Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/05/2000Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker: Commissioner Gifford was excused. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes of September 21, 2000: Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker and voted on to approve, as amended, the minutes of September 21, 2000, Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Gifford Public Comments: None Postina of the Aaenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, September 29, 2000. • INDEX Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 SUBJECT: Balboa Inn & Expansion 105 Main Street & 707 Ocean Front • Approve the Negative Declaration • Use Permit No. 3683 A request for a Use Permit to construct a two and three story building for 11 new guest rooms for the Balboa Inn, 2060 square feet of retail space and a partially open parking garage with 20 tandem parking spaces. The use permit application also includes consideration of an exception to the maximum allowable floor area and basic allowable building height. Senior Planner James Campbell presented slides on the proposed application noting the following: • This is a new application, the original one was denied without prejudice in July 2000. • Difference in applications is the inclusion of the existing Inn within the overall project application. • Existing Inn is a non - conforming, 34 -room hotel built in 1933. • Expansion request is for a new 11 -room hotel, which is on the oceanfront side with 2,060 square feet of retail space accommodated on the first floor. • • Pool area, accessory storage areas and existing retail space that will be removed were noted on the slides. • The application includes consideration to allow the structure to exceed the maximum building height of 26 feet. The highest portions of the project are 31 feet at two separate elements. • Elevation drawings were explained. • A proposal of a decorative masonry wall to screen along the parking areas. • Application requests to exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 755 square feet. Chairperson Selich noted that at the July 20th meeting, the Planning Commission formally denied without prejudice the application. By State law this application had run out of time and there were unresolved issues with the status of all of the different approvals that had been given over the years. We wanted to unify those approvals under one use permit. At Commission inquiry, staff noted that this application is slightly different in that it includes the existing Balboa Inn. Staff is recommending no changes to the existing Inn; it is a conforming use but a non - conforming structure relative to building height, floor area ratio and parking. The restaurant has a separate use permit and staff would like to keep that separate. The expansion is the same project; nothing is being added to it. Mr. Campbell noted that there are several changes to the conditions resulting from discussion at the July meeting. One has to do with the valet parking plan; INDEX Item No. 1 UP No. 3683 and Negative Declaratlon Continued to 12/07/2000 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 finishes to be consistent with the existing Inn; the use shall not be operated separately or independently from the existing Balboa Inn and the owner shall provide and execute a replacement encroachment agreement subject to review and approval by the City for continued operation of the pedestrian bridge. Commissioner Kranzley noted that he had received a letter from Mr. Sherreitt who had protested the original application. One of the points he brought up was a use permit for more height and square footage than allowed by City Ordinances. Staff clarified that the Zoning Ordinance permits the consideration of the structures to exceed the basic limit, which is 26 feet, up to 35 feet through a Use Permit. It is authorized by the Code, but subject to that approval with specific findings. It is also permissible to exceed the basic area limit up to an FAR of 1.0 through a use permit. The findings are different than typical variance findings. The bridge was built in 1936 with an encroachment agreement. We can verify that it is structurally sound. Ms. Temple added that the Building Department would require all information necessary to assure compliance with building codes. Commissioner Kiser asked the status of payment on the Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT). Assistant City Manager, Sharon Wood answered that she and the Revenue Manager had met with the owners of the Inn to discuss a payment plan for the back TOT and have come to some agreements in concept. We will be doing a formal agreement with them after the action on the expansion is taken. The two will probably be tied together in terms of timing. However, this issue is not a land issue and is not one that the Planning Commission should be considering as part of your decision even though it is important to the City. Commissioner Kiser noted Standard Requirement #18 indicates that for the fair share fee purposes, the retail square footage shall be considered part of the hotel and not assessed as separate retail square footage. However, there will be no credit given from the existing current use. What affect does that have on the City? Mr. Edmonston answered that this clarifies that both the existing retail and the future retail would be considered an accessory use of the hotel. We would apply the hotel rate to the increased rooms, but there would not be either a credit to the existing retail because it is part of the existing hotel, nor would there be an additional charge for the new retail that replaces the existing retail. We will still collect the fair share fees based on the 11 additional rooms. A typical hotel has some retail and restaurant type use in it and therefore, those trips are already • included. In. this case the actual use of the off -site retail presently is primarily by the public. We put this in here because that is the way to deal with the issue of INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 demolishing some retail and building new retail and the 11 additional rooms. Commissioner Kranzley noted it is important to look at economic impacts of projects. We need to review this in projects that will bring in additional revenues and costs to the City. I am concerned with the fact that this applicant has not been willing to pay back taxes since July and we are still trying to figure out some method of payment. I have a problem that we apparently have not received any payment on these back taxes that would be a consideration in reviewing this application. Commissioner Tucker, noting condition 6, asked shouldn't the restrictive covenant prohibit separate conveyance of the two parcels while either parcel is being operated under this use permit? Assistant City Attorney Robin Clauson answered that the City may not have the power to prevent them from conveying