Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/2003• Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2003 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Commissioners Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker - All Present Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Jyll Ramirez Department Assistant Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary • Minutes: Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the minutes of February 20, 2003 as revised. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Selich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: None Abstain: Kiser Public Comments: Postina of the Aaenda: The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday, February 28, 2003. 0 INDEX Minutes Approved None Posting of Agenda . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2003 SUBJECT: Balboa Inn Expansion - (PA 2002 -236) 707 E. Ocean Front Amendment to Use Permit No. 3683 to increase the height limit for an elevator tower (34 feet) and several architectural features (32 feet), increase the bulk of the approved project to accommodate the new elevator tower and to make other architectural and design changes. Chairperson Kiser noted a letter dated March 3, 2003 written by Mr. James Read that had been distributed to all the Commissioners asking the Planning Commission to consider his comments as he is unable to attend the meeting. Senior Planner James Campbell noted a proposed change to condition 4 regarding the number of parking spaces from 20 to 17 for all on -site uses; and added that 12 parking spaces are required. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell noted: • No new exhibits. • Coastal Commission approved the original project. • The conditions of approval are the same as presented at the previous meeting except for the added bold lettering that is new; the only other change is the elimination of language in the resolution that dealt with the • Transient Occupancy Tax as the tax had been paid. Public comment was opened. Mr. Robert Stem, architect speaking for the applicant, presented a power point presentation noting: • The existing conditions at the hotel, new renderings representing the new designs as part of the exhibits. • Presented samples of red roof the to be used that are barrel tops to match the existing roof of the Balboa Inn; and the floor tile proposed. • Throughout the presentation, he noted the detail changes, and that he had consulted the minutes of the last meeting and took under advisement items noted by the Commissioners that are included in the presentation and the proposal. • New street trees are planned to be incorporated and will continue down the Ocean Front walk. • New concrete balustrades on the bridge versus the existing aluminum rails. • More awnings are introduced to keep in line with the existing design of the inn. • Column bases and column capitals detailing will be matched to existing. • Stone pavers for the walkways and trim color to be used. • Windows are to be recessed on the storefronts within the arch areas to match the existing conditions. • Introducing a wood trellis around the exterior parking area to help with the landscaping. • Wrought iron to be used on third floor railings for a transparent look INDEX PA2002 -236 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2003 At Commission inquiry, he added: • The hotel ownership plans to upgrade the existing hotel in the future once this project is underway. Commissioner McDaniel asked, now that there is an elevator in this building, can it stand alone? If the old building burnt down, could this building stand by itself without having to be tied to the other; could this parcel be sold off separate from the other? Mr. Campbell answered it would stand alone in terms of compliance with the Building Code and Fire Code, but to stand alone as a hotel, they would have to build a lobby and take away the commercial space below it because they would need a lobby for an entrance. Staff doesn't believe, as designed, it could be a stand alone hotel without further modification of the building. However, condition 6 limits the uses, development and operation of both properties as one, consistent with this use permit and preclude conversion of the buildings to any other or separate use. This use permit could be amended, however. Tom Hyans, President of Center Newport Beach Community Association noting the letter written by Mr. Read, spoke for him: • The original project designed by Ron Baers was presented at two • previous meetings as one configuration with nicely done windows, less shear wall area, open space and an appealing project then. • It looks like it might be back to that with this evening's presentation. • The things that disappointed you the last time about the building configuration, may or may not have gone away. The wrought iron is still on the third floor. • If this was appealed on the basis of the first two presentations where there was a nice looking building and they have not restored this the way it was before, does this get back to the City Council for appeal? Mr. Campbell answered that Mr. Read could appeal this decision to the City Council or the City Council could call it for review. The project would not be automatically sent to the Council. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Toerge asked: • 'Increased height resulting in decreased building footprint, etc.' is there anyway this can be demonstrated? How is that developed? Mr. Campbell answered • The western part of the project (26 feet) is actually an open parking area that has a wall around it. Originally, that wall would have been wrought iron fencing. The Planning Commission required that the interior portion of that area that faces Ocean Front be a solid, decorative wall as there was • a concern about light spillage from the parking area on Ocean Front. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2003 That wall reduces visibility through the project. There is open space above the screen wall that is not occupied by buildings. Commissioner McDaniel asked: • How many other parcels of land are on the frontage side of the walkway? Ms. Temple answered this is the only commercial property. The Newport Elementary School property is also oceanward of the boardwalk; there are some remnant residential properties further down the peninsula that are extremely small and have no access. Commissioner Toerge commented on the resolution: • Section 4:3 - the reference to public street, should that be more accurately described as public right of way? Staff agreed • Section 4:9c - remove 'to the west' as it is duplicative. Staff agreed. • Section 4:9d - change the wording to, 'The increased height does not...' Staff agreed. • Section 4:9g - change, '... 8 to 5 excess parking stalls.' Staff agreed. • Section 4:91x(c) - change provides to provide. Staff agreed. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to approve the requested amendment to Use Permit No. 3683 (PA2002 -236) subject to the findings and conditions of . approval within the attached draft resolution with the suggested corrections. He then stated that the applicant has done what was requested to find ways to tie the building more into the existing inn and to do some architectural enhancement to the building. Commissioner Gifford noted her concern about an amendment to this use permit that a restricted covenant could be overcome. In condition 6, could we remove the words, consistent with this use permit and not lose anything? The use permit is there; amending the use permit would not get around the covenant. Ms. Clauson answered that those words could be removed. However, another Planning Commission or City Council could decide to eliminate the requirement for the covenant; that would be only after a public hearing and due process. The covenant will not go away on its own, it would have to be by some action; some sort of documentation would have to be filed to terminate or change the recorded property covenant. Ms. Wood noted that also in that condition, 707 Ocean Front and 105 Main Street can not be conveyed separately while either is used pursuant to this use permit. So, if such a change is made, it would have to affect both properties. Commissioner Tucker noted that the reason for this covenant was initially the two parcels needed to be operated together to provide the handicap access. The biggest issue was separate parcels with separate ownership. There is still a rational • for keeping them tied together and should be kept that way. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2003 Ayes: Toerge, Agajanion, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: McDaniel, Kiser US BJECT: General Plan Amendment Initiation No. 2003 -002 813 East Balboa Avenue Request to initiate a General Plan Amendment and an amendment to the Local Coastal Program to change the land use designation on a single lot from Retail and Service Commercial to Two Family Residential. Ms. Temple noted: • Size of commercial districts including Balboa Village might be an item to discuss as part of the overall General Plan Update. There have been some comments that there is too much land zoned for commercial purposes and that the City should look at ways to change some of it to residential or other types of land uses. • As you proceed, staff would like you to consider whether this change should be part of the overall consideration associated with the General Plan Update. • Public comment was opened. Mr. Steve Legere, property owner noted: • The building consumes the whole lot and has no commercial value as the location is out of the main stream. • Most of the traffic is on Main Street; no parking in front of the building and has no rear access for delivery of items. • If it was built with a residence on top, the building size would go from 2,500 square feet below to 1,250 square feet because 7 parking spaces would have to be included. 7 parking spaces can not fit on the lot. Tom Hyans, resident of the peninsula, noted his support to convert this commercial properly to residential properly. Commissioner Tucker asked if any of the lots in the area would have improved value if they were just single family. Mr. Hyans answered that a single family would be better. But sometimes the size of the lot and the speculative value would be conducive to duplexes. Single family residences are very expensive for some people to afford. Commissioner McDaniel asked how many square feet could be built if this was approved. • Staff answered that the available square footage for residential use would be INDEX Rem 2 PA2003 -050 Recommended for Approval City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2003 approximately 3,570 square feet of floor area. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Initiation No. 2003 -002 (PA2003-050). Commissioner Gifford noted her support of the motion as another empty storefront is not needed in the village area. Commissioner Toerge noted his agreement with the previous statement and added that he is concerned about this residential property being built next to a restaurant with its night life of the parking lot with valet service. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None SUBJECT: Zoning Code Amendment Initiation Citywide is Amend Chapter 20.85 to be Compliant with Assembly Bill No. 1866, Chapter 1062, Statutes 2002 Chairperson Kiser noted that Assembly Bill No. 1866 was enacted by the State in 2002 and it prohibits discretionary review of the second residential units proposed for single family lots on or after July 1, 2003. Ms. Temple noted: • The current Code gives no discretion to deny so long as certain standards are met. Ms. Clauson added that this law changes the requirement that the City does not have discretionary permit involved so a public hearing is not necessary as long as the standards are met. There will have to be a report and based on the research, age may or may not be supportable as it will depend on what the housing needs are and the reason for second units. This will be looked at through the process. Chairperson Kiser asked if this was not acted upon tonight, is there any potential benefit to the City or is there anything else that can be considered? Ms. Clauson answered that the City needs to go through this process as the new law goes into effect July 1, 2003. Staff is initiating this Code Amendment to get it started and then will go through the process of complying with the statutory requirements for providing reports, identifying those areas in the City where second units are /are not appropriate. It will be a study and update of the original report done on granny unit dwellings and the criteria to be used. INDEX Item 3 PA2003 -054 Resolution of Intent was adopted 10 Planning of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2003 Commissioner Tucker noted that as this is an initiation item we do not have all the details; it is premature to have a discussion now. Commissioner Toerge asked how often the City receives and approves applications for accessory dwelling units. Ms. Temple answered that since this statute was adopted in the mid 1980's, approximately 18 applications have been approved and 12 were actually implemented. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian to initiate an amendment to Title 20 amending Chapter 20.85 (Accessory Dwelling Units) to be compliant with assembly Bill No. 1866, Chapter 1062, Statutes 2002. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None SUBJECT: General Plan Update Visioning Statement Commission review of draft Vision Statement Chairperson Kiser noted that the Planning Commission is being asked to review the proposed Vision Statement and to recommend to the City Council whether or not to 'adopt' or 'endorse' it. He asked for clarification of the terminology suggested. Ms. Wood noted that this language is the some as passed in the motion by the General Plan Update Committee. They did not have a strong direction they wanted to go, so they were leaving flexibility for the Planning Commission and the City Council. Commissioner Tucker asked what it means to either adopt or endorse. What is the difference with receive and file? What are the consequences? Ms. Wood noted the committee supported this idea. The General Plan Advisory Committee, comprised of 38 people, spent a lot of time putting this together based on what they heard from all the public outreach methods used during the visioning process. The idea was to have something that would guide us as we do the actual update of the General Plan. Their thinking is that if some official action on the Vision Statement is taken by the Planning Commission and City Council it would have more weight as we go through this process. There is no legal consequence • between adopt or endorse, it is not being added to the General Plan at this point, INDEX Bern No. 4 GPU Visioning Statement Recommended • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2003 OlTnougn we migm wanT To it when we do get to that point. Commissioner Tucker noted: • Served as a Charter member of the General Plan Update committee. • He asked for an update of the status of the economic and traffic studies that are a key component of the process. How do we adopt or endorse a vision statement that is still missing pieces of what should guide the overall thought process? Ms. Wood noted the lack of those studies is part of the reason for the generality of the Vision Statement. The fiscal impact analysis of existing land uses has been drafted and has been reviewed by the Economic Development Committee. It will be brought to the General Plan Advisory Committee within the next few months following some additional information from the consultant. Mr. Edmonton noted that the draft model has been largely completed that shows the existing traffic and what the traffic projections would be based on the current General Plan. Those are still under staff review and should be finished within two weeks. Ms. Wood added that the Scoping Sub - committee of the General Plan Update • Committee met last week and talked about the questions raised at the prior joint meeting. They will be recommending, as part of the scope, five key decision points when there would be study sessions with the Planning Commission and City Council. Among those would be as we formulate the land use alternatives that will be tested, when that evaluation is back. Commissioner Selich noted that the Vision Statement is very general; there had been in -depth discussions about choices and where decisions have to be made. I would have expected that would have framed the issues more than something like this. I am perplexed why we are even doing this as it does not bring any of the issues to the forefront. Ms. Wood answered that GPAC was unable to produce something more specific due to the fact that they did not get those technical studies early enough to be able to talk about the trade offs, which had been the intent early on from the General Plan Update Committee when both Commissioners Selich and Tucker were participating. Public comment was opened. Barry Eaton, member of General Plan Update Committee, noted the following: • General Plan Advisory Committee is comprised of many people with various opinions. • It would be nice to recognize the extensive work done by GPAC and establish the process on a positive note. • I had originally suggested 'adopt' the vision statement, as it shows some • INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2003 recognition of a generalized vision statement of what we hope Newport Beach will be in 20 years. The reason for the word 'endorse' was recommended by the consultant and agreed to by Ms. Wood to make it more pliable and less rigid. Commissioner Tucker noted he did not understand the reason to adopt it other than to make people feel good. Mr. Eaton answered that would be a positive note to continue with the update process and you will get much more specific policies and implementation programs. One of the things to be recommended is a