Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/2000• • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker: All Present STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Dan Ohl, Deputy City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Leticia Matlock, Department Assistant Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes of July 6.2000 : Motion was made by Commissioner KranzJey and voted on to approve, as amended, the minutes of July 6, 2000. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Abstain: Kiser Absent: None Election of Officers: Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to nominate Ed Selich as Chairperson, Larry Tucker as Vice Chairman and Steve Kiser as Secretary. It was voted on and approved. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Abstain: Kiser Absent: None Public Comments: None Posting of the Agenda: Minutes Approved Public Comments The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, June 30, 2000. Posting of the • Agenda . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 SUBJECT: Balboa Inn expansion, 105 Main Street • Use Permit No. 3661 • Acceptance of a Negative Declaration A request for a Use Permit to construct a two and three -story building for 11 new guest rooms for the Balboa Inn, 2060 sq. ft. of retail space and a partially open parking garage with 20 tandem parking spaces. The use permit application also includes consideration of an exception to the maximum allowable floor area and basic allowable building height. Senior Planner James Campbell noted: • Additional elevation drawings are available from the architect as requested at the previous meeting. • Additional alternative schemes for the parcel that would be less dense and meet the zoning requirements have been included in the staff report. • Status of the bridge over Oceanfront is also noted in the staff report. An encroachment permit has been discovered along with notes on the old building plans on microfilm that may give more information on the bridge. • Parking status and a history of the inn are also included in the staff report. • Expansion of a non- conforming use is discussed in the staff report. • • He then presented a variety of photographs of the surrounding area, the use designations and elevations, views and setbacks of the proposed project. Also included were landscape features and views from the bridge, pavilion and third floor balcony of a condominium. • He then noted an additional condition of approval that relates to the beach rental business. As there has been an enforcement situation with bikes in the public property and complaints about the quadracycles the condition reads, 'In the event that a beach rental or bicycle establishment operates from the project site, there shall be no parking or storage of rental bicycles or other items for rent within the abutting public property. Storage or parking of any items for rent shall be conducted in such a way as to not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic in the immediate vicinity. The rental sale or storage of quadracycles from this site shall be prohibited due to concerns of the Newport Beach Police Department regarding public safety.' This would be condition 8. Commissioner Kiser noted that there was a valet parking plan condition that was to have been added as condition 8 recommended at the last meeting. Chairperson Selich asked about the height of the east elevation on page 4 of the drawing. He was answered that it is close to 40 feet high, but it is not noted on the drawing. Commissioner Kiser asked about the requirements for public safety noted in the findings for denial. He was answered that the existing development would not • be in violation, but the way the project is designed the bridge is an integral point INDEX Item No. 1 UP No. 3661 Negative Declaration Denied without prejudice • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 for fire safety and access. This project requires a crutch with the existing building providing access, so it lends permanence to the bridge. If the bridge was to be damaged and the applicant chose not to reconstruct it, we would have a situation where the necessary access would not be provided to the proposed project. They would need to put an elevator in the proposed building. Buildings are normally constructed so that they stand - alone. However, this finding notes that the building does not stand alone and potentially if the bridge was damaged or demolished, it would create an access problem. The access is necessary because the buildings are two -story and require two means of egress /ingress. There is an existing stairway as well. Commissioner Kiser then asked about the floor area ratios noted in the two staff reports. The present staff report on page 8, under the expansion of a nonconforming structure, states the gross floor area of the existing inn and retail uses is approximately 23,300 square feet. The site is 12,825 square feet. Is this only the project site and not the existing hotel on the other side of the oceanfront walk? Mr. Campbell answered that area does not include the oceanfront property. I am providing information as to the non - conformity of the existing inn. Is Commissioner Kiser than asked about the FAR in the June 22nd report on page 2. The site is 7,425 square feet in area; does this refer just to the site for the existing hotel? Mr. Campbell answered that this discussion relates to the oceanside property, which is 55 x 135 square feet and does not include the existing inn. The ocean front walk is not included as it is in the public right -of -way. Commissioner Tucker then noted that the public right of way between the two parcels, that are two separate, legal parcels, are the original inn parcel and the expansion parcel. The application relies for secondary fire and ADA access on a bridge that spans the public right -of -way. The elevator facility is in the main building that allows people access up to the second level so they can go across to the new parcel. Since they are separate legal parcels, there would be nothing to prohibit the owner of the inn from conveying the original inn separate from the other parcel. How are we secure that the parcel on the ocean side is always going to have that access? Are we handling it by way of a use permit that stipulates the access in order for the use of the second and third floors? Or, are we contemplating having the applicant come back and having some type of recorded declaration where the City is a beneficiary that requires the elevator access in the main inn to effectively have an easement? This easement would then encumber the original inn so that handicap access is there. Mr. Campbell stated that the building and safety would handle this when they issue the permit at the time they review the plans. A property that relies upon the • use of another property for some code requirement, building and safety looks for INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 easements or declarations to be recorded on the property. Commissioner Tucker noted that we should add something like this so that there is another checkpoint. Ms. Temple stated that we could structure some type of restrictive covenant that would be recorded against both properties, which would require the appropriate changes to the oceanward parcel should the properties bifurcate. This is more appropriate because it would then be considered an encumbrance on the properties. An easement in the public right -of -way in this case is not the correct vehicle. The covenant would be superior to any loan on the properties. Commissioner Gifford commented that the applicant, having located an encroachment permit for the bridge issued by the city, realized that the permit could require the