Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/1992COMMISSIONERS 0 0, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: March 5, 1992 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Present * * * * * * All Commissioners were present. s s s EX-OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney i • t William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Jim Sinasek, Code Enforcement Supervisor Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary Minutes of February 20, 1992: Minutes of 2/20/92 Commissioner Edwards requested that the third paragraph, page 29, be corrected to state that The Commission AGREED with Hoag Hospital to include the park dedication area in the definition of Gross Site Area Commissioner Merrill requested that Mitigation Measure No. 28 be corrected to state ..Southern California Air Quality Management District.. Commissioner Glover requested that page 51 be amended to state ...West Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue to go to Junior High School.. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the corrected Planning Ayes * * Commission Minutes of February 20, 1992. MOTION CARRIED. Abstain s s s Public Comments: .Public Comments No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on • non - agenda items. :: i COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 5, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, February 28, 1992, in front of City Hall. x x x Request for Continuances: Request for Mr. Hewicker requested that Item No. 1, Amendment No. 751, Continuant regarding the Newport Harbor Yacht Club, property located at 717 West Bay Avenue, be continued to the March 19, 1992, Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant additional time to address issues which have arisen from surrounding property owners. He further requested that Discussion Item No. 1, Amendment No. • 753, regarding the definition of the term "Grade" be continued to the March 19, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No. 1 and All Ayes Discussion Item No.1 to the March 19, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. x x x Amendment No. 751 Public He Item No.I Request to consider an amendment to Districting Map No. 10 so 751 as to reclassify two lots located on the northerly side of West / Balboa Boulevard (706 and 708 West Balboa Boulevard) from the ont d to /19/9z 1 District to the O-S (Open Space) District; and to reclassify a ingle lot located on the southerly side of West Bay Avenue (717 West Bay Avenue) from the R -2 District to the O -S (Open Space) District. CATION: Lot 11, Block 5, East Newport, located at 717 West Bay Avenue, on the southerly side of West Bay Avenue, between 7th Street and 8th Street; and Lots 25 and 26, Block 5, East • Newport, located at 706 and 708 West Balboa Boulevard, on the northerly side of West Balboa Boulevard, between 7th Street and 8th -2- COMMISSIONERS 0 , 't \A0,,',, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 5, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL 11 Jill INDEX Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. . ZONES: R -1 and R -2 APPLJCANT: Newport Harbor Yacht Club, Balboa OWNER: Same as Applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that Item No. 1 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 19, 1992, so as to allow the applicant additional time to address issues which have arisen from surrounding property owners. Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue Amendment No. 751 All Ayes to the March 19, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 2005 (Amended )(ReviewjRevocation) (Public Item No.2 Hearin UP2005(A) Request to consider recommending the revocation of a previously approved use permit which permitted the establishment of a valet Cont 'd to a�9/g2 parking service in conjunction with the existing Royal Thai Cuisine Restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages; or to consider adding or modifying Conditions of Approval to said amended use permit. Said consideration is due to the applicant's failure to operate the valet parking service in conformance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code and in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. LOCATION: Lots 74 and 75, Tract No. 1011, located at 4001 West Coast Highway, on the southerly side of West Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and West Balboa Boulevard, adjacent to Balboa Coves. • ZONE: C -1 -H APPLJCANT: Royal Thai Cuisine Restaurant, Newport Beach -3- COMMISSIONERS O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 5, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX OWNER: Mary Howard, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed a valet parking plan that the applicant submitted to the Planning Commission immediately prior to the public hearing wherein he indicated that the staff and the Commission had not had time to review the document. The Commission recommended that the subject item be continued after public testimony to allow additional time for staff to review the applicant's proposed plan. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Sumeth Tila, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Tila explained the reasons the applicant's proposed valet parking plan was submitted to the Planning Commission just prior to the subject public hearing. Mr. Tila discussed the hardships that restaurants are currently experiencing because of the recession, and • he requested that the Commission work with the restaurant and try to solve the parking problem together. He requested that valets be allowed to legally drive automobiles from the restaurant site across the through lanes to the east bound left turn lane at the intersection of Hoag Hospital Road and West Coast Highway. He stated that an additional curb cut would ease the traffic pattern at the restaurant site. Mr. Tila stated that many of the restaurant's customers avoid valet parking and they often illegally park their automobiles on West Coast Highway to enter the restaurant for a short period of time. Mr. Steve Paliska, General Manager of Professional Parking Services, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Paliska addressed suggestions that are included in the proposed valet parking plan, i.e.; a signage plan, striping the curb red, and temporary traffic control devices that would keep the valet attendants and the patrons from further violations. Mr. Hewicker and Mr. Paliska addressed the meeting between the staff, Mr. Tila, and Mr. Paliska in the City Attorney's Office to discuss concerns regarding the valet parking system. Mr. Hewicker explained that the problem exists because parking was eliminated • on West Coast Highway and the restaurant was forced to park automobiles on -site or in an off -site location approved by the City. He addressed the concerns staff initially had regarding the traffic -4- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 5, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX circulation from the restaurant site to the off -site parking area in the Municipal Parking Lot located at the comer of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue, and Mr. Tila's attempt to remain in business. The City has a concern that the valet parking attendants are running across West Coast Highway dodging automobiles, and he reported the numerous times that he and the Code Enforcement Supervisor have individually been at the site to observe infractions, i.e. automobiles crossing the sidewalk and using the sidewalk as a travel lane. Commissioner Merrill questioned if the restaurant could continue to operate with the admonition requirement that the applicant must adhere to the regulations. He addressed the proposed valet parking plan and he suggested that the item be continued to allow staff additional time to review the plan. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Paliska • replied that his firm has been operating the valet service in a risk management position, i.e. they have not been scheduling the attendants or setting up any work regulations. Mr. Tila has been supervising the valet attendants. If the proposed valet parking plan is approved, Mr. Paliska stated that he would be personally responsible for the operation. Commissioner Edwards addressed the proposed valet parking plan. He stated the problem has existed on the site for two years, that he fully supports the staff's recommendations, and the Planning Commission must send a message to the applicant that they mean business. Mr. Hewicker stated that it is important that Mr. Tila and Mr. Paliska assure the City that they are prepared to regulate the valet service in a manner that the City's concerns can be accomplished. In response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that Cal -Trans requested that the City stripe out the second left turn lane until such time the traffic warranted restriping it to two lanes. Mr. Webb indicated his concerns to maneuver an automobile into the left turn lane from the requested • third driveway inasmuch as it would move an automobile closer to he intersection. The signs the applicant proposed in the valet arking plan are across the public sidewalk to keep the -5- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 5, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL 1, INDEX automobiles off of the driveway; however, the signs would also impair the bicycle and pedestrian traffic. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Paliska replied that he was retained at least eighteen months ago by the applicant for $100.00 per month, and the service provided tickets for the restaurant. Mr. Paliska stated that the lack of a proper queuing area to handle peak period arrivals and proper staffing are the primary problems. Mr. Paliska explained that he was informed of the letters that Mr. Tila received regarding the City's concerns. Commissioner Glover and Mr. Paliska discussed the length of time the valet service has had a contract with the restaurant. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Ms. Flory explained that the non - conforming restaurant is not required to provide a valet service, and it could operate by using the parking • spaces that are located on -site. Mr. Webb explained that the applicant was required to stripe the restaurant parking lot in a conventional manner, and not in a manner that a parking lot can be striped for valet parking which allows some stacking of automobiles. Ms. Flory explained that when the applicant lost the parking on West Coast Highway, Mr. Tila amended the use permit to add a valet parking service, and conditions were imposed so as to operate the valet service. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover regarding the conditions of approval, William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that the valet service was required to be approved by the City Traffic Engineer, and if a shuttle van was a part of the Traffic Engineer's approved valet service, then a shuttle an would have been one of the conditions of approval. Mr. Laycock concurred with Commissioner Glover that the valet transportation route was approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Mr. Webb stated that the City Traffic Engineer determines if the proposal is reasonable and if the plan can be operated safely. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Tila reappeared before the Planning Commission to discuss the . proposed striping of the two left turn lanes. Mr. Webb explained that the plans were prepared by the City for Cal- Trans, the City administered the contract, approved the various layouts, made -6- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 5, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX recommendations, and made the changes required by Cal- Trans. The issue is not the tun being made out of the restaurant driveway and crossing over a corner of the cross - hatching if it is done carefully. Mr. Webb stated that the placement of striping within a street would not be reimbursable by Cal- Trans. Commissioner Gross questioned if the applicant assumed that West Coast Highway would be double striped and the automobiles would be allowed to cross over the lanes. W. Webb explained there never was a public hearing that went into the detail that discussed specific striping of the highway. Mr. Webb concurred with Commissioner Gross that it would be legal for automobiles to leave the westerly parking lot and cross over the through lanes to the left turn lane so as to proceed to the Municipal Parking Lot. Commissioner Gross referred to the approved valet parking plan and the distance to the Municipal Parking Lot from the restaurant whereby Mr. Laycock pointed out that it was the applicant that had recommended the route from the restaurant site to the Municipal Parking Lot. In . response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Paliska replied that a shuttle van adds liability and he would prefer to add more staff than a shuttle van. Mr. Paliska and Mr. Webb agreed that an immediate right turn on the through lane is required from the easterly lot. Commissioner Glover emphatically stated her concern that the valet attendants are running across West Coast Highway. Mr. Paliska stated that the primary issues are the loading and unloading of passengers on West Coast Highway, attendants crossing the highway, and to keep the automobiles off of the sidewalk. Mr. Jim Sinasek, Code Enforcement Supervisor, appeared before the Planning Commission. The letter from Mr. Sinasek to Mr. Tila ated July 8, 1991, indicated the importance of the strict adherence of only with the letter of the law but also with the spirit of the law with respect to the operation. Subsequent to the letter, Mr. Tila et with staff and staff informed Mr. Tila the importance to the adherence of the conditions to the use permit. Other communications have been made with Mr. Tila since then and ere have been many promises; however, Mr. Sinasek questioned ' Mr. Tila understood the significance of the entire proceedings. • Sinasek expressed a concern whether Mr. Tila would comply with a new plan if one is approved by the Commission. -7- COMMISSIONERS 03 coo � �co • o,� �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March S, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Richard Luehrs, President of the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Luehrs stated that Mr. Tila intends to comply and come up with a valet parking plan that meets the City s requirements, and there appears to be a communication problem between Mr. Tila and staff. The proposed valet parking plan is in response to an unworkable plan that was approved in September, 1989. The proposed plan addresses the west lot vs. the east lot for staging valet parking wherein Mr. Luehrs stated that he had a concern regarding the movement in the west lot without the third driveway. He said that it was his suggestion that Mr. Tila explore the possibility of a third driveway because automobiles would otherwise be backed up on to West Coast Highway during the peak restaurant hours. The third curb cut would allow the valet to proceed across the lanes of traffic to make the left hand turn and to continue on to the Municipal Parking Lot. . Commissioner Glover stated that the Commission previously adopted what the applicant requested in September, 1989, and she pointed out that the Commission may be reluctant to approve the proposed valet plan. She said that the Commission would require assurance that Mr. Tila would follow through on the proposed plan. Mr. Luehrs stated that he could not understand how anyone could recommend a 2 -1/2 mile, 6 1/2 minute route between the restaurant and the Municipal Parking Lot; however, it may be that the highway was new and widened when the valet plan was approved, and the applicant may have thought that the plan was the only workable solution. He said that may be the fact because of the striping of the second left hand turn lane on West Coast Highway into Hoag Hospital. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the feasibility of the restaurant using the parking lot located on Hoag Hospital property, Mr. Luehrs explained that hospital personnel has indicated they would not be interested in providing restaurant parking. Gary Douglas, 21 Balboa Coves, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Douglas explained he previously opposed the • present valet parking plan, and he expressed his concerns with safety and the method that Mr. Tila has operated the valet parking service. Commissioner Debay pointed out that Balboa Coves has -8- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 5, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX objected to the public using the entrance to Balboa Coves to make safe U -turns and then coming out at the signal to make legal left turns to the Municipal Parking Lot, and she asked what the damage would be to Balboa Coves to allow the U -turn. Mr. Douglas explained there has been damage to the gate house, the residents have had near collisions with persons making U -turns at the entrance, and valet attendants need close supervision by the restaurant's management to play by the rules. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Douglas replied that if the attendants are trained to make a safe U -turn at the entrance to Balboa Coves is not the residents' only concern, and it would not be the solution to the problem. Mr. Douglas stated that there are times when automobiles are stacked up at the entrance to Balboa Coves to enter the residential area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr.` Douglas replied that the applicant never used the previously approved valet parking plan. Mr. Luehrs reappeared before the Planning Commission wherein he stated that Mr. Tila requested a hole in the block wall adjacent to Balboa Coves to enable the automobiles to circulate to the intersection and make a left hand turn. The approved valet parking plan was the only one the City Traffic Engineer allowed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Webb explained that the property line is a prolongation at the back of sidewalk, and there is an easement that was granted for the installation of the traffic signal protection loops. Mr. Webb concurred that the City would like to see the driveway go through the wall and into the Balboa Coves area inasmuch as it would greatly help the situation, and it would be much safer to make the left turn out of the area. Commissioner Edwards asked if the applicant ever tried to implement the original plan? Mr. Webb replied that he believed that he did not implement the plan. The reason why the long transportation route exists is because that was the only way it was possible to exit out of the facility and not go across lanes of traffic in a manner that the City felt was safe. -9- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 5, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL I I Jill INDEX Mr. Tila and Mr. Paliska reappeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Chairman Di Sano. Mr. Paliska replied that to his knowledge the parking plan was never implemented. Mr. Tila explained that he tried to implement the original parking plan by using a shuttle van for three or four days. Commissioner Merrill questioned why Mr. Tila did not come back to the City after a decision was made to advise that the approved parking plan was not operable wherein Mr. Tila explained that he tried alternate parking plans. Mr. Hewicker concurred that alternate plans have previously been reviewed by the staff and Mr. Tila; however, none of the plans were implemented by the applicant. Mr. Bob Smith, 38 Balboa Coves, appeared before the Planning Commission. He addressed the letter from Barbara Garber, President of the Balboa Coves Association dated March 4, 1992, to the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith described two dangerous • situations relating to restaurant patrons and the entrance to Balboa Coves. The Balboa Coves Association recommends the revocation of a valet parking service based on the applicant's failure to operate a parking service in conformance with the conditions of the use permit. Commissioner Merrill suggested that the Balboa Coves residents consider police enforcement of the community's private streets. Mr. Tila and Mr. Paliska reappeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Chairman Di Sano. Ms. Flory stated that the valet parking has been under- resourced, and too many automobiles have been parked on the lot which does not allow for any movement of automobiles that are coming on the estaurant site. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover, Ms. Flory eplied that she would recommend that the applicant provide a worse case scenario and submit that data to the City Traffic Engineer for approval. Mr. Webb explained that if the City Traffic Engineer approves the valet parking plan, it is necessary to have a commitment from the applicant that the plan be followed. If the lan does not work, the applicant is required to come back to the City Traffic Engineer for modification. Ms. Flory suggested that -10- COMMISSIONERS • 0, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 5, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX the parking plan approved by the City Traffic Engineer could be brought back to the Planning Commission for review. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Hewicker explained that in order for the applicant to use the Municipal Parking Lot, it was necessary for the restaurant to provide valet parking. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Ms. Flory and Mr. Hewicker suggested that the Commission could place conditions on the use permit after the City Traffic Engineer reviewed and made recommendations to the applicant's valet parking plan. Commissioner Gross made a suggestion to fine the applicant if there would be a violation to the valet parking plan. Ms. Flory explained that a condition for a payment in violation of a use • permit would not be appropriate. Commissioner Merrill and Chairman Di Sano suggested that a condition be added stating automatic recommendation of revocation of the amended use permit if the applicant continues to violate the conditions to the use permit. Chairman Di Sano stated that the applicant would be making a commitment not just to provide valet parking but for the viability of the restaurant. Commissioner Edwards stated that the applicant has not previously mplemented valet parking plans that the City has approved, and e suggested that the Commission immediately send a eecmmendation of revocation of Use Permit No. 2005 (Amended) o the City Council. He emphasized the numerous opportunities at staff gave the applicant to come up with a parking plan that ould work. Commissioner Pomeroy and Mr. Paliska addressed the feasibility A transporting restaurant patrons to the Municipal Parking Lot. The public hearing was closed at this time. on otion was made to continue Use Permit No. 2005 (Amended) to he April 9, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner ross requested that staff and the applicant provide an -11- COMMISSIONERS \0� March 5, 1992 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX implemented legal plan to the Commission at the April 9, 1992, meeting. Commissioner Gross indicated that if the applicant cannot provide a valet parking plan that works that he would vote for recommending the revocation of the use permit that permitted valet parking. He further stated that if the plan works, he would be in favor of valet parking going forward. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards, Commissioner Gross explained that the applicant must provide some method to indicate to the City that a valet parking service can work. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Commissioner Gross explained that, hopefully, conditions would come back to the Planning Commission from the City Traffic Engineer at the April 9, 1992, Planning Commission meeting for a valet parking plan that works. Ms. Flory suggested that if the applicant provides a valet parking plan that works and is approved by the City Traffic Engineer, staff • could recommend conditions out of the plan for presentation to the Planning Commission for approval. Commissioner Gross amended the motion to include Ms. Flory's aforementioned statement. He said that he is not opposed to the extra curb cut; however, he would suggest that the curb cut be used as the entrance. Commissioner Edwards did not support the motion on the basis that the applicant had two years to provide a workable valet parking plan. Commissioner Glover stated she would not support a third curb cut. Chairman Di Sano stated that he would reluctantly support the motion to give the applicant one last opportunity. Ayes Motion was voted on to continue Use Permit No. 2005 (Amended) No * to the April 9, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION • CARRIED. -12- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 5, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Amendment No. 748 (Public Hearing) item No.3 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport A748 Beach Municipal Code so as to add the following items to the (Res. 1282) power and duties of the Modifications Committee: the number of Approved signs regulated by the Municipal Code, the location of accessory buildings on a building site; and the installation of roof -top architectural features and solar equipment in excess of permitted height limits. INTPIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Commissioner Merrill asked what the cost of a Modification appeal would be to a property owner if the request would be to allow the number of signs or a roof top architectural feature. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that a roof top sign currently requires a Sign Exception that costs $335.00. Architectural • features on the roof and solar equipment require a Planning Commission Review and there is not currently a filing fee. Commissioner Merrill stated that if the Planning Commission or the City Council did not call up an item, and the property owner wanted to appeal the modification, that the appeal fee increases substantially. Commissioner Gross requested a clarification of Section 20.10.030 of the Municipal Code as amended in the staff report. Mr. Laycock explained that currently an accessory building in the "B" District would require Planning Commission approval; however, if amended as suggested, the Modifications Committee would review accessory buildings on the front one -half of the lot. The public hearing was opened at this time. There being no one to appear before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to adopt Resolution No. 1282 and All Ayes recommend to City Council the adoption of Amendment No. 748. MOTION CARRIED. -13- COMMISSIONERS �0��� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 5, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL 111 Jill I INDEX Amendment No. 752 (Public He nn Item No.4 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport A752 (Res.I263) Beach Municipal Code so as to include the addition of one or more billiard tables to an existing restaurant use as a change in Approved operational characteristics which requires the approval of a use permit in each case. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Commissioner Debay asked if the request would require Coastal Commission approval. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that if the location of the property is in the Coastal Zone, a Coastal Permit would be required. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to a previous quote that he made regarding a previous application wherein he stated that two pool tables do not make any change in the operational characteristics of a restaurant that has an occupancy of about 400 people. He said that while it is important to bring the use of pool tables into a use permit situation, the primary reason for doing that was to be able to regulate the pool hall or the 'beer joint', not necessarily a high - class restaurant that wants to add one or two pool tables. He suggested the Commission consider a limit that would really change the operational characteristics of a restaurant, i.e. square footage. Chairman Di Sano stated that restaurants with one or two pool tables is not a destination restaurant for pool players, and he questioned if a businessman should be required to apply for a use permit, and if necessary, to the Coastal Commission for two billiard tables. Commissioner Edwards suggested that the restaurants be considered individually depending on a restaurant's square footage and the requested number of pool tables. Commissioner Merrill addressed the procedure that a restaurant operator takes to acquire a permit from the City to install billiard tables, and a determination by the City if the request would change the operational characteristics of a restaurant. • Commissioner Gross suggested that if a restaurant requires a patron to pay for the use of a billiard table, that a use permit be required. The purpose is that a restaurant would not be making -14- COMMISSIONERS � o �0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 5, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX money from the billiard tables and the use would be for recreational purposes only. Mr. Hewicker stated that it would be difficult to police the use. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Hewicker referred to the Planning Commission meeting of February 6, 1992, when the Commission considered an appeal from the Ellis Island Restaurant concerning staffs interpretation of the Zoning Code as it pertains to a change in operational characteristics of an existing restaurant. He said that it does not fit under the interpretation is the restaurant now in substantial compliance with the plan that was approved by the Planning Commission The plan that was approved by the Planning Commission was an entirely different restaurant, did not have pool tables, and did not have extra licensing requirements that are required for pool tables. The Commission discussed the previous statements. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested wording that space occupied by billiard tables plus 5 feet on all sides of the billiard tables that exceeds 10 percent of the restaurants 'het public area ", a use permit is required If the "net public area" is less than 10 percent there would not be a substantial change in a restaurant's operational characteristics. Commissioner Merrill expressed his concern regarding the policing of the use of billiard tables. Commissioner Glover addressed concerns with respect to an applicant applying to the Coastal Commission for the installation of billiard tables. response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. ewicker explained that the Commission cannot call up a use ermit for a restaurant if there is a disturbance unless the condition s on the use permit. Ms. Flory stated that if there would be an ssue that is not conditioned as a part of the use permit, then there s the consideration of "public nuisance" and said violation is lifficult to enforce. ommissioner Merrill expressed his support that restaurants should e required to apply for a use permit to install billiard tables. hairman Di Sano questioned if it is appropriate to penalize an up- cale restaurant for only one billiard table or similar type of game. -15- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 5, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL ill Jill I INDEX Commissioner Pomeroy indicated that a restaurant should not be persecuted by going through the public process if the operational characteristics are not changed, the restaurant is not in violation of the use permit, and the use would not harm the City. Mr. Hewicker stated that if it is the desire of the Planning Commission not to require a use permit for one or two billiard tables, the Commission could modify the Amendment by stating..to include the addition of three billiard tables...requires the approval of a use permit in each case. Commissioner Glover addressed restaurants within the City that operate without a use permit and as a non - conforming use, and she questioned the problems that the Police Department has had because the restaurants do not operate under a use permit. She stated that she would like to be able to control the use. • Commissioner Edwards, Chairman Di Sano, and Commissioner Merrill discussed Mr. Hewicker's statement requiring a use permit for the installation of three or more billiard tables, and the police enforcement of billiard table use. Ms. Flory suggested that the City Attorney's Office could review Title 5 for the purpose of modifying Game Permit regulations. Chairman Di Sano stated that inasmuch as an up -scale restaurant would not use the dining area for billiard tables, the tables would be installed in a limited area of either the cocktail or waiting area. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. There being no one to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Glover and Ms. Flory discussed the condition in a use permit that allows the Planning Commission to can up the use permit if there is a change in the operational characteristics of an establishment. . Commissioner Gross supported the suggestion that a use permit would be required if a restaurant uses more than 10 percent of the "net public area" for billiards. -16- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 5, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Motion Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 752, amending Section 20.72.010 E, Change in Operational Characteristics, No. 8, to state The addition of three or more billiard tables. Commissioner Pomeroy stated if a large number of billiard tables would be installed, it would change the operational characteristics of a restaurant and it would require a use permit. The 10 percent recommendation could change the operational characteristics of a restaurant because a billiard area could be established that would separate the use from the dining area. Discussion ensued with respect to the number of tables that could be allowed without a use permit. Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Hewicker discussed concerns that Commissioner Merrill had with respect to a legal non - conforming business establishment with a liquor license, no use permit, and the installation of billiard tables. Commissioner Gross amended the motion to include three or more ended * billiard tables or 10 percent of the "net public area ". Commissioner Pomeroy agreed with the amendment to the motion, and he clarified the request by stating that if the area occupied by billiard tables is greater than 10 percent of the "net public area" or if there would be three or more billiard tables, a use permit would be required. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Hewicker explained that 10 percent of the "net public area" would be addressed when the plans are processed through Plan Check. Commissioner Gross requested an amendment to the motion which would add 5 feet on each side of the pool table because that is the distance that is required to go back with the cue. A billiard table is 4-1/2 feet by 9 feet or 14 feet by 19 feet. Commissioner Debay suggested that the request for billiard tables could be considered as a Discussion Item on the Planning Commission Agenda, and give the Planning Commission the opportunity to determine if there would be a change in use. Staff explained that a Discussion Item would require the staff to prepare a staff report, including conditions, and a set of plans. Motion was voted on to adopt Resolution No. 1283 recommending to the City Council the approval of Amendment No. 752, modify Section 20.72.010 E, No. 8. The addition of three or more billiard -17- COMMISSIONERS 0, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 5, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX tables, or 10 percent of the `net public area" calculated by the area of the billiard table plus 5 feet on all four sides, requires a use permit. MOTION CARRIED. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Hewicker explained that based on the foregoing action that staff would contact the applicant for the Ellis Island Restaurant that a use permit would not be required because the restaurant requested to install two billiard tables. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Discussion Items Amendment No. 753 D -1 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to revise the definition of "Grade ". Cont ' d to 3/19/92 James Hewicker, Planning Director, requested that this item be continued to the March 19, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. Motion Motion was made and voted on to continue Discussion Item No. 1 All Ayes to the March 19, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Review of the Planning Doartment Workload EWosed D -2 Agenda for the Joint Meeting with n '1 on March 1992 Joint CC/ PC Meeting Mr. Hewicker stated that the State Law requires a written annual report to the City Council on the status of the General Plan and the progress of its implementation. Mr. Hewicker addressed the Planning Department Project List. aIn response to a question posed by Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Hewicker replied that pending the joint meeting with the City Council, GPA 92 -1(C) Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan is not -18- COMMISSIONERS \0� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 5, 1992 MINUTES ROLL CALL lil Jill I INDEX currently regarded a high priority item. Mr. Hewicker explained that the Planning Department is currently working on a Specific Area Plan for Central Balboa. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gross regarding the Noise Element, Mr. Hewicker explained that the Noise Element was delayed because it required budgeting; however, the project is close to completion and will be coming to the Planning Commission in the near future. •s: ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 p.m. Adjourn s s s NORMA GLOVER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT i i -19-