Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc minutesPlanning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 2007 Regular Meeting - 5:00 p.m. Page 1 of 22 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007\01042007.htm 03/0712007 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter and McDaniel - STAFF PRESENT: Sharon 2. Wood, Assistant City Manager David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, , Transportation /Development Services Manager Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Jamie Murillo, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary and Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on December 28„ 2006. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of December 7, 2006. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Approved Peotter to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, and Toerge Noes: None Abstain: None ITEM NO.2 UBJECT: Thirty First Street, LLC (PA2006 -031) PA2006 -031 407, 409, 411 & 413 31 st Street Approved Use Permit to establish a height limit of 31 -feet, exceeding the base height limit o 6 -feet, for the construction of four mixed -use buildings and approval of a commercial floor area ratio (FAR) less than the minimum 0.25 FAR required for fixed -use development projects. In addition, the applicant is requesting the approval of a Modification Permit to allow parking spaces to encroach within the ront and rear setbacks and a lot line adjustment to adjust the interior property ines of four lots into four equally -sized parcels. James Campbell gave an overview of the staff report, noting that at the 'as Baring, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to make changes to the project related to the architecture and entrances to the commercial units and Page 1 of 22 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007\01042007.htm 03/0712007 Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 Page 2 of 22 �ment of the retail component; and minimize possible particularly for units adjacent to Rudy's Pub and Grill. Murillo added that: • Each building will be designed with 750 feet of commercial on the grOL floor and a two -level residential unit above. • There are four discretionary applications including a use permit increased height and reduced commercial floor area; modification parking space encroachment into the front and rear setbacks; and, a lot I adjustment. • Changes proposed by the applicant are modifying the roof structures bring the height closer to compliance to the requirements of the basic hei, limit; commercial parking space encroachments have been reduced, a signage has been enhanced to highlight the commercial storefronts. • To reduce potential noise impacts to the residents, the applicant t proposed the use of sound insulating doors and windows for all units a eliminating a balcony from the unit adjacent to Rudy's. • The applicant has agreed to record a real estate disclosure on the propert informing any potential buyers that the units are located in a commen district and may be subject to noise impacts or disturbances. Wilson, applicant, Bill Guidero, architect, and Dan Sassa, noted r concerns that had been raised and addressed: . Requesting a lot line adjustment to redesign 4 equal contiguous lots for project. . Referencing a PowerPoint presentation, noted the existing site loc current buildings, and placement of current commercial and residential. . The only commercial encroachment is for the handicap parking space front as they have conformed to the commercial parking in the rear • Areas denoting parking modifications were noted; design enhancing the lighting of the project; land compatibility issues with residential in the Cannery Village; and a vicinity map of the project was discussed noting the location of Rudy's and the Newport Beach Brewing Company. • They have talked to the owner of Rudy's and discussed plans. • Elevations of existing buildings have been changed since the last meeting. • Sliding doors have been removed so there is no access going out the back of the buildings. . Commercial signage has been increased with use of banner signage. . Interior stairwells for residential units will help sound attenuation as they on the opposite side of where the Brewing Company and Rudy's are. . There will be double paned windows on all units. Commission inquiry, Mr. Wilson discussed the different elevations, noting cement of the sign panels and the plans included in the staff report would file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2007 \01042007.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 Page 3 of 22 Ithe actual development. ,cussion followed on the parking that includes one residential tandem :losed garage for the residential. The commercial setbacks in the rear are compliance, which is a change from the last presentation. Buildings reased in width. nissioner Cole asked how much the height of the front barrel vaulted roof reduced? e Murillo answered that on the previous plan, the front and rear vaulted ban had a midpoint of 29 feet; the latest proposal has the front barreled ro oint at 27 1/2 feet and the rear barreled roof has been designed to comp the 26 foot midpoint. The dormer midpoints remain the same at over 29 1 The overall height does conform. Cole asked about flipping the entrances. Wilson answered that the residential is entered as far away from Rudy's sible and is an interior entrance. The main issues were ventilation and li keeping those buildings 10 foot clear from the side property line and 8 feet upper part. ,ioner McDaniel noted these are going to be rental units. Are on being sold off as homes later on? Wilson noted his long range plan is for investment only and his intent is ssion continued on the entrances for the residential and commercial units. ence was made to the PowerPoint displays, deed restrictions, residential or floor, Cannery Village theme of metal roofs commercial with residentia n, commercial with roll up doors that are staggered, congregation areas I, lighting, concept of modem row houses and differences between the sptual renderings. e Murillo noted that the previous proposal had 3 rear parking spaces )ached into the setbacks, 2 commercial and 1 residential tandem ing. Within the front setback it was the handicap parking space )ached. This latest proposal has the two commercial parking spaces at in compliance with the 10 foot setback and only the rear residential par e encroaches 5 feet into that setback. Within the front setback, nercial handicap space encroaches five feet. missioner Toerge asked for the rational of the development standards they create the physical hardship and create the need for this modification. 3mie Murillo noted that in working with the applicant and trying to develop r Worming plan and going through the different alternatives, we came to the �alization that the code requirement for parking and setbacks have created < )rdship. The Cannery Village Specific Plan for this project encourage: :destrian retail- oriented development that would require the commercia orefronts to be brought up to the front property line. However, with the numbe required parking spaces it is almost impossible as they have to be located it ant and to the rear of the property. To develop to the minimum commercial FAR would actually require additional parking that can not be accommodated on site. tall has realized that there is a problem to develop the project that is consisten file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007\01042007.