removal of the bridge at any time within 90 days. The applicant knows that the use permit, under which the inn is now operating, has a condition in it that restricts the use of the oceanside parcel to a pavilion and the uses authorized at that time. I was there looking at the site today and the applicant sees the necessity for these parcels being linked and understands that it may be appropriate to have a use permit on the other property. Commissioner Kiser noted that the staff report discloses that the property is presently behind in payment of their TOT taxes. He asked if there is anything that would prevent the Commission from acting on this proposal in light of the fact that the applicant is in arrears. He asked the dollar amount and was told that it is approximately $55,000. Ms. Temple answered that there is not a direct connection between the approval of a use permit and financial obligations. However, this particular permit could be conditioned such that it could not become effective perhaps until such payments are made. The City is currently in active negotiations with the properly owner to arrange q payment plan regarding the outstanding obligations. There are regular collection means to get the payments at any point with or without this approval. Chairperson Selich asked staff to summarize exceptions to the zone code for the floor area and the building height that the applicant is asking for and the mechanism used for deliberation by the Planning Commission. Mr. Campbell answered that this is a use permit to allow the development to exceed the basic allowable limit. The basic limit in Central Balboa for this type of commercial land use is .5 FAR; the maximum allowable is 1.0. You can only get a floor area ratio greater than .5 through the application of a Use Permit. To exceed 1.0 floor area ration would take a Variance. The Variance would require special circumstances related to the property, i.e., size, shape, topography, location, or some other physical constraint that precludes development of the • property consistent with similar properties in the identical zoning. In this particular INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 case, we could not make those findings for this development. The findings for the use permit are more subjective and relate to making the finding such that the increased floor area and increased building height do not create an abrupt change in scale. It must be compatible with the area; these are the types of findings that are made. The basic allowable limit for the building height is 26 feet; the maximum allowable is 35 feet, so you can go to 35 feet with a Use Permit. To exceed the 35 feet you would need a Variance with the specific types of findings. In this application, there are no variances requested, just the use permit. Chairperson Selich stated that we are not being asked to approve anything that exceeds the existing zoning, but in this situation on those two factors, the zoning code provides for a range. Within that range, the Commission makes the determination as to what the appropriate height and floor area would be. Mr. Campbell noted that the basic allowable limits could be built to by right. If those are exceeded within that range, it requires the Planning Commission review. Ms. Temple added that the code requires certain findings that must be made by the Commission in both these issues. These are qualitative standards that the project must be found to meet before the Planning Commission can approve them. The City has the discretion to impose additional requirements, design or other types of benefits to the City that would accrue in return for approval of such use permit. Public comment was opened. Ron Baers, representing the Balboa Inn noted the following referencing colored exhibits. He stated that there is a landscape overlay that shows a possible solution to Commission concern of screening around the parking lot. • Project is at a key intersection at Oceanfront and Main across from the Peninsula Park. • He clarified the enclosure around the ground level parking on the exhibit. • Proposed to have a six -foot high masonry and decorative metal fencing that would enclose the entire parking area. Flowering vine planting is proposed along the decorative fencing to fully screen parking from view. • Proposed garden court with a water feature. • North and west elevations were prepared and exhibited. Landscaping shows that the views along oceanfront walk would be enhanced by this treatment of fifteen -foot wide planters, water feature and ground floor retail. • The bridge is to be modified by adding decorative railings to tie into the rest of the building features. • Building height average for the two parcels is approximately 22 square feet. We have done what we could to reduce the mass and height through this type of articulation. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 Commissioner Kranzley noted for the record that he met with the applicant this afternoon to review the new plans and look at the property. The issue I brought up at the last meeting was the openness of the parking from the boardwalk. Though I think the applicant has attempted to address those issues, they are still not adequately addressed. I have concerns about the maintenance of the landscaping. One experience would be as one walks by the building towards the ocean you would see the wrought iron and views of cars. The other issue is at night; cars would actually enter from the opposite end of the building with their lights on that would shine over the boardwalk. We hope that enough landscaping would block all of this, but I doubt whether it would be that effective. We are talking about an approximate 48 -foot stretch of building wall that could have arched niches in that would create a feature that would make the building more interesting. It would not be one flat wall that would go the entire length, you could add plants, recessed lights and make the wall a very nice feature of the building while completely block from the boardwalk the lights and views of the cars. Mr. Boers stated that this parcel is unique as it is surrounded by very large planting areas around the perimeter that are going to be conditioned to be designed in accordance with the plans of the Balboa Village. We will not be selecting the plant materials; that will be done as part of the overall landscape design. The landscaped look is very critical. Alternative screening measures could be made for that 48 foot wall length along oceanfront walk. Referencing the exhibit, he pointed out the area of concern. Commissioner Kranzley added that how the parking area is to be lit at night is also a concern. Commissioner Agaianian asked how long the owner has had the property and the performance of the hotel. He was answered that the current owners assumed complete control of the partnership three years ago. Prior to that time, they were minority partners. Mr. Ray Pourmussa, 818 North Doheny Drive explained that the need for the additional rooms has been going up over the past several years. The property has been rehabilitated and the economy has been much better. During the season, bookings are 75% to 85% on the average and the season is getting longer. In the wintertime, our bookings are less than 607o, but on the weekends we are sold out. The demand is going up, as is the average room rate, which means the revenues are going up. If we have these new rooms we can rent them for more money at a good occupancy rate. The existing inn can do well on its own and would not depend on this proposed expansion. We have rehabilitated the structure for the past three years ago with new paint, metal and wood repairs, new carpeting and furniture as well as computer systems. The restaurant has been completely remodeled. 