Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHoliday Inn Express - 2300 W Coast Hwy - PA2006-182CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH . PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 3 November 2, 2006 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Marina E. Marrelli, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3205 mmarrelli @city. newport-beach. ca. us SUBJECT: Holiday Inn Express 2300 West Coast Highway Use Permit No. 2006 -019 Development Plan No. 2006 -001 (PA2006 -182) APPLICANT: SMI, L.L.C. At its last meeting on October 19, 2006, the Planning Commission voted to continue this agenda item until November 2, 2006, in order to obtain more information on the proposed roof, the existing signage and the possibility of a driveway extension between the subject property and the adjacent municipal parking lot as well as a more complete review of the site as it relates to the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework. Copies of the minutes, staff report, resolution and conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 2001 -044 are included to show the expansion was previously approved by the Planning Commission on March 21, 2002. Also included are photographs of the view of the motel from Ensign View Park, a photograph of the previous monument sign, and copies of several a -mails staff has received about the project. The Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework was adopted in 2000 by the City and portions of it were incorporated within the Municipal Code as regulations. The Design Framework is a set of guidelines and Section 20.42.0020 indicates in part that the ".Design Framework is not intended to establish absolute standards, but existing and proposed development and activities within Mariner's Mile area should adhere to the recommendations of the Design Framework to the maximum extent feasible." Therefore, unless a specific provision was incorporated within the Municipal code, the Commission has more latitude in determining whether nor not the development as a whole is consistent with the guidelines. Holiday Inn Express (PA2006 -182) November 2, 2006 Page 2 5 -sided Architecture, Views & Roof Quoting from the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework, "roofs and roof elements should respond to views from above and free standing buildings should be designed as "5- sided" (walls + roof)." This term was expanded with the implementing ordinance contained within the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan to indicate that the roof should be "aesthetically pleasing." The guidelines were included to encourage and promote design consideration of roofs and roof elements and to provide authority for discretionary review by the staff and Planning Commission for these elements. The Design Framework provides no direction or indication of what is specifically meant by having a 5th side of architecture. While the Framework and Zoning Code stops short of comment or recommendations with regard to roof forms or shapes (flat, sloped, pitched, etc. may all be considered), it was thought that the review authority would engage applicants in discussion and comment on many other aspects of the design of roofs and roof elements, such as: • Roof Materials (appropriate to context) • Roof Color (neutral shades and hues) • Roof Reflectivity (i.e. not shiny: muted preferred) • Harmonizing of roofs in mufti- building complexes • Location and organization of roof equipment • Screening of roof equipment • Roof Lighting or Lighting Effects (i.e. internally -lit skylights, etc.) With specific regard to roof mounted equipment, the guidelines go into further detail and reinforce the over - riding architectural design objective of promoting a high quality image for the district. This is achieved in part by requiring equipment screens to hide equipment from off -site view and was aimed primarily at providing reasonable screening from ground -level perspectives and was not intended to require applicants to completely hide all equipment from views from above (for example, with horizontal screens or elaborate trellises over the entire roof), which might be unreasonable in certain cases. On the other hand, this interpretation was not thought to be grounds for the total omission of equipment screens in the event that somehow equipment could be located so as not to be seen from the ground. On the contrary, the provision: "Rooftop equipment screens must be fully integrated into the architectural design" is directed squarely at such overhead -view conditions and reinforces the qualitative objectives. During two past applications (McDonald's and Masaratti/ Ferrari dealership), the Commission struggled with the meaning and intent of the guideline. What was gained from these applications indicates that the term "5- sided" architecture means that a design must be viewed as responsible and sensitive to views from above and in the two Holiday Inn Express (PA2006 -182) November 2, 2006 Page 3 previous applications, the Commission required a screening trellis atop the recently constructed McDonald's and a relatively "clean" flat roof of a neutral color atop the new dealership with minimal mechanical equipment painted to match the roof and screened from the ground by parapets. A review of the prior use permit approval from 2002 did not address the aesthetics of the roof whatsoever. The existing building has two flat roofs at slightly different heights from the ground both surrounded by parapet walls. The addition is not a new free standing building and maybe too much to expect that the entire roof be reconstructed to provide a sloping roof with aesthetically pleasing roofing materials. The existing equipment on the roof of the higher southerly portion of the motel is planned to