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 Page 4 of 22 the Specific Plan. Toerge noted that the Code needs to be changed. Lepo agreed. He noted the parking requirements and problems act pliance under the current standards. There is a hardship created by dards and they do need to be changed. imissioner Toerge noted that he sees the rational but this puts the emission in a bad spot as they have to consider other modification requests. I Ad be something that is tangible on the site such as slopes, lot configuration not our Code. Lepo noted this is specifically within the Cannery Village Specific Plan and Dover the technical issue is that this property is disadvantaged by its location in the geographic area that is covered by this Plan. We need to have the emission aware of this, as we realize at staff level going through different ms, that there is this problem. Yes, we anticipate that this will be brought and with an overall update of the Zoning Ordinance as this does need to be essed. ussion continued on the use of this resolution to fix this area. lic comment was opened. v Wetherhault, local resident, noted his concern of this property as potential I and rehab facility. Carson, owner of Rudy's Pub and Grill noted he had a meeting to discuss hi: Berns with the project applicant and the potential problems and issues. The icant had noted he would talk to future renters of the commercial aspect. Mr -on noted he supports this project. ioner Hawkins noted that a type of disclosure regarding your business renters will protect you sufficiently? . Carson answered no, not really; however, this type of facility being built the ng with the applicant's approach and willingness to work is something they c and work with. By having people sign a disclosure, at least they are aware fact beforehand and hopefully less problems will happen in the future. 1 Ii fact that there is new development within the community and this will help well. Hawkins then discussed the disclosure for buyers and /or lessees. Carson noted it would be a constraint. It is not an ideal situation iebody is going to develop it and at least I have the opportunity to work developer to try and make a positivist situation for both of us. comment was closed. Wilson then presented a letter from a local resident in support of nissioner Hawkins noted the condition refers to a "for sale project" and indicated that is not your intent. Would you be amenable to a condition file: //F:\Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007 \01042007.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 Page 5 of 22 have a lease provision providing similar protection to the adjacent s as Condition 18 does in the for sale incident? Wilson noted he would not like to be bound by that, but the key thing is if ness has posted hours and these are their services and someone is enforcir I think people moving down here will know what they are getting in to. It is n g to be a perfect world as you have residences in a commercial zone. Chairman Cole's inquiry, Mr. Wilson noted he has read, understands ees to all the conditions contained in the staff report. Harp noted his office has not drafted this language before, but they can do s the approval of the City Attorney. In the past, complaints have been th ers are moving out due to noise and problems of that nature. The owner the iplains they are losing the tenants due to the noise, so that is typically how ies back to the City. nmissioner Toerge noted it doesn't matter whether someone is a renter or ier when they come in here to talk about a disturbance issue. This project, :n all the issues, is a close call and I won't be supportive of it unless the losure is for informing all potential occupants. Changing the word to 'occupant' notify a potential buyer or renter of any issues there. nmissioner Hawkins noted we are discussing recording the document.I vever, he could accept that change. :ussion continued on notification of occupants of the space and the missioner Hawkins noted that Condition 18 needs to be re- worked. As ial owner, nothing will be recorded in connection with this use against him could be worked out. We can develop two conditions that will address mt owner, the potential buyer and the lessee. sioner Peotter noted the renderings shown in the presentation than those in the packet. He asked which ones were correct? Wilson answered that the original elevations in the staff report are the Peotter asked about Condition 36 with approval by the City curb cuts. Brine answered it would not be approved by City Council but would /ed by the City Traffic Engineer. Lepo suggested adding, 'or appropriate approval authority. iissioner Eaton pointed out that he believed that the condition was origit d correctly, as there is a City Council policy to the effect that City Cot ral is required of new driveway encroachments that remove street pare there are alleys available to provide parking and vehicular access to ties involved. Murillo added that this condition was specifically at the request of the ks Department for City Council approval. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2007\01042007.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01 /04/2007 Peotter asked about Condition 27, stating it seems redundant. Murillo noted there are alternatives such as fire sprinklers. We are requiri the applicant comply with standard Building Code and so I highlighted some issues that the Building Department raised. :ussion ensued on the responsibility that the applicant will have to notify int when they are entering a lease and that if the applicant would eventL the property, he would have to disclose and record as a deed restriction. :ed that this disclosure will be part of the lease. on was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissio 'kins to approve Use Permit No. 2006 -001, Modification Permit No. 2006-0 Line Adjustment No. 2006 -010 subject to findings and Conditions ification that a new drafted condition that reflects a notification to tenants as potential buyers. Toerge noted he supports this project with the modifications to ommissioner Eaton noted he would not support this motion as this project appropriate. The General Plan has been changed and now says residential o permitted in the central portions of lots in the Cannery Village. Trying )mbine residential with commercial creates several problems such as 1 odification request on the FAR, the modification request on the parking in fn id creates the fact that the driveway cuts have to go to City Council and all at because the standards don't work. The compatibility problem with Rudy's, site of the cooperative attitude that has been expressed by both the applicant a tuner of Rudy's, will come back as a major issue. This project should wait u e new Implementation Ordinances have been adopted for the General Plan a much better oroiect could be sited on this orooerty. Eaton and Toerge None ITEM NO. 3 ECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company (Use Permit No. 3485) PA2006 -177 2920 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach Brewing Company has operated a restaurant/brewp ant to Use Permit No. 3485 since 1994. This permit was issued by the City and it was subsequently amended in 1999. The City has received save laints related to the operation of the use and the Planning Commission v ate the complaints, the operational character of the use and the conditio which the use operates. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commissi require alteration of the operation or it may delete or modify conditions val. The Commission also may conclude that no changes are necessary a ation of the Use Permit may be considered at this time. >sioner Hawkins noted that due to a financial conflict, he was from deliberation on this item. David Lepo noted that a request for a continuance on this matter had be lived from Mr. Bruce J. Low to allow some of the residents in the area id. Following discussions with Mr. Low, that request was withdrawn. Lepo noted that the conditions contained in the staff report were those agreed upon by the applicant. He noted that he has read the histc Approved Page 6 of 22 file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007 \01042007.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 Page 7 of 22 )rmation on this subject and in talking with all parties concerned, there have :n improvements with the current operation. By.admission of the applicant y noted the residents did have valid concerns that they have hence beer tressed. There is an understanding that there is not just one establishment tha > created the problem in the area, so there is a range of opinions on what the )ropriate action by the Planning Commission should be by local residents. Bra is an issue that remains on the restriction on the amount of eating area tha available on the weekdays and the weekends. This is an issue for the nediate residents due to lack of guest parking during the summer months. other concern is the hours of evening operation. The Planning Commission car 3nge the hours, however, there is more of an interest on the amount of eatinc ia. Staff is asking for direction from the Planning Commission. Campbell, Senior Planner, gave a brief overview of the staff report noting: • The Brewing Company has volunteered: when a queue forms at 9:30 o 10:00 in the evening, they will move it and take patrons in from the Newpor Boulevard side of the building. • They have instituted an enhanced security operation with more parking to patrols. • They have sent all their employees and owners to training under the LEAD! program as conditioned. • Bottle recycling - no dumping outside during late hours to prevent noise. • They have agreed to put in a trash dumpster cover to provide visual relief. • The conditions of approval contained in the December 29th memorandum are reflective of all these changes in total. The Brewing Company is agreeable to the changes. • At Commission inquiry, he noted these voluntary changes have occurrec since the last meeting, and there was one police investigation report dates October 2006. Commission inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Aaron Harp noted: • In order to modify a condition of a use permit, either there has to be determination of grounds for revocation, or, if in complying with our It condition regarding the health, safety and welfare, you can find a violation. • In this instance, if there is an agreement regarding voluntary modification conditions, then you don't have to find those grounds for revocation exist. • If there is not an agreement what the modified conditions should be, y would have to find that there is grounds for revocation in order to modify t conditions. • Based on the presented evidence from what 1 see the grounds do ex based on primarily the testimony that came out of the initial meetings. • What we have seen from the Brewery is a willingness to work with the C to resolve the problems associated with the facility. • Based on the police report that was prepared, and from the independe investigation, it appears that those initial violations of the use permit ha been corrected by voluntary measures taken by the Brewing Company. • What they are proposing is reasonable and everyone agrees as to what tl conditions should be. There may be some disputes whether a few of the should go a little farther as some of the residents would like to see chang that the Brewing Company is not in agreement with. • Overall, the Brewing Company has taken substantial steps to take corre the violations. • There seems to be some ambiguity as to what the condition of the Coas Commission was to begin with. Correspondence that went to the Coas Commission said what the condition that is contained in the use permit sa file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2007 \01042007.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 now. It says Monday thru Friday at 1500 square feet. It did not say tl was a condition that would enforce that to be daily. There are d restrictions and if the California Coastal Commission wants to find that tl are violations to those conditions, those are other agency's concerns. Our condition is clear as to what it says and it does not mirror what California Coastal Commission says. No change to Condition 6 is being suggested by staff. Craig Frizzell, Detective Services Commander of the Police Department, • Following the last meeting on this subject, a police investigation w conducted at the request of the City Attorney's office. • There was a total of 7 visits between the end of August thru the last day • October. The last visit was specifically to address Condition 6 to see restaurant was opened. the The other visits were primarily during prime time weekend evenings multiple detectives from vice and intelligence units. We did not find much of anything that went on there. They would scour the parking lot and order food in the restaurant until before closing and took an underage minor to see if she would be allc in, she wasn't and was told by the door person that no one under 21 c enter in after 10:00 p.m. without an adult. This operation has never been a problem. However, it is there is an over - concentration of licenses. the area • Reporting District 15 has 73 liquor license in an area that is .327 squc miles. That is the problem, this operator we do not believe is the problem. • At Commission inquiry he affirmed that the investigations happened late night. • There would be no difference if this investigation occurred during t summer or any other time of the year. • Based upon his experience, this was a comprehensive investigation. • We will continue to pay visits in time to be sure that they are still compliance. Campbell noted that the Brewing Company is voluntarily keeping the kitcl i until the establishment closes. Anyone who wants to can order from the man Cole asked for a discussion on the difference between a bar and a p the original Council intent as to whether this was a bar versus Lepo noted: Per the minutes of the Council 1999 meeting when they approved the T 75 license, the intent was well intentioned; however, the terms of the permit would have made it very clear and specific enforceable condition memorialized that premise on which the permit was granted, which was applicant wanted to get this license to get more food served after the he of 10 or 11 o'clock until 1 o'clock in the morning. That was the understanding, but we could have done a better job with conditions. Harp added that he had reviewed the minutes and it was clear that the to have food served up to closing, that it operate in a restaurant -like n re alcohol was sold as well. What was initially seen when the Brewery Page 8 of 22 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2007\01042007.