0 Public comment was opened. •II�ID7�:1 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 Bill Malcomb, 2136 Miramar stated his support for the proposed project. At a recent meeting of the Peninsula Point Board meeting, the participants approved the presentation made by Mr. Baers. Mr. Malcomb stated that the village is in a sad state of affairs and this project offers some great potential. This is a fine presentation and is as fine a project as you are going to get in that area. Bill Wren, 1118 East Balboa Boulevard spoke in support of this project noting that the goal of the City Council for this area is to increase viability as for as a commercial area upgrade. Numerous studies have been made and the City is committing over 7.5 million dollars in this area just to stimulate the type of development such as this proposed project. Other development will follow such as the theatre renovation. We have to have this type of development to stimulate investment. We need to be able to provide accommodations to develop this area as a destination point. Tod White, 1120 East Balboa Boulevard, President of the Balboa Peninsula Point Association spoke in support of this development aesthetically from an architectural point of view; and it reinforces the economic viability of the area. To see something succeed such as this, I ask that you support this project. • Kay Mortinsen, 1530 Miramar Drive stated she has worked on the beautification of the Balboa Boulevard from Main Street down towards the Point. I look at this proposal as it relates to the redevelopment of the village area. The need for upgrades such as this is great. This proposal is well designed and is an improvement over what is there now. I would like to see this proposal move forward. Tom Hyans, President of the Central Newport Beach Community Association spoke in opposition to the development on the oceanside or south side of the oceanwalk. The board has discussed this project and asks that it be limited to what is referred to as 'by right' development. The FAR is considered to be below the 1.0 maximum if you consider the project as a stand -alone project. If you consider it as part of the entire project, it is considerably excessive. I see the two lots considered as one for the project for the benefit of accepting the bridge and accepting handicap egress and ingress, but when it comes to FAR we separate the two projects. The Community Association would like to see this project limited to what is permitted 'by right' development. I was hoping to see what the possible 'by right' development would look like. Commissioner Tucker asked what the square footage is of the existing lot and the square footage of floor area on the existing inn? Mr. Campbell, referencing page 8 in the staff report, noted the existing site is 12, 825 square feet and the structure is approximately 23,300 square feet, which gives an FAR of 1.82, which exceeds the floor area of 1.0 as the maximum. 0 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 Ms. Temple noted that prior to the establishment of floor area ratios in the 1988 General Plan update, all of the commercial properties had a floor area ratio of either 2.0 or 3.0. This particular property is also non - conforming in a number of other ways, but it only became non - conforming as to floor area ratio in 1988. Chairperson Selich noted for the benefit of the audience that on page 4 of the staff report, there is a section called alternative development, which gives an explanation of the drawings and other elaborations on possible solutions that could occur under the 'by right' scenario. Virginia Herberts stated that the Peninsula Point Association would like this kept to its entitlement, not to go higher or with more square footage. I would prefer that in our village where we are trying to structure down the commercial part of it to keep it to the entitlement, not go higher than is allowed and not to have more square feet. This project proposes an increased development of 2,596.5 square feet, which is a 26.7% overall increase than what is allowed. I would prefer that the project stay within the parameters, so that it does not restrict other businesses in the area from what they are allowed to do because this project goes beyond the General Plan. Chairperson Selich asked if the objection is that there is a range of floor area and . a range of height and your objection is going to the high end of that range and you prefer that we stay on the low end. With that in mind, do you have any objection to the hotel use? Mrs. Herberts answered that she prefers that there be no structure on the ocean side parcel, however, they do own the property. I don't want any more new development on the oceanfront. Mr., Kirk Herberts stated that some ten or twelve years ago he was involved in the sale of the property two times. The elevator at that time was inoperative about 75% of the time. I don't know if there has been a new elevator installed or the new works that make the elevator work. But, if there has not, the one that is there now in an emergency would be highly doubtful. It is small and can hold 6-8 people at the most. There must be two ways of escape from any new building, upstairs /downstairs not that elevator. From a business standpoint, those people owe you and me $55,000. I would suggest before you go any further with any kind of a project, you find out how much they owe other people, how for behind they are in payments and what they are going to do about it. Kathleen Smith, 1600 East Oceanfront asked if the picture taken from the balcony could be highlighted to indicate where the line would be for the new building. I think that would be helpful for me. As I understand it, your agreement to approving use permits, one of the things is that it does not damage enjoyment, appreciation or property values around it. It certainly does extremely impact those of us who live on the other side of the building. I don't think anybody 0 denies the attractiveness of what has been displayed here. One of the big pulls INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 is that it goes along with the development of the Balboa Village. Maybe it does in the immediate impression, but I don't think that the development of the Balboa Village by people who come here really intend or wish to see major buildings larger than they are supposed to be on the other side of the boardwalk. I can't tell you how many arguments in the parking lots and near accidents I have seen and heard from my front porch. Parking is a major concern because the parking meets minimal requirements even with double valet parking. I appreciate your listening. Mr. Campbell noted the existing pavilion on the picture in question and attempted to reference the proposed structure. Ms. Temple noted that we would have to ask the applicant to provide us with computer simulations such as we received with other projects. Dave Biechock, 600 East Oceanfront noted that the picture was taken from his deck. He stated that this project would greatly impact his view. As a new homeowner, he is very concerned about this project as it is replacing sky and palm trees with three stories of concrete. A comment was made about the views of the pedestrians walking up and down the boardwalk, and it just doesn't make sense that this would occur. I look to you to help me protect my investment. Commissioner Tucker noted that the 'by right' ability of the applicant to build would appear to be even more deleterious view than what is being proposed now. The project would be an average of 26 feet high depending on the floor you are on. This would wipe out your view to the east. They can build that without coming in to see us at all. As compared to what they can come in