be replaced and screened in equipment wells in conjunction with implementing the prior expansion. However, they will remain visible and staff is requesting that the equipment be painted to match the roof. Elimination of the equipment was considered by staff and deemed infeasible due to physical constraints. The equipment on the lower portion of the roof is not proposed to be modified at this time by the applicant. The roof of the proposed addition will be identical to the existing building and no rooftop equipment is proposed atop the proposed construction. Air conditioning units are planned in each room and they will be wall mounted on the exterior of the room in a similar fashion to the existing rooms. This design feature was found acceptable to the Commission in 2002 when it approved the prior expansion. The Commission can require the roof to be altered to improve the aesthetics by painting it a more pleasing color and a screen wall can be added to better screen the equipment on the lower roof from elevated properties to the north. The Commission can also require that all existing rooftop equipment be removed and that no equipment be installed on the roof. It is not known if this is feasible and if it is technically feasible, interior space will likely be sacrificed and /or ground mounted condensers and heat pumps might be located in side yards or other areas. Staff recommends the following condition: The entire roof shall be painted a neutral and non - reflective color to be determined by the Planning Director; that a screen wall be installed north of the existing mechanical equipment on the lower portion of the roof; that the mechanical equipment atop the higher roof must be within equipment wells or otherwise screened from view from the ground and above (without exceeding the height limit); and that all existing or future roof mounted equipment or vents be painted to match the roof. Landscaping Holiday Inn Express (PA2006 -182) November 2, 2006 Page 4 The Design Framework establishes specific landscape requirements that have been incorporated within the Zoning Code, which makes compliance with the standards mandatory. Three primary elements are required: 1) a minimum 4 -foot wide hedge and palm row at the back of the sidewalk across the site from east to west with a specific palette of species; 2) interior parking lot landscaping; and 3) bluff landscaping. The hedge and palm row is probably the single most important feature established by the Design Framework as it will provide a unifying design element for the Mariner's Mile over time. This issue was reviewed by the Commission in 2002 with the prior expansion and additional trees were required in the parking lot and across the front of the property. Technically, the palm row does not comply as the trees are not positioned within 4 to 6 feet of the sidewalk. Staff considered the existing palm row close to the building to satisfy the intent of the requirement and required the additional trees per the conditions of approval. The 4 -foot wide hedge was not implemented and it appears to be an oversight. Staff suggests that the palm trees remain and that the 4 -foot wide hedge be implemented at this time and a condition of approval will be included. Parking lot landscaping will be reviewed in conjunction with the building permit for the project. Bluff landscaping is not germane to this application as the bluff to the rear is owned by the residents and is not on the project site. Color Palette The Mariner's Mile Design Framework establishes a basic color system where the base building color is neutral and is 90% of the building. Contrasting trim elements, being light or dark, are to be no more than 10% of a building and accent elements with bright colors being up to 5% of the exterior of the building. During the prior expansion review, the existing exterior color was to be retained and there was no speck condition requiring any particular color scheme nor was a prohibition to change it incorporated. The building was painted when the first phase of the renovation was completed after Holiday Inn Express became the operator. The existing color palette was not reviewed. The majority of the exterior of the building is neutral although it is a bit more vibrant that most. The building has a contrasting strip at near the top of the building that appears to be less than 10% of the elevation. Staff believes the existing color scheme can be found consistent with the guidelines although differing viewpoints are possible. The Commission can require the building to be repainted and staff would suggest that the applicant prepare a color board for the Commission's review and approval should this be an important issue. Nautical Building Materials The Design Framework encourages the use of nautical building materials and or other details. The building theme has no nautical elements and the Commission did not consider this a significant issue during the review of the prior expansion. Nautical elements can be required. Holiday Inn Express (PA2006 -182) November 2, 2006 Page 5 Signage The existing wall signs were approved in 2003 because they met the standards of the Zoning Code and the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework. The wall sign over the main entrance totals 42 square feet and the smaller sign on the westerly side of the motel totals 12 square feet. The permit included the re- facing of the then existing monument sign that was nonconforming in terms of its height to width proportions, which is allowable. However, the sign structure was removed and the current monument sign that exists today was installed without the benefit of permits. The unapproved sign appears to comply with the new sign code and will be determined through the building permit review that is now necessary to abate