Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes• Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2003 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. 1] ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Commissioners Toerge, Agaianian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker - All present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Minutes: Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to approve the minutes of December 5, 2002 as revised. Ayes: Toerge, Agaianian, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: None Public Comments: Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday, January 3, 2003. Minutes Approved None Posting of Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2003 SUBJECT: Zoning Code Amendment CA2002 -007 (PA2002 -218) Landmark Buildings Amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to designate certain types of buildings as "Landmark Buildings" and modify restrictions on nonconforming uses in Landmark buildings. Ms. Temple stated that staff requests this item be continued to January 23, 2003. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to continue this item to January 23, 2003. Ayes: Toerge, Agaianian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None SUBJECT: Hotlies Pizza, Amendment to UP3622 (PA2002 -172) 325 Old Newport Boulevard Request for a Use Permit pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance (ABO) to authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages for on -site and off -site consumption (Type 41 beer and wine license) at an existing restaurant located in the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan (SP -9) District. Referencing a memo from James Campbell, Chairperson Kiser asked for and received the following clarification: • The applicant submitted a request to change condition 10 addressing the percentages of sales of alcoholic beverages. Staff is recommending that the sale of alcoholic beverages is subordinate and less than 50% and that the sale of beer and wine for off site consumption, including off site deliveries, shall not exceed 20% of that 50% of the total sales of beer and wine. • Condition 13 changes relating to the sale of beer and wine on the outdoor patio; additional limitations of the Police Department regarding signoge and barricades pursuant to the ABC as well as the hours on the patio due to late night activities and sound carrying past the commercial area to the residential area. • Condition 14 changes relating to the hours of operation, the applicant wanted to stay open until 2:00 a.m., seven days a week. The applicant has revised the hours to stay open until 2:00 a.m. on Thursday, Friday and Saturday and close at midnight the other days of the week. The Police Department is opposed to this change and recommends that the patio be closed at 10:00 p.m. Staff is not recommending any change to this condition. INDEX Item 1 PA2002 -218 Continued to 01/23/2003 Item 2 PA2002 -172 Approved r 1 U At Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell noted: 1 • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2003 Service of wine and beer on the patio. Not necessary to limit the hours of service as it is a small patio and patios of larger size, close to residential units, has been allowed in other areas of the City. Public comment was opened. Joan Burton, applicant, noted that she has read the staff report and agrees with the findings and had suggested the changes to conditions 10, 13 and 14. At Commission inquiry stated: • The delivery of alcoholic beverages to homes is considered a luxury service to the clientele to compliment the food. • There is a form that is to be filled out including the name, purchaser's address, phone number, driver's license. The customer would sign this form and the form will become part of the business record keeping. • Minimum delivery may be around $15.00, but they are still working out the pricing. The minimum delivery will not include the alcohol purchase. • The main purpose is serving and delivering food and she would not be adverse to setting a limit on the alcohol delivery. • She is not aware of any other pizza establishments that deliver alcohol with their food. • Take out portion of the business will be about 40%. • Commissioner Tucker asked staff if the Police Department is okay with the delivery of wine or beer. Mr. Campbell noted: • The Police Department is agreeable to this provided it is conditioned as in the report. • The primary concern is to be sure that minors are not buying alcohol. • Information will be taken at the home at the time of delivery and is an enforcement issue for the Police Department. Wayne Zippy, citizen, noted: • According to the Alcoholic Beverage Control laws, it is illegal to remove alcohol to be served and /or delivered. We would be in violation if this was allowed to happen. • The City can not supercede the ABC laws. • As a member of the Police Department for thirty years, they never allowed from. any establishment, alcohol to leave under any conditions unless it was a licensed store. You would hurt local businesses that do sell that are licensed and paying taxes and licensed to deliver that type of thing to a customer. You are taking that right away from them. Chairperson Kiser answered: • The actual ABC laws are not within the purview of the Planning Commission. • The Commission deals with land use matters and matters of the ABO as it was passed. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2003 The Commission relies on staff and the Police Department, who has reviewed the application. Mr. Campbell noted staff had worked with the ABC and they confirmed this is something that can be permitted. It is unusual, but it can be done. The applicant has indicated their method on how they are going to insure that alcohol is not bought by minors. Mr. Zippy noted that the enforcement responsibility is not on the individual delivering the alcohol. You can not do that, they are not law enforcement, nor peace officers of the State of California. You are causing them to enforce.laws that they are not qualified to do. If you do that, you are jeopardizing the City to civil litigation as well as criminal. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Kiser noted that the ABC has approved this application as conditioned as well as the Police Department has reviewed the application and made revisions to some of the conditions. I am ready to rely on what we have in front of us. If this is approved, then this business will be licensed. Commissioner McDaniel expressed his concern of the alcohol delivery aspect of this proposal and therefore will vote against this item. Commissioner Gifford noted she would not support this application. This use permit was originally granted for a little coffee shop that was to serve a high proportion of walk -in traffic from the surrounding businesses. The Commission granted a parking waiver because there was to be a lot of walk -in traffic and no one thought of this as a destination place to pick up food. This will become different as it is a place where you can get alcohol until twelve o'clock at night. Given the statistics, I will not be voting to approve it. Commissioner Agajanian asked about the four spaces on the public right of way as referenced in condition 32. Mr. Edmonston noted that there was an initial encroachment fee with the application process, but there is no annual fee. In lieu of a charge, they were required to re- surface and re- stripe the area when it was initially approved. This was considered to be a reasonable trade off. There are around 40 spaces that serve all the businesses in that immediate area on both sides of Old Newport Blvd. Continuing, Commissioner Agajanian noted his concerns of the intensified use of this project, the amount of traffic and the hours. Comparing the expanse of alcohol service and the percentage of gross receipts, that is a large volume of alcohol. This proposed use is quite a change from the original coffee shop use and there is quite a dependency on the alcohol service that wasn't there originally. INDEX • n U 41 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes 9, 2003 Commissioner Toerge noted that he has faith in the Police Department assessment of this proposal and that conceptually he does not have a problem with the alcohol delivery aspect of it. Commissioner Kiser noted that this proposal has been approved by the Police Department and the ABC and has no problem with this application. He would like to see the 50% number come down to 30 -40%, at the most, as a percentage of total sales. (the alcohol being not more than 30 -40 %). 1 see no problem with delivery of alcohol to the homes; hours limited to midnight and with the patio closing at 10:00 p.m. Chairperson Kiser asked Commissioners about the parking issue: Commissioner Toerge noted he supports the project and would like to see a reduced number of alcohol sales. Parking not a concern. Commissioner Agajanion noted he would support the application without any changes to the parking, but with the reduction of the alcohol percentage and current hours. Commissioner McDaniel noted parking is not a problem. Commissioner Gifford noted her concern of increased vehicular traffic and the additional use of city provided parking spaces for this business. Commissioner Selich noted he was not bothered by the parking. He is not in favor of the project because it is a small space approved for a less intense operation as a caf6. Commissioner Tucker noted that he is concerned about the delivery of alcohol to homes. If this was beer and wine sold with a meal in the project, I would feel differently about it. Staff noted that the six pack condition recommended by the Police Department was not included in the proposed conditions of approval attached to the draft resolution. Motion was made by Chairperson Kiser to adopt Resolution No. 1585 approving the requested amendment to Use Permit No. 3622 (PA2002 -220) subject to the findings and conditions included within the attached draft resolution and modified: • The conditions contained in the January 9th memorandum from James Campbell. • With the further revision of condition 10 that 'subordinate' is defined as less than 35 %. • As contained in the staff report, the hours would be as shown in revised condition 14, 6 a.m. to midnight daily, the patio dining area from 6 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. • Alcoholic beverages service is allowed on the patio. Substitute motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel for the same as stated • above but with no alcohol delivery. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2003 this is a new concept and may work very well. Ayes: Agajanian, McDaniel Noes: Toerge, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Substitute motion failed. Commissioner Toerge asked for clarification on the percentage noted in condition ten. Chairperson Kiser asked the applicant if they agreed to the 35% total sales. Bonnie Pascua noted that the reason they wanted a higher percentage was because the higher end wines are more expensive as well as the imported beers. If a customer comes in and orders a salad and a high -end glass of wine, then it would appear that they sold more alcohol. Ms. Temple noted that the basis is on quarterly sales, not individual sales. Chairperson Kiser answered this is done on a quarterly basis so as long as the average is 35% or less. • Ms. Pascua agreed with the 35 %. The vote on the motion was called. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, Kiser, Tucker Noes: McDaniel, Gifford, Selich SUBJECT: Balboa Inn, LLC (Michel Pourmusso) Amendment to Use Permit No. 3683 (PA2002 -236) 707 E. Ocean Front Approval of an amendment to a previously approved Use Permit for the expansion of the Balboa Inn to be located at 707 E. Ocean Front. Commissioner Tucker noted the floor issues and window treatments differences between the small colored plans dated November 21, 2002 and the larger reduced set of plans dated November 4, 2002. Mr. Campbell answered that the staff analysis was based on the November 4th set of plans. The architect will need to explain the differences between the two sets. The colored exhibit was for illustrative purposes. • Mr. Roger Stern, project architect noted the following: Drawings submitted November 4th, were the original concept and have INDEX Item 3 PA2002 -236 Continue to 02/20/2003 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2003 been changed. The illustrative drawing had added details to match the existing hotel. The changes consisted of the elevator tower from a one shape quadraphole to rectangular element with grills for ventilation. The height is notchanged. Chairperson Kiser asked the speaker to address the changes from the original approval to this request. Take the Commissioners from where they were when this was heard at the last Planning meeting to where you are today. When we reviewed this application before, there was no elevator as part of the project. Mr. Stem noted the following: • Met with the Building and Fire Departments to go over the requirements of project. • In those meetings, found out that gurney size elevator service is required for all three floors. • This is a new element than what was proposed two years ago and is the tallest tower depicted on the elevation plan. • This elevator added a third floor walkway to access the two units on the other side. The original plan had two stairs, one for each set of two units. • The walkway is visible from the beach side elevation and is located near • the center of the site. • A round roof element has been included that exceeds the height limit previously established in two places at the third level. The elements had to be raised as the approved elevation is technically infeasible. Mr. Campbell added that looking at the drawings and the comparative elevations, the previous height limit established was 31 feet to the ridge of the roof elements that were to be round and turreted. To retain those features, the two elements the applicant proposes will be raised by two feet, so those will now be 33 feet to the peak of the roof. The elevator tower will be 34 feet to the peak. All these features are below the 35 foot height maximum that could be done, but since they were over the original approval, staff felt that the Use Permit needed to come back for an amendment so that the Commission would authorize these features. Commissioner Gifford asked about the necessity of the height. Mr. Campbell stated that the 32 feet are for the two round roof elements. They need to sit a little higher so that the roof works as they are technically infeasible as originally approved. Commissioner Agajanian noted his concern of the elevations and asked if there is any open area. Originally, everyone was concerned about the blocking of the sand, beach and pier that could be seen by people on the walkway. Is there any reason why that view shed is now closed off$ • Mr. Stem answered it was a solid wall and it was his understanding it needed to be INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2003 INDEX closed so that the headlights from the cars would not be seen from the ocean front. It was closed on the original drawings. Mr. Campbell clarified the wall between the parking area and ocean front that is west of the main building mass was required by the Commission to remain closed so that the lights from the parking area would not come in to ocean front. Mr. Stern noted that the gates had to be relocated because two exits were required from the garage. Commissioner Tucker noted: • Use Permit before us is based upon the hotel type of use and the basic height limit being exceeded. • The basic height limit can be exceeded by a use permit when the Commission finds there were superior design considerations that were involved. Staff confirmed. • The issue before us is as if we were seeing this project for the first time; is the design of this project different from the last time we saw this project, still of better architectural design to allow us to go ahead and reconfirm the use permit. • The features are below the 35 foot height limit. Commissioner Gifford noted it is important to remember why we thought the other • design was of superior quality and make sure the Commission feels comfortable that this design would be of superior quality. Mr. Campbell explained Exhibit 4, plans A4 and A5 have the old elevations on top of the drawings and the proposed are on the bottom of the drawings for comparison purposes. Discussion followed on comparisons of the garden area, open space, solid wall behind a landscape area, gate, wrought iron, and fountain elements. Mr. Stern continued: • Original plan called for about 2,060 square feet of retail area. This has been reduced because the original drawings did not show any utility rooms for the hotel; they had to go somewhere. Therefore, we lost some retail space. • We also had to add a van accessible parking space. • There is a three hour separation requirement between the parking and access to the guest rooms above, which was not shown on the original plans. At Commission inquiry, he confirmed that all these things that were not shown were an oversight by the original architect. Commissioner Tucker noted that when our hearings go from the conceptual design phase to the working drawings, it ends up coming back to us. This has happened on a few cases and it is distressing to go through the time, effort and trouble that we did, especially what we did on the first go round with this one and • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2003 then these issues come up. I think these should have been identified on the first go round so that we don't have the thing lateral back. It is a real concern to me and I am not happy to see come back. Chairperson Kiser confirmed with the applicant that the project requires 3 less parking spaces due to the reduction of the retail space. There is additional parking being offered over what is required of this project. Mr. Campbell clarified there is actually one space fewer required, and three fewer spaces provided but the applicant is still providing more than is required. Chairperson Kiser asked about the small landscaped courtyard. Mr. Stern explained that the requirements to get from the existing bridge to the new floor deck require a longer ramp than was originally shown. The only place to put the ramp was where the landscape area was. This is the court yard on the second level on the ocean side of the bike way. The original drawings had quite a few windows on the bathroom and bed side of the rooms, which doesn't work. The windows shown were behind the water closets and in the bedroom areas they were behind the bed. That is one of the changes from November 41h, to try to break up the elevation to put some niches and smaller windows to bring it • closer to what it was before. There are also structural conditions that we have to provide, shear walls on a building like this; you can't put windows just anywhere. The decorative balustrade on the third level changed to a wrought iron rail as the balconies are cantilevered structures. Architecturally, to have a large massive object that is not supported by the structure is too heavy. In the resubmitted plans in addition to changes that were made which were necessitated by Fire and Building Codes, changes were made for aesthetic purposes based on review of the project and appearance. Commissioner Gifford clarified that the second floor walkway had a balustrade originally. Because you changed the third floor appearance, did you change the second floor appearance to bring them into visual similarity? Mr. Stern answered that the second floor is the same as what was on the original drawing. What I reduced was the third floor to keep it lighter with the new walkway. The aluminum railings will be easier to see through. The arcade in front of the retail has been eliminated to give the square footage back to the hotel. Due to the addition of the plumbing rooms and utility, electrical rooms, we lost so much square footage. Chairperson Kiser discussed the area depicted on the east elevation that had relief between each column of the building and where the windows were set back four feet. Mr. Stern answered that since there is no retail space, and in order to provide the • maximum square footage, it has been incorporated in the hotel. There are arches, the windows will be recessed as much as possible and the canopies are INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2003 INDEX still in place. Chairperson Kiser clarified with staff that this project had been conditioned to have that relief on the walkway. The Commission was looking for as much relief as possible in the elevations of the project adjacent to the public areas particularly on the east and south sides. It sounds like we may be losing that with this proposal. Mr. Campbell clarified that the front door of the business is now at the property line. The covered arcade with the covered walkway is gone. The architect has indicated he is trying to recess the windows within those arches as far as he can to provide relief in that elevation. Mr. Stern noted that another code requirement was to provide two exits from the upper floor deck. The original plans did not have a second exit. It has been located on the west side of the building to minimize view impact to the neighbors. Referring to the exhibit he explained where it would appear. Discussions followed on the comparisons between the old plans and the new plans regarding the loss of arcade space /public amenity; structural requirements and window placements. Commissioner McDaniel asked if this was now buildable. • Mr. Stern answered yes; they can make this work as many problems with the original plans have been addressed. Commissioner Tucker asked: • How the neighbors view will be impacted by the additional height. • Colors to be used, are they the same or different? • Condition 1 adopted on December 7th regarding samples and material boards, etc. is still viable. • Elevations of November 21st are they the ones you are asking to be approved? Mr. Stem answered: • Neighbors on the west side of the project will see these towers because they are inset from the edge. It is going to cut off some of the view towards the water. • The plan is to make this look as similar to the original plan with the some roof tiles, detailing. There will be new balustrades on the bridge to tie it to the new building. • He understands that condition. • Yes, the elevations dated November 21 t Commissioner Tucker asked staff if there was sufficient information on the November 21st elevations. The conditions for the use permit, did you redo those . 10 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2003 from a computer, or were they retyped? Mr. Campbell answered yes, there are some minor different features but the height of the structures is not higher than reviewed with the other drawings. As long as those remain constant, I would not have a problem with inserting that into the condition with an appropriate date. The conditions were copied from the minutes as approved December 7, 2000. 1 did delete one condition that dealt with the payment of transient occupancy tax that had been paid. Commissioner Tucker listed that reference will be made to the site plan and the floor plan of November 41h and the elevations of November 27th. Commissioner Gifford noted that staff made the determination that the new plans were not in substantial conformance with the old plans, because we were not asked to find that they were. Is this a new application? Ms. Temple answered this is an amendment to the approved Use Permit. Commissioner Gifford stated that we are deciding tonight if these changes still represent a superior design to the extent that it overcomes the basic height limit. • Ms. Temple answered there are four findings that the Commission needs to find in order to approve an application to exceed the basic height limit and we are asking if this project represents a project for which those four findings can be made. There is an analysis in the report. Chairperson Kiser noted that in the prior approval, the Commission needed to approve greater floor area ratio for the total project then what would otherwise have been of right for this site. The amendment relates to differences in height and bulk as well. Ms. Temple noted the original approval included an exception to the maximum allowable floor area, building bulk and building height. The project as revised represents a reduction in floor area. Mr. Campbell added that the gross floor area of the project is basically the same. We have reduced the commercial space but increased the mechanical space. There is an increase in bulk due to the elevator tower. The walkway was not there in the original plans and the area was considered as open space and considered to justify the increased height. Although not defined as bulk or floor area, it is a feature that is reducing some of the open area that was once part of the project. Commissioner Gifford noted that the arcade space was considered a community amenity as a space to have coffee and enjoy seating for concerts. What was represented was that there was food service in the main hotel that could be served on that area at tables and chairs. Commissioner McDaniel asked if these amendments do not get approved, does I INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes i January 9, 2003 INDEX this mean the project can not be built as presented? Staff answered yes. Commissioner Selich noted that a lot of these changes are brought about by the Fire and Building Departments. Didn't they review these plans when we were looking at this before? They may have picked up that you needed the ramp instead of the stairways. My point is these are their requirements and the Commission spent a lot of time going over this, the applicant spent a lot of time and money as well and it almost seems like a lot of this would have been caught or should have been caught in the review in the first set of drawings we looked at. They should have been reviewing these plans as these are very significant changes. Staff answered yes. At the time we were operating under the presumption the bridge to the existing inn could serve as access to the second level and would not necessarily be required for the third level. That presumption did not come true and that came about after the project was approved. Ms: Wood noted that staff in those two departments maintain that they had advised the original applicant /architect that these were issues that needed to be resolved and as I recall the architect thought it was taken care of with the bridge. Prior to it coming before the Commission, the departments provide advice and comments to the applicant. • Discussion continued on the communications among the departments, applicant, architects and the Planning Commission. James Reed, Jr., owner of one of the western duplexes stated that he will now see a more massive, bulky project. He stated that he finds it incomprehensible that the AIA architect who drew this plan and was the supervisor and lead architect for the Balboa Improvement Plan did not see these problems. An elevator of this type will be $100,000 +. Continuing, he noted these amendments act more like revisions and suggested that this project start all over again. Bonnie Abergee, 600 East Oceanfront, 3B corner of Washington and Oceanfront noted the following: • Overlooks the Balboa Inn and notes her side view will be completely taken away. • She had paid a premium for the property and is opposed to this project. • Noted her concern of the value of her property will be diminished if this project was to be built as proposed. • This should be a new application with all these changes they are asking for. She suggested the use of story poles. • This is not appropriate and not fair. Dick Nichols of Corona del Mar asked about the zoning for the property. He was answered that this area is zoned for a maximum of 35 feet high. The project as proposed tonight could not have been built without the prior approval of a use permit. • 12 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2003 Tom Hyans, 217 19th Street noted: • There were two Planning Commission meetings held and one City Council meeting when this was appealed. • There was considerable discussion on the project and it had a lot of mitigations discussed in order to allow the uses being requested beyond entitlements. • What I see now, what was a nice looking building, is a blank wall with a couple of windows in it, a second floor with pre -cast balustrades and a third floor with cheap aluminum rails. • This is not what the Planning Commission approved. • What you are being given now, is nowhere near what was proposed originally. • The project has been cheapened and has additional bulk. • It is hard for me to understand how the original project came in and did not meeting the building and fire codes. Don Bergie, 610 E. Oceanfront noted: • Concerned about the west side view and impacts of the people who live on that side. • Open space and arcade area has been removed. • • The height of the towers of the elevator impacts his view. • There are too many changes being requested and people who live in that area need to see so he suggests the use of story poles. Mr. Stern noted the following: • Most of the impacts from the breezeway and the elevator will be to the hotel because they are inside the site. • Walkways are internal to the site and not on the ocean front. • The 2nd exit, that was added, is along the ocean front where the six foot wall was originally planned. • Views will not be impacted that much. • The detailing has been kept the same as the original plans as much as possible. Ms. Wood added that the City's Code provides that if there are changes going to be made to an already approved permit, the amendment is the correct procedure. What would make an entirely new application the correct procedure, would be if the applicant had not exercised the original use permit within the 24 month or whatever period was specified in the condition of approval. The project is approved, there is a use permit to exceed the basic height limit and that remains in place. The decision for the Commission this evening is whether with the changes to the height and bulk, whether the findings for those portions of the use permit, can be made with the revisions that are being proposed. Public comment was closed. • Commissioner Tucker stated: 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2003 INDEX • In this particular case, under that existing zoning, there is an ability to exceed the height and have a higher floor area ratio via a use permit. There are other zones where excess floor area has to go through a variance hearing, which has different standards than a use permit. • A lot of time was spent on this when it came before us a couple of years ago, wondering how anybody got zoning on the ocean side of the walkway. But that is what we are dealing with. • The City does not have a policy of view protection and is nothing we can do anything about. • Story poles, if we felt it was important for us to understand what we were looking at, we do have a policy. However, there were not enough Commissioners who felt there was a need for them. • We sent the original architect back for more detail so that we could see exactly what we were approving. We spent time to be sure it matched the existing facility. • I have concerns that the project has been cheapened a bit; the elevations do not look quite as nice to me. • The question is: Is the design of this project sufficient to meet the findings the Code requires, even though it is not as nice a project as we originally approved. • 1 don't think it is as nice a project. • The elevator is in the middle of the property and I don't see the height additions as being significant. • • It is not as nice a project as was previously approved. However I believe it does meet the standards for voting for it and I will support it tonight with reluctance. Commissioner Selich noted his agreement with previous speaker adding: • Lesser quality project than seen before. • Does not have a problem with the major element changes. • 1 would be supportive of it if there was some way to get some of the quality back into it. • The drawings are insufficient and hard to pick up the details. • 1 would like to see this fine tuned as we did with the original architect. Commissioner Gifford noted the following: • This project does not represent superior design. A lot of things have been taken away and nothing has been added. • Detail is missing that very much looks like economy. • 1 feel that there has been a lot of thought given to this, a real concentrated effort to work with the architect and owners to produce a superior design. • What we see now, is not a superior design and some of the elements that were very enticing such as the public amenity of the arcade are totally gone. A lot of this is due to the fact that the architect retained by the owners apparently overlooked some things, the City has some responsibility of perhaps not communicating those things to the Planning Commission, but ultimately I don't think the community should have to live • 14 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2003 with the results of those integrated oversights. I don't think we should have less than superior design in that location. 1 can not support this as presented tonight. If there is something that can be done to enhance it. I am for it. Chairperson Kiser noted: • Would like to see a quality project in this location. • 1 voted against this project in its original form for a number of reasons. • 1 am concerned about the windows, more bulk and looks like a fortress in this sensitive and prominent location next to the Balboa pier. The issues we are looking at are the elimination of the recessed colonnade as part of the project on the east side is detrimental and makes it not pedestrian friendly. • The extensive development on the ocean side of the bicycle path is a reason why l did not support it before and that reason has not changed. • Replacement of the balustrade did not particularly improve the project but I don't think we should get involved in redesigning the project. • Our prior approval was giving the project additional height, bulk and floor area ratio from what would have been allowed. • We tried to require a more attractive and better project than one that could have been built within the building envelope by right. . • The revised plan has not achieved that anymore than the original plan. • To approve the project as revised would actually be giving special privilege to this applicant and project and so I will not be supporting it. • What we have been given tonight, is just not enough. There has been a lot of confusion and it is not clear what the project will look like when it is built. There is a lack of detail. Commissioner McDaniel noted: He did not approve this the last time. • Many of the issues addressed made the project a good one to approve the last time. This project is bigger and cheaper than what we had the last time. • 1 would need to see this a much higher quality project before I would support it. Commissioner Agajonian noted: • Concurs with previous comments. • He did not support the original project because it wasn't sensitive enough to the pedestrian view shed particularly off the bike way. I feel it has not gotten any better with this proposal. • I am not going to support this project. Commissioner Toerge noted: • Commends the applicant for offering to improve the property conditions in Balboa. The City has and continues to make a significant investment in . Balboa Village. • The height of the elevator enclosure, the location does not pose an 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2003 INDEX objectionable issue. • The removal of the arcade /colonnade is a concern. • The Commission's approval of the third floor element was as an alternative to a bulkier, larger, two story building. Even though the new balcony connecting the third floor does not add to the footprint, the inclusion of that balcony at the third floor creates a structure that starts to impact the area similar to a larger footprint, two story building with the bulk of a two - story structure in addition to the third floor. • The trade off we might have gotten by allowing three floors with openness goes away now that we have this connecting element in the middle of the building at the third floor level. • For that reason alone, I do not support this proposal. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to reopen the public hearing to hear from the applicant about a continuance. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: Kiser Public comment was opened. Mr. Stem, project architect, agreed to a continuance. Following a brief discussion, he asked for a month's time and to come back at the meeting of February 20th- • Staff agreed to the date. Following a brief discussion, the Commissioners asked the following to be presented at the next meeting: • Color board with materials. • Larger elevations. Show the east elevation with the connection to the old building. • More detail back into the building. • More decorative railing. • Existing building has deep archways and recesses with windows set in. The new building does not appear to be complimentary to the old building in that way. • The walkway across the open area needs to be lightened up. • Some offset for the loss of the arcade. • Concern about the roof material. • 3rd floor connection has a 'Travel Lodge' look. • Too many railings. • Removal of windows and awnings and adding moldings do not improve the walkway. • New elements to add to the design, more pedestrian friendly and visually interesting. • Building has to be more useable and tie in with the other one. Motion was made by Chairperson Kiser to continue this item to February 20, 2003. • 16 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2003 Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, Kiser, McDaniel, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that the regular meeting was used to seat the new CouncilM. embers and a farewell to the departing Councilmembers. The meeting was held the following week at which time they heard the appeal of the Planning Commission approval of the Variance on Balboa Avenue for Mrs. Eckert. The applicant's architect submitted a revised plan reflective of your conditions of approval except for the reduction in floor area. The revised plan was accepted by the Council so they sustained the action to approve with a plan modification. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich reported that there was no meeting. C) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Agajanian reported that committee • has identified a subcommittee to define and refine the document and the public input received so far, and continued to allow the GPAC. d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - met twice and are in the process to meet the time frame mandated by the state to submit the Local Coastal Plan, which is required by June of this year. Comments from various committees are being incorporated. the Commission asked for copies of the report. 0 e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Selich asked for a report on how the departments review things. Discussion followed on level of detail/ timing /costs /responsibilitylsensitive issues pointed out to the Planning Commission. Following the discussion, it was decided a report is not necessary. f) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - enforcement on landscaping conditions. g) Status report on Planning Commission requests - none. h) Project status - none. i) Requests for excused absences - none. 17 INDEX Additional Business City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2003 INDEX ADJOURNMENT: 10:00 P.M. I Adjournment SHANT AGAJANIAN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 18