Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/2011IEm A C. NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 3300 Newport Boulevard Thursday, October 20, 2011 REGULAR MEETING 4:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Led by Commissioner Kramer ROLL CALL PRESENT: Amen, Hawkins, Hillgren, Myers, Toerge, and Unsworth ABSENT (EXCUSED): None. Staff Present: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director, James Campbell, Principal Planner, Gregg Ramirez, Acting Planning Manager, Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney, Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner, Kay Sims, Assistant Planner, Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner, and Marlene Burns, Administrative Assistant D. PUBLIC COMMENTS Commissioner Hawkins spoke about the 2011 Planning Official's Forum that he attended at the Richard Nixon Library. He stated that he brought the program and additional material if anyone was interested in reviewing. E. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Community Development Director Brandt reported that there have been requests for continuance of Agenda Items 2 and 3, and staff requested to address the continuances in conjunction with those Agenda Items. F. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 Minutes of September 22, 2011 Motion made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Vice Chair Toerge, and carried (7 — 0) to approve the minutes, as corrected. AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, Toerge, and Unsworth NOES: None. ABSENT(RECUSED): None. ABSTAIN: None. G. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Chair Unsworth announced that he is a member of the Newport Beach Country Club and recused himself from Item Nos. 2 and 3 and left the dais and the Chamber. Commissioner Myers recused himself from Item Nos. 2 and 3 on the basis on an economic interest and left the dais and the Chamber. Page 1 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 ITEM NO.2 Newport Beach Country Club - Golf Realty Fund (PA2005 -140) 1600 and 1602 East Coast Highway Community Development Director Kimberly Brandt reported the agenda item received more than one request for a continuance and noted that staff is recommending that the Commission allow staff and the applicant to provide an update on the item as necessary. In addition, she noted that it will be up to the Commission to consider receiving any public testimony in conjunction with either agenda items. Vice Chair Toerge stated that at the last hearing it was discussed that the items were going to be discussed as three (3) separate hearings to review the PC text first to see if each application would comply with the PC text and inquired as to whether the PC text was going to be done in the first application. In response to an inquiry from Vice Chair Toerge, Community Development Director Brandt stated there is a brief PowerPoint presentation containing information on the PC text and clarifying the necessary steps the Planning Commission would need to take action on the applications being brought forward. Vice Chair Toerge agreed to move forward with the presentation. Commissioner Hawkins expressed his concerns whether moving forward with the presentation and approval to continue the item would automatically deny all requests received for the item. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Hawkins, Community Development Director Brandt reported that at this time the Commission can take action on the continuance or it can allow a presentation on both of the applications and then make a decision as to whether to continue the application. In addition, she stated that the Commission would have the option to continue the item without receiving public testimony and consider the item for another meeting or continue the item, receiving public testimony today. Vice Chair Toerge suggested receiving information today and consider the continuance at the time the applicant testifies. Commissioner Hawkins agreed to receive as much information as possible in order to move forward. Community Development Director Brandt provided a brief presentation providing an overview of the applications and the mechanics that are necessary for reviewing the applications. The City is reviewing two (2) applications for the same property and the Commission cannot recommend approval of both projects as submitted, to Council. She stated that, since the last meeting, both applicant teams have been extremely cooperative in meeting with staff to address many of the concerns that have been raised by the Planning Commission but, not all of the concerns and issues raised by the Planning Commission have been resolved. She addressed the structure for considering both applications. Regarding Item No. 2, Ms. Brandt reported the project site encompasses 145 acres and is composed of two (2) components; the Newport Beach Country Club Golf Club site and the Newport Beach Country Club Tennis Court site. She addressed multiple requests associated with the project application including environmental clearance for the application, conveyed through approval of a mitigated negative declaration. Legislative standards or zoning for the property must be established which will be accomplished with the adoption of a planned community development text. Once zoning standards are put into place, the Planning Commission can consider a site development plan or the land use permit for that property as well as other related applications including a tentative tract map, a transfer of development rights, and a use permit for temporary structures. The resulting development agreement will then provide a vested development right to the property owner for the term of that agreement. Ms. Brandt provided a summary of the project proposal. She reported the application results in the maintenance of the 18 -hole golf course, the construction of a new 35,000- square -foot golf club house and associated parking lot, the reconfiguration of the tennis court for a remainder of seven (7) tennis courts and one (1) stadium court, and 3,725- square -foot tennis club house and parking lot, five (5) single - family units (bungalows) and 27 hotel units with ancillary units. Page 2 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 Regarding Item No. 3, Community Development Director Brandt stated it is the Newport Beach Country Club application which is a "sub -set" in terms of the project area. It encompasses 133 acres of the original 140 -acre site and includes the golf course, the golf club house, and parking lot. She noted the primary difference of the two (2) applications is related to the size and design of the proposed club house and parking lot. In terms of the