the violation. It should be noted that the City adopted a comprehensive update of the sign code in 2005. The sign provisions within the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan that were related to the Design Framework were eliminated from the code to promote citywide uniformity in regulations. With the new sign regulations, the City adopted a comprehensive set of guidelines to assist the public in sign design. The sign guidelines of the Design Framework were not eliminated and some of the guidelines contained therein are inconsistent with the recently adopted sign regulations. It is staffs opinion that the sign guidelines of the Design Framework are only applicable provided that the resulting design does not conflict with the sign regulations. Staff recommends the following condition: A building permit for the monument sign shall be filed within 30 days of the approval of Use Permit No. 2006 -019 and Development Plan No. 2006 -001 and shall be issued prior to the issuance of a building permit for the expansion of the building. Should this application not be approved, staff will pursue abatement of the violation and through code enforcement proceedings and any new sign will be review for compliance with applicable policy guidelines and regulations. Lighting All parking lot lighting will be conditioned to have zero cut -off fixtures to reduce and eliminate light spillage off -site. Existing light standards are no taller than 20 feet and any additional fixtures will be restricted to this height. "Walpak" type lighting fixtures are prohibited and zero -cutoff "Shoebox" lights can be permitted. A condition will be included to require a review of existing lighting and modification of existing lighting fixtures can be accomplished if found to deviate from these criteria. Holiday Inn Express (PA2006 -182) November 2, 2006 Page 6 Equipment There are two pieces of equipment within the front setback. One has been partially concealed by a rock wall and plantings and staff suggests adding more landscaping to improve the screening. The second piece of equipment that abuts the sidewalk and has been conditioned to be screened. The applicant plans to add a screening roof to the existing trash enclosure located within the parking lot to shield the dumpsters from the view of the residential properties at the rear of the lot. This feature is included on the improvement plans currently under review for the previously approved expansion. Walls and Fences There is no chain -link, razor -wire or wooden fencing on site as they are prohibited. There are no walls along West Coast Highway that exceed 36 inches in height. The low wall on West Coast Highway is made of river rocks and is lower than 3 feet in height and it below the 36 inch high limit. The existing walls along the east and west property lines are concrete block walls lower than 6 feet in height and they comply with standards especially since they are not equipped with razor wire, which is prohibited. The retaining wall along the rear property line is not constructed of the preferred split - faced block, poured -in -place concrete with sand - blasted, brush - hammered or textural form -liner finish or a crib -wall system with integral landscaping. Since there is no planned change to this wall, staff recommends that the wall remain unaltered as it is not readily seen from Coast Highway or from the park above. Driveway Extension The suggested connection of the parking lot with the municipal parking lot is not supported by staff at this time for the reasons stated in the prior report. It was suggested that a driveway cross the rear portion of this lot to facilitate connecting this lot along with lots to the east to the municipal lot and then to Tustin Avenue. There is no adopted policy in this regard and there is no nexus for requiring the applicant to provide such an access. However, the property owner has indicated his willingness to offer access voluntarily should the City choose in the future to accept it. A condition related to this offer to dedicate has been included. Staff recommends the following condition: Should the property owner voluntarily submit an irrevocable offer to dedicate an easement for public access across the rear of the property and should the City choose to accept the offer, the offer shall be recorded against the property and that instrument shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to recordation. Prepared by Submitted by Holiday Inn Express (PA2006 -182) November 2, 2006 Page 7 Staff will prepare a revised resolution and conditions of approval and will transmit it prior to the meeting when it is available. Prepared by Yv fit. arina E. Marr Ili, Assistant Ptanner Exhibits: Submitted by 4 atricia L. Temple, Panning Director Use Permit No. 2001 -044 staff report, resolution, conditions of approval and hearing minutes 2. Photographs of motel taken from Ensign View Park 3. E -mails received from the public 4. Photograph of previous monument sign Exhibit 1 Use Permit No. 2001 -044 staff report, resolution, conditions of approval and hearing minutes CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 2 of 7 access easement that would provide public access from Newport Boulevard to New)sort Bay. Tucker asked if any Commissioners would like a presentation. The Public comme \horizont opened, and then closed with no one testifying. Chairperson Tuated: • Thn elimination of a vertical access from Newport Bo evard to a property that is narrow in width. • A th water is an important feature; the applica is already givizont access along the bayfront. • Sire are any access points throughout the ity, not every 50 -t needs to rovide access. Tditional ac ss would be bur densom , there is access ne Motion was made by Commissioner Gi rd to amend ndition No. 14 to waive the requirement for an irrevocable offer .o dedicat a vertical coastal access easement for lots 12 and 13 of Block 223 o ectio together with a portion of Lot 2, Section 33. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford Noes: None Excused: Kiser, Kranzley, Selich SUBJECT: 1201 King e d. \ I PA20 2 -007 • f P A 02 -0071 Amendment to a previou approved Variance where a 1 and 2 sto addition Continued to to an existing single f ily dwelling would exceed the 24 -foot hei ht limit, 04/04/2002 ranging from 1 foot t feet. The modified project would further exceed e 24- foot height limit ran - g from 1 to 10.17 feet. Ms. Temple r/Pnrit4e,'2002. that this item is to be continued, at the request of th applicant, to Motion w99 made by Commissioner McDaniel to continue this item to April 4, 2002 as jAquested by the applicant. McDaniel, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford None Kiser, Kranzley, Selich SUBJECT: Newport Classic Inn 2300 W. Coast Highway • (PA2001 -253) Request for a Use Permit to allow the remodel of an existing motel and restaurant to eliminate the restaurant and replace it with ten new guestrooms, add a new guestroom on the first floor at the rear of the building, refurbish the http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca. us/PinAgendas /2002 /nm03 -21. htm Item 3 PA2001 -253 Approved 09/02/20041::::35 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH existing rooms by enclosing the patio and balcony areas, and to add a breakfast room in the first floor lobby area. Mr. Campbell noted the following: • A condition on additional landscaping of antennas is unnecessary, as a perimeter wall /screening around the satellite dish would interfere with the reception. • The dishes are in the back corner of the property and are low to the ground and not visible from the public right -of -way. • There is existing landscaping around it now. Ms. Temple added some verbiage to Condition 9: The exterior grills on the heating /air conditioning units shall be painted to match the surrounding wall or glazing finish and shall be repainted on a regular basis as necessary to prevent peeling and fading of the grills. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell presented slides noting: • Existing HVAC grills within the patio of existing rooms. Patio areas to be enclosed. • Grills will be painted and maintained to match the stucco. • Slide of the front of the building with spandrel glazed glass. • Exhibits showing the front elevations and the condition that the newly installed grills must match so that.they will not stand out. Plans show that the existing glass will be matched. David Schaner, project architect noted: • The grills to be installed will match, on the back of the Inn, the stucco, and will match the black spandrel glass, as seen on the lower panels, the front elevation. • Some of the walls on the upper floor on the front elevation will be spandrel glazed and some will be clear. • The new air conditioning units will be placed in the lower panels and surrounded by material that will match the spandrel glazing. The satellite dishes will be removed. Ms. Temple noted, at Commission inquiry, a landscaping proposal shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The parking lot is concrete and a perimeter landscape plan utilizing trees should give us the intent of the Code. In response to Commission inquiry, Mr. Kiran Patel, applicant, noted that he understands and agrees to the findings and conditions of PA2001 -253 with the change that the areas along Coast Highway on the building be painted and maintained. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to adopt Resolution No. 1553 approving Use Permit No. 2001 -044 (PA2 -0 -1 -253) subject to the findings and conditions of approval in the draft resolution attached as Exhibit A as amended. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford Noes: None Excused: Kiser, Kranzley, Selich & More, Inc. Item 4 Page 3 of 7 http: / /www.city.iiewport- beach. ca .us /PinAgendas/2002 /Mn03- 21,htm 09/0212005 RESOLUTION NO. 1553 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 2001 -044 (PA2001 -253) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2300 WEST COAST HIGHWAY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was filed by SMI Hotel, LLC, with respect to property located at 2300 West Coast Highway, and legally described as a Portion of Lot A, Tract 919, requesting approval of Use Permit No. 2001 -044 to permit the remodel of an existing motel. Section 2. A public hearing was held on March 21, 2002 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: The proposed location of the hotel needing this use permit, and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained, is consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. The use permit pertains to a motel business to be operated in a building that is designated and zoned for this activity. The use has been conditioned in such a manner to meet the design and development standards of the zoning district within which it is located. In addition, the proposed remodel will result in the elimination of an existing restaurant use, which will result in a decrease in parking demand at the site. 2. The project design and operational characteristics of the proposed use are consistent with Municipal Code requirements. Any change in the design and/or operational characteristics would require an amendment to the Use Permit, reviewed by the Planning Commission. 3. The project as conditioned is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan (SP -5), as well as the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework. 4. The project has been reviewed, and qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act under Class I (Minor alteration of existing structures): Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Use Permit No. 2001 -044, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A." Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is called for review City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 2 of 4 by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21st DAY OF MARCH, 2002. AYES: McDaniel, AQaianian. Tucker and Gifford EXCUSED: Kiser. Kranzley and Selich — t BY: < Larry Tucker, Chairman B Earl McDaniel, Secretary City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 4 EXIIIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-044 The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan, and elevations dated August 20, 2001. 2. Use Permit No. 2001 -044 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 if the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. i , 3. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the Uniform Building Code as well as all applicable Municipal Code requirements. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 4. Any change in plans and/or operational characteristics, expansion in area, or other modification to the floor plan, shall require amendment to this Use Permit or the processing of a new Use Permit. 5. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership or a change in operators, any future owners, operators, or tenants shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 6. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a continuous hedge meeting the requirements of Chapter 20.42 of the Municipal Code shall be installed along the front of the property, and one additional Mexican Fan palm shall be planted in the front setback area. The size and location of the palm to be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 7. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the parking lot shall be redesigned and landscaping shall be installed in a manner to retain a minimum of 64 parking spaces with design dimensions in accordance with Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code, and tree planters and shade trees installed to a ratio of one tree per four parking spaces within the lot. Credit may be given for any existing shade trees within the lot, provided the Planning Director approves the tree species. Ultimate design of the parking lot, tree species, tree size and specific location shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director, 8. Prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy, screening plants shall be installed within the raised planter within the front setback area. The plants shall be of a density, spacing and size to achieve full screening of the electrical cabinet located behind the planter. In addition, Eugenias, Podacarpus or other species approved by the Planning Director, shall be planted around the existing dish antennas. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 4 9. The exterior grills on the heating/air conditioning units shall be painted to match the surrounding j wall or glazing finish and shall be repainted on a regular basis as necessary to prevent peeling and �` fading of the grills. 'isCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 926" (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 Hearing Date. Agenda Item: Staff Person: Appeal Period: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Newport Classic Inn (PA2001 -253) 2300 West Coast Highway March 21, 2002 3 Bill Cunningham 644 -3212 14 days after final action SUMMARY: Request for a Use Permit to allow the remodel of an existing motel and restaurant to eliminate the restaurant and replace it with ten new guestrooms, add a new guestroom on the fast floor at the rear of the building, refurbish the existing rooms by enclosing the patio and balcony areas, and to add a breakfast room in the first floor lobby area. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve, Modify or Deny Use Permit No. 2001 -044 (PA2001 -253) based upon the attached findings. APPLICANT: Mr. Kiran Patel SMI Hotel, L.L.C. 540 Golden Circle, Suite 214 Santa Ana, CA 92705 PROPERTY OWNER: SMI Hotel, L.L.C. 540 Golden Circle, Suite 214 Santa Ana, CA 92705 LOCATION: North side of West Coast Highway and approximately 500 feet southeasterly of Tustin Avenue. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Lot A of Tract 919 /APN 425- 471 -25 GENERAL PLAN: Retail & Service Commercial ZONING DISTRICT: Retail & Service Commercial (RSC) Area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan (SP -5). ect Former Newport Classic l METM f 0o Feet VICINITY MA ft� Use Permit No. 2001 -044 (PA2001 -253) i 2300 West Coast Highway Current Development: 53 -unit motel and restaurant To the north: Single family residences on the bluff top fronting on Cliff Drive To the east: Office building abutting the proj ect site To the south: Restaurant (currently vacant), Retail and Service Commercial across West Coast Highway To the west: Restaurant (Margaritaville) and municipal parking lot abutting the project site. J Newport Classic Inn (PA2001 -253) March 21, 2002 Page 2 of 2 Background The existing development on the site was approved on September 10, 1987, under Use Permit No. 3289. In August of 1990, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to UP 3289 to allow entertainment in conjunction with the restaurant operation. Site Overview The property is located on the northerly side of West Coast Highway approximately 500 feet southwesterly of Tustin Avenue. The motel building is located on the westerly front portion of the site, with parking along the easterly side and back of the property. Access to the site is via a driveway directly from Coast Highway. A restaurant (Margaritaville) and a municipal parking lot (behind the restaurant) are located to the west, and an office building to