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 was there were no condiments on the table, no food was sold or it was a vs cited menu, and basically it turned into a bar at night. The changes that th ve now made have turned it back into more of what the original intent m rich is a full menu with condiments available and operation more like term restaurant/brewpub is in all the conditions and the facility is operating mer McDaniel asked about an age requirement for entrance or accompanied by an adult? Harp answered that they do allow people under the age of 21 in mpanied by an adult. Lepo added that the LEADS (Licensing Educational on Alcohol and Drug Tram and discussion with the Police Department tells you that any place with )r license should be responding that way. The employees are instructed manner as the program does not distinguish between establishments. issioner McDaniel noted it still means it is a bar more than it is a restaurant. bar that sells food. Discussion continued on definitions, Condition 10 s from 1999 and interpretations. ssioner Cole noted that the issue to be discussed tonight modify or revoke the use permit for the Brewing Company. rs keep their comments on the issues of after hours, al conditions. comment was opened. is whether He asked behavior, Kolbly, General Manager of the Newport Beach Brewing Company, noted: • The queue line change has worked well. • The full menu has been advantageous especially with the boat pars parties that came in for food. • In 1995, they had a Type 23 beer and wine license with hours from 11 Sunday through Thursday and 1:00 a.m. on the weekends. • In 1999, they got a Type 75 liquor license and lost 1/2 hour Monday throL Thursday, and the weekends are still 1:00 a.m. • In 1995, when they opened up, they had the policy of carding people a 10:00 p.m., which is the same policy today to protect their license. • The LEADs certificate program has been the better instructional program. • There is an open door policy and the establishment is run the same v anytime of the week so the police can come in anytime and do investigation. Every brewpub cards after 10:00 p.m. in order to protect their licenses. There are other restaurants that card as well as the brewpub. We still maintain a higher percentage of food sales than alcohol sales have since day one. . At Commission inquiry he noted he would not agree t Condition 6 closing down part of his establishment Sundays. There are a number of families that come in to that space. o a modification on Saturdays be served and s. ien Miles, attorney representing the Newport Brewing Company, noted that had been distributed to the Planning Commissioners as part of Page 9 of 22 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2007\01042007.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 Page 10 of 22 He gave an overview of the brief, noting: • Directions given to the applicant were to be solution - oriented and address the concerns of the residents, which they have done. • Line relocation to the front of the building was an effort that included tenant improvements assuring safety and effectiveness. • Security Plan - letter sent to residents regarding security beyond the hours of operation of the Brewing Company. The security team is on site 30 minutes after closure and deal with the City's Municipal parking lot as well as the Brewing parking lot. • LEADs program - alcohol training done for owners, operators and employees focusing on the prevention of underage drinking. Carding is an important element. • If there is an effort to challenge the permit condition than that would be the preferable option. Condition 6 in the use permit is clear and we have had several years implementing it. There is case law on point directed to the California Coastal Commission unable to, after a justifiable reliance on a vested right, come back and change it. • He then noted that he made reference to the October 13, 1993 letter. • He stated that the hours before 5 p.m. are high food volume hours. • The Brewing Company is pushing food as they have the issue of alcohol versus food sales receipts. • At Commissioner inquiry, he noted that they have read, understand and agree to all the recommended changes to the conditions as contained in the staff report. (12/29/2006 supplemental report) Aic comment was opened. w Wetherhault, local resident, noted: • His disappointment with the Planning Department and City Council as appears that they focus on aspects of how to get around issues if there is threat of a law suit. • He noted circumstances with a rehab facility in the area. • There is a parking issue before 5 p.m. on the weekends. It was clear th; what Coastal Commission reflected as that space was for seven days week, not just Monday through Friday. He wants to see the City sta enforcing the Coastal mandates. • The City Council approved the Brewing Pub with the CUP's put forth by tt Coastal Commission; they should be reflected. • This establishment is a bar after 9 p.m. and this area has a hea% concentration of bars. This was supposed to be a restaurant and it is no more of a bar. • I would like to see reduction on Friday and Saturday by 2 hours; have the shut down by 11 p.m. like other restaurants. • Our neighborhood is impacted by after hours activities in the parking to south of the Brewery. At Commission inquiry, he noted that he has no dire proof that people come from the Brew Pub. mmissioner McDaniel noted that the Brew Pub has made changes to iblems in their parking lot. It is not fair to say that their patrons are re activities in parking lots further down by the residential area. Reese, local resident noted: file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007 \01042007.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 Page 1 I of 22 • His concern of reading what happened in 1993 and 1999, there was r doubt that the intent was for this to be a restaurant. Ancillary to that the would serve alcohol and have a brew type company environment. • With security guards at the doors and bouncers inside, it is a bi atmosphere. • You have to decide whether you want them to be a restaurant or a bar. • I disagree with the Police Department, the Brew Pub is part of the problem. • Every weekend he is awakened by people leaving the drinkir establishments. • There needs to be leadership and a decision made as to whether this is I be allowed. • Conditional use permits have to be enforced. • They should be a good restaurant, not a bar. • What needs to change in Cannery Village is the impact of the amount alcohol being served at night. Staid, local resident, noted there is still a problem with the operation of the ping Company and there needs to be conditions to see that it becomes better. dded that there still continues to be a problem Monday through Friday an( d if the loading area could be moved from the front during the week after S m. ephanie Rosanelli, local resident, noted her opposition of this establishm, ieration for previously stated reasons and noting similar establishments to e City and how they operate. She stated noise is a problem and suggested restaurant would be a better business value. Martin, local resident, noted that he has the same problem with house in Corona del Mar. comment was closed. iii-person Cole asked about the suggestion to reduce the hours of the bar weekends; noise and unruly behavior; Campbell answered that the continuation of the substantive changes that ving Company have initiated has improved the situation. Staff did not h >e to suggest a reduction of hours. r. Lepo noted that these people live there and have witnessed instances the ive happened that were not seen by the police. As far as the comment for the )urs, that was the key thing that should have occurred during 1999 and it didn't. you didn't want it to be a bar, then the hours of operation should have beer nited to 10 or 11 p.m. I read through Condition 10 and it doesn't guarantee wha was intended to do. You have the option to make it be a restaurant but wha iaracteristic would change? They have a full kitchen, they don't have live itertainment and dancing, they have regular meal service until 1 in the morning they can serve alcohol until that time. They are complying. However, s staurant should have been limited to the hours of 10 or 11 p.m. If that is the rection, staff can come back with the necessary finding for grounds fo vocation and therefore you can limit the hours. I have sympathy for the owne id the residents alike. )mmissioner McDaniel asked that instead of cutting their hours, cut the hi it they can serve alcohol. It seems that would solve the problems. The pe for a restaurant that shall not be construed as a bar. Testimony is from plicant that 90% of the sales after 11 p.m. is alcohol. file: //F: \Users \PLMShared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2007\01042007.