legislative level, she reported 35,000 square feet is currently allowed by the General Plan and the project application includes an increase in the club house of 56,000 square feet. All of the remainder statistical information, as allowed by the legislative document would remain unchanged with the second application. She listed requirements needed to move forward with the application including environmental clearance, conveyed through a mitigated negative declaration, an amendment to the General Plan, for the larger club house, as well as an amendment to the PC text considered with the first application. Once the legislative standard is adopted, the action can be taken on the site development plan or the land use permit to allow the construction of the larger club house, new parking lot and the request for a temporary use permit. Similar to the first application, there is a development agreement being considered that would convey the vested development right for the term of the agreement. The maximum development potential for this application is limited to the 18 -hole golf course and the 56,000- square -foot club house. Ms. Brandt spoke on the inconsistencies in the site development plans related to the design of the club house and the parking lot and noted the two (2) items will require two (2) separate public hearings, and not three (3). Commissioner Hillgren requested clarification on the amendments needed to the PC text. Community Development Director Brandt reported the PC text works for both applications except for the limitation of the club house size. She noted the club house square footage is established by the General Plan (limited to 35,000 square feet) the first application does not require amending the General Plan. Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner, provided a brief status update on Item No. 2 addressing the mitigated negative declaration, public input and responses as well as analyses and results. Ms. Ung reported that there are no new impacts identified and the analysis presented in the mitigated negative declaration remains adequate and the recirculation of documents is not required. Regarding the alternative planned community for the development plan, she reported that staff is proposing could be utilized for either project with the exception of the development limit of the golf club house. Ms. Ung reported that staff further defined the draft plan presented to the Planning Commission at its August 4, 2011, meeting and incorporated further input from the applicants. She reported both applicants have had the opportunity to review the draft and provide comments to staff. The revised document has no prescribed architecture but identifies the zoning document that could be implemented by either project. The development limit for the golf club house currently in the alternative plan community development plan is 35,000 square feet. She reported the Commission expressed support for the site development review application as part of the alternative plan community development plan. She noted that the applicant had submitted an application to redevelop the existing golf and tennis club sites with detailed plans and addressed the existing frontage road easement, the status of the hotel transfer request, the loss of the tennis courts, the golf club site parking lot design, the golf club building height and encroachment on the adjacent property. Staff is still working with the applicant on the details of the development agreement; therefore, she recommended continuing the item to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hawkins inquired as to whether staff would like to see the item listed on the next Commission meeting as a Public Hearing. Staff confirmed Commissioner Hawkins' inquiry in having the item continued to the next meeting as a public hearing. Vice Chair Toerge invited the applicant to address the Commission. Applicant Robert O Hill reported changes made to the NBCC Master Plan at the request of the IBC's architect. He reported there still has not been a comprehensive, agreed -upon IBC site compromise. He requested approval of the PC plan, as recommended by staff, the site development plan and that the Commission hold Page 3 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 both applications to the highest principals of good planning. Mr. O Hill reviewed the Master Plan and reported that in developing the plan, input was obtained from all of the stakeholders. He addressed the landscape buffer across Coast Highway, terracing of the parking lot and explained concessions made at the request of IBC's architect. In addition, he addressed a new access road to the greens- keeper area, increasing the size of the club house and stated opposition to the Prairie style of architecture and to a "club house disguised as a banquet facility," but stated desire for a compromise. Mr. O Hill described the benefits of the parking lot design and noted IBC's club house footprint works with the proposed parking lot. He presented a comparison of the existing and proposed club houses and addressed grading, and the inconveniences associated with prohibiting carts in the golf course parking lot. Mr. O Hill stated the architects agree that the signage, landscaping and lighting plan should be cohesive, coordinated and harmonious within the planned community. He presented the landscape, lighting, and signage plans. He reiterated concerns regarding the size of the club house, the banquet room, increased traffic and parking needs, and design. He stated the importance of the bungalows and requested the Commission act on and approve their project, first and requested any action regarding IBC be treated as an amendment to the PC. He indicated they do not want to be tied or delayed further by a 21,000- square -foot General Plan amendment to accommodate a public banquet facility. Commissioner Hillgren inquired as to the size of the proposed banquet facility and questioned how it would affect the bungalows. Applicant Robert O Hill provided clarification on the square footage of the proposed banquet facility and the difference between their plan and the other applicant's plan for the banquet facility use noting the latter includes other meeting rooms and pre- function areas and added that is not typical in a high -end, private club. He explained their plan has a lot of different entries to do a public banquet business in a private golf club. He did not object to the use of the banquet facility, but rather the frequency of its use He reported that the purpose in asking for a continuance is to have the opportunity for engineers and architects to meet with staff and show that the parking lot will work with IBC's club house. Vice Chair Toerge stated he did