Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/18/2015 - Planning CommissionIV. V. VL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers —100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, June 18, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Chair Tucker ROLL CALL PRESENT: Kramer, Lawler, Myers and Tucker ABSENT (Excused): Brown, Hillgren and Koetting Staff Present: Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director; Michael Torres, Assistant City Attorney; Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer; Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner; Makana Nova, Associate Planner; Jennifer Biddle, Administrative Support Specialist PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Tucker invited those interested in addressing the Planning Commission on items not on the agenda, to do so at this time. Philip Bettencourt, Consultant to Legacy Residential Partners, commented on the potential development of the St. James Church property noting that they are busy working on due diligence regarding same. The property is in escrow and is expected to close later in the month. He added that the last service at the church will be held on June 28, 2015. Chair Tucker closed public comments. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES - None CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MAY 21, 2015 Recommended Action: Approve and file Chair Tucker reported that he submitted proposed changes as did Mr. Jim Mosher. Chair Tucker opened public comments. Seeing none, Chair Tucker closed public comments. Motion made by Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Lawler to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of May 21, 2015, as corrected. AYES: Kramer, Myers, Lawler and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Brown, Hillgren and Koetting VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.2 CHANNEL REEF CONDOMINIUMS FENCE AND GATE VARIANCE (PA2014-190) 2525 Ocean Boulevard Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing background, approval of the original project, location, existing conditions, parking, encroachment agreement, and details of the current proposal. She presented staff findings and recommendation to approve the fence at 4 -feet, rather than 6 -feet, as Page 1 of 7 06/18/15 proposed by the applicant. She added that the applicant is in attendance, would like to make a presentation and is available to answer questions. Chair Tucker invited the applicant to make a presentation. Bill McCaffrey, President of the Channel Reef Community Association, spoke in support of the project and noted its consistency with land -use designations. He stated that the project enhances the area. He indicated that the alternative proposed by staff would decrease security and noted incidences of vandalism and theft. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the project, as submitted. Horst Nortenburger, Project Architect, commented on renovation of the building noting that the item before the Commission is the second phase of the project. He addressed proposed materials, existing conditions, enhancing public views, the existing gate and stairs, enhancements to the existing driveway and lighting. Chair Tucker opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to address the Planning Commission, Chair Tucker closed the public hearing. In response to Chair Tucker's question regarding the fence, Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski reported that the fence is considered non -conforming in terms of its height and because it would be removed, the new fence would need to be brought into compliance with current standards. Assistant Planner Whelan added that the pedestrian access gate is within the public right-of-way and is not subject to review at this time. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski added that the location of the pedestrian gate proposed by the applicant is in the public right-of-way and does not require a variance and is therefore, not part of the review at this time. Commissioner Lawler noted the applicant's concern about security relative to the lower gate and asked staff to elaborate on same. Assistant Planner Whelan stated there are lower walls next to the higher fence and gate that do not run the entire length of the property and there are other low walls that people could climb over. The proposed secures and defines the entrance to the roof -top parking and will keep the public from parking on the roof top which can be adequately provided for with a four -foot gate. Commissioner Lawler asked the question if the Commission were to approve the lower height, would the applicant still implement the project and renovate the gates and fences. In response to his question, Mr. Nortenburger confirmed the majority of residents feel strongly about not lowering the height of the fence and gate because of security concerns. He added that if lowering the fence and gate is a condition of approval, they would rather not pursue the project at all so they could keep the existing fence and gate as is at the 6 foot height. In response to Vice Chair Kramer's inquiry for a precise articulation of the legal parameters within which the Commission needs to decide on this application, Assistant City Attorney Torres addressed the need to protect public views and reported that any height above the grade of the sidewalk would require a variance to exceed it. It was noted that no matter the height, if someone wanted to get onto the property, they could. Discussion followed regarding other potential benefits to enhance public views. Secretary Myers stated he does not believe that a lower wall matters and noted there does not seem to be any objection regarding the existing fence height. In response to Commissioner Lawler, Assistant City Attorney Torres stated that as proposed, by reducing the gate height and by changing the gate and landscape along the perimeter of the property the view would be improved. He added there is no precedent in terms of them not proceeding with the improvements if they are required to lower the fence. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski added that staff feels that by maintaining the existing height, and allowing for the proposed fence design to go forward would worsen the visual appearance of the existing situation because the proposed fencing is more opaque than the existing fence. Mr. McCaffrey pointed out that the staff report indicates that the view is not significant. He added that they have done everything to conform to all of the requirements and understand they should be able to replace the existing Page 2 of 7 06/18/15 height and maintain the security while enhancing the look. He reiterated that if they cannot get the same height, they will not spend that kind of money and will not pursue the project. Chair Tucker stated that is the applicant's prerogative but that the Planning Commission may end up approving something that may or may not be what the applicant has in mind. Vice Chair Kramer stated he agrees with staffs recommendations, as staff's recommendation is reasonable and is in conformance with public policy to enhance public views and the City's General Plan. Motion made by Vice Chair Kramer to adopt Resolution No. 1984 approving Variance No. VA2014-007. The motion died for lack of a second. Deputy Community Development Wisneski reported that Condition No. 1 would be modified to reflect the revised site plan and landscape plan. Chair Tucker made a format correction to Condition No. 8 and a typographical correction to delete the word "architectural" from Condition No. 9. Discussion followed regarding Condition No. 16 and City Traffic Engineer Brine explained the placement of the ADA compliant curb ramps. Motion made by Chair Tucker and seconded by Secretary Myers to adopt Resolution No. 1984 approving Variance No. VA2014-007, changing the element where the gate is and on either side of the gate, to 5'/ feet instead of 6 feet (Condition No. 6) and with the typographical changes to Conditions of Approval as discussed. AYES: Kramer, Myers, Lawler and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Brown, Hlllgren and Koetting ITEM NO. 3 Lido Lime Alcohol Sales (PA2015-044) 3459 Via Lido Associate Planner Fern Nueno provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing location, existing conditions, history and background of the theater and use permit, details of the proposal, hours of operation, required findings, Council direction for alcohol sales on the Peninsula, requirement for an operator's license, special events, ensuring appropriate standards for the operation, parking, engaging the Police Department and details of their concerns, and staff findings and recommendations. She reported that several written comments were received and are attached to the Commission packets. Chair Tucker invited the applicant to address the Commission. Steve Rawlings, Applicant, noted the attendance of Hammer Brunch, Owner of the Lido Live Theater, and Theater representative Randy Beard. He noted concurrence to staff findings and agreed with all Conditions of Approval. He added they have submitted a draft of their security plan to the Newport Beach Police Department and acknowledged the requirement for an operator's license. Mr. Rawlings reported there have been over thirty live shows at the theater, for which they obtained a Special Event Permit and during which alcohol was served, without incidents. He proposed that alcohol sales would end at 10:30 p.m. each night, regardless of the end of their shows. Additional security measures include allowing customers to purchase only one alcoholic beverage at a time. Discussion followed regarding removal of seats at the front of the theater to allow the public to congregate. Hammer Brunch, Owner of Lido Live, reported they had to remove four rows of seats when the temporary stage was installed because the movie theater had a very small platform. He added that 500 tickets maximum are sold for each event, and that they have had forty-eight events without incidents. Mr. Brunch continued that the most Page 3 of 7 06/18/15 they have sold is 380 tickets for any event and he reported they have reduced the capacity of Lido Live from 650 to 500. Discussion followed regarding the size of drinks, adding a condition regarding stopping alcohol sales at 10:30 p.m., and requirements of the operator's license. Chair Tucker noted this is a land use approval that runs with the land; and therefore, the current targeted demographics of the theater clientele may not always be the targeted demographic of future operators. Randy Beard, Volunteer at Lido Live, spoke in support of the application and reported the theater has become a "go -to" place for corporations. He commented positively regarding the management team and addressed demographics. Chair Tucker opened the public hearing. Roger Lockhart commented on the demise of Lido Village and on the importance of drawing people into the area. He suggested that the City direct the Newport Beach Police Department to begin keeping statistics for the area separate from Reporting District 15. He spoke in support of the application adding that he has attended many events at Lido Live and none had any incidents. Mr. Lockhart took issue with the venue selling one drink at a time and urged the Commission to approve the application. Chair Tucker closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Kramer asked a series of questions to Lieutenant Jay Short, Newport Beach Police Department, who noted that the reporting district makes up 1% of the entire City and that breaking it down even further would not be very beneficial. He stated than an analysis of Lido Live and the area could be done, within the present reporting district. Lt. Short addressed having officers present through the special event permitting process, noting that has served as a deterrent. However, he cannot say what would happen if the police presence were eliminated. He added that the operator has cooperated with the Police Department, reported that they are providing a security plan, and that he has no reason to doubt that Lido Live will carry out their security plan. Vice Chair Kramer asked why the Police Department has not made a recommendation and Lieutenant Short stated that in this case, the Department does not have authority to determine public convenience and necessity as it is established by The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). He stated that if the Planning Commission approves this item, ABC will likely issue the license. He added that in the case of this particular operator, there is a history through their special events permits. Working with staff and the history, the Department has no opinion that this operator should not have his application approved. Vice Chair Kramer opined that by the Police Department not making a recommendation, there is some deficiency with the operator and asked what that may be. Lieutenant Short stated he is not saying that however, the Police Department sees the service of alcohol as a drain on Police resources. Vice Chair Kramer stated he was looking for either a recommendation or rejection from the Police Department. Secretary Myers suggested adding a condition requiring that there be a private, uniformed security presence, limiting ticket sales to 500, and reviewing the matter after a specific amount of time. Chair Tucker noted that their security plan calls for eight security guards and that there are conditions that deal with security personnel. He suggested including the information the Applicant has provided in its own security plan, in the conditions of approval. City Attorney Torres stated it would be unprecedented to require a uniformed Police Officer and referenced the security plan and use of security personnel, which is routine. Discussion