retail business that would increase the expected occupancy beyond 15 patrons and two employees at any one time or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code to require such special events permit. However, any such Special Events Permit shall be subject to Condition 6." • • Condition 11 - four lines down insert after,'..... limited to wine tasting of 2 ounces or less....' so as to read, "...On -site consumption of wine shall be limited to wine tasting of 2 ounces or less and shall be accessory and file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007 \03222007.htm 04 /06/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 03/22/2007 subordinate to the principal retail use...." Commissioner Peotter noted that condition 8 should also reflect "11:00 a.m." and "11:00 p.m " Mr. Cho noted in terms of the changes, the applicant agrees. He stated that the BC only permits wine tasting in the designated 233 square foot area. Commissioner Hawkins explained the new findings of fact. Following a brief discussion it was determined to remove the first clause of the added fact for Finding 2 as noted by the strikethrou h. Ayes: Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Excused: Eaton SUBJECT: Parking In -Lieu Fee Report ITEM NO.5 Receive and file. Discussion Item Mr. Lepo noted this was included in the agenda based on a request by the Commission to have the same staff report that was provided to the City Council February 27, 2007. This is a discussion item only; no action is required. Commissioner Toerge noted an in -lieu parking program is necessary and is required by the General Plan. It will be tough to implement city -wide and then just build a parking structure in Corona del Mar when all the City is contributing to it. I need to be somewhat district - oriented. Commissioner Hawkins noted the importance of this program. What the City needs is a blended parking program to build an adequate parking supply. The cost of these spaces is astronomical, which means that a wavier of any parking paces is a subsidy in that amount. It is important to do everything we can to initiate a parking program that could include a metered parking at market rates, in ieu programs, waivers in the appropriate situation, but an overall and comprehensive program should be supported. Chairman Cole asked if there is going to be a specific program for Commission to review. Mr. Lepo answered that City Council directed staff to work with the Committee, and with their input, to develop a comprehensive plan to incorporate all valid means. Once that is done, it will come back to the Commission for their review and comments. Commissioner Hawkins noted that at the next EDC meeting he will be making a motion recommending that the Council retain a parking consultant to do the comprehensive program that is necessary. SUBJECT: GIS Application /Online Current Planning Case Log Update ITEM NO. 6 leive and file. Discussion Item Mr. Lepo noted this is an update on a previous demonstration and an explanation of how the Commissioners now have access to the City's internal programs. Page 9 of 11 file: / /F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2007\03222007.htm 04/06/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 03/22/2007 Campagnolo, noted: Access to GIS application from outside the City's internal network. The ability to view the discretionary planning activities related to a parcel. Recent improvements to a pull -down menu containing certain search filters that is now included to make finding current projects easier. continued on wireless access, laptops and links to staff reports. Planning Commission thanked Mr. Campagnolo for sharing his expertise. BUSINESS City Council.Follow-uD Mr. Lepo noted there was an introduction of the Ordinance amendi Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code relative to Development Agreements a the circumstances under which Development Agreements are required I the General Plan; proposal to increase the park in -lieu fees from $6,000 $33,000, was continued at the request of the Building Industry Associati and will be heard at the next meeting, as well as the appeal of the Planni Commission determination related to the Newport Brewery Company. Report from Planning representative to the Development Committee Commissioner Hawkins noted the meeting has been rescheduled to 28th. Report Commissioner Toerge noted they reviewed the consultants' proposal ai budget at the last meeting. Commissioner Hawkins noted the expense the proposal. Commissioner Toerge stated the next meeting is schedul for Wednesday, March 28th. He suggested putting a line item for representative to the IROC (Intense Residential Occupancy Committee) the Additional Business section of the agenda. At the last meeting motion was made by one of the members suggesting that City Cour request that Senator Harmon's bill (Senate Bill 1000) be amended to lir these facilities so that they could not be closer than 1,000 feet from o another regardless of who owns them. The motion passed and the C Council has been asked to write a letter to Senator Harmon to inclu these changes. The next meeting is March 29th. Matters which a Plai subse uen_t_meeting Chairman Cole asked about the e-mail address links for the Planr Commission members. Commissioner McDaniel noted that he could his personal e-mail address. It was noted that a City e-mail address cx be established for any Commissioner who wishes one. Commissioners to get in touch with Ginger and let her know which one to put on website. It was determined that the a -mails would be posted on Internet. e. Matters which a Planning-Commissiome—rnia-y- wish to. pla Page 10 of 11 • • • file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2007 \03222007.htm 04 /06/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 03/22/2007 Page 11 of 11 None. Project status Commissioner Hawkins noted his, concern about 15th and Monrovia. Lepo noted that there had been a request for a lot line adjustment invo the Isla Vista project. The request was approved by the Zc Administrator to move the lot line between the two lots to the soul right -of -way line on 15th Street. An appeal of the Zoning Adminisl approval of the lot line adjustment will be brought to the Plar Commission in May. He then noted that the ARIES project will be brc back at the next meeting. Re uests for excused absences Commissioner Hillgren may be late or not able to attend the April meeting due to a family commitment that same evening. Commissioi Peotter noted he may not be able to attend the April 5th meeting as well. p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • • file:HF: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2007 \03222007.htm 04 /06/2007