hierarchy of goals and policies and implementing programs. Those will be very specific. Nancy Gardner, member of GPAC, noted the reason the Vision Statement is not specific is because that was our mandate. We were told this is a vision and visions do not include details. You don't need a traffic study to say that in 20 years you want traffic to be flowing smoothly. What economic data will change the fact that you want it to be primarily a residential community and that you want the residents' needs to be considered? This is what we have heard. We wanted this to be a vision. There was a lot of discussion on the verbiage of the statement itself. If it did not go beyond a committee of volunteers, who represented every aspect of the City, why not? It would be meaningful as we continue this process to have both the Planning Commission and City Council agree that this is a vision that we can all agree on for our City. Philip Lugar, co- chairman of GPAC noted that we are asking that you endorse the vision statement. Basically you do not have to do anything with it, but endorsing it would send a message that we are on the right track, even if it is only a general statement. Tom Hyans, resident of West Newport noted it is important that GPAC be acknowledged and recognized for their work. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Clauson stated that an endorsement would not have legal ramifications or commitment. It is just a matter of whether this Commission, as recommended by the GPUC, can say that they think this is on the right track. As stated before, another thing to say is, 'that you recognize the efforts of GPAC, and agree that this is a good starting place,' rather than 'endorse'. Ms. Wood suggested that the Planning Commission could 'endorse this as guidance for the General Plan Update'. Chairperson Kiser noted that he has read the statement and certainly there could be comments and changes to it, there is nothing in the statement that is objectionable and given comments from the City Attorney's office that recommending that our City Council endorse this statement has no detrimental ramifications with respect to the development of the new General Plan made the following motion. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2003 Motion was made by Chairperson Kiser that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council endorse this Vision Statement. Commissioner Gifford noted that there was a lot of discussion about wanting feedback, involvement and support. There was a great deal of time and effort put into this statement. Substitute motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to commend the effort of General Plan Advisory Committee and generally concur with the direction of the Vision Statement. Commissioner Gifford noted her support of the original motion. This recommendation was discussed at the GPUC meeting at which there were three councilmembers present; the vote was to move this forward. Chairperson Kiser noted that this is a statement that is recognition of the work done. Commissioner McDaniel noted his support of the original motion. Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of the substitute motion. • Commissioner Tucker changed his substitute motion to, 'recommend to the City Council that the Council generally concur with the Vision Statement'. Ayes: Agajanian, Tucker Noes: Toerge, Kiser, McDaniel, Gifford, Selich Original motion: Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, Kiser, McDaniel, Gifford, Selich, Noes: Tucker ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood noted that the City Council on February 25th approved the Use Permit and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Park and the Senior Housing project at Bayview; discussed the proposed project by Sutherland Talla Hospitality at the Marina Park site on the peninsula; considered a report on procedures for appeals and calls for review, additionally Councilmember Heffernan had called for review a setback encroachment on Peninsula Point that turned into a discussion of the modification process itself. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic 10 INDEX Additional Business City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2003 Development Committee - The EDC reviewed the fiscal impact analysis of the economic study for the general plan update and made suggestions for other areas that need to be looked into. C) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - none. d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Toerge noted that the plan had been circulated to the department heads for their comments. The document is being redrafted and consolidated into a restated review and we expect to get that back March 12th. We are going to be removing Newport Coast from the LCP because it already has a Coastal Program approved by the Coastal Commission. It will be referred to in the LCP as not part of the plan. The final draft will be available for review by the first part of April. Members of the Planning Commission will also receive a copy for their review at that time. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. f) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. • g) Status report on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple noted she looked at Cassidy's sign and that it had been painted out; since it is now not in use, it is considered abandoned and our Code Enforcement personnel will take action. She then introduced Jyll Ramirez, Planning Department Assistant. Commissioner Gifford noted that Rudy's has planted the front area that had been a concern of hers. • h) Project status - none. Requests for excused absences - Ms. Temple reported that there are three Commissioners who have signed up for the Planning Institute as well as herself so they will be absent from the March 20th meeting. It was then decided that there would be no meeting on March 201h. ADJOURNMENT: 8:30 p.m. SHANT AGAJANIAN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 11 INDEX Adjournment