and do anyway versus the project they are proposing to do, are people on balance better or worse off? It is not what exists today and what they are proposing; we also need to factor in what they could do 'by right'. The 'by right' could be starting at the properly line instead of where the bridge is. Mr. Biechock discussed the elevations and noted that the portions that would be higher would be on our side. The lower portions would be towards the front. James Read, P. O. Box 780 Balboa stated he is one of the most impacted by this proposed project. He referenced his packet that was distributed to the Planning Commission at the meeting. The pictures in the packet show what a 32 foot high wall is, which is the back of the inn. My view will be totally destroyed by the massive wall. It had been suggested that the property be condemned under the Street and Highway Code. That can be integrated into the Balboa Plan. The owners of the inn could add onto the front of the building. The Negative Declaration speaks in terms of a two -story building, how does that impact this project? I wonder if you would like built by your front yard a 31 -foot high wall, I do not. There will be a huge impact with parking from the Performing Arts Center let alone pollution. I suggest that the Commission work with the owner to develop alternative plans and make it a better situation. At Commission inquiry, he stated INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 that he lives in the middle duplex on the west side of the project. Commissioner Tucker asked if he had reviewed the west elevation. Mr. Read answered that he had not had an opportunity to review the wall drawing, but noted that if it was 31 feet, it was monolithic. Continuing, he stated that he did not know what the hurry is. There is an opportunity to condemn the property, pay fair value and expedite the process of developing quality development and let the applicant rehabilitate the front of their building. Commissioner Tucker stated that the applicant has gone through the process with a hearing last month and we are back here tonight. As the Planning Commission, we do not control things such as condemnation; all we do is decide upon a set of circumstances that are in front of us. Commissioner Gifford clarified that the affect of the 26 foot setback from the property line, in the balance you have something that could be 24 to 30 feet on the property line and that is weighed against something that could be setback 26 feet to give you a view angle to the beach. Mr. Read noted that the angling from his place would still be a block wall. He would no longer see the pier or palm trees. Mr. Campbell added that the Negative Declaration was prepared in December 1999 and was for the original submittal of the project, which was for a 26 -foot high two -story building with a pool area on the roof. That project had 14 rooms and was slightly larger. Subsequently, we have met with the applicant and expressed concerns about the design, code compliance and aesthetic reasons. The applicant has re- designed the project to the project that you see this evening. The differences between the two proposals are that the revised proposal is smaller in terms of the number of rooms so the traffic impact is less; in terms of 2 versus 3 story elevations, staff does not believe the change was significant enough to warrant additional review of the environmental document. Due to the fact that we believe that the revised project is less intense, we believe that it adequately addresses the environmental impacts and the Negative Declaration can be adopted this evening. Ms. Temple added that there are two parts of state planning law that govern how quickly an agency must process and act on applications. One is called the Permit Streamlining Act that requires an agency to act on a Use Permit within 6 months or 180 days of an application being deemed complete. There is an opportunity to extend the statutory timeframes with the concurrence of the applicant. If the City does not act within that time frame, the project would be deemed approved through operation of law. In this case, the critical factor is the statutory limits on acting on a project related to the California Environmental Quality Act. We have extended those statutory timeframes already to the • maximum. The Commission will be asked to take some action this evening, either 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 to approve, to deny, or to deny without prejudice as we are at the limits of the statutory timefromes under those provisions of state planning law. This is a requirement imposed on the City by state planning law. The application was deemed complete December 21, 1999. The statutory limit of 180 days expired June 17, 2000. The applicant concurred to a 45 -day extension that expires at the end of this month. Vic Sherrit, property owner of 704 East Oceanfront stated that he has tried to find out how the people in the area feel about this proposed project. Of the six hundred, seven hundred, eight hundred blocks of Oceanfront, thirty -five residents and business owners have signed a statement that they feel this proposed project will be detrimental and injurious to their property. These are the ones who are the most impacted by this project. I have 26 additional signatures of Newport residents within two blocks who say they are also opposed to the project. If you approve this use permit, it would be a case of big government deciding what is best for the people who are most impacted by this project. We live there; we own property there and are a part of it every day. It will be detrimental and injurious to us. 35 to 0 feel that way. Has the Balboa Inn considered building an attractive one story building on that piece of land and that perhaps the Planning Commission would waive the parking requirements and use that square footage for retail and hotel rooms? The tandem parking is impractical for the backside in the retail area. You would get acceptance for a one -story project. Commissioner Kranzley asked if he had an opportunity to look at the drawings of the'by right' and if the impact would be greater or less. Mr. Sherrit answered that the proposed building gives a 31 -foot high wall right next door. The'by right' would probably have less impact. Commissioner Tucker noted that the 'by right' is on the property line. For you that could be monolithic in nature. The proposal is 26 feet off the property line and goes up to the southern half 31 feet and on the northern half up to 24 feet. Either structure would have an impact on you, but I think the 'by right' one would be a lot worse for you than what the applicant is proposing. Mr. Sherrit answered that it affects the view, the lifestyle and is an abrupt type of thing compared to what is there now. According to what you say, in the requirement to approve a use permit that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Or, be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood. The people who all live there every day, 35 to 0 say it is detrimental to us. Joanne Anthesion, 600 East Oceanfront stated that her view would be • completely obstructed. She stated that she paid a high premium for the view. I 11 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 strongly feel that this proposed project would not improve the business in Balboa. The people who live there like the village atmosphere. I am not sure how the property will be subsidized during the off hours, if they are never at capacity how are they going to make it? There are monetary issues and it seems that in order to build this building, they are going to ruin the views of so many of us who live there and who own property. My guess is that in a couple of years the building we are talking