followed regarding placing elements of the security plan in the Conditions of Approval. Assistant City Attorney Torres referenced Condition No. 12, requiring a security plan to be in place, and stated that the plan does not need to be a Condition as it is addressed by reference. Chair Tucker commented on the following Conditions: Page 4 of 7 06/18/15 Condition No. 1 (substantial conformance with an approved floor plan) noting that he would like to ensure there are sufficient seats for each patron and that there be no removal of seats to create standing room, but removal of seats would be acceptable to create room for the stage; Condition No. 8 that distilled spirits are not permitted as included in the staff report and Police Department recommendation; Conditions No. 9, removing the provision "unless the Planning Commission first approves an amended or new use permit"; Condition No. 10, specifically calling out that alcohol sales end at 10:30 PM and deleting the second sentence in the Condition relative to increases in the hours of operation being subject to the approval of an amendment of the minor use permit. Condition No. 14, regarding alcohol consumption, he suggested adding 'outside the licensed premises" to the end of the condition. Condition No. 16 relative to food service and indicated he is unsure whether the food that they are providing qualifies as food service, but accepted it noting that the applicant is satisfied with that condition. Condition No. 17, he suggested referring to the second level as "the mezzanine/balcony" since one plan shows the area as a mezzanine and another as a balcony. Condition No. 18 regarding the type of containers used for serving alcohol, he asked that it be indicated that "beer will be dispensed from kegs" and that the size of the containers no exceed 16 ounces. Condition No. 19 regarding the number of alcohol beverages that can be purchased at one time by a single patron, he suggested maintaining it at one as the Applicant has proposed. Condition No.22, he suggested it ought to read, in its entirety as "No reduced price alcohol beverage promotions shall be allowed". Condition No. 27, he suggested changing "Petitioner" to "Applicant". Condition No. 30, he would like to include that "no fewer than eight security guards" will be on the premises during live entertainment events, or adding same to Condition No. 12. In response to a comment regarding the Condition of Approval limiting the ABC license type, Associate Planner Nueno reported that the applicant is requesting a Type 40 ABC license, which only allows for the sale of beer. Discussion followed regarding the changes to the Conditions of Approval suggested by Chair Tucker. Regarding the number of beverages sold to a patron at any one time (Condition No. 19), Vice Chair Kramer felt that it should be self -policed and that reducing the number to one beverage should not necessarily be in the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Brunch reported that in other venues across the U.S. and in California, selling two drinks at a time is the standard and noted that selling one at a time is inconvenient to customers. He agreed with Vice Chair Kramer, but stated they would accept changing the Condition of Approval to one drink, and stated he wants the venue to be a good community center for all residents. Regarding the number of security guards required (Condition of Approval No. 12), Vice Chair Kramer stated he is not in favor of setting a number within the Conditions of Approval, noting that is something that is fluid and within the security plan and circumstances can change over time and is incorporated into the Conditions of Approval by reference to the security plan. Assistant City Attorney Torres agreed with Vice Chair Kramer and noted that the Conditions of Approval, as presented, are typical in terms of adopting a security plan by reference, and that placing the provisions of the Page 5 of 7 06/18/15 security plan in the Conditions of Approval is not typical. He clarified that the requirement for security guards is when alcohol is being served. Mr. Rawlings clarified that security guards are proposed during live entertainment and not during movie showings. Motion made by Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Lawler to adopt Resolution No.1985 approving Minor Use Permit No. UP2015-011, with changes to Conditions of Approval as suggested and discussed. In response to a question from Vice Chair Kramer, Chair Tucker stated that the motion includes changing the Conditions of Approval to only allow one beverage to be sold to any one person per transaction. Vice Chair Kramer stated he cannot support that motion. Substitute Motion by Vice Chair Kramer to accept Chair Tucker's changes except for Condition No. 19 where he suggested it remain as written by staff to allow two drinks per person per transaction. The substitute motion died for lack of a second. The original motion carried per the following vote: AYES: Kramer, Myers, Lawler, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Brown, Hillgren, and Koetting STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO. 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski noted nothing to report on this matter. The next committee meeting will be in July as the June meeting has been cancelled. 2. Update on City Council Items Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski noted nothing to report. ITEM NO. 6 RECOGNITION OF CHAIR TUCKER FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Chair Tucker noted that his resignation from the Planning Commission will be effective June 30, 2015, Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski thanked Chair Tucker for his service and presented him with a plaque and gold plated golf balls in appreciation for same. Vice Chair Kramer provided thanks to Chairman Tucker for his years of service and for providing expertise to the Planning Commission in general and mentoring to individual commissioners in particular. Members of the Commission expressed their gratitude for Chair Tucker's help and leadership during his tenure on the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lawler read a statement from Commissioner Hillgren expressing appreciation for Chair Tucker's help, commitment and service to the community as well as his friendship. Chair Tucker thanked the Commissioners for their kind words and noted that it had been a high honor to have been able to serve the City for eleven years on the Commission. Page 6 of 7 06/18/15 ITEM NO.7 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT - None ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES - None IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of July 9, 2015. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, June 12, 2015 at 2:39 p.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive and on the City's website on Friday, June 12, 2015, at 2:31 p.m. Page 7 of 7