the property. If they do convey it, they still will not be able to change the use or operate separately under the provisions of the use permit. Suggested language changes would be in Finding 9g. '....The project does provide 8 excess parking stalls that will be availeble to provide additional parking for the existing inn....' If we connect the fact that those 8 . spaces are providing parking for and limited to the inn, that adds to the fact that they can not be operated separately. Condition 4 would say, '....Excess parking provided shall be dedicated for use and limited to use by patrons or employees of the existing Balboa Inn.' That helps in the concept that this use permit is for one project, even though it is two separate properties. Condition 3 clearly states that they can not be operated separately. Commissioner Tucker noted that he is proposing that they be tied together while either portion is operated under the use permit. It seems that the bridge services the oceanfront parcel but the access to it for ADA purposes is from the Main Street parcel. If you had that in two different hands, if it is ever conveyed separately, the very least would be some type of easement document for people who want to get ADA access to the oceanfront parcel to have the right to use the Main Street parcel to get that access. Chairperson Selich asked it we could do something similar to what we have people do who build over two property lines and two lots, we make a recorded covenant to hold the two lots together. Ms. Clauson stated that there is a provision in the Building Code that requires that when building is built over two adjoining properties a covenant is recorded that states that the two properties are held together. These two properties are separate. The ownership of the property does not let the property be operated other than what is authorized under this use permit. Maybe the applicant would agree to such a covenant and not challenge it. I don't think that the Planning • Commission has the authority to require a covenant that restricts the sale of the property. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 Chairperson Selich noted his concern that although a condition prevents the operation as two separate facilities; these conditions are not always made available. One piece could be sold off and then we have two property owners come in and the City is forced to make some accommodation to them. Where if, it was noticed while buying the property during escrow, all these questions would be answered before the title changed hands on the property. Ms. Clauson noted that one option would be to have the use permit recorded against the property. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Clauson answered that it is her understanding that the bridge crosses over a public thoroughfare; they are not two adjoining properties. The Planning Commission can add a condition that the property owner shall record a covenant while the use permit is in force. Commissioner Tucker noted that this is a unique circumstance with a public thoroughfare in the middle of the project. The way this project has been presented to us, it is one project on two separate lots. A very important element is dependent on both sides being held in use together. Public comment was opened. • Ron Boers, representing the Balboa Inn noted that he is satisfied with the way staff has depicted the situation. The language in the report states that if this expansion of the Balboa Inn is to be permitted it can only be done as one hotel operation and can not be separated. Chairperson Selich answered that is correct. What the Planning Commission is trying to do is prevent an owner from selling one parcel or the other off without notification of this use permit. The only way we would have assurance is to have something recorded against the property that is identified in escrow. Mr. Baers stated that this was acceptable to the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Pourmosso who are in the audience. Commissioner Agajanian noted his concern of the need for the additional bulk particularly on the third floor. If we narrow it down it becomes a financial issue and that raises a lot of questions in my mind. What is the justification for the size of a structure for 11 rooms as opposed to 9 rooms? What is the marginal difference? Mr. Boers answered that the rationale of this design approach was to allow for articulation of the bulk of the building. Think of it as a platform over parking with two residences above it. One is made up of 6 hotel rooms and the other is made up of 5 hotel rooms. The flexibility to use both two and three story height elements is a positive way to articulate the mass of the building and make it appear less than if everything was on one level above the parking. • Commissioner Agajanian asked the height and bulk are for aesthetic reasons, not rklill* l City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 for financial reasons? 9 rooms would do instead of 1 1 rooms? Mr. Baers answered that is correct. It would be hard to separate the two. The situation is that the number of premium rooms is very limited. The back rooms, which are in the four -story element, are limited in terms of upgrade to a higher premium. What these 1 1 rooms do is double the number of premium rooms that the hotel has to sell. That makes this a more viable economic operation as a small -scale inn. Mr. Pourrnossa, manager of the Balboa Inn, answered that presently there are 8 ocean view suites. We are adding ocean front rooms that are in demand. It is an economic feature to have the 11 rooms. We have more incentive to do this project with 11 rooms as opposed to 9 rooms because there is more money involved in it for us and economically it makes more sense. You have to realize that at some point we have to make a profit and if the number of rooms is not enough to make a profit, the project would not make economic sense and I will not do it. At Commission inquiry he answered that a nine -room project would not be economically attractive. The minimum number of rooms that we will do is 1 l . He explained that nobody uses the swimming pool and it remains inactive 90 -95% of the time. People who come to the hotel want to use the beach. However, on the second floor we have included designs for a spa, lap pool and Jacuzzi with a sun deck. Tom Hyans, 217 19th Street noted that he was under the impression that there were four units on the third floor, not two. Mr. Campbell answered that there are two elements that have third floors. In each element there are two units. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve Use Permit No. 3683 subject to the findings, mitigation measures and conditions of approval attached as Exhibit A as modified by the Assistant City Attorney and incorporating Commissioner Tucker's comments including his suggestions to the modifications to condition number 6. Ms. Clauson suggested that condition 6 add the sentence that the covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. Commissioner Agajanian noted his concern of the height. There is a better solution to this site and the issue of 11 rooms versus 9 rooms and the economic feasibility of that could probably be worked out so that one of those three story tower elements might be dropped down to two. I would be prepared to look at that project without as much height on one of the towers. Until then, what they are requesting for, the encroachment, the expansion that is required for this, is more than what I think that the City is going to benefit from. .i,17R3 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 Chairperson Selich referring to page 4 of the drawings noted that he does not believe it is out of scale with the existing building and that it is totally in proportion and scale with what is there now. Commissioner Tucker noted his support of the Chairman's comments. The way the Ordinance is set up, this is not a variance, this is a use permit that under certain circumstances the code contemplates that more will be allowed on a property than a base level. As long as you stay below a certain higher level, it is done by use permit, which allows us to exercise our discretion in the review. If this was a variance application, I think it would have ended as quickly as some we have dealt with recently. This is a circumstance where we actually have a lot of input into the design features. If you recall, when this applicant was here the first time I in particular had a lot of design questions. They came back in with another set of designs that more highly articulated the areas that 1 was concerned with and showed us what the applicant was really proposing to do. We went through the straw vote process on basically the some set of plans with a couple of changes that Commissioner Kranzley asked for with respect to visibility through parking areas. I feel the project is in scale and consistent with what it was that we had a straw vote on the last go- around so I am supportive of the motion. • Ms. Clauson asked for a clarification of the motion as it pertains to suggested language made by Commissioner Tucker on condition 6. Commissioner Tucker presented written comments to Ms. Clauson. Ms. Wood noted that condition 6 has a different purpose than perhaps what Commissioner Tucker was referring to. It has to do with code issues about not expanding beyond the parking and traffic that has been considered. Commissioner Tucker was talking about the joining of two properties and the operation. Commissioner Kranzley asked what happens on the TOT? What recourse does the City have on this? Ms. Wood answered that these owners inherited this debt when there was a transfer of ownership. They apparently were not entirely aware of the situation. We have been talking to them for a couple of years about doing some upgrades to the hotel so that it would bring in more and a higher quality of visitor in so they would have rates that would provide the City with additional TOT in the future. This had eventually led to this project. For that reason and the applicants who have been working with us towards those goals, we have been talking about a workout plan to pay back this TOT over time, but to allow them to do it later so that we do not hinder them from doing this project. Commissioner Kranzley commented that they are currently paying the TOT charges, but it is an historical debt that they were not aware of, which they INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 should have researched before they bought this project, that is outstanding. Ms. Wood noted that they are paying their current TOT fees. Commissioner Kranzley stated that the conditions that start on page 7 are promises. I take these conditions very seriously. I thought I made it very clear last time that we wanted some progress in those discussions and frankly I am shocked that two and one half months later we still have not gone any farther than we were in July. I also want to desperately improve Balboa Village and I have been very active over a number of years in both time and money doing everything I can to help upgrade the peninsula. So, I am with some reluctance going to favor this motion but I am disturbed that we have not been able to come to some resolution on this TOT payment. Commissioner Kiser commented that insertion of the word allow in condition 6 as suggested by Commissioner Tucker allows possible interpretation by others that would favor developing the site somehow in ways in addition to what is contained in the conditions. I suggest that this be re- considered and removed. Commissioner Tucker noted that the goal is to have a smoothly flowing English • sentence that imparts the idea that the use permit is what they have to adhere to. If there were better language, then I would support it. Ms. Clauson noted additional suggested language for this condition: 'A restrictive covenant shall be prepared and recorded in the title of both the existing Balboa Inn and 707 Ocean Front that will limit the uses, development and operation of both properties as one consistent with this use permit and preclude conversion of the buildings to any use that would generate additional vehicle traffic or parking demand and precludes separate conveyance of 707 Ocean Front and 105 Main Street while either is used pursuant to this use permit. The covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation.' Chairperson Selich noted he would include this in his motion. Commissioner Kiser noted that a lot of a hard work has been done on this project. It is a generally attractive project. The Balboa Village needs the investment. The objections that I have are that this is an extremely sensitive area by the side of oceanfront walk and directly adjacent to a public park and to the entry to the Balboa Pier. The peninsula is almost entirely a two -story community with very few exceptions. One of those is the Balboa Inn itself. The project is a bit out of character with the community and when viewed from public areas it is too massive and two dominating in that area. In that respect only, it is not attractive. I understand that the applicant could choose to build a monolithic structure that could be built within development rights. I would not presume that this architect or applicant would ever come forward with a project that would not be the very best thing they could do with what was available to them in the way of TTTT City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 entitlements. I believe that staying within present entitlements a very attractive project on that side of ocean front walk could be completed. I can not support the motion that is on the table. Commissioner McDaniel noted that he wasn't going to support this motion for reasons as stated by the previous speaker. I think this would set bad precedent by stating that we are going to redevelop and don't redevelop some of the old. If there were significant redevelopment of the old, I would be more interested. The Balboa Inn has 13.6 rooms that they do not use; yet they want to build 11 more. I am having difficulty with the fact that this project needs to be viable and asks for additional rooms when it is not using what it has already. I am having trouble with the removal of the swimming pool. I have talked with lots of people who are in the business who believe that is a significant aspect of any hotel at the beach or not at the beach. Chairperson Selich withdrew his motion and made another motion to continue this item to December 7th when we have a full Commission. Mr. Boers noted this continuance was acceptable. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: Cowan Duplex (Jay Cowan, applicant) (continued from 09/07/2000) 3030 Breakers Drive • Variance No. 1236 Request to construct a new 6800 square foot duplex that exceeds the 24 -foot height limitation by up to 5 feet. The request for a modification for a 16 -foot high retaining wall located in the required side yard to exceed the maximum wall height of 6 feet has been eliminated. Senior Planner James Campbell presented slides noting the revised elevations and the following: • 16 -foot retaining wall was eliminated. • 41h floor element was lowered 10 feet. • Project was tucked into the hill thereby reducing the overall size. • Change in amount of potential view blockage. Commissioner Kranzley talked about the view of the parking lot that had been blocked. Now, it seems the view of the lower part of the house is blocked, it • doesn't seem to block anything at all other than part of the house. Item No. 2 V 1236 Acceptance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 INDEX Mr. Campbell agreed noting this encroachment does not represent a significant blockage at all. Public comment was opened. Jay Cowan, owner of the property noted that he has read the staff report and is in agreement with the findings and conditions. Jack Larson. 3024 Breakers, west side neighbor of the applicant objected to the project for the following: • Building could be moved back into the lot - applicant has kept a 40- foot motorhome in front of his house. A duplex of this size will produce more cars that will park on the street. Moving the project back will allow cars to be parked in front of the garage without interfering with the street. • The 4th level has all the utilities for a triplex - there are currently several illegal uses of duplex lots as triplexes. This increases the density on the street and is a consideration of what will happen down the road. I suggest a covenant of some sort would be needed. Kerri Ward, son of the owner directly east of the project speaking for his mother expressed objection to this. project. This is a 6,800 square foot house and they are asking to encroach into the height 5 more feet than what is allowed. This seems a bit excessive particularly since that additional five feet will affect his mother's view. I ask that the Commission allow no encroachment into the height limits. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich asked about the five -foot setback, is that the required setback? He was answered yes. Commissioner Kiser noted that this design is a lot better than the previous one. The elimination of the retaining wall makes this a project that seems to fit the site. The only concern I have is that in looking at the floor plans, the first floor with the two garages has a full bath. It appears that all the floor plates other than the 4th floor were increased. That means the fourth floor decrease was absorbed by the other floors. However, that does not concern me, as the project is not looming over the public beach area. The full bath with the surrounding area indicated as storage on the first floor has an entrance from outside. I don't know how easily that could be converted to bedrooms and /or a living room. The second floor has bedrooms, baths and kitchen facilities. The third floor has other bedrooms /living room and another kitchen facility. The fourth floor has a full bath plus a future wet bar /kitchen on either side in a large family room that has storage. I wonder if possibly we are building a four -plex here rather than what has been purported to be built? Me City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 Chairperson Selich answered that your concerns are well founded particularly on the fourth floor plan, maybe not so much on the garage floor plan. Ms. Temple noted that as a matter of routine during the Building Permit process, when we come across designs such as this, we impose the recordation of a covenant to identify whether it is a one family or two family project. In this case, I think that the imposition of a covenant would put any subsequent purchasers on notice of the limitation of the use. Chairperson Selich noted that we ought to use independent judgement. Looking at the third floor plan and that there are 4 full bathrooms, what possible need is that for a game room? The layout of that future bar room is somewhat bothersome; this is ripe for abuse. Commissioner Tucker noted that the applicant is in for the height limitation. He can design the project anyway he wants to. Chairperson Selich answered that this application is before us and now is when we can have a higher level of inspection not afforded by a normal building permit process when a variance is involved. Ms. Temple noted that staff would look at the full course of utilities provided. We do those kinds of limitations all the time. We actively, through the course of plan check, look at what is being proposed and make sure that at least the initial construction does not accommodate extra full bathroom or food preparation facilities. Chairperson Selich noted that we have problems enforcing what we have now. Why build in another enforcement problem? We've had these situations come before us, most recently the Rowe house on Pacific Drive. It went through all the same process at the Modification Committee and we have to be concerned that this variance runs with the property. If that is supposed to be a game room on the fourth floor, why does it need the full bath and all the wet facilities up there? Discussion ensued on the merits of powder room versus a full bath, future bar unit, enforcement problems, violations of code, public involvement, independent access to the game room, bootleg units and the use of covenant imposed as a condition in this case. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to approve Variance No. 1236 subject to the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit No. 1, and to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration with the additional condition for a covenant for two family use and another condition that the construction be revised to remove the tub and shower on the fourth floor. Commissioner Tucker asked if there would be a fire code problem with 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 eliminating the stairs up to the street from the back of the fourth floor unit? That access point may be there to have a way out. Ms. Temple answered that according to the Building Code there needs to be two separate accesses from the ground, either inside or outside, to any third level or above in a residential structure. Chairperson Selich noted his concern was on the side stairway on the west elevation that goes right from the garage straight up the side. The last leg, if it was removed, would leave access from the third floor unit internal, which would still meet the code. There would then be one internal and one external access. Right now the way it is has three access points, two external and one internal. Ms. Temple noted her agreement as long as it complies with the Uniform Building Code. After Commission discussion added to the motion was the elimination of the west side exterior stairwell as long as it complies with the Uniform Building Code. Commissioner Agajanian noted his concern about the building height. Could a smaller unit do what this 6,800 square foot unit does with an encroachment? Staff answered that the upper level would need to be reduced as well as the third level that would preclude the elevator. It could be re- designed to be smaller and within the limits of the height limitations. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: Agajanian Absent: Gifford EXHIBIT NO. 1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE NO. 1236 FINDINGS: 1. The proposed development of a duplex is consistent with the General Plan, Land use Element designation of the property, which is Two - Family Residential. The proposed duplex is consistent with the R -2 designation of the property established by the Zoning District Map and Section 20.10.010 and Section 20.10.020, which permits two residences per lot. 2. The topography of the lot inhibits the property owner from designing a duplex that meets development standards and provides amenities compatible with the surrounding area as the property slopes in two . directions, southerly away from Ocean Boulevard, and westerly 12 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 downward across the property. 3. The approval of Variance No. 1236 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. The height of the proposed project is less than the adjacent duplexes are not out of character with the area. The roof elevation of the proposed duplex will be similar to the roof elevation of the existing duplex to the west and will be approximately 10 feet below the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard. The adjacent duplex to the west blocks the view of the beach parking lot when viewed from above, and therefore public views from above will not significantly be changed with construction of the project as it will only block the view of the beach parking lot and not the beach or ocean. 4. The project site is located between two fully developed R -2 properties, and little to no remnants of the natural bluff remain on these properties. The coastal bluff has been replaced by the structures on these abutting properties, and the proposed project requests a similar level of alteration. The site has been significantly disturbed with the development of the existing residence and the beach access driveway above. The existing open area on the site has limited open space or environmental value due to its past disruption and the fact that it is not adjacent to a larger open bluff areas. The proposed alteration of the site with the project is consistent with surrounding properties, and therefore it is acceptable. The cumulative impact to public views of the coastal bluffs will be minor due to these circumstances. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with General Plan and LCP policies regarding the preservation of public views and coastal bluffs. 5. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or the use of the property within the proposed development as no public easements other than utility easements that serve the property are present. 6. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly • degrade the quality of the environment. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. No 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. MITIGATION MEASURES: To minimize impacts to the visual character of the bluff face, the building height should be reduced to conform with City height limits, so long as such limits do not prohibit construction of a new duplex on the site. If a variance from the height limits is necessary due to topographical constraints, the height of the building should be limited to the maximum extent feasible to minimize negative impacts to the visual character of the bluff face. 2. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce odors from construction activities. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short -term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project - related emissions. 3. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce odors from construction activities. 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologist /archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as necessary. The paleontologist /archaeologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological /archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If major pale.ontological /archaeological resources are discovered, which require long -term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/ archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and the City. The paleontologist /archaeologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and /or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first - refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in • Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and /or display them at the time, 14 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 II:LIL0 in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City. 5. During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.10). 6. The applicant shall implement each of the design recommendations stipulated in the geotechnical reports prepared for the proposed project. Those reports shall serve as the definitive guides to geotechnical mitigation requirements for the construction of the proposed retaining wall structures, in addition to standard engineering practice and local and State building codes. 7. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. 8. The project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and Holidays. 9. Prior to the start of construction activities (e.g. demolition of existing building), a construction traffic control plan shall be prepared which includes the haul route, truck hauling operations, construction traffic flagmen, and construction waming /directional signage. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. All public improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. The applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the Public Works Department for the removal of all construction materials, excavated dirt and debris from the site. 15 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 11.1913 4. Each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Building & Safety Department. 5. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the project unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and Public Works Department. All work within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department. 6. The grade adjacent to the northerly property line, adjacent to the public sidewalk, shall be brought up to the sidewalk grade for a distance of one (1) foot behind the existing sidewalk before tapering onto private property. A maximum 2:1 slope shall be maintained behind the sidewalk in the public right -of -way unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 7. No construction equipment or materials shall be allowed to occupy the public right of way overnight on the access road to the beach during construction. 8. Chimneys shall not exceed the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code and any portion of the chimney which extends above top of curb shall be no wider than 2 feet and no deeper than 4 feet. For the purpose of this condition, the width or depth of the chimney will be the smaller dimension parallel to Ocean Blvd. 9. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be placed underground to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 10. A drainage study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Building Department showing how the on -site drainage is to be handled. 11. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building, grading or demolition permits. 12. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 13. Exiting from each level of the residence shall comply with applicable standards of the Building and Fire Code. The structure requires fire a • suppression system (sprinklers) as the structure exceeds 5,000 square feet. an City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 14. The applicant shall prepare shoring plans and obtain a shoring permit from the Building & Safety Department prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit. 15. This variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 16. The plans shall be revised such that bathing facilities shall not be permitted on the fourth or upper level of the proposed duplex. The stairway at the western property line that that descends from the upper (northern) patio shall be eliminated unless it is required for access pursuant to the Building or Fire Code. 17. The owner shall execute and record a restrictive covenant that limits the use of the building on the property to a two - famBy dwelling (duplex). Additionally, the covenant shall prohibit future modification of the building creating any independent living areas or additional kitchen areas. The form and content of the restrictive covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's office and the restrictive covenant shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed construction. SUBJECT: 21 Bay Island Fletcher Residence • Modification Permit No. 4919 Review of Condition No. 3 of Modification Permit No. 4919 regarding the removal of a tree located on the subject property, in conjunction with the construction of a new single family dwelling. Ms. Temple noted that the project applicant had not been re- contacted. She asked that this item be removed from calendar with the direction that it come back at a date uncertain for some reconsideration. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to remove this item from calendar and to bring it back at staff's discretion. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agaianian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford 17 INDEX Item No. 3 Modification No 4919 Removed from calendar City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 SUBJECT: Buzz Restaurant) 3450 Via Oporto • Use Permit No. 3626 The Planning Director has determined that there are reasonable grounds for the revocation of Use Permit 3626 (Buzz) and the Planning Commission is requested to set a hearing to consider revocation of the use permit. Ms. Temple noted that tonight's consideration on this item is not a revocation hearing. The report was prepared by staff based on determinations related to substantial compliance with the Use Permit and information provided to the Planning Department by the Newport Beach Police Department. We believe that there are grounds for consideration of revocation and request the Commission to review the information provided in order to determine whether a revocation hearing is warranted. If you find that those grounds exist, the staff recommends a hearing date of October 19th to be set. Public comment was opened. . Michael Cho, attorney for Buzz Restaurant, 3991 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 350, noted that the general manager had met with the City and members of the Police Department and was under the impression that some of the changes that had been made by the ownership had alleviated some of the law enforcement related problems. His understanding in talking with the Planning staff is that there are continuing problems and he is hopeful they can be dealt with. Continuing, he stated that he has not had an opportunity to review the staff report nor look into the ABC notification dated March 6, 2000. He has a meeting set up with the ABC Enforcement Supervisor for next week. That letter had been sent to PH Marketing at the Von Korman address. The Buzz Restaurant is a joint venture owned by two entities, PH Marking International and Star Works Arena. The letter does state that it was sent signature required, return receipt requested. If there are issues that need to be discussed, my client and I will be holding those discussions with the ABC. City staff has informed me tonight that if I were going to prepare any responsorial material, I would have to have that in the Friday before, which I believe is the 13th of October. I would prefer to have this matter heard on November 9 +h. This will allow us an opportunity to discuss matters with the ABC, as this is a significant element and also prepare our own documents to present to the Planning Commission. • Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to set a hearing on November 9, 2000 to consider of a revocation of Use Permit No. 3626. E- INDEX Item No. 4 UP No. 3626 Hearing Set for 11/09/2000 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanion, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: Calculation of residential maximum floor area limits The Planning Commission is requested to provide direction to staff on the interpretation of regulations on the. calculation of residential maximum floor area