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 Page 12 of 22 Harp added that there is evidence as presented that they did not have re< it service and that they did violate Condition 10. If that is where the Plan emission wants to go, there is a foundation that can be made to find that. edition 10, as written, talks about regular meal service. However, staff ie back with the possible finding for legal grounds to revoke the use pe iify the use permit or basically approve the suggested conditional changes e been agreed upon by the operator. continued on the 1999 Council minutes, enforcement of future uses, grounds for revocation and standards. nmissioner Peotter noted he could support the modified conditions but has Aem with the issue of carding, as most restaurants do not card. Rather the hours, he suggests that there would be no carding at the door, which puts ti ten on the employees when they serve drinks to do the carding at tables or bar. He also suggested that this come back in six months for another revie if they continue to improve, they can continue to operate and if they doe rbe then we can reduce the hours. Toerge noted: • This facility is operating as a bar. The operation does have conditions ai they have been established for many years. • The conditions could have been more clear and I think the City needs take some responsibility for that. • There is a problem down there but there is an inability to tie all the; complaints specifically to the Newport Beach Brewing Company. I doi think we can ask them to correct the regional problems occurring dov there. It is not fair. • The Brewing Company has taken responsible steps to implement It characteristics to minimize the problems, it won't correct them all, but I woi commend them for that. Frankly, that is what they should have been doii from the start. • He noted that it should close at 11:00 p.m. and the condition needs to I modified • This item should be brought back for another review. During that time there are problems, then they can be documented and then we will be al: to address the issue; however, there is no evidence today to call f revocation today. Cole noted that there is a condition that has a review of 6 months or Commission inquiry, Mr. Harp read Condition K regarding the editions to the Use Permit and Zone Code Sections 20.89.060 and 2C imissioner Eaton noted that the neighborhood problems are not all caused facility. We should adopt the modifications to the conditions that the applic agreed to and we should review this in a year. imissioner McDaniel noted his concern of current operations, the run with the land and allowance for this to come back for review. continued. (Assistant City Manager, Sharon Wood, noted: I file : //F:1UsersTLNlSharedlGvarinlPC min eta112 00710 1 042 0 0 7.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 Page 13 of 22 • This was the first use permit issued under the then brand new Alcohol Beverage Outlet ordinance. • Amendments to use permits had been requested for full alcohol sales and/ to extend the hours of operation. • The City always wanted to prevent them from becoming bars and wantE them to be restaurants, and for a while we conditioned the amount of sale for food and alcohol, but that was hard to track. • The next thing we thought to do was to extend the hours but maintain th they were a restaurant and provide full meal service until closing. Tt thought was that if nobody was buying full meal service until that time, that wouldn't be a reasonable business decision for them to continue and the would shut down when the full meal service was no longer reasonable fl them. • That condition has recently been working in this case because Mr. Kolb has said he has reinstituted the full meal service and patrons are takir advantage of it. • We could have done a better job, but Mr. Lepo is reading that conditic correctly and the provisions in the ABO Ordinance for revocation modification are the other protection that carries forward over time so th even if they are doing the full meal service for all the hours they are open, they are still having these problems in the parking lot, that still gives tt Commission grounds to consider modification and or revocation. airperson Cole noted he shares the concerns expressed by the Commission. wever, the Assistant City Attorney has given us the leeway under the ABC finance that would allow us to fine adverse impact to the neighborhood. W re grounds to modify or revocate if the Commission desires. The main issue. they relate to a bar comes down to noise, unruly behavior, trash and parking. I )ears that there is willingness and desire to make changes and the operato )ws there will be scrutiny going forward. I believe a short period for review fo to continue monitoring and ask the neighbors if there are issues, we can deg h them. 1 would like to see us approve the conditions submitted by staff an( )roved by the operator. I am open to limiting hours in the future and that ma! the one condition that would solve most of these problems. Miles, representing the attorney, noted: Whenever there is queuing, we would relocate the line to the front of building. They agree to a review in 6 months or a year. nmissioner McDaniel noted that this has been a good opportunity for the rator and the public to talk. It is not the intent of the Commission to pu body out of business, but it is clear that everyone needs to be good neighbors. suggested that the review be done after the summer, possibly October 2007. ion was made by Commissioner Eaton and seconded by Commissi( ianiel to modify Use Permit No. 3485 by choosing the conditions in the ml d December 29, 2006 with the deletion of after 9:00 p.m. from Condition the addition in Condition 26 that after the words public hearing, add within and if complaints of alleged violations. Lepo asked about carding at the door, should this be included in the motion? iissioner McDaniel suggested October 2007 would be the better month. of the motion and the applicant agreed. file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007\01042007.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01 /04/2007 Page 14 of 22 Following a brief discussion, it was clarified that Condition 19 would strike after 9( mended motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded ommissioner McDaniel to change Condition 26 to allow people under the age I to enter the establishment with some sort of hand stamping or. other protocol at they are not served alcohol. It would allow the establishment to act more Ii restaurant. Miles noted that the LEADS education and meetings with the Poll artment and other stakeholders within the City, it was confirmed that this is r sistent with underage drinking, risk and liability. It is a business judgment >e service. The Brewing Company allows patrons under age with an adult r at appropriate times. Generally, after 10 p.m. there is carding at the do this is a condition that we would not be in agreement to change nor appro her condition that underage patrons can enter the establishment at any he out an adult. 