not think the Commission would be in a position to approve the item presently and that most likely, it would be continued. Vice Chair Toerge opened the public hearing. Paul Singarella of Latham & Watkins spoke on behalf of Host Hotels and Resorts, introduced Carol McDermott of Government Solutions as well as Bob Shob, Senior Vice President of Real Estate Development for Host Hotels and Resorts. Mr. Singarella thanked staff and the City Attorney's office for their help and provided a short PowerPoint presentation including background of his organization. He addressed traffic intensity, unfair unilateral transfer, alternatives to conditions, and progress made. He declared opposition to Item No. 2 due to prejudices. Michael Recupero spoke on behalf of half of the ownership of the property being discussed and stated how they were not included in the decisions made on their property. He stated the importance of obtaining the consent of his clients relative to any decision made on this property. He reported inability to see the development agreement affecting their property. Mr. Recupero reported that there is a long -term lease on the property that allows the tenants, with the owners' consent, to make improvements on the property and referenced upcoming arbitration. Commissioner Hillgren clarified Mr. Recupero's comments relative to his suggestions that, approval of the first application requires approval by his clients and that their approval is required for the Newport Beach Country Club as well. Mr. Recupero affirmed support for Item No. 2, with the frontage road, as proposed. Paul Christ requested and was provided with clarification regarding the property lines and location of the wedding lawn. Mr. Christ expressed his concerns regarding loud noise heard from the existing building on the property and expressed his opposition to the proposed location of the wedding lawn. He addressed the number of members Page 4 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 in the tennis club and felt the current membership would support a larger number of courts; suggesting 16 courts would be equitable. Commissioner Hawkins disclosed that he met with both applicants earlier in the week prior to the meeting and referenced a related conference call with Mr. Singarella and Ms. McDermott. Shawna Schaffner of CAA Planning reiterated comments from the Planning Commission meeting of August 4th, objecting to a club house and a parking lot on a property where there is a 56 -year lease, objecting to the placement of the bungalows which go over the lease -hold line. She referenced an upcoming formal presentation and spoke in opposition to Item No. 2. Nancy Vanderpool, member of the Country Club spoke in support of the hometown feel of the course and in opposition to Item No. 2. Commissioner Hawkins requested and was provided with clarification regarding the item currently being considered, affirming it as the Golf Realty proposal. Tim Paone, Land Use Counsel for Golf Realty Fund spoke in favor of Item No. 2, and addressed converting uses and disputes with partners; the latter of which he felt were inappropriately discussed by a previous public speaker. Mr. Paone emphasized the willingness to come up with mutually acceptable solutions. In response to an inquiry by the Commission, Mr. Paone affirmed support for the idea of looking for ways to convert tennis courts to bungalows as well as continuing the item. Applicant Robert O Hill provided a brief history of the partnership, described disputes and clarified allegations made by a prior public speaker. Mr. O Hill stated his proposal is not for a resort, but for an amenity for the club members and noted what happens on the golf club property affects the value of the tennis court property. He stated his belief that this is the best plan for all concerned. Vice Chair Toerge closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Toerge requested and was provided with clarification regarding possible review and actions to be taken. Ms. Brandt added that the Commission does not have documents that would allow it to take action, but encouraged input and direction. Commissioner Hawkins inquired regarding Golf Realty's authority to make the application and whether the applicant was eligible to submit the application. In addition, Commissioner Hawkins inquired as to whether the Assistant City Attorney had reviewed the application. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill responded to the inquiry and stated the applicant was eligible to submit the application and that the application was indeed reviewed by the attorney's office. Discussion followed regarding unresolved property line and boundary issues and adjustment in discrepancies regarding the maximum height of the golf club house (peak of the roof). Staff reported property line issues remain unresolved. Commissioner Hawkins commented on significant land use and aesthetic impacts, discrepancies between the plans but expressed concerns that there are no resolutions to those discrepancies. Staff noted they would look into the issues, and recommended to continue the item to November 3, 2011 Commissioner Hillgren inquired whether all the issues could be addressed by the next meeting. Page 5 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 Staff noted that there is a substantial amount of information to be reviewed, and that there are two (2) applications, which are not compatible with the layout of the Golf Course and that more time may be needed to explore the options. Commissioner Kramer stated that he was in favor of the continuance but requested staff address the use convergence solution. Brief discussion followed regarding setting a date for continuance that would allow staff to address all of the issues. Motion made by Commissioner Ameri, seconded by Commissioner Hillgren, and carried (5 — 0) with two recusals (Myers and Unsworth) to continue the item to November 17, 2011. AYES: Amen, Hawkins, Hillgren, Kramer, and Toerge NOES: None. ABSENT(RECUSED): Myers and Unsworth ABSTAIN: None. I7 X40ro kP1A Members of the Commission concurred to recess at 6:08 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 6:40 p.m. with all Members, except for Commissioner Myers and Chair Unsworth due to their recusals, present. ITEM NO.3 Newport Beach Country Club — Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. (PA2008 -152) 1600East Coast Highway Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner provided a status update, noting that since the August 4th Planning Commission meeting, staff has been working with the applicant to resolve some of the issues of concern presented by the Commission including the mitigated negative declaration and responses to comments received from the Planning Commission and the general public. Analysis concluded that the current information in the mitigated negative declaration remains adequate and there were no changes to the document. Ms. Ung addressed the planned community development plan, and reported that if the larger club house is acceptable, the development limit would be modified from 35,000 square feet to 56,000 square feet to accommodate the development. She reported the Commission also expressed support for the site development review application process included in the draft alternative development plan. Since then, the applicant has submitted the application to redevelop the existing golf club house and the parking lot. They also addressed changes to the porte- cochere, increased the separation between the club house and the bungalows, enhanced the entry driveway, improved views of the golf club from East Coast Highway and as part of the revision, expressed preference to the site plan that includes the frontage road easement. Ms. Ung reported that staff is still working with the applicant on the development agreement and it is therefore, not available for consideration at this time. Ms. Ung recommended continuing the item to November 3, 2011. Commissioner Ameri inquired regarding the appropriate date of continuance. Community Development Director Brandt reported the date of continuance will be part of the Commission's determination in its action this evening. Vice Chair Toerge opened the public hearing. David Wooten, CEO of the Newport Beach Country Club and applicant, spoke on his plans and thanked staff for their support and consideration to review their application for the Club. He addressed improvements to their plans and deferred to Shawna Schaffner for a report. Shawna Schaffner of CAA Planning provided a PowerPoint presentation detailing the changes made to the plans in response to comments received from the Planning Commission at its August 4th meeting, including the Page 6 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 entry drive, the porte - cochere, perimeter fencing, frontage easement, signage, pad elevation and grading quantities, the building height and, parking lot landscape setbacks. She presented the site plan including the frontage road (which she indicated is the preferred plan), and without the frontage road. In addition, Ms. Schaffner presented a comparison plan depicting the previous and the revised plans. She addressed meetings between the teams since the August 4th and agreements reached with Golf Realty Fund regarding the signage, landscaping, and lighting. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Hawkins regarding the need for the easement, Shawna Schaffner stated that it would be preferred to have the easement included. Mr. Wooten stated that both easement options, with and without the frontage road would be acceptable. He noted they would like approval for both so that they can proceed without having to go through the approval process again. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Hawkins, Ms. Schaffner addressed the number of parking stalls with and without the easement. David Wooten clarified accessibility to additional parking for weekends, special events, and holidays Commissioner Ameri inquired and was provided with information regarding cubic yards of dirt needed for the fill and the percentage of slope (grade) from the road to the parking lot by Project Architect Douglas Lee. Commissioner Hillgren expressed appreciation for the changes made, commented on the frontage road, and inquired regarding the need for a fence. Mr. Wooten declared the proposed fence is necessary for security purposes. He responded to an additional inquiry by Commissioner Hillgren regarding the flow of the Toshiba traffic and the easement. Perry Dickey, President of the Newport Beach Country Club explained the flow of traffic and the importance of the easement road. He stated one egress /ingress would not work and illustrated the alternative to the path of travel. He stated that the preference is to have two (2) access roads to avoid confusion and congestion. He stated the importance of players and VIPs having different access than the general public. Commissioner Hillgren commented on the challenges with the proposed entrance and the subject intersection. Ensuing discussion pertained to the possibility of reaching a compromise on an acceptable number of special events in addition to the regular tournaments. Mr. Wooten listed the number of regularly - scheduled events, wondered why a landlord would object to his tenant limiting their business, and affirmed the banquet facility would be an ancillary use to the club. He pointed out the need of the City for meeting space and noted that there is no wedding lawn. Events would be held indoors or on the patio. Commissioner Hawkins expressed concerns with the proposed fence. Mr. Wooten responded the rod iron fence would be attractive and indicated they would not prefer hiring a security company in lieu of the fence. Commissioner Kramer expressed concerns regarding the need for the easement. In response to his inquiry, Mr. Wooten stated that there were no other exterior design changes other than the porte - cochere. Ms. Schaffner reported they are not a party to the easement and the issue is out of their hands. Vice Chair Toerge commented on issues that may need further discussion including the entry drive configuration, the frontage road easement, the porte- cochere, the buffer, the proposed parking lot between the Page 7 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 bungalows, signage, size and use of banquet facility and whether a cap is appropriate, and the architectural design of the club house. Interested parties were invited to address the Commission on this item. Micheal Stephens, member of the Newport Beach Country Club, spoke in support of the IBC and Item No. 3. George Schroeder expressed support for the project but reported on the dangers of the existing access road. Dee Devaney, founding member of the Newport Beach Country Club, spoke in support of the Prairie architectural design and the project and reported receiving no communication from Mr. O Hill regarding the proposed projects. Mike Recupero spoke on behalf of half of the ownership of the property being discussed and spoke in support of the IBC plan. He reported that it is important to the ownership that the easement be maintained, addressed landscaping and referenced rights associated with the existing easement. He stated support for Item No. 3. In response to Vice Chair Toerge's inquiry, Mr. Recupero reported historically, there were two (2) separate easements generally in the same area. In response to Commissioner Hawkins' inquiry, Mr. Recupero reported the easements were recorded on March 1, 1993, noting the Irvine Company was the grantor and has since been transferred to his clients and the Armstrong property. Otto Reyer, member of the Newport Beach Country Club, spoke in support of Item No. 3. Tim Paone, Golf Realty Fund, addressed the easement noting that it is not for the City to terminate or grant. He opined the best plan would be without the easement. He addressed the size of the building and expressed concerns regarding intensifying public use, and blocking views from Coast Highway. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Hillgren, Mr. Paone addressed the challenges with the parking layout. Robert O Hill reported that he will provide a copy of the LSA traffic study and noted golf carts will not be allowed in the parking lot. Leland Stearns, Golf Realty Fund Architect, felt the strongest aspect of the course was the open space and quality of landscape. He explained the idea of terracing the parking up the hill would bring the feel of the open space to Coast Highway. He addressed the architecture and landscaping and commented on integrating the plans. David Close, member of Newport Beach Country Club, expressed support for Item No. 3 and expressed concern over the terraced parking lot blocking views. David Wooten noted there is no view of the golf course from Coast Highway with either club house. Vice Chair Toerge closed the public hearing. A straw vote was taken regarding the entry drive and its configuration. Vice Chair Toerge indicated he preferred the modified design and the design without the frontage road easement. The vote carried (5 — 0) with two recusals (Myers and Unsworth). AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Kramer, and Toerge NOES: None. ABSENT(RECUSED): Myers and Unsworth Page 8 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 ABSTAIN: None. A straw vote was taken regarding the porte- cochere design changes. The Commissioners believed that the changes made were a great improvement. The vote carried (5 — 0) with two recusals (Myers and Unsworth). AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Kramer, and Toerge NOES: None. ABSENT(RECUSED): Myers and Unsworth ABSTAIN: None. A straw vote was taken regarding the design with the buffer area, the proposed parking lot, and the Golf Realty bungalow without the frontage road easement. The vote carried (4 — 1) with two recusals (Myers and Unsworth). AYES: Hawkins, Hillgren, Kramer, and Toerge NOES: Ameri ABSENT(RECUSED): Myers and Unsworth ABSTAIN: None. A straw vote was taken regarding fence as designed. The vote failed (2 — 3) with two recusals (Myers and Unsworth). It was determined that the fence needs to be modified with additional elements to hide the fence. AYES: Ameri and Toerge NOES: Hawkins, Hillgren, and Kramer ABSENT(RECUSED): Myers and Unsworth ABSTAIN: None. A straw vote was taken regarding the size and intensity of the banquet facilities and establishing no cap for the latter. There are no restrictions for public use at this location, Allow commercial market to determine how often the facilities are used with no cap. The vote carried (3 — 2) with two recusals (Myers and Unsworth). AYES: Ameri, Kramer, and Toerge NOES: Hawkins and Hillgren ABSENT(RECUSED): Myers and Unsworth ABSTAIN: None. A straw vote regarding whether the Prairie architecture design for the Newport Beach Country Club is appropriate. The vote carried (5 — 0) with two recusals (Myers and Unsworth). AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Kramer, and Toerge NOES: None. ABSENT(RECUSED): Myers and Unsworth ABSTAIN: None. Motion made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Ameri, and carried (5 — 0) with two recusals (Myers and Unsworth) to continue the item to November 17, 2011. AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Kramer, and Toerge NOES: None. Page 9 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 ABSENT(RECUSED): Myers and Unsworth ABSTAIN: None. Chair Unsworth and Commissioner Myers returned to the Chambers and took their places on the dais. ITEM NO.4 Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Kay Sims, Assistant Planner, reported the item is an appeal to approve a lot merger for 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard and provided a brief PowerPoint presentation Assistant Planner Sims addressed location of the properties, current lot configuration, private egress /ingress easements and locations of the existing structures on the properties. In addition, Ms. Sims provided background including previous consideration of the item by the Zoning Administrator on September 14, 2011, through a public hearing wherein concerns were voiced by the public that approval of a lot merger would allow: 1.) a higher structure on the property which would eliminate views across Ocean Boulevard to the neighboring properties to the rear. The views are protected by means of a private deed restricting the height of structures on a lot and loss of the views would result in devaluation of those neighboring properties. 2.) access to the properties if the egress /ingress was eliminated. After consideration of public comments and concerns, the Zoning Administrator addressed them by stating the City does not regulate or enforce private deed restrictions or the Covenant, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &Rs) and has no private view protection ordinance. If private egress /ingress easement was eliminated, there is alternative access available from Ocean Boulevard. In addition, the size of the proposed lots is similar to other lots in the area; therefore, compatible. New development on the two (2) lots, whether individual or merged, is required to comply with the City's Zoning Code development standards for the Single Family Residential Zoning District. Assistant Planner Sims reported that the Zoning Administrator approved the lot merger after finding there were facts to support all the findings. It was noted that an appeal was filed on September 22, 2011. The appellants do not believe that findings related to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighboring properties and residents, and legal access to the property were adequately addressed by the Zoning Administrator in making his decision. The appellants stated that approval of the lot merger would allow the applicant to break the private deed restriction limiting height and allow an increase in the size of the structure allowed on the property. Also, a resulting loss of view by higher structures would result in a devaluation of those properties. Assistant Planner Sims noted the Planning Commission's possible actions and presented an update to the findings relative to availability of alternative vehicular access to and from the property. Commissioners Hawkins, Toerge, Myers, and Chair Unsworth reported meeting with the appellants and visiting the site. Commissioner Ameri reported visiting the site. Commissioner Hillgren requested clarification of which lots were granted height restrictions and inquired regarding future developments planned for the property. Staff responded that at this time, the application is a request for a lot merger, should a development be proposed it would be required to comply with the Zoning Code, and it was noted that the City does not enforce private view restrictions. In response to an inquiry from the Commission, City Traffic Engineer Brine reported safe access could be achieved from Ocean Boulevard and referenced other precedents. He indicated the preference would be to try and maintain on- street parking and have access remain through the rear easement. Access from Ocean Boulevard would be a last resort option. In response to an inquiry from the Commission, Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill explained that it is an application to merge two (2) parcels under the Subdivision Map Act and the City is looking at its Codes and Regulations to determine whether the application satisfies the City Standards. She noted it does so without an independent investigation as to whether a private agreement may or may not affect the property. Currently the Page 10 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 property has access from the rear as a result of a private easement. Should something happen to the private access, the City recognizes there is an alternative access off of Ocean Boulevard. Chair Unsworth opened the public hearing. Chair Unsworth asked the appellant to come forward if he wished to make a presentation. Clifford Jones, appellant, made his presentation and addressed that the easements were given for ingress and egress, but noted the easements can be withdrawn at any time. He stressed that the lot line merger would take away eight (8) feet of view corridor that would normally be there, addressed deed restrictions, proposed uses, and compliance with standards. He reported the property owner has plans for development that would eliminate views for adjacent properties. He spoke in opposition to the lot merger. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Amen, Mr. Jones reported the easement agreement with the City is for utilities. He also mentioned the egress /ingress for the two (2) subject lots facing Ocean Boulevard. Peter Campbell, Corona del Mar resident, spoke in opposition to the lot merger with concerns regarding negative impacts to the health and safety of the current residents. Joan Campbell, Corona del Mar resident, indicated she is almost 85 years old and all she has left is to keep her view. Valerie Marcotte, resident, spoke in support of Joan and Robin Campbell, who live in the house most- impacted by the proposed merger. They are both 85 years old, they have lived in their house for 34 years, and depend daily on their view. She expressed concerns with the noise from the construction that they will have to live with for the next two (2) years and the resulting loss of their view. Ms. Marcotte stressed that this would be very disruptive to the Campbells, would create anxiety, as well as depreciate their home's value. John Silva, Corona del Mar resident, noted it is causing increased stress for him and stated opposition to the lot merger. In response to an inquiry from the Commission, Mr. Silva reported the easement can accommodate ambulances and is used for utility access for the properties in the front. Alberta Silva, Corona del Mar resident, reported living in the area for 44 years and listed her activities in helping the community. She spoke in opposition of the lot merger noting the issue has caused a lot of stress. Danny Daneshmand, Corona del Mar resident, reported her daughter is the property owner and is representing her at this meeting. He expressed concern for the decreased property values if the current view is eliminated and spoke in opposition of the lot merger. He took issue with the City not honoring the established CC &Rs and opined this could result in a lawsuit. Dan Purcell, Corona del Mar resident, provided a brief history of the lots and opined the financial impact on the property owners would be very injurious and felt access on Ocean Boulevard would be unsightly. Jeffrey DuFine thanked the Commission for considering the issue and noted his main concerns regarding the easements and not honoring the established CC &Rs. He reported the easements were given in order to maintain the site lines and views. He reported the attorney for the subject property owner intimated to the Campbells and that if this went to court, they would be buried in legal fees. Philip Larson spoke representing his father who is recovering from an operation. He opined this will be a beginning step to something that will turn into a problem and spoke in opposition of the merger. John Whelan, Attorney representing the owners of the subject properties, John and Julie Guida, noted approval by the Zoning Administrator and that the deed restrictions indicate permitted structures would be one -story in height. He addressed elimination of the easement for access and stated the deed restriction does not prohibit a Page 11 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 lot merger. He stressed the lot merger that has been applied for is consistent with the City's zoning ordinances and ought to be approved. Commissioner Hawkins noted the Commission must make certain findings to approve the lot merger. Chair Unsworth asked Mr. Whelan if he agreed that the finding "approval of the merger would not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, peace, comfort, general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood" could not be made. He addressed some of the impacts that will occur. Mr. Whelan addressed the appellants' concerns by noting that the concerns are to be attributed to the construction of the home and not the lot merger. In response to an inquiry by Chair Unsworth, Mr. Whelan stated that there would be a home built on the merged lots. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry, Mr. Whelan acknowledged a deed restriction stating it concerns the five (5) lots and felt the intent of the deed restriction was to restrict the height of the structures based on the lots as they were configured at the time. Mark Todd, Realtor and President Elect for the Newport Beach Realtor's Association, spoke in support of the lot merger. He reported reading the deed restriction and indicated it does not address the merger of the lots, but rather height restrictions and easements. He stated Mr. Guida intends to build a one -story structure, to be a good neighbor and not to block the view. He reported many senior citizens prefer one -story homes and spoke in support of the lot merger. John Guida, applicant, explained why he attended with representation. He stressed the intent is to build a single -story structure, addressed the architectural plans, and stated he is trying to build to code. He offered to meet with the Commission at the site, and stated he understands the restrictions but is trying to do his best to resolve the issues. Andrew Patterson of Patterson Construction noted that he encouraged a meeting with the neighbors and explained the attorney was expressing that he did not want to go into litigation when he made his comments to the Campbells. He stated the applicant is trying to work with the neighbors and spoke in support of the lot merger. Christopher Courts of Sinclair Associates Architects, Inc. addressed the proposed square footage of the house, the highest point in the house, and the maximum height of the elevator shaft. Mr. Jones re- addressed the Commission noting the front of the lot will be raised five and a half (5'/z) feet from the sidewalk area because, if it is raised six (6) feet, the basement will be considered a first story. He addressed the height of existing homes and noted that, with the proposed structure, the views from the back homes would be eliminated, which produce a negative impact. In addition, Mr. Jones presented some photos. Commissioner Kramer questioned the accuracy of the hand drawn lines representing the potential blocking of views. Christopher Courts reported they are trying to construct something that is complimentary to the neighborhood and that the drawings do not depict what will be built. Mr. Jones reported inviting the architect to look at what the impacts would be and asked them to stake out what they wanted to do, but that they refused. Chair Unsworth closed the public hearing Commissioner Toerge commented on lot mergers noting they are not without a cost or negative impact to neighbors. He expressed concerns with giving away side yard setbacks in mergers. He felt the impacts with this item are significant and the loss of the side yard setbacks is clearly detrimental and that the lot merger would result in a lot inconsistent with the surrounding development pattern. Page 12 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 Motion made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Ameri, and carried (6 — 1) to reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator and adopt a Resolution to reverse the Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002. Commissioner Hillgren expressed support for the motion and felt that merging the lots is inconsistent with the intent of the pattern of development. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Myers, Toerge, and Unsworth NOES: Kramer ABSENT(RECUSED): None. ABSTAIN: None. It was noted the appeal period for this item is ten (10) days. ITEM NO. 5 Lido Village Design Guidelines (PA2011 -148) Guidelines would affect future projects within the Lido Village area generally bounded by Newport Boulevard, 32nd Street and Newport Harbor Principal Planner James Campbell provided an introduction to the draft of the Lido Village Design Guidelines. He stated that the City Council Ad -Hoc Neighborhood Revitalization Committee, with full City Council support, initiated and fostered the preparation of architectural and landscape design guidelines that would be applied to properties within the Lido Village area. He reported hiring a project manager and architects and noted that staff has gone through an extensive public participation process. Project Manager Tim Collins provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing history and background, reassertion of the purpose of the design guidelines and community outreach, and involvement. In response to Commissioner Hawkins's inquiry Mr. Collins explained the use of public rights -of -ways as a unifying theme. Todd Larner reviewed details of the format, content of the guidelines, key elements, next steps, and consideration of on -going feedback. Commissioner Toerge commended consultants for the promptness in developing the design guidelines. He inquired regarding efforts for the waterfront in terms of staging of passengers of cruise ships or charter boats noting the issue severely impacts pedestrians and people visiting Lido Village. He took exception to a sentence in the design guidelines stating that the Lido Village was an emotional gateway to Newport Beach. Discussion followed regarding the timeframe for the potential rebuild of the marina and planning for the staging of passengers of cruise ships or charter boats and accommodating all users in the evolution of the plans. It was noted this is a multilayer process and that the design guidelines are just one component. In response to a comment by Chair Unsworth, it was noted the guidelines will be incorporated to the City's existing review process. Commissioner Toerge referenced a typographical error on the agenda report. Chair Unsworth opened the public hearing. George Schroeder reported he was one of the six (6) residents appointed to serve on the Citizens Advisory Panel, attended all of the meetings, and noted they were well- attended. Mr. Schroeder spoke in support of the guidelines and the plan. Page 13 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 Commissioner Hawkins expressed his appreciation to Mr. Schroeder for his participation in the Citizens Advisory Panel. Steve Flanders opposed the pedestrian bridge illustrated in the Concept Plan, expressed concern regarding safety of boat maneuverability, encouraged provision of ample parking, addressed decaying sea walls, and disagreed with the use of large nautical designs. Dan Purcell opined that there is no sense in installing another pedestrian bridge, and commented positively on the architectural guidelines of creating no sides or backs to buildings. Chair Unsworth closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins, and carried (7 — 0) to recommend adoption of the design guidelines to the City Council. AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, Toerge, and Unsworth NOES: None. ABSENT(RECUSED): None. ABSTAIN: None. ITEM NO.6 Pizzeria Mozza - (PA2011 -139) 800 West Coast Highway Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner, provided a PowerPoint presentation noting the applicant proposes a Minor Use Permit to amend existing Use Permit 3542 to allow an upgrade to the existing Type 41 On -Sale Beer and Wine ABC license to a Type 47 On -Sale General (Beer, Wine & Distilled Spirits) ABC License and reduce the allowed hours of operation for the interior of the restaurant from 12:00 midnight, daily to 11:00 p.m., daily. Allowed hours of the outdoor dining area would remain 10:00 p.m., daily. No other changes to the existing restaurant operations are proposed or requested. Ms. Whelan referenced approval by the Zoning Administrator and an appeal submitted by Commissioner Hawkins as outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Hawkins' inquired as to the reason for amending the Use Permit to reduce the hours instead of closing at 11:00 p.m. without amending the Use Permit. In response, Ms. Whelan stated that changing the Conditions of Approval relative to the hours of operation requires and amendment to the Use Permit and Acting Planning Manager Ramirez added that the change in time was the requested by the applicant to close at an earlier hour. At the request of Chair Unsworth, Acting Planning Manager Ramirez reported the noticing requirements for a Use Permit and for a Minor Use Permit are identical. Discussion followed regarding the status of potential revisions to the Zoning Code. Included was changing the review authority for all alcohol approval requests from the Zoning Administrator to the Planning Commission. Chair Unsworth opened the public hearing. Brett Engstrom of Art Rodriguez and Associates, on behalf of Pizzeria Mozza, reported that they are requesting the ability to upgrade their ABC license to implement the alcohol beverage offering to its patronsto be consistent with the type of restaurant they operating. Mr. Engstrom addressed the change of hours stressing they do not want to run a bar, but rather a full - service restaurant. Mr. Engstrom stated that the on -site parking satisfies the code requirements and that off -site parking is availble to accommodate the restaurant's busier times of day Page 14 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 In response to Commissioner Hawkins's inquiry, Mr. Engstrom reported the company operates at least five (5) restaurants and all are operated as full - service restaurants. He noted that there have been no problems with their licenses and indicated some restaurants are near residential areas. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Engstrom addressed parking indicating that valet and overflow parking are provided. In addition, Mr. Engstrom addressed shielding reflective lights and a reflection from the roof and corrective actions have been taken and reviewed by the City. Discussion followed regarding additional valet plan conditions. It was noted that the application has presented staff with an opportunity to review the valet and parking conditions and require approval of a revised valet plan prior to implementation of the amended Use Permit. Mr. Engstrom stated acceptance of all Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval have been included requiring the applicant to work with City staff to address the valet parking situation on the property. Staff indicated that they will continue to monitor the parking. It was noted the City approved a revised roof plan. In response to Commissioner Myers' inquiry, Assistant Planner Whelan reported that seating had been reduced to meet the one (1) parking space for each three (3) seat ratio as a Condition of Approval and that the maximum capacity includes the outdoor dining area seating which is not required for parking. Brad Saltzman of Wellman Parking reported that the valet podium has been moved deeper into the lot so cars are stopped further from the driveway, adding that when cars come in they are parked in the off -site lot to keep the on -site lot as empty as possible. He reported extra staff has been added and valets are stationed on the off -site lot and communicate via walkie- talkies. Michael Cho, spoke in favor of the Minor Use Permit. Chair Unsworth closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins, and carried (7 — 0) to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and adopt a Resolution for Minor Use Permit No. UP2011 -023. Chair Unsworth noted concerns regarding the public getting the opportunity to address the issue and reported these will be communicated to Council. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, Toerge, and Unsworth NOES: None. ABSENT(RECUSED): None. ABSTAIN: None. H. NEW BUSINESS — None. I. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 7 Community Development Director's report. Community Development Director Kimberly Brandt noted there will be a November 3, 2011, Planning Commission study session meeting that will begin at 4:30 p.m. to review the Newport Banning Ranch Draft Page 15 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 Environmental Impact Report and project. In addition, during its regular session, the Commission will review a draft housing element and referenced a letter from State Department of Housing and Community Development stating compliance of the housing element to State Housing Law. Ms. Brandt reported that the City Council will be reviewing two (2) planning applications on October 25, 2011, including the Dolphin- Striker application and the restaurant formerly known as Bubbles. In addition, Ms. Brandt stated that a new Deputy Community Development Director, Brenda Wisneski, has joined the City but was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Toerge commented on appeals by Council and expressed frustration by the appeal of the Mariner's Point project and statements made relative to changes made between the time the Planning Commission denied a project and the time the project was brought to Council where Council suggested the Planning Commission's concerns were addressed. He opined they did not and felt Council misstated the Commission's position. Commissioner Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Toerge's comments. Chair Unsworth expressed concern regarding the process for appeal requiring some to pay the appeal fee while others do not. Staff explained the fee schedule as representing staff time to look into appeals. It was noted there is no fee if Council or the Planning Commission were to bring an item up for appeal. It was suggested that prospective appellants be informed they may contact the Planning Commission or Council to request the elected member request an appeal without having to pay the appeal fee. ITEM NO. 8 Announcements on matters that Commission members would like placed on a future agenda for discussion, action, or report. Commissioner Toerge expressed concerns regarding lot mergers and felt it would merit future consideration. Staff will follow up with a report on a future agenda. ITEM NO. 9 Request for excused absences. None. ADJOURNMENT — The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:51 p.m. Page 16 of 16