about will be vacant because they are not going to be able to pay for the property. Ron Harder, manager of the Balboa Inn stated that there has been a lot of discussion about whether development in this community can ever happen. There is already a huge parking lot on the Peninsula that was not just built to accommodate people in the t shirt factories, it is there for tourists, people who come into the area. In order for that area to grow, there has to be some significant anchors that can encourage development. There are three historic anchors in that downtown area. An area that is already going to receive a 7.5 million - dollar influx for development because it is needed and qualifies for funds from government agencies. The three elements are the Pavilion, the theater, and the inn. These industries are clean industries that are appropriate for this kind of community that can enhance the viability for the public that comes down here to stay longer. This is the kind of industry that is going to promote better restaurants and other auxiliary businesses that will be more suitable for that particular area. The owners have the 'by right' to build up to a certain level and they could build a bunker type of structure that would be unattractive to everybody but still accommodate their need for rooms. Eleven rooms are not going to change the economic landscape of the area; it is not a 511 room hotel, it is an 11 room hotel. We are going to enhance the entire area by adding a significant anchor that is aesthetically designed to tie into with what the City is already planning to do in the area. It is important to appreciate that there are a number of factors to weigh here. By going forward with this project, we are trying to compromise our need to grow as a business and enhance the area with the other considerations of the people who reside in the area. We are not building the bunker, we are pulling it back, changing the size and shape to make it fit what is already in the area. Don Elder, 1 107 East Balboa Boulevard questioned the 'by right' noting that the property is zoned C -1 now. In the early 60's this piece of property was not even a viable lot. Once it was established it was zoned 'U' (Unclassified). What is there now is a swimming pool. The Commission at that time stated that only the pavilion and recreational uses as shown on the lot plan were to be permitted. It has been U all this time. Somewhere along the line, it has been changed and I wonder if the new owners have a 'by right' to do anything. Ms. Temple stated that the lot was legally established around 1961 through the Superior Court decision of the County of Orange. The city at that time approved a use permit as required for development in the 'U' or unclassified district for the . pool area, cabana and what we now call the pavilion area. The 'U' district was 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 not a district that would have given the City a full limitation on what uses could be put to the property. The U district at the time would have allowed any use consistent with the land use designation of retail and service commercial subject to the approval of a use permit. The City's General Plan was adopted in 1972 and the retail and service designation was applied to the property and allowed for a broad palette of commercial land uses including the proposed hotel. The zoning action to make it RSC was really part of the adoption of the Specific Plan, which occurred in the early to mid 1990's. However, the land use entitlements would have allowed commercial development prior to that time. It was unclassified between 1961 and the 1988. Prior to 1961 a portion of this lot was part of the original lettered lot subdivision approved in 1906. In 1961 there was litigation against the City and the court ruled in favor of the property owner at the time and actually established the 55 x 135 -foot lot as a privately held piece. Mr. Campbell added that the inn was built in 1930 prior to zoning. The original zoning of the property in the 1936 Zoning Ordinance was R 1. Subsequent to that it was re -zoned to U per a 1950 Districting map. Dan Purcell, 3 Canyon Lane noted his concurrence about the stucco wall as expressed by Commissioner Kranzley. He asked why it could not have some dimension to it. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the drawings have the wall as open with wrought iron along the boardwalk. I have concerns about views from the boardwalk and I would like to have a wall with articulations and features. Mark Hendricks, 600 East Oceanfront stated that he is not in support of this project. I love to be able to see the sailboats come into the jetty and this will be gone from my view with this project. I would like to see more put into the development of the current site as it is now. I can see the owners wanting more revenue, but it is at our expense and I am not happy with that. Ron Boers noted the difference between the proposed and 'by right' development while referencing the exhibits: • 'By right' proposal is to place a two story retail building with a height of 26 feet, 31 feet to the ridge along the west property line. The second floor is tied into the existing bridge so that it would be accessed from the inn. The rest of the site would be on grade parking, lone parking stalls, which would be required from the 3,700 square feet of retail. • The proposed project is for open parking at the western extent of the lot. The building line is set back, which is in line with the existing bridge of the hotel that is about 28 feet away from the property line. The west elevation shows the articulations. The existing bridge would be enhanced and the stairways to the third level of the western portion of the addition are effectively 13 feet high from grade. The proposed inn addition is two levels of rooms over the ground floor parking deck. From the existing building line of the inn to the point where the largest mass of the 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 proposed addition is located is about 55 feet away. I believe that the view from the third floor of the Rendezvous Condominiums that there will be a view out over the building that is 21 1/2 feet to the ridge line as opposed to the possibility of a solid building wall 26 feet high to the eave and up to 31 feet up to the ridge line. This would be located 30 feet away from the closest residential unit located adjacent to the inn. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Gifford stated that depending on what aesthetic consideration that the Commission wishes to discuss, I would like to bring back the questions that exist about the state of the effective combination of uses on these two parcels and how we might go about resolving that. Mr. Hyans mentioned that it is odd that for certain purposes we would view them as separate and for certain purposes we view them together. We do have the fact that the use permit that the staff report says is currently in effect for the existing inn (UP931 ) does have the restriction of the use being only for pavilion room and recreational uses. The property that affects as part of the existing inn's use permit has been re- zoned. think there is work to be done on the existing encroaching permit that can require removal of the bridge within 90 days and the fact that the bridge is what links the common use. It may be that we have to have a continuance by virtue of denial without prejudice so that staff can do some work. The city attorneys office just got this encroachment permit and there may be some other issues that they would like to look into. Chairperson Selich noted that staff has pointed out that we can not continue the project or that we need to deny the project without prejudice which will allow