Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-08-13_BVAC_Minutes_Approved CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BALBOA VILLAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES Location: ExplorOcean 600 East Bay Avenue Wednesday, August 13, 2014 - 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Chair Henn called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. The following persons were in attendance: Balboa Village Advisory Committee Members: Michael Henn, Council Member (Chair) Tony Petros, Council Member Grace Dove, Central Newport Beach Community Association Tom Pollack, ExplorOcean Representative Jim Stratton, At-Large Representative Ralph Rodheim, Balboa Village Merchant Association Member Gloria Oakes, Balboa Peninsula Point Association Staff Members: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer Fern Nueno, Associate Planner II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Interested parties were invited to address the Committee on Non-Agendized Items. Chair Henn welcomed Council Candidate District 1 Diane Dixon. He thanked his colleagues on the Council for moving forward with the renovation of the Balboa Theater discussed at a study session and said they have indicated a willingness to rehab and operate the theater consistent with the original plan but with a change in the emphasis and being called the Fine Arts Center. He stated that daytime programming will be driven by the Recreation and Senior Services Department with a focus on arts and cultural education activities and in the evening the facility will be used for live performance activities and other community events. He noted that they arrived at the best answer to make it a facility for the benefit of citizens of Newport Beach and their children. Committee Member Rodheim stated that when we look at what it was going to be and what it is now, he thinks it is improved. He noted his excitement about the art and cultural 1 center, art galleries, and higher-end quality, stating that the Village is for the residents, not just tourism. He congratulated the City Council and said it will be a real catalyst for the new Village. Bill Dildine mentioned a discussion from a previous Balboa Village Merchants Association meeting, and asked why there are no crosswalks on Palm Street and Balboa Boulevard. He stated that there are barricades at the northwest corner prohibiting people from crossing and asked the Committee to look into it. He also asked if a crisscross could be installed at those two (2) intersections during summer. Chair Henn asked City Traffic Engineer Brine to look into the matter. Kay Mortenson stated she is concerned about the scale of the project and suggested the Committee consider moving the arch to the entrance of the Fun Zone. She stated the design is excellent but it is a matter of scale. Chair Henn responded and advised that the Committee is not in a position to take action or have a discussion; however, he will take her comments under advisement and there will be further discussion at the next meeting. There being no one further wishing to address the Committee, Chair Henn closed the Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items portion of the meeting. III. ITEMS FOR REVIEW 1. Approval of Minutes Recommended Action: Approve July 9, 2014 Minutes There were no comments from the Committee or the public on the minutes. Action: Committee Member Petros moved to approve the minutes of the July 9, 2014 meeting. Committee Member Stratton seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. 2. Project implementation Recommended Action: Receive and file Chair Henn stated that he asked staff to put this item together because there is not a lot of time and there are still a lot of important items to address including Planning Commission and City Council approval. Chair Henn deferred to Associate Planner Nueno for a presentation. Associate Planner Fern Nueno reviewed the Balboa Village Advisory Committee (BVAC) Project Implementation Schedule and explained that today's meeting would include discussion of the before and after examples of the Design Guidelines and focus on the Streetscape Plan. She noted that in September, staff will present the Wayfinding Program, Draft Design Guidelines, and Streetscape Plan for approval by the Committee; the Planning Commission will hold a study session in September and a public hearing in October; and the City Council will hold a public hearing in October at which time they will 2 consider approval of the Design Guidelines, Wayfinding, Streetscape Concept, and Fagade Improvement Program. Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski stated that the Parking Ordinance is scheduled to go to the Planning Commission for a study session on August 21St followed by a public hearing that will take place in September. Following Planning Commission, it will then go to the City Council for a Study Session in September and a public hearing on September 23rd. Ms. Wisneski stated she will provide the Committee with copies of the staff report and draft ordinance prior to the August 21 st Planning Commission study session. Committee Member Rodheim requested confirmation that the draft ordinance will include a business element and not just the residential. Deputy Director Wisneski stated that it will and she will share the link with the Committee to show how it is going to be presented. She stated that the draft ordinance will address employee parking, parking meter rates, waiver of the parking requirement, and the Parking Benefit District. Committee Member Petros requested that anything made available to the Committee prior to the study session be placed on the website. Committee Member Rodheim stated that he recently spoke to a business owner who was closing because she could not keep employees due to the parking restrictions. He noted her struggles and stated that what the Committee is doing is very important and timely. Ms. Nueno stated that staff will be presenting it as a package and it will show how everything interacts and works together to improve some of the parking issues in the area. Chair Henn responded that if you have opinions on both of these packages, the place to start will be at the Planning Commission study session on August 21 st 3. Design guidelines — RRM Design Recommended Action: Review program components and provide comment and direction on the Design Guidelines. Chair Henn introduced the item and deferred to Mr. Hannegan of RRM Design Group, who provided a brief overview of what was being presented to the Committee. Mr. Hannegan then introduced Scott Martin of RRM Design Group, who gave a presentation of the Architectural Design Guidelines including Site Planning, Building Form, Architectural Character, Utilities, and Fagade Improvements. He explained that the guidelines are all about the pedestrian experience and parking and that they would be touching on architectural style also known as fagade improvements. He stated that the document is strong; however, they would like to reorganize and build upon what is already there by looking at the big picture then honing in on the small details, reducing duplication and redundancy, and cross referencing City policy and documents. He noted that they would be seeking the Committee's direction on new iconic buildings and how 3 new development can come in and still be meaningful and take shape without diluting the value of your history. Chair Henn noted that the Development Standards are proposed to be removed from the Design Guidelines. Mr. Martin responded and explained the difference between Design Guidelines and development standards and the word "shall" versus "should." He stated that the word "should" represents a guideline. Committee Member Grace Dove stated that she is concerned about how the design guidelines are used and inquired about whether or not they are used for enforcement in an overlay zone. Ms. Wisneski responded that it does require compliance with the Guidelines but compliance in the manner that you should be doing these things rather than you shall do these things. Committee Member Dove asked if they would still be able to stop transgressions if that change is made. Ms. Nueno responded that this is just removing items that are already in the Zoning Code that are duplicative, and anything that is a "should" will be reviewed by staff when projects are proposed. Chair Henn stated that it could be possible for a project to be approved although it does not meet all of the guidelines. Mr. Martin responded that there is absolutely wiggle room. He explained that the Guidelines give applicants the ability to work with staff because it is the document staff refers to often to make sure the building is compatible with the Village. Committee Member Petros stated that we still maintain Development Standards in the Municipal Code, which is the appropriate place, so removing them from the Guidelines does not remove them from the Municipal Code because they are two (2) separate documents serving two (2) separate purposes. Committee Member Dove stated that someone could come in with the proper setbacks, the proper building envelope, the proper Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and it could be an architectural abomination. Chair Henn stated that his sense is that Committee Member Dove is interested in the Guidelines being more prescriptive than they currently are. Committee Member Dove asked that there be some means of enforcement that is outside the Guidelines because she is concerned that someone might not even need a permit because it says "shall" not "should." Mr. Martin assured Ms. Dove that they are not taking any authority out of the guidelines, only removing duplicity. Ms. Dove continued that perhaps there should be more stringent requirements for the Design Guidelines that would allow for enforcement, and Committee Member Stratton agreed. Mr. Stratton continued that a property owner could make an improvement that did not comply with the Design Guidelines. Mr. Martin responded that at that point there is a process in place, and staff would not approve the project. He stressed that the Design Guidelines are not going to rewrite the Zoning Code. He continued that staff will evaluate projects based on the guidelines. 4 Ms. Wisneski recommended that the Committee review the draft revised Design Guidelines and decide if they should have more teeth, which is a policy decision. Committee Member Rodheim said if the architectural guidelines are just "shoulds" then the blue roof is a perfect example and it is out of touch. He asked why they cannot include "shalls." Mr. Martin responded that if the Committee could include requirements such as no blue tile roofs, and if that is something the project proponent wanted, then Director of Council approval would be required. Committee Member Rodheim asked if it can be addressed more specifically in a separate document. Chair Henn noted it sounds like a modification of the Zoning Code to not include blue roofs. He suggested reviewing the Guidelines with these thoughts in mind and determining if the Guidelines need to be more specific. Committee Member Stratton asked if they can say they will not fund their project if the applicant does not go along with the Guidelines since the City invested in the project.. Deputy Director Wisneski responded in the affirmative noting there is a lot more discretion with the Facade Improvement Program. Mr. Martin explained that he has been an applicant and if a building does not conform to design guidelines, it can be a difficult process. He stressed that reorganization is the biggest thing. He will be presenting a draft document to the Committee at their next meeting so he urged them to become familiar with the document. Mr. Martin presented the before and after images showing potential minor and major facade improvements. Committee Member Petros stated that he liked the concepts and applications from minor to major and noted the inconsistency in the two (2) examples. He requested that the Guidelines consider what makes each style desirable. Chair Henn added that they are good illustrations of how the Guidelines can affect the design, and that if it is too prescriptive, there will be no variation in styles. He continued that the examples have two (2) different looks, that he liked both, and that both looks are consistent with the desired outcome. Chair Henn asked for comments from the Committee on the examples shown. Committee Member Stratton commented that what jumps out at him is no landscaping which is harsh looking, noting he feels it needs softening. Committee Member Rodheim asked if it was being recommended to include residential upstairs. Mr. Martin responded that it is flexible enough to be either residential or commercial. Ms. Dove reiterated that a property owner could do a project that did not require a permit, and if they were not applying for the Facade Improvement Program, the project could be consistent with Zoning, but inconsistent with the Guidelines. Action: The Committee agreed that the examples discussed should be incorporated into the Design Guidelines. Mr. Martin noted that they are seeking direction on whether the Guidelines recommend strict adherence to a collection of styles or simply identify what exists today and recommend a complementary approach. Ms. Wisneski noted that the current Guidelines 5 allow for a complementary approach to architectural style. Committee Member Rodheim stated that the challenge is determining what is complementary as that is subjective. Ms. Nueno asked if the Committee is okay with the complementary approach or if they would prefer the approved set of design standards. Discussion ensued regarding what is complementary and that the intent is cohesion, not matching. Ms. Wisneski explained there are four (4) different styles identified in the current Guidelines, and Mr. Martin named each style. Action: The Committee concurred that the Design Guidelines should allow for complementary designs. Mr. Martin asked if there is room for more modern and iconic architecture. Committee Member Rodheim responded he would be opposed to that and noted he is concerned about iconic modern and would rather keep a historic and cultural old town. Chair Henn said it would be possible to have a new iconic building that is consistent and complementary to the existing styles in the Village. Committee Member Pollack responded iconic yes but complementary and well-vetted so it fits in. 4. Streetscape improvement plan — RRM Design Recommended Action: Review program components and provide comment and direction on Streetscape Improvement Plan. Mr. Hannegan gave a presentation on the Streetscape Design Concepts which mainly focused on Balboa Boulevard, the Waterfront, and Main Street. He presented information on trees to match upper Balboa Boulevard; alternative trees; street furnishings; lighting alternatives; shade elements; public art locations; waterfront treatment and crossing treatments. Committee Member Stratton pointed out that the only problem with the turnaround is that there is a B Street parking lot. Chair Henn said the parking signage will address that concern. Committee Member Rodheim said the turnaround will impact the resident on the corner. City Traffic Engineer Brine indicated that there is already a sign there and that the street is designed for passenger vehicles only. Chair Henn noted it is a nice streetscape enhancement and emphasizes it as a turnaround. Howard Hall said it is not solving all of the problems of people getting lost and that huge trucks are still unable to turn around. Alex Petrosian, the owner of Cruisers, said he owns the business next to the intersection and a turnaround sign would be detrimental. Discussion ensued regarding lighting, banners, taller palm trees, art element, and keeping existing street pavement. Committee Member Pollack inquired if there are lights on the palm trees. Mr. Hannegan responded affirmatively noting yes, they can be illuminated. Committee Member Petros asked about the issues with seat walls and how to prevent sleeping on them and Committee Member Rodheim asked about skateboarders. Mr. Hannegan advised the problem would be eliminated if a U-bench was installed with 6 chairs. Committee Member Petros suggested fading out the lights to the edges of the palms and Chair Henn agreed. Discussion ensued regarding the Waterfront and adding more places to sit. Committee Member Stratton suggested including lighting similar to the Pavilion lighting along the boardwalk. Discussion ensued regarding fire rings similar to Big Bear and providing more places for young people to hang out. Chair Henn suggested pulling the waiting areas away from the immediately adjacent residences. Committee Member Rodheim requested that the uplighting be improved. Committee Member Pollack suggested light and grating at the base of trees. Mr. Hannegan went over the various types of bike racks available. Chair Henn directed City Traffic Engineer Brine to check if the Bicycle Master Plan speaks to bike racks in the Village and if not inquired if it can be added. Discussion ensued regarding the types of trees being considered and if they are appropriate for salt water level. Mr. Hannegan responded that yes, they are meant for coastal areas. Committee Member Oakes stated that carrotwood trees are not a tree to plant over sidewalks. Mr. Hannegan encouraged the Committee to make comments directly on the document after the meeting. Committee Member Rodheim announced that the historic U-drive sign was removed to be refurbished and will be reinstalled next week; $4,000 was raised for this project. Discussion ensued regarding trash cans, problems with lids, and the replacement cost. Committee Member Stratton complimented the City on sidewalk maintenance and cleaning out planters and suggested they add Friday to the schedule. Committee Member Dove stated that she would like some element of maintenance and requested the cost associated with that and the assignment of responsibility. Chair Henn said it is the City's responsibility to maintain trees. Howard Hall inquired if there is such a thing as a skateboard rack. Action: The Committee and public reviewed and commented on the images. The discussion and comments will be considered in the development of Streetscape Improvement Plan. 7 IV. PUBLIC COMMENT None. V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Balboa Village Advisory Committee, Chair Henn adjourned the meeting at 5:46 p.m. Next Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2014, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 8