5cussion continued on the LEADS criteria, underage drinking and the operator. nmissioner Toerge noted he would not be supportive of this project if tt ration can not do whatever means necessary to operate as a restaura ring alcohol. To shut this down to people after 10 p.m., clearly states this is and if this is what we are going to say, the hours need to be reduced. If it is aurant it has to stay open. )mmissioner McDaniel noted he agrees with the problem of not being able to the restaurant after 10:00 p.m. due to age.0 mmissioner Peotter noted he would clarify his motion to add, because of age. other words, if the guy is drunk or unruly and he is 20, 1 don't want to make thi: it they have to let the guy in, but for age reasons only I don't want to den) Miles answered that if the Commission mandates that the Brewing Comp allow entrance at anytime, they can live with that as long as they reserve ht to serve anyone under appropriate conditions but that would not be sc sed on age. on Amended Motion Eaton Hawkins BJECT: McCloskey Residence (PA2006 -046) ITEM NO.4 212 Crystal Avenue PA2006 -046 quest for a Variance to exceed the 1.5 FAR limitation for a single - family hom Approved ated in the R -1.5 District. Murillo gave an overview of the staff report noting: . Proposal is a significant alteration and addition to a single family residencel that is currently non - conforming due to the rear alley setback and th number of parking spaces provided. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007 \01042007.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 Page 15 of 22 • Project implementation would result in development of a 2,657 square foot three -story residence. • With the exception of floor area, the structure would be brought into conformance with all development standards of the R -1.5 Zoning District. • The project exceeds the maximum floor area established for this site by 44 square feet, therefore a variance is required to permit the project. • Staff believes that facts are evident to approve the variance particularly the diagonal orientation of the alley right -of -way adjacent to the rear of the lot creating a unique lot configuration. In combination with the strict application of 5 -foot alley setback, creates a disproportionately increased rear yard setback area as compared to the rear yard setback area of the larger more typical rectangular lots in the area. • The increased rear setback area combined with a smaller lot size penalizes the applicant in a disproportionate buildable area. • The requested increase would not be determined a granting of special privilege as the project would result in a structure similar to, and consistent with, what the development regulations permit on other lots in the area. • A floor area to land use area method was used to analyze the floor area increase and was determined the ratio was 1.02, which is consistent with the standard lots in the area, and would not result in a residence outside of proportion to other houses in the immediate area. • Staff recommends approval of this request. applicant chose not to make a statement. dic comment was opened. lic comment was closed. nmissioner McDaniel noted his opposition to this request due to: • The size of the lot is not exceptional as there is only a little piece cut out of it. • A lot of other houses on Balboa Island have irregular lots and this is no exception. • In 1972, the zoning changed from R -2 to R -1.5 and in that specifically it said 29 feet was to give articulation to the roof height. They specifically did not want three story buildings on the island built. • This sets a terrible precedent. • There were some people here from Little Island Association but they had to leave. I used to live 5 houses down from this site. • I am disappointed in three story buildings. In the middle 1990's, we came up with an extra 200 square feet so that people could enclose their garages. What has happened is people have taken that opportunity to make a bigger house instead of enclosing their garages. • I see that this is definitely a special privilege and inconsistent with limitations on other properties. was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Con s to round up the square footage in the buildable area of the and to approve the application. Commissioner Toerge noted one of the findings we have to make is that the ranting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. I can't make that finding as the applicant has substantial property rights as it is and the fact that the property might be smaller probably factored in when the property was purchased which factors file: / /F:1Users\PLN\Shared\Gvarin\PC min eta112007 \01042007.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 to his property right. I can't make the finding and therefore will not be motion. McDaniel and Toerge None Zov's Bistro (PA2006 -193) 21123 Newport Coast Drive for a Use Permit to allow an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type in conjunction with operation of a restaurant. Lepo gave an overview of the staff report, noting: • This is a request for a use permit for a restaurant located in a shop/ center at the southwest corner of San Joaquin Hills Road and New Coast Drive with pavement and driveways separating it from reside properties. • This was originally permitted under the County and now this property been annexed to the City and now the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordine applies. • The crime rater is lower there, the drunk driving arrests are higher and have something to do with the Newport Coast Drive location; however, Police Department does not find this to be a problem. • The operating hours are recommended to end at 10:00 p.m. by however, the operator requests them to end at 11:00 p.m. Hawkins confirmed this would include a modification to Peotter asked about Conditions 9 and 11, how are they enforced? Mr. Lepo answered that the rule of reason, dearly visible to the exterior, 10 nside. Chapter 11.03 covers the special events permit characteristics and also applies to Condition 12. McDaniel noted his support of the 10:00 p.m. closing time a week. Dufner, of Rancher Development, representing Zov's Bistro, noted: • With the exception of the hours of operation listed in Condition 18, they ha read and agree to all the other conditions stated in the staff report. • Zov's Bistro is top rated and is and has always been a restaurant. • We have requested the option of going to 11:00 p.m. on the weekend al 10:00 p.m. during the week. • This establishment is located in a shopping center and isolated frc residential areas by quite a bit of space and other structures, elevations ai grade changes. • At Commission inquiry, he noted The Irvine Company is the landlord ai they support the application and requested hours. • There is no limitation in the lease agreement as to the hours of operation. • He then discussed the customers' menu choices after 10:00 p.m., noting it usually sandwiches or salads. This is a neighborhood center in ti community and is accommodating the late night crowd. ITEM NO.5 PA2006 -139 Approved Page 16 of 22 file: / /F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007\01042007.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 Page 17 of 22 . Other tenants in the complex are opened until 11:00 p.m. and they serve wine and beer. Public comment was opened. Philip Bettencourt, local resident expressed his high esteem for this restaurant and asked that this be approved. Carol McDermott, local resident immediate to the development, supports Zov's. She welcomes the opportunity for this establishment and asked that the hours o operation be extended to 11:00 p.m. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins to approve Use Permit No. 2006 -027 to allow an eating and drinking stablishment to have a Type 47 (On -Sale General Eating Place) license, subjecl o the findings and condition s of approval with staffs recommendation to 10:00 m. Sunday throu ursday and 11:00 on Friday and Saturday. yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Peotter, Cole, McDaniel and Toerge oes: None bstain: None OBJECT: Code Amendment 2006 -008 ITEM NO. 6 Appeal Procedures (PA 2006 -257) PA 2006 -257 Request to amend Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to Recommended revise appeal procedures to allow a single City Council Member to appeal for approval decisions of the Zoning Administrator, Planning Director, and Planning Commission. Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins to recommend that the City Council adopt Code Amendment No. 2006 08 allowing a single City Council Member to appeal decisions of the Zoning Administrator, Planning Director and Planning Commission. Commissioner Hawkins asked why an ordinance is necessary? Mr. Lepo answered that Title 20 is in the Municipal Code and the only way to amend it is through an ordinance. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: None Abstain: None sxe ITEM NO. 7 OBJECT: General Plan Implementation (PA2006 -277) Discussion Item Resolution Establishing Interim Development Review Review of an interim development review process and criteria that will provide mechanism and procedures for the City to prohibit uses and development inconsistent with the 2006 General Plan, require compliance with policies of the 006 General Plan, and consider developments and uses allowed by the 2006 General Plan but inconsistent with the current Zoning Code during the interim period during which the City revises the Zoning Code to implement the 2006 eneral Plan. The goal of the process is to accommodate quality development and allow opportunities for innovative and high quality urban design. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007 \01042007.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 Page 18 of 22 Gregg Ramirez, senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report, noting: I I . Council had asked staff to come up with a procedure for reviewing that are consistent with the recently updated General Plan but ina with the current Zoning. . The interim plan requires new development and uses to be consistent the General Plan, including FAR, densities and all General Plan policies. . It allows projects that received discretionary approval prior to the approval of the General Plan, which was November 7, 2006, to be pe in accordance with the prior approval. . The interim plan exempts single unit and two unit developments compliance with the General Plan policies up until April 1, 2007. The Council has directed staff to prepare development regulations for some residential policies that are in the General Plan. . It would require any tract maps for single and two unit projects to approval prior to that April 1 st deadline as well. . It establishes a legislative procedure for the review of developments uses allowed by and consistent with the General Plan but inconsistent the current Zoning Code. . There are two parts of the process. First, we have decided to use Interim Study Overlay Zoning District as a mechanism to review tt projects through legislative action. This means that they would be appl for a Code Amendment to apply the Interim Study Overlay District on project site. As part of the Interim Study Overlay Zoning designation would be required to submit a development study plan and that w establish all the development regulations for the subject property provide for the implementation of the General Plan Policies. For a study plan approval, we would want to have findings that need to be made: 1) Implement and be in compliance with all policies of the General Plan. 2) Conform to all applicable design guidelines already in place, such as the Mariner's Mile Design Framework. 3) The project would have to demonstrate that any change from the existing zoning regulations are justified by the benefits of the proposed plan. 4) The standard not detrimental to public health, safety and welfare finding. comment was opened. Bettencourt, local resident, noted that his experience is with the larger ad community projects. He asked about the approval extends the general and of being in the public interest as it relates to the public welfare and nts a project from being detrimental to persons residing and working in file: / /F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007\01042007.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 Page 19 of 22 djacent properties. It seems that what people do when they go after Home Depots or Wal -Mart's when they go after economic impacts and it is not a test of economic impact to take advantage of zoning rights that are otherwise provided for under the General Plan. Think how broadly that might be applied to that class of wonder about the practical application of an open -ended right for the City Counci iithout standards to require that a development agreement accompany wha therwise would be an ordinary application for the utilization of zoning rights. levelopment agreement generally is made up of two contracting parties anc nplies extraordinary public benefits for entering an agreement in the first place. Vould that mean that an applicant could go through all the application process ie consideration by the Planning Commission, the CEQA determination, and finc n a whim of Councilmembers that a development agreement was required? Ic tat something that is intended to be done? It seems overly broad and put: roperty owners at a disadvantage. The Code already applies to that. YOL Iready have a development agreement statute and state guidelines but havinc ontracting parties on development agreements on what could be smai rrtitlements I am not sure how this applies. Cole asked the speaker if he was suggesting removing Bettencourt answered that a property owner, in making an application f lements, does not need new entitlement rights because you already have :lopment agreement statute that would allow one to make an application. Wood noted that regarding the first issue, the whole point is that we don't have zoning in place yet, we have the General Plan in place that says there is e sibility to do certain kinds of development. What we are doing with thi! :ess is to provide a means for property owners to proceed with their over acts more quickly than the City is likely able to get the comprehensive zoninc e. For that reason, we wanted to make sure that there were some stronc ings to protect the City because these are going to be piecemeal zoning. With ird to a development agreement requirement, to add more comfort for the ierty owners, we will be developing a new City Council Policy to talk about sholds for when development agreements are required and will be done fairly :kly. We expect that if applications come in before that policy is in place, tha t item on your agenda is appointments to the General Plan Implementatior nmittee and we could take those applications as they come in to the imittes for guidance on if they need a development agreement. is not intended for every single project or more major projects where the ni ititlement in the General Plan is changed significantly from before and is likely increasing the value of the land. McDermott, of Government Solutions, noted: . Shares the concern about the breadth over which it appears that development agreement might be required and urges a policy through Committee that would give more guidance to the developers so that it co be determined early in the process and perhaps more fairly. . What happens to the properties that proceed with the study plan once th permanent zoning is put in place? If the overlay is a permanent designation or whether it could create the potential for a non - conforming status, it would be unfortunate to end up in a non - conforming condition after going throug file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007 \01042007.