the east of the project site. Across Coast Highway are a vacant restaurant (formerly Windows on the Bay) and parking lot. Abutting the project site to the north are single family residences located on the bluff top above the motel. Proiect Overview The applicant is proposing to eliminate the restaurant, and replace the space located on the second floor with ten new guestrooms. A new guestroom is also proposed to be constructed on the first floor at the northerly end of the building. The existing rooms will be remodeled by enclosing the small patio and balcony areas and incorporating that space (approximately 33.5 square feet per patiolbalcony) into the adjoining rooms. A new breakfast room will be added in the first floor lobby area; the breakfast room is intended to be used only by guests for a continental breakfast, and will not be open to the general public. The project will result in an increase of eleven new rooms for a total of 64 rooms in the hotel, and an increase of 1,975.5 square feet (200 square feet for the newly -added first floor guestroom, and 1775.5 square feet for the 53 enclosed patiolbalcony areas). The applicant proposes to retain the current building facade and design; however, the replacement of the restaurant with the guestrooms will require some minor modification to the street -side elevation in order to provide windows and through -wall air conditioners/beating equipment. The addition of the new first floor guestroom will eliminate two parking spaces. The side elevations will change with the elimination of the patios and balconies. In place of the patio/balcony areas will be a new wall with window and through -wall heating/air conditioning unit. The result on the side elevations will be the elimination of wall articulation and insets that currently exist with the patio and balcony features. (Some minor wall articulation will be maintained by angling each end of each new wall). Analysis The proposed project entails a minor expansion of an existing motel and elimination of the restaurant use. The property is located within the "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Manner's Mile Specific Plan (SP -5). The motel expansion and remodel requires approval of a Use Permit. Newport Classic hm (PA2001 -253) March 21, 2002 Page 3 of 3 General Plan The City's General Plan designates the site as Retail and Service Commercial. Hotels and motels are permitted uses within the Retail and Service Commercial land use designation, and the project complies with the policies and goals of the General Plan. In addition to the General Plan, the project site is within the area addressed by the "Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision & Design Framework." In addition to addressing the project with respect to the General Plan and Zoning Code, the project was considered in its capacity to meet and further the objectives of the "Strategic Vision & Design Framework" report (see following discussion). Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Chapter 20.63 (Floor Area Ratios and Building Bulk) establishes three categories of land uses: Reduced FAR, Base FAR, and Maximum FAR Uses. Motels are included under the category of "Visitor Accommodations" and are classified as Maximum FAR Uses, permitting floor area ratios of up to 0.75 or 1.0 — the project site is limited to 0.75 by the General Plan. The existing floor area of the motel is 26,034 square feet. The applicant proposes to increase the floor area by 1,975.5 square feet (an approximately 7.1% increase in floor area). The current FAR of 0.474 will be increased to 0.51, well below the permitted 0.75 maximum. Lot Size 54,906 square feet Existing Gross Floor Area 26,034 Proposed New Gross Floor Area 28,009.5 Existing FAR 0.474 Proposed FAR 0.510 Base Development Allocation 0.75 Parking As noted above, the property has consisted of a 53 -unit motel and restaurant. The Code requirement for parking on this site has been computed as 53 spaces for the motel portion of the operation, and 52 spaces for the restaurant portion. Elimination of the restaurant will significantly decrease the parking requirement on the site. Code requires motels to provide one space for every guestroom within a motel. Therefore, the expanded motel will require a total of 64 spaces. Currently, 105 spaces are provided, of which three are handicap spaces, and 19 are compact spaces. The applicant does not proposed to eliminate the compact parking spaces. Even if those spaces were eliminated (the Zoning Code no longer provides for compact spaces), 86 standard parking spaces would still remain, which is well over the required parking for the project. Newport Classic Inn (PA2001 -253) March 21, 2002 Page 4 of 4 General Development Standards The project site is regulated under the site development standards of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan (Chapter 20.42). The front, side and rear setbacks are met by the existing and proposed development. Also, the building is consistent with the height standards. Landscaping Pursuant to the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision & Design Framework and the Specific Plan, a minimum four -foot wide planting area along the front of the property consisting of a continuous hedge and palm trees is required. Section 3.21 of the Design Framework requires one Mexican Fan palm for every 18 feet of street frontage. The project site has 132 feet of frontage, thereby requiring seven palms. The property currently provides over 20 feet of landscaping along the front property line, which is in excess of the Code requirements. However, the continuous hedge is not provided, and there are six large Mexican Fan palms, one less than required by the Design Framework. Therefore, a condition has been included within the draft resolution