limits for a proposed single family dwelling unit at 929 Via Lido Soud. Ms. Temple commented that the architect and property owner were in attendance. We have had discussions in the past regarding residential development requirements and the interest in maximizing development. This is one more indication of that and shows that the strict application of the wording of the Code does lead us to some challenges when people want to do some creative things. We are asking for your interpretation on whether this • subterranean space created by virtue of a mechanical lift within a two story element would qualify for the exclusion pursuant to the Code for basement areas below seven feet in height from being counted as floor area. There are no modifications or other discretionary applications in this project. Public comment was opened. Doug Mansfield, 1100 South Coast Highway, Suite 301 A Laguna Beach, architect for the project noted that his interpretation of the Code was that internal shafts are counted as floor area only once. A car lift is similar to the ones noted in the Code. The staff report notes that the garage is over 14 feet 6 inches in height but the floors are solid metal and are structural members. In no position that this lift could be in is there space that is over 14 feet 6 inches high. The other point is that if the owner were to eliminate the lift for some reason, they would not have any garage. The other point is that if that floor were to be solid, this particular design would conform fully because the space below is under 7 feet. Chairperson Selich noting the diagrams it looks as if there is 9 feet from the bottom of the unusable shaft area to the bottom of the plate. You just said it was 7 feet or less and this diagram is showing it at 9 feet. Mr. Mansfield answered that if we did not have this lift and came in with a standard garage with a floor and put in a floor below that provided 7 feet like the lift in the down position. You can't really put anything in there, as it would get smashed. At Commission inquiry, he noted that there is a 10 -foot plate on the first 411 floor, the auto lift is approximately 1 -foot thick and then seven feet for the lower space. A typical garage door is about 8 foot high so you need a minimum of a 9- 19 INDEX Item No. 5 Recommended for Approval • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 foot plate. Commissioner McDaniel asked about the mechanics. He was answered that this lift is intended to be in the down position 95% of the time. The car stored below would be one that is not used on a regular basis. There are two one -car garages above that would house the cars used on a daily basis. The lift is about a 45 second ride, you drive in and the mechanism drops. You can sit in the car and you can get through the lower storage room that takes you into the house. Commissioner Tucker asked staff about the intention of this Code Section. It seems to go ahead and consider something as floor area that could actually be turned into living space of some variety. Is this the motivation? Ms. Temple answered that the motivating factor was three variances that were brought forward to the Commission as a result of code enforcement issues where four -car garages were constructed on Balboa Island two clear stories in height. They were constructed in such a way that it was fairly easy to fill in and add anywhere from two to four bedrooms to the second floor element of the building. It was thought that if you penalized them and counted it as if it was built as two levels that it would create the disincentives so that they would actually build the • floor area and not come in after the fact and construct additional floor area illegally. Commissioner Tucker noted in this circumstance is there a feasible alternative assuming the lift is put in for actually an additional floor area location to occur that is more than seven feet? I understand the literal language appears to step over the line, does it comport with the intention of the Code? Ms. Temple noted that was the point of the report and actually led to my willingness and interest in bringing this forward to the Commission. When these regulations were enacted it didn't seem like this particular type of solution had occurred to the people who crafted the Code. This goes back to a consideration and interpretation request from the Planning Commission about two years ago over in Corona del Mar where we had a fairly open sided subterranean parking structure which we did not know to apply these structural floor area limits or not. Clearly the Commission thought at that time that anything that provided additional parking configured in such a way that it was highly unlikely to become actual living space was a good thing and gave guidance to staff. This is another one of those instances where it does not appear to be designed in a way that it could readily be converted into living space. I have talked to the architect about the possibility of making the floor to the mid mechanical height actually 7 feet as opposed to the one floor unit to the one floor unit. He thinks that is possible. This is a circumstance that was not anticipated by the Code. However, having a single family dwelling with the ability to park four cars as opposed to two would be positive. • Public comment was closed. 20 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 Chairperson Selich noted how it could be abused. This is a specialized situation, it could be possible for someone else to pull out the auto lift and put in a permanent floor where the movable floor is and create habitable space underneath. Commissioner McDaniel noted this is a big problem. I don't see a lot of homeowners using auto lifts on a regular basis. This looks like an opportunity for abuse. Commissioner Kiser asked if the auto lift was removed and a floor put in, they would have to get a building permit, right? I know there are creative solutions to getting around requirements. Assuming they got the permit, wouldn't the issue of floor area be raised with regard to permit structure? Ms. Temple answered that if a building permit were brought forward the installation of the intermediate floor level would be looked at as well as the space underneath the floor, which could not exceed the seven -foot maximum dimension. 1101 Commissioner Kiser noted that it is fine to have cars parked off the street. It seems to me that if the elevator could be designed so that the underneath somehow was made thin enough so there was less then seven feet, then the bottom part would not be counted as gross floor area because the bottom room would have a height of less than seven feet. Ms. Temple noted the suggestion was to raise the principal part of the floor in the area of the pit to a point where that finished floor to the bottom of the lift would not be more than seven feet. The architect suggested that there might be a way to design a portion of the pit area in that fashion. Nonetheless, the mechanical lift itself does require a pit so there will be some portion that will have to be higher. I believe that the Building Code requires that a parking space be no less than b feet 8 inches. At Commission inquiry, she noted that staff is looking for a motion either that the concept of utilizing the mechanical equipment floors as the place from which to measure the 7 foot clearance for exclusion in this case is consistent with the Code or that it is not consistent and therefore, not appropriate. Commissioner Kiser noted that if a motion was going to be made it could include or be directed to particularly subterranean spaces with these kinds of lifts. Some of the intent of the FAR regulations is to regulate massing and bulk. Ms. Temple answered that the exclusion itself applies only to the subterranean spaces or attic spaces, so if the lift was from ground floor to second floor, those would not quality as excluded spaces. That is certainly one of the intents, but not . the entire extent. 21 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 Commissioner Kiser stated that if someone has the means and interest in going subterranean for things like garage space, I think we should try to accommodate that as long as the exclusion would only apply to subterranean areas. I think it would end up being limited in its application. Chairperson Selich asked why the space is necessary over the moveable floor? I was thinking of raising the floor in the center portion and lowering the ceiling in the center portion. This would allow for all the design elements and minimize the distance; you could get real close to 14 feet 6 inches. Mr. Mansfield answered that may not be necessary. The platform allows for a mechanism for a pit. He had explored changing the distances, but it makes it tight getting into the house below. We could infill the areas that are not required for the mechanism. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich that staff work with the architect on this to see if there is a solution to close the distance down and if it doesn't then bring it back with wording that can be placed in the Code. Commissioner Kiser is right; this is something we want to encourage, particularly in Lido Isle. • Commissioner McDaniel noted he would agree with this if it took additional cars off the street. However, the way I look at this if a new applicant was to put one of these lifts in that would give them an additional 200 square feet to build where the other car would have to be before because this is not net buildable. Any new application would have to put in one car garage with this apparatus to have two cars off street parking and gain 200 additional square feet of living space to build. Ms. Temple answered this could happen. We have that happening elsewhere particularly in Corona del Mar where parking spaces are not counted against floor areas when they are open carports as opposed to enclosed garages. There are other things happening where people are choosing to design garages in particular ways so as to achieve additional interior floor area. That would be an outcome of this, but not something that is different than other things that are happening in other parts of Newport Beach. Ayes: - McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 2000 -3 Request to initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan, as • follows: 22 INDEX Hem No. 6 GPA 2000 -3 Recommended for • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 A. 4343 Von Karman Avenue (Koll Development Company): A proposal to increase the development allocation for Koll Center Newport Office Site by 2,160 square feet to allow an expansion of the second floor of an existing building within the two story lobby. Ms. Temple noted a fax from Langdon Architects distributed to Planning Commission this evening. She noted that at the last initiation process, both the City Council and Planning Commission asked for additional information, therefore, there are floor plans provided for each of the requests. She noted this step is initiation only and does not constitute a project approval, just moving a project forward into the planning review process. The applicants will be required to show where the additional parking is provided for the project and will be required to make the related amendments to the Planned Community Text and submit those as well. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to recommend to the City Council initiation of General Plan Amendment Item A, and staff is directed to proceed with the preparation of any necessary environmental documents and set for • public hearing before the Planning Commission. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford B. One Upper Newport Plaza (O Hill Partners): A proposal to increase the development allocation for Newport Place Blocks G & H (Newport Place PC Industrial Site 3A) to allow an approximate 440 sq. ft. addition to an existing office building for a file storage room. Commissioner Tucker recused himself from deliberation from the second item as his office is in this building. Brian Dougherty of Dougherty, Dougherty Architects 3194 D Airport Loop Drive, Costa Mesa represented O Hill Partners. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to recommend to the City Council initiation of General Plan Amendment Item B, and staff is directed to proceed with the preparation of any necessary environmental documents and set for public hearing before the Planning Commission. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None • Absent: Gifford 23 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 h., ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that at the meeting of September 26th, the City Council received a letter regarding the General Plan update from the State General Attorney's office. Councilmember Ridgeway had asked about initiating an update at a previous meeting. The first meeting of the committee working on this project will be this coming Monday the 9th. We have never seen a letter such as this and do not know under what authority it was sent. The Natural Nails application was called up by the Council and will be heard October 101h; the Council initiated the Zoning Amendment to develop regulations for coastal bluff development on Ocean Boulevard only. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. C.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Kranzley asked that a discussion on starting the meetings at 6:30 p.m. be on the December 7th agenda. Ms. Temple noted she would have an item on the next agenda regarding Commission requests. d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner wish to place on a future agenda • for action and staff report - none. e.) Requests for excused absences - none. r 1 L� ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 p.m. STEVEN KISER , SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 24 RV9143 Additional Business Adjournment