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 the public process. There should be some assurances that in going this process it does not result in a non - conforming condition. If that means an anomaly that might representative of a fair response for a theoretical scenarios. be created for zoning that would land owner. Discussion continued She then noted that a study plan would be allowed to be made but that changes would be considered for either height or sign ordinance. To p out height as something that is being prohibited in new applications is a arbitrary because there is a number of development standards to considered. Discussion continued. . Compensating benefits of the proposed plan. This seems to be statement. Ramirez noted that the sign limitation was due to the recently completed Si e and staff wants to enforce this regulation. As far as height, we may want a look at when we do the comprehensive code update and we don't want in and start toying with height limits, particularly shoreline height limits, at ti it without an extensive review of the impacts that might occur. Height is one ;e issues we want to look at and for now we want to keep it as status quo for these projects that can come in under the existing zoning. Wood noted the reference to the shoreline heights is important. That is one reasons it is not arbitrary as all our other development regulations a rolled by use and zoning district, but Shoreline Height Limitation Zone go ss various zoning districts and was adopted in a separate ordinance from t ng Code and is one of those sacred cows within the City. Commission inquiry, Ms. Wood noted: . Parking - a lot of these projects will likely be mixed use and there a policies in the General Plan to look at concepts like shared parking. That an area where it is reasonable to provide some flexibility and look at the case by case. . Timing - This Tuesday your recommendation Council. If as we start to work with this improvement, it can be amended. will be taken to the process we find it n . Required findings for the IS Overlay - these findings would not apply existing or new Planned Community Districts. . Amendment of Planned Community texts - will remain the same as is today. . Could Council ignore the study plan defined in this Resolution - no, just a; they couldn't ignore the General Plan that is adopted by resolution. The I; Overlay will be adopted by ordinance, just as any other zoning amendment. Mr. Harp added that the Council would be bound by the resolution that they adopted to make those findings. . Authority to prohibit any project that conflicts with the General Plan - resolution of the City Council approving the General Plan references authority in Sections 10 and 11. The City Attorney is comfortable with tl mechanisms for achieving these goals. Page 20 of 22 file : //F:1Users\PLN\SharedlGvarinlPC min eta112007101042007.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 . Discussion continued on the difference between an ordinance and resolutic to be used as the mechanism to implement the General Plan. hairperson Cole noted he encourages clarity and other protections in the guide id the compensating language is as clear as possible. otion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commission cotter to recommend approval of Interim Development Review Requiremen id Procedures by the City Council. :)mmissioner Toerge verified that Planning Commission will be reviewing the: ojects as well as the City Council. The application requirements are for an 1 :udy Overlay District. s. Wood noted this procedure is structured to changing the zoning to whatever today to an IS Interim policy. Commissioner Hawkins noted that the requirement for a developr agreement should be maintained as an opportunity for the City Council. noted his concern of what happens to the IS Overlay when the new i Code is adopted by ordinance. Wood noted that we won't know until we see what the IS Overlay zones a g to look like and see what the new zoning is going to look like. What v to see is that the IS study plans inform our work on revising the Zoning Coe then we adopt something that is very near to it so we can limit no ormities if any at all. The process of an IS overlay is an opportunity for owner to proceed prior to the adoption of a revised Zoning Code. Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded Cole to exclude the height limit from being mandatory. >sioner Hawkins noted the problem with eliminating the height restr 3 goes. We are talking about an interim period and if the new Zone get done in a year, then there will be problems for some people. issioner Peotter noted that if there was some good reason to exceed limit and it could be allowed. This removes the mandatory restriction. Ramirez noted that Section 20.65 has the maximum height limits for in the City and the guidelines on how to measure height. on continued. McDaniel, Toerge and Hawkins None >mmissioner Eaton noted he would vote for the motion with the caveat that lay to the Council the concerns of some of the Planning Commissioners that adequate and enforceable. WE None None ITEM NO.8 Page 21 of 22 file : //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etat\2007\01042007.htm 03/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007 Page 22 of 22 SUBJECT: General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee Appointments Discussion Item At their December 12, 2006 meeting, the City Council unanimously approved the creation of the General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee. The Implementation Committee will be comprised of three (3) City Council members and three (3) Planning Commission members. The City Council Resolution (attached) directs the Committee to develop a work plan for and monitor progress on all tasks relating to the implementation of the recently adopted General Plan. Chairman Cole appointed Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins and Toerge to this committee. They all accepted. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 9. City Council Follow -up - none. b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - no report. C. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the Genera Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee - d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report on at subsequent meeting - the upcoming agenda items were discussed. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Hawkins asked to revie the rules in connection with the email transmissions to staff and genera public. F. Project status - none. g. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 11:30 p.m. to an adjourned meeting at 4:00 p.m. February 8, DJOURNMENT 2007. ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION fil e : / /F:1Users\PLN\SharedlGvarin\PC min eta112 00 710 1 042 0 0 7.htm 03/07/2007