requiring the hedge and one additional palm tree in the front setback area. In addition to the front landscaping, the Design Framework and Specific Plan requires one shade tree for every four spaces within the uncovered parking lot. The Design Framework recommends use of an evergreen tree species such as Carrotwood. As a result of the elimination of the restaurant the property will have parking in excess of the code requirement. Even with the elimination of two parking spaces in order to provide the new first floor guestroom, a total of 103 parking spaces will remain. The current landscaping within the parking lot is deficient. A 103 - space parking lot would require 26 shade trees. There are currently five palms along the building fagade facing the parking lot, an additional four palms between the swimming pool and the parking lot, a large coral tree in the northeastern corner of the parking lot, and five ficus trees in parking lot planters. The five ficus trees are trimmed to be approximately six feet in height. With the exception of the coral tree, the existing trees do not meet the intent of the landscaping requirements for parking lot shade trees. Even if credit were given for the one coral tree and the five ficus trees (assuming they be allowed to grow in order to provide shade), the parking lot Would remain at a 20 -tree deficiency. That deficiency is based on 103 spaces'- less parking spaces will require a proportionately less number of trees. There is ample room within the parking lot to eliminate parking spaces in order to provide the required number of shade trees within planter areas while maintaining 64 standard sized parking spaces. Therefore, a condition has been included in the draft resolution requiring the provision of the shade trees within additional planter areas. Equipment Screening The Mariner's Mile Specific Plan requires that all ground mounted equipment be screened from view. An above - ground electrical cabinet is located in the front of the property to the east of the entry drive. A 3 -foot high planter has been installed around the equipment; however, the equipment extends above the planter by approximately two feet. The planter is absent landscaping, which staff feels was originally intended in order to screen the equipment. Newport Classic Inn (PA2001 -253) March 21, 2002 Page 5 of 5 Therefore, staff has included a condition in the draft resolution requiring the installation of landscaping within the planter to sufficiently screen the equipment. Two satellite dish antennas are located in the northwestern corner of the property. Condition No. 7 of the original approval (Use Permit No. 3289) required the screening of all equipment, including the two dish antennas. The screening was never installed, and staff has included a condition within the draft resolution requiring landscape screening around the antennas. HVAC Equipment Currently, the heating and air conditioning equipment for each guestroom is provided by individual HVAC units located in the walls of each room. Even though the units extend through the walls, they are screened from view by the existing balcony walls. The remodel will eliminate the balconies; therefore, the HVAC grills will be visible from the parking lot and adjacent properties. Of particular concern to staff are the HVAC units for the ten new guestrooms to be provided within the existing restaurant space. Six of the ten units will face Coast Highway, therefore, the HVAC grills on the second floor of the front of the building will be visible from the street. The applicant proposes to partially screen the units by providing a dark glazing around the grills and by painting the grills a black color to match the glazing. While this proposal is less than optimal, staff believes that it would be the best solution. The alternative would be to provide a central heating and cooling system, which would require roof - mounted equipment and ducting. The roof of the building is fully visible to the residences and the park located on the bluff to the north. While there is existing mechanical equipment located on the roof, the additional equipment may present a less than optimal aesthetic solution to those northerly properties. In addition, the location of the equipment on the roof could require a screen that is visible from the street. In addition to the condition added regarding the HVAC grills in the front of the building, staff has also added a condition to the draft resolution requiring that the grills on the HVAC units on the other parts of the building be painted to match the wall color. signage - . _ ... ----- A separate application for signage has been processed for the proposed new operator of the motel (Holiday hin Select). The existing non - conforming monument sign will be re -used. The sign is non - conforming in terms of size and is allowed to remain unchanged, except for copy changes, until November 23, 2015. Environmental Review This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Most of the proposed new construction will occur within the existing building structure, with only minor construction occuring to enclose the existing balconies and the new 200 square -foot first floor guest room. Newport Classic Inn (PA2001 -253) March 21, 2002 Page 6 of 6 Conclusion The project consists of minor new alterations to an existing motel. The existing structure is well designed and generally well maintained. With the exception of those landscaping and screening improvements recommended by staff, the property complies with the City's development standards and meets the objectives of the Mariner's Mile Design Framework. Based on the analysis in this report, staff believes that the findings for approval can be made. However, as discussed, the hvo options available regarding the air conditioning units both have negative aspects. On balance, staff believes that the design proposed by the applicant with the color requirement is preferable, as it is the most sensitive to nearby residential uses. However, since the design elements within the commercial district are also of concern, the Commission could determine that a requirement for a central HVAC system is preferable. Should the Commission be unable to find an acceptable compromise, findings for denial have been prepared (Exhibit No. 2). Submitted by: Prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM Planning Director Contract Planner Exhibits 1. Draft Resolution for approval with findings and conditions. 