the applicant to re -apply immediately allowing continued review of the project. If we are not ready to approve this at this meeting but we want further analysis and drawings, this is the way that we would have to go on this. Commissioner Gifford brings up some good points, it seems like there are a lot of old permits and putting it all under one use permit would certainly clean it up. My question is if we approach this as one use permit and one project, does it have any negative affect on what is being proposed? It that is the case, why didn't we do it as a whole use permit to begin with? Ms. Temple stated that we do not typically have single use permit that cover separate parcels. This is a question that I need to discuss with the City Attorney, as it has not been something of standard practice in the past. The Commission should be very clear as to what kinds of differences and changes and exactly how they would like to see the permits restructured should they choose the denial without prejudice. A denial without prejudice simply for the purposes of avoiding the constraints of the permit streamlining is a very hazardous course of action. You should give clear direction as to how you want to change the approach so there is no question. • 14 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 Chairperson Selich stated, is wanting to have one use permit enough? This is something that is common in other places. Mr. Ohl stated that this is something that would have to be looked into to see if they could be combined under one use permit. Commissioner Gifford asked if the applicant is in concurrence. He would have the benefits of a cleaned up situation. Commissioner Tucker asked if combining this into one use permit with the existing non - conforming situation, could it qualify to be a use permit? I can still see doing it as two use permits, but reading the record of this parcel, I'm uncomfortable being party to what could be the seventh different approval on this. Ms. Temple answered that is the most critical issue, if we combine it under a single use permit and through that process somehow create a single entity against which we must evaluate it to code, then it could throw the project into variance territory. This does have a checkered history. Commissioner Tucker stated that in the staff report it says expansion or additions can not increase the degree of present non - conformity. The existing site has a . FAR of about 1.82. If the new site were combined to the existing site then it would be closer to 1.6. 1 am trying to understand whether combining it into one use permit is even an alternative. Chairperson Selich stated that this would be one use permit covering two parcels and each parcel would stand on its own. Being in one use permit would not effect the non - conformity of the existing parcel. However, I could be wrong in that. Ms. Temple added that we do have use permits that cover more than one parcel, but they are contiguous. In the code, we talk about the building site and so when there are a number of parcels that comprise a building site for example, the Albertson's market. In this case there are two parcels, but they are separated by a right -of -way. Therein is the difference as opposed to a shopping center with multiple parcels. Our code does actually define building site as being the contiguous parcels that constitute the whole site of a project. This one is a little different, which is why we want to delve further into the possible implications we might be setting ourselves up for in that regard. Commissioner Gifford added that there may be implications through the Central Balboa Specific Plan because to some extent it permits the reconstruction of an entire existing structure under certain conditions if there is no expansion of the structure. Whether that structure is discreet or not, there is a lot to investigate. Ms. Temple noted this is important, because if we get to the point whereby virtue • of this process we have to consider the two parcels as a single building site, then 15 `I1�ID] 1 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 we really run into some fairly significant obstacles. Commissioner Tucker asked about just the project, what does everybody think of it? We have all these technical things to deal with and before we head off in that direction, it would be nice to know before we do that if there are enough votes for the project to begin with. Chairperson Selich stated that we should address those issues because most of the people who got up here to speak could care less whether it is one or two use permits. Their issues are something different. We should address the project itself and if we are satisfied with the project or want to make some modifications, then we need to give that direction to the applicant along with dealing with the technical aspect of it. Commissioner Kranzley noted that following: • There have been over three decades of studies regarding what we could do with Balboa Peninsula and Balboa Village. Many of these studies said the same things. • The City has made a commitment of 7.5 million dollars for the improvement of the peninsula, specifically Balboa Village. • The Theater group has made a significant commitment of 2 million dollars in . renovating the theater building. We need both public and private money in this area. • The Balboa Inn is one of the first private monies to come in and try to make an effort to upgrade the village. • There are people who are willing to make a capital improvement in this area on both the theater and inn. It takes one step at a time for this evolutionary change. • This proposed project appears to have the least impact of a building that could be useful to the hotel. • Other than the issue of the wall versus the wrought iron fencing on the boardwalk, I am pleased to see the quality of this project that the applicant has proposed and move forward to approving this, but I am supporting the cleaning up of use permits. Commissioner Gifford noted the following: • Enjoys the idea of what can be good about Balboa Village. • Sorry to see the number of restaurants that has been closed. • The balancing act is not the choice between nothing and something. It is between a building on the site that could be conceivable 10 feet higher at its higher point and one that might have no aesthetic quality. It might be something to drive the area further down. • Encouraged that people stepped forward and are considering the kind of capital that this project is about. This is what the City has been missing, people willing to invest money in the area. • The visits by Mr. Shemt with the 60 some odd people in total, shows we know • that there are that many people who are well aware of the project. Yet, 16 Ills] • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 tonight we do not see those people. The degree of their concern, knowing they have been informed specifically of the meeting tonight, doesn't seem that their objections significant enough to appear and make their concems known. Having looked at the property today and the site lines, I have come to the conclusion that the proposed project will be less detrimental to those people. It is not our charge to protect private view, but we are always sensitive to that. If we can clean this up and have a single use permit, or use permits that are compatible, I would tend to vote in favor of this project. Commissioner Agajanian stated he is supportive of this project as well. However, he is concerned about the growing encroachment of the use over time. This has gone from an auxiliary use to being converted to a full hotel use. I am concerned because this is an escalating intensity of use that comes along with each one of these steps. I would like to see this clarified. The additional capital improvements are helpful. I would like a more definitive understanding of this project if we approve this but the building does not get started and then the property transfers title again. The entitlement would pass along with the property, correct? . Ms. Temple answered use permits vest and run with the property. However, if not implemented within the time frame established by the Planning Commission, which is typically a 24 -month period, the approval would expire. Commissioner Kiser stated the following: • The central Balboa area is in need of private investment and development to realize its potential. The area has stagnated in recent years. I am pleased to hear that the Balboa Inn business is becoming more profitable and the hotel more successful. The proposed design is attractive when its specific location is ignored. • The Balboa Inn sits in a strategic location adjacent to the Balboa Pier, the Peninsula Park and our public beach. Any development of the site will have a significant impact on the public's use and perception of the Balboa area. • Because this project is on the beach side of the oceanfront walk it demands the highest degree of scrutiny by the Planning Commission. It should be subject to the highest level of justification in order for any structure related use permit to be approved. • I don't believe the proposed project rises to that level of justification and I believe it should be built within the present FAR and height standards for the site. • The project should generally be within the 26 -foot range that is a two -story development. One and two stories is the character of the Balboa Village area with very few exceptions, particularly the condominium project from which we have had speakers tonight and at our last hearing on this. With • the exception of the project itself, (the other part of the Balboa Inn) is almost 17 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 entirely one and two story development not only in the Balboa Village area, but in fact almost the entire Balboa Peninsula. I may be willing to vote for a use permit for a structure in excess of 26 feet over the parking in order to get the additional parking for the City that is sorely needed in that area and very difficult to come by. 1 would not vote for a taller, more sizeable structure over the additional retail uses. I believe this benefits only the owner of the project. 1 believer that everyone should have the opportunity to see story poles or some other form of physical representation on the ground what the project would look like when it is built. • We need to remember we are considering a project that is an addition to a use that does not conform to floor area ratio, building bulk, building height or parking requirements. It is very significantly askewed from those things in several respects. While I don't think that an owner should be penalized for non - conforming conditions, I also don't think that non - conforming conditions should be ignored when reviewing proposals for related projects. Continuing, he noted we have reviewed plans for an alternative project that conforms with present entitlements but that may not be as good a project for a number of reasons that have been considered by both staff and Planning Commission including economic viability, which may be foremost; viewscapes and other matters. The fact that the particular alternative presented is not as good a project as the proposal for which the applicant seeks approval, does not justify our approving the project as proposed. I question whether the applicant would actually build the alternative project without revisions. I have very serious reservations about that. I am concerned that as much as this alternative plan has come up, is justifying the new and real proposed project. I am concerned we are getting into the game of playing possibly how ugly and impossible a project can we build 'by right' in order to make a proposed project look better. I am sure that a better alternative project within present entitlements can be designed, second I have trouble accepting the notion that we should approve a use permit and a negative declaration on the basis of a proposed project being superior to what may be the worst possible alternative plans that fit "thin the present entitlements. I believe that basic floor area and height for this project should be adhered to. Finally, I believe we should deny without prejudice the application to allow the applicant to redesign not merely for Permit Streamline Act purposes, but for purposes of actually re- designing the project to conform to what I have just stated. Commissioner McDaniel stated that he is troubled with our redevelopment of Balboa Village starting out being higher and taking people's views, than what they are allowed. I agree with the previous statements and that something built closer to what they are allotted would work just fine. I am also troubled by the fact that it appears that we are building a fancy new garage in front of the beautiful old building and calling it redevelopment. I am having some difficulty With the fact that we continue throwing ideas at this site, it's been a school, an 18 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 apartment we keep trying to do something and nothing is working. I am not convinced that puffing hotel rooms on that side of the walk way is the answer, I agree with Mr. Hyans in that respect. I think the answer is to deny without prejudice is probably how I would be going, if not to deny it outright. Chairperson Selich stated his support of the project as outlined by Commissioners KranAey and Gifford. I don't agree with comments by Commissioner Kiser on the height of the building. I don't look at it in relation to other two story buildings in the area. I look at it in relationship to the existing Balboa Inn; it is really an extension and expansion of that structure. I look to it in terms of compatibility with the architecture, character and use of that structure. It is a difficult situation because there is a lack of parking in the area and we need parking. The parking has to go somewhere and given the physical constraints of the property it has to be above ground. In terms of the fact that it is two stories of hotel use on top of a parking structure, they have done an excellent job of designing it and integrating it into the existing structure from a design stand point. It won't look like a parking garage by any means. I agree about the closed panels on the oceanfront side of the building and closing that off. I am in support of denying it without prejudice primarily for the purposes of dealing with the use permit issues in addition to all the other things that we have discussed. I want to be sure this is tied together as one use and we don't have two separate use • permits on two separate parcels. This would clean up the history of the property. 1 will leave it up to the attorney to give us the advice on how to go about tying this together as one use and that they can't be bifurcated in the future. Commissioner Tucker noted that he supports the project and that it is important to look at what can be built as a matter of right and compare it to what is being proposed. The architect has done a good job and a sensitive treatment to try not to have a monolithic structure. I would have some quality types of additional conditions or notes on the plans to make sure that if it does get approved, we end up with something that is top drawer. I take seriously the impacts on the surrounding neighbors. I think there will be some impacts but all things considered balancing the needs of the community overall the project merits our support. Ms. Temple asked for clarification on the revision to the use permit. Part of the history includes specific use permits for the eating and drinking establishment within the existing Balboa Inn. Is it your intention to include coverage related to those more discreet kinds of uses or are we just talking about the unity of the hotel itself? Chairperson Selich stated he wants it cleaned up to the greatest degree feasible, the greatest unification. Commissioner Gifford noted she would like to see a solid wall with articulations and decorative elements that would make it attractive. IN INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 Commissioner Tucker asked for • An added condition under Findings, Section 7. A new paragraph 'L' to indicate that the design and construction quality of the project will be first quality and on balance will enhance the desirability of the project rather than be detrimental or injurious to. • Would also like to have some quality notes on the plans referring to the roof tiles perhaps having some mud on the roof spines for an old world appearance; the windows and doors if not wood then they would be wood like in appearance. • I support the wall suggestion of Commissioner Kranzley and the wrought iron fencing needs to be protected from corrosion. And that all other materials shall be of a first quality. In condition 1, 1 would like the first sentence to read, 'the development shall be in substantial conformance with the site plan, floor plans and elevations including quality notes upon which this approval has been based except as noted below, the applicant shall submit samples of materials, colors and description of application methods of materials so that the Planning Commission or Director may have approval prior to issuance of a building permit.' • We should have a discussion whether it should be the Director or Commission. • Then paragraph 6 that refers to adjacent off site planting areas, it should call out specifically that it is the oceanfront, main street and south perimeter street, whatever it is called. • Add condition suggested by staff regarding rental conditions on storage of bikes. E • A condition dealing with some type of arrangement where the tandem spaces would always be made available for vehicular movement. • The quality notes ought to be put on the plans we have so that when they are plan checked, they will be there. Ms. Temple added that if the Commission is comfortable, we could leave it in the hands of the Director regarding the materials. We can always bring it before the Commission if there is any question of consistency. One thing I would like to add relative to the landscaping is, as Mr. Baers indicated, they would stay consistent with the landscape palette established in the Balboa Peninsula Improvement Program. That is not referenced specifically in these conditions of approval and I would like to make that a condition as well. Public comment was opened. Chairperson Selich noted to Mr. Baers that you have the opportunity if you are not in agreement with the direction we are going with these use permits, you could just have us deny it and then file an appeal with the Council. Or, going with the denial without prejudice you can re -file your application and come back before the Commission. 20 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 Ms. Temple noted that it sounds like we don't need a lot of new plans, only some refinements to the existing plans. With the re- filing, the Commission may give direction to waive any additional fees in this particular case. The timing of this issue coming back to the Commission is contingent upon our ability to work through any legal research related to the unification of the two properties under permit. Whether it comes back as two separate use permits but with some mutual connection or under one use permit, just the structure of that may take a few weeks to work out. We would probably be looking on the order of one - month timefrome. Mr. Boers stated that his concern is that we don't get into a complication in the use permit that gets us going backwards instead of forwards. It is my understanding the intention is to work out the multiple use permit structure so that it will provide the ability for this project to be approved. Chairperson Selich agreed noting that there could be complications and at that point the Commission would have to decide on balance whether those differences were so detrimental that we should not pursue this course of action. It is clear the consensus is we need to investigate it. You want to go with the denial without prejudice to which he was answered, yes. • Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to deny without prejudice with a waiver of fees of the Use Permit No. 3661 with the additional changes discussed as well as a strong suggestion that the applicant make payment of the outstanding TOT fees. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None SUBJECT: Conexant Project 4311 Jamboree Road • General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3(F) • Amendment No. 898 • Environmental Impact Report No. 159 • Traffic Study No. 110 • Development Agreement No. 13 General Plan Amendment No. 96 -31F, Amendment No. 898, Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and a Development Agreement to allow a long range development plan for the construction of up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial and supporting office /lab space in four 21 INDEX Item No. 2 GPA 96 -3 (F) A 898 EIR 159 TS 110 DA 13 Continued to August 3, 2000 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2000 INDEX new, multi -story buildings, two new parking structures and the balance of the site landscaped open space. The project site is approximately 25 acres and is located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Ms. Temple stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the next meeting of August 3, 2000. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to August 3rd. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agaianion, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business a.) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple stated at the meeting of July 11 th, the City Council reviewed the recommendation from the Harbor Committee requesting that a Harbor Commission be formed prior to the adoption of the Harbor Element. The recommendation of staff was to defer action on the formation of the Harbor Commission until the Planning • Commission and City Council review and take action on the proposed Harbor Element. Until the issue of commercial land uses are facilitated or restricted, this item will not come before the Planning Commission, probably within two months. Commissioner Gifford asked for an advance copy of the draft element, which will be mailed tomorrow. The second item was the continued item on the analysis of the protection and growth initiative that was continued to the July 251h meeting. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Chairperson Selich noted that the EDC has evolved since its inception and now would make recommendations on the economic impacts rather than project recommendations. We are re- working the policy and resolution and will forward it to the City Council and ask that EQAC and EDC have a balanced approach in the work that is done. C.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Kranzley asked about the Costa Mesa requirements for a tattoo establishment as there are a lot of them in the village. d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. e.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioners Kranzley and Kiser asked to be excused from the August 3m meeting. Commissioner Tucker noted he would be gone for the September 7th meeting. + ++ ADJOURNMENT: 10:00 P.M. Adjournment STEVEN KISER , SECRETARY 22