2. Findings for denial 3. Project plans Newport Classic Inn (PA2001 -253) March 21, 2002 Page 7 of 7 Exhibit 2 Photographs of motel taken from Ensign View Park i Exhibit 3 E -mails received from the public Page I of I Marrelli, Marina From: PJKBMOM @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:18 PM To: Harkless, LaVonne; Marrelli, Marina Subject: Holiday Inn Express expansion Dear Newport Beach Planning Commission I am writing to you today regarding the Holiday Inn Express expansion in the Mariners Mile. My family and I are very opposed to this expansion. My family has lived at 2317 Cliff Dr. in Newport Beach since the early 70's. Our home is on the bluff right above the Holiday Inn and it's parking area. We have seen many changes over the years in our city. Some we are thrilled with, others disappointed about. The new General Plan for Newport Beach is to maintain the high quality of life, ensure unique and beautiful residential areas and control and regulate the traffic congestion and parking shortages. This motel expansion goes against all of these. First, the Holiday Inn Express is just that "express." This is a motel that many people stay at only one night on their way somewhere. It is not a hotel for people to stay at for a vacation to enjoy the City of Newport Beach. The motel has a very high rate of turn over of people in and out. Second, the parking is currently inadequate during the summer already and adding any rooms would only increase the problem. Many people staying there share the room and have more than one car. One parking spot only for each room is absurd. Truck drivers also use the motel to stay at overnight. They park their big rigs in the back and our family has to put up with the drivers idling the trucks late at night or early in the morning. Third, adding rooms would only increase the traffic in and out of an already very dangerous part of PCH. I can't tell you how many accidents occur by drivers pulling out or turning in to that motel. Fourth, adding additional footage to an already ugly building certainly does not follow the General Plan of Newport Beach. The roof is an eyesore from our home and impairs our beautiful view of the bay. Adding to this would only further lower our property values along Cliff drive. Lastly, during the summer months some of the guests at the "Express" love to party in the parking lot late at night. We have even had to call the police a few times for people yelling loudly, drinking alcohol and breaking bottles on the cement at two or three am. This awakens my husband, our children and I, even with closed windows at night. I hope the planning commission of Newport Beach realizes that adding any additional rooms would only increase the problems that already exist due to the Holiday Inn Express. Sincerely, Penelope J. Kent Bauer MD 10/26/2006 From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 9:22 AM To: Olson, Gaylene Subject: FW: Holiday Inn Express I believe this was a PC item last night. Thanks. From: LGeorgeHut @aol.com [mailto:LGeorgeHut @aol.com] Sent: Thu 10/19/2006 6:28 PM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: Holiday Inn Express SUBJECT: Holiday Inn Express 2300 West Coast Highway Use Permit 2006 -019 Development Plan 2006 -001 (PA2006 -182) Planning Commission: Page I oft I am a Newport Heights resident, block captain and an officer with Newport Heights Improvement Association. I am unable to attend tonight's meeting and send this comment set for submittal: and 5 The Policy C of the Land Use Element printed in the staff report indicates that visitor - serving uses are desired by the City as stated: "Commercial, recreation or destination visitor serving facilities in and around the harbor shall be controlled and regulated to minimize traffic congestion and parking shortages, to ensure access to the water for residents and visitors, as well as maintain the high quality of life and the unique and beautiful residential areas that border the harbor." The traffic congestion and the parking congestion at this site is bad enough and it can not be made better with a motel that is parked 1:1. Minimize the traffic congestion and parking shortages by approving less units and more parking. It also says in the staff report that: '...the corresponding weighted averages would also cease to be used and the proposed project would exceed the proposed 0.50 FAR as the unweighted FAR is 0.70. My comment is that the Planning Commission should not support a development that does not conform to a General Plan when the proposed project would be in violation of that proposed General Plan. The Planning Commission should not 'fold the tent' on current development. The Planning Commission should honor what they have put before the voters. file:II F: IUsers\PLNlShared\PA's1PAs %20 -% 2020061 PA2006- 182\Emai1 %20Against %20... 10/26/2006 Page 2 of 2 Respectfully submitted: Lisa George Newport Heights Resident and Improvement Assoc. Treasurer file:// F: 1Users\PLN\Shared\PA's1PAs %20 -% 2020061 PA2006- 1821Email %20Against %20... 10/26/2006 Exhibit 4 Photographs of previous monument sign -: ,;�, ..,��a,..,. ,.. r `R �r =: