Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 - Height Overlay District Zoning Code Amendment - PA2015-047 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 9, 2015 Meeting Agenda Item 2 SUBJECT: Height Overlay District Zoning Code Amendment In West Newport Mesa (PA2015-047) Code Amendment No. CA2015-004 PLANNER: Fern Nueno, Associate Planner (949) 644-3227, fnueno@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY A Zoning Code Amendment to allow increased residential building height in the Multiple Residential (RM) Zoning District within Statistical Area A2 in West Newport Mesa in conjunction with the provision of enhanced project design and amenities. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of Code Amendment No. CA2015-004 (Attachment No. PC 1). INTRODUCTION Project Setting The proposed Code Amendment would be applicable to properties located in the Multiple Residential (RM) Zoning District within Statistical Area A2 in the West Newport Mesa area (Map provided as Exhibit A to the draft Resolution — Attachment No. PC 1). The area is developed with primarily multiple-unit residential, industrial, and medical office uses, ranging from one-story to three-stories. Project Description The height limit for the RM Zoning District is 28 feet for a flat roof and 33 feet for a sloped roof. Building heights may be increased up to 32 feet with a flat roof or 37 feet with a sloped roof with the approval of a Site Development Review or Planned Development Permit, subject to certain findings, including providing increased setbacks and additional landscaped open space. The Code Amendment would create a Height Overlay District that would provide a mechanism to request heights above the 32 flat/37 sloped roof height limit for properties that meet certain criteria. Height Overlay District Code Amendment (PA2015-047) Planning Commission, March 19, 2015 Page 2 Background At the request of Council Member Petros, at the January 27, 2015 meeting, the City Council initiated a Code Amendment to increase allowed building height for properties located west of Superior Avenue in the RM Zoning District within the West Newport Mesa Area. It was further stated that that the increased height would be subject to a discretionary application that would include findings that the proposed project provides increased building setbacks from streets and property lines and increased on-site recreational amenities for the residents. At the March 19, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting, the Commission reviewed the proposed code changes and provided direction to staff on the proposed amendment in anticipation of a public hearing. The draft meeting minutes are provided as Attachment No. PC 2. Four members of the public spoke on the application in reference to a proposed specific plan, the process of the code initiation by Council, potential traffic impacts, the intent for no changes in density, and the benefits of the overlay. Comments received from the Commission and public are summarized below with the approach for addressing each topic. a) Floor Area and Density — The concern was whether the overlay would result in changes in allowed floor area or density. • The proposed overlay would not affect the amount of floor area or density that could be built under the current code provisions. The allowed density for the RM properties in this area is 18 dwelling units per acre, which could not be increased without a General Plan Amendment. b) Flat/Sloped Limit — The concern was that if the height limit were the same for flat and sloped roofs, then this could lead to insufficient architectural variation. • The proposed overlay allows a sloped roof to be five feet above the flat roof limit to provide more breadth of architecture. c) Parks — The lack of parks in the area was recognized and it was questioned whether this amendment could help increase the level of parkland for the residents. • Sunset Ridge Park is almost complete and will be the closest park available to the residents in the Height Overlay District. It would be difficult to pursue the creation of additional parkland through this Code Amendment; however, the overlay would require additional on-site open space, setbacks, and amenities for residents. Height Overlay District Code Amendment (PA2015-047) Planning Commission, March 19, 2015 Page 3 d) Quality Architecture — Quality architecture and materials should be explicitly stated in the code. • As a condition of the greater height limit, the proposed Code Amendment would include criteria to ensure quality architecture and materials. e) Lot Size — Clarify why the minimum lot size was established. • The proposed minimum one acre lot size is consistent with the Planned Development Permit requirement. Smaller lots have the potential to be merged in order to take advantage of the overlay district. Adequate land area is necessary in order to provide enhanced amenities in exchange for the additional height. f) Compatibility — Clarify how properties redeveloped under the provisions of the overlay will be consistent with the existing properties. • Not all properties would be redeveloped or take advantage of the overlay. The overlay would be another option available to property owners and would provide an incentive for redevelopment of certain properties. It is often difficult to encourage private improvements in a built environment with multiple property owners; however, the overlay requirements would ensure quality design for those projects developed. g) Specific Plan — Development of a specific plan was suggested to create a cohesive neighborhood and prevent hodgepodge development. • A specific plan for the area could provide cohesiveness, but it is difficult to achieve the desired results in a built environment with multiple property owners. General Plan policies reference a potential streetscape master plan, and this could be the appropriate method to develop a cohesive neighborhood and sense of community through signage, crosswalks, parkways/landscaping, and other public improvements. The City has the ability to establish and implement changes in the public realm that could create a "village" identity and would not require participation from all property owners in the area. Correspondence was received (Attachment No. PC 3) from a resident within the proposed Height Overlay District requesting that the Commission postpone a decision to allow for a more in depth review on a specific plan, affordable housing, traffic, and other concerns. Staff had sufficient time to prepare the staff report and will address public comments as needed at the April 9t" Planning Commission Meeting. Height Overlay District Code Amendment (PA2015-047) Planning Commission, March 19, 2015 Page 4 DISCUSSION Code Amendment The parameters for the Code Amendment include the following: • The Height Overlay District includes properties located in the Multiple Residential (RM) Zoning District within Statistical Area A2. • Approval requires discretionary review through either a Site Development Review or Planned Development Permit. • Eligible properties must have a minimum lot size of one acre. • The maximum height limit is 40 feet for a flat roof and 45 feet for a sloped roof and three stories maximum. • Additional required findings include: o The proposed project provides increased building setbacks from the streets and property lines; o The proposed project provides project enhancements and on-site recreational amenities for the residents above code requirements; and o The proposed project provides quality architecture and materials. • Quality of architecture will be reviewed for compliance with the following criteria: o Enhanced treatment of building elevations facing public streets with respect to architectural treatment to achieve the highest level of design and neighborhood quality (high-quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork, finishes, stoops, porches, etc.). o Building materials and colors should be selected that will complement the proposed design and other buildings in the surrounding areas. o Building materials should be high-quality, durable, and authentic to the architectural style. o If stucco is used it should have a smooth finish. Sand and lace stucco finishes should be avoided. o Lighting should be selected to provide ambiance, safety, and security, without unnecessary spillover or glare. o Building owners and tenants should keep the building elevations clean and in good repair. Height Overlay District Code Amendment (PA2015-047) Planning Commission, March 19, 2015 Page 5 • For projects that include a subdivision, enhanced project design requirements shall include: Overall lot setbacks The RM setback requirements are applicable to the overall development lot. Minimum front setback for 25 feet from property line abutting public streets. primary structure 15-foot front setback to include trees, shrubs, and Street enhancements ground cover. Fences, walls, or hedges permitted beyond 15' front setback. Minimum side landscape 5 feet from property line abutting public streets to setback from street include trees, shrubs, and ground cover, but no fences, walls, or hedges. Minimum 8-foot sidewalks, meandering sidewalk Public sidewalks preferred for lots greater than 300' wide (easement may be required for public access). Common open space 100 square feet per unit dedicated to recreational amenities does not include pathways). Recreation building, seating areas, barbecue/grill, fire pit/fireplace, swimming pool/spa, bicycle Recreational amenities racks/storage, activity area (such as playing field/lawn, sport court, horseshoe pit, playground, etc.), or similar amenities. Additional guest parking Guest parking above the code requirement that is where limited off-site on- distributed throughout site. street parking is available Recommendation to Council The Commission could include suggestions to the Council in addition to direction on the Code Amendment. The draft Resolution includes a recommendation to consider a master plan for streetscape improvements in West Newport Mesa. Alternatives The Commission could make changes to the Code Amendment prior to forwarding to the Council for review and/or provide additional recommendations to Council related to the overlay. Environmental Review Staff recommends the Commission find the project is categorically exempt under Section 15305, of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines - Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). Class 5 consists of minor 5 Height Overlay District Code Amendment (PA2015-047) Planning Commission, March 19, 2015 Page 6 alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density. The Zoning Code Amendment would create a Height Overlay District that would provide a mechanism to request additional residential building height, which provides for minor changes in land use limitations. The average slope of the area involved is less than 20 percent and the project would not change the allowed uses or density for any property within the Overlay. Public Notice Notice of this amendment was published in the Daily Pilot as an eighth page advertisement at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: FW N veno, Associate Planner Br n a Wisnes i,r ICP, Deputy Director ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution PC 2 Draft March 19, 2015 PC Minutes PC 3 Correspondence Received Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution �� QP �� ��P P�" O� �� �� \�� RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2015-004 FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT TO ALLOW INCREASED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING HEIGHT FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT IN STATISTICAL AREA A2 IN WEST NEWPORT MESA (PA2015-047) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. The City of Newport Beach initiated a Code Amendment with respect to property located within the Multiple Residential (RM) Zoning District in Statistical Area A2 in West Newport Mesa. 2. The Code Amendment establishes a Height Overlay District ("Overlay") to allow increased residential building height in conjunction with the provision of enhanced project design and amenities. 3. The subject properties are located in the RM Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element categories are RM. 4. Lot 1 of Tract 8381 is located within the Coastal Zone and the Coastal Land Use Plan designation is Multiple Unit Residential (RM-C). The remaining properties within the Overlay are not located within the Coastal Zone. 5. On January 13, 2015, Council Member Tony Petros requested the City Council consider initiation of a Zoning Code Amendment to allow increased residential building height in the RM Zoning District in West Newport Mesa, west of Superior Avenue. 6. The City Council initiated a Code Amendment on January 27, 2015, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this meeting. 7. On March 19, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed the Code Amendment as a New Business discussion item in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 6 8. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 9, 2015, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. 9. The Planning Commission expressed a desire to create a cohesive neighborhood through the Overlay; however, it was determined that is difficult to achieve the desired results in a built environment with multiple property owners. General Plan Policies LU 6.6.3 and 6.6.4 promote the establishment of a master plan for streetscape improvements in West Newport Mesa. The Planning Commission considered that the most appropriate mechanism to create a cohesive neighborhood would be to develop a master plan for public improvements in the area. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 15305, Article 19 of Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act) under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). Class 5 consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density. The Zoning Code Amendment creates a Height Overlay District to provide a mechanism to request additional residential building height, which provides for minor changes in land use limitations. The average slope of the properties involved is less than 20 percent and the project does not change the allowed land uses or density for any property within the Height Overlay District. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. 1. Zoning Code Amendments are legislative acts. Neither the City Municipal Code nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments, unless they are determined not to be required for the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare. 2. General Plan Policy LU 6.6.2 promotes the development of a mix of residential types and building scales within the densities permitted by the RM Zoning District land use designation in West Newport Mesa. 3. The proposed amendment allows for the development of a product type that is three- stories with a roof deck that is being developed in other cities in Orange County and cannot currently be developed under the City Municipal Code requirements. 4. The proposed amendment allows for greater flexibility in project design and would result in additional open space while maintaining the allowed gross floor area. Compared with the current height limit with a more constrained building envelope, the proposed amendment provides an opportunity for increased building articulation and modulation. 03-03-2015 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 6 5. The proposed amendment would lead to street enhancements should properties be redeveloped through the requirements for additional setbacks and quality architecture. 6. General Plan Policies LU 6.6.3 and 6.6.4 call for a cohesive and integrated medical campus and livable residential neighborhood and encourage the development of a master plan for streetscape, park, and other public improvements. A unified streetscape design would enhance the appearance of West Newport Mesa and provide a cohesive neighborhood identity. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends City Council approval of Code Amendment No. 2015-004, which is applicable to properties shown in Exhibit A and subject to Height Overlay District requirements set forth in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider the development of a master plan for streetscape and public improvements to provide cohesiveness and a sense of place for West Newport Mesa. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 9T" DAY OF APRIL, 2015. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Larry Tucker, Chairman BY: Jay Myers, Secretary 03-03-2015 �� QP �� ��P P�" O� �� �� \�� Planning Commission Resolution No. EXHIBIT "A" Page 4 of 6 ---1 `------� 1GTH�TW � � Cit of Costa Mesa � �— , I v IPRODUCTION PL i Q Q RM i Q > o LU RM i RM 0 i I15TH ST W 4v RM 0 Legend z City Boundary Statistical Area A2 RM Zoning District HOSPITAL RD RM > 1 acre Height Overlay District o soo 1,00eet t.aF.�'tI Yl�,•Tr Properties in the RM Zoning District in e J ° Statistical Area A2 Code Amendment No. CA2015-004 PA2015-047 DRAFTN�W..IIBALBOAIMapslArcMaplplanninglVicinity__MapsIPA2015-047 CAHeight.mxd �� QP �� ��P P�" O� �� �� \�� Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 5 of 6 EXHIBIT "B" Height Overlay District The Code Amendment includes the following: 1. Creation of a Height Overlay District within Municipal Code Chapter 20.28. 2. Amending the Zoning Map to show the Height Overlay District. 3. Amending Municipal Code Section 20.30.060 to reference the Height Overlay District. 4. The Height Overlay District includes properties located in the Multiple Residential (RM) Zoning District within Statistical Area A2. 5. The Height Overlay District requires discretionary review through either a Site Development Review or Planned Development Permit. 6. Properties eligible for the Height Overlay District must have a minimum lot size of one acre. 7. The maximum height limit under the Height Overlay District is 40 feet for a flat roof and 45 feet for a sloped roof and three stories maximum. 8. These additional findings are required for the Height Overlay District: a. The proposed project provides increased building setbacks from the streets and property lines; b. The proposed project provides project enhancements and on-site recreational amenities for the residents above code requirements; and c. The proposed project provides quality architecture and materials. 9. Quality of architecture will be reviewed for compliance with the following criteria: a. Enhanced treatment of building elevations facing public streets with respect to architectural treatment to achieve the highest level of design and neighborhood quality (high-quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork, finishes, stoops, porches, etc.). b. Building materials and colors should be selected that will complement the proposed design and other buildings in the surrounding areas. c. Building materials should be high-quality, durable, and authentic to the architectural style. d. If stucco is used it should have a smooth finish. Sand and lace stucco finishes should be avoided. e. Lighting should be selected to provide ambiance, safety, and security, without unnecessary spillover or glare. f. Building owners and tenants should keep the building elevations clean and in good repair. 03-03-2015 -15 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 6 of 6 10. For projects that include a subdivision, the Height Overlay District requires the following enhanced project design features: Overall lot setbacks The RM setback requirements are applicable to the overall development lot. Minimum front setback for 25 feet from property line abutting public streets. primary structure 15-foot front setback to include trees, shrubs, and Street enhancements ground cover. Fences, walls, or hedges permitted beyond 15' front setback. Minimum side landscape 5 feet from property line abutting public streets to setback from street include trees, shrubs, and ground cover, but no fences, walls, or hedges. Minimum 8-foot sidewalks, meandering sidewalk Public sidewalks preferred for lots greater than 300' wide (easement may be required for public access). Common open space 100 square feet per unit dedicated to recreational amenities (does not include pathways). Recreation building, seating areas, barbecue/grill, fire pit/fireplace, swimming pool/spa, bicycle Recreational amenities racks/storage, activity area (such as playing field/lawn, sport court, horseshoe pit, playground, etc.), or similar amenities. Additional guest parking Guest parking above the code requirement that is where limited off-site on- distributed throughout site. street parking is available 03-03-2015 10 Attachment No. PC 2 Draft April 9, 2015 PC Minutes 1j �� QP �� ��P P�" O� �� �� \�� NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/19/15 esponse to Vice Chair Kramer's inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Torres reported that according to Muni6 I Code, matters such as this are to be reviewed by the Planning Commission,with a recommen on to City Coun - In this instance, the project is not changing, but the timing of the payments will . The law indicates that i i first reviewed by the Planning Commission and then by Council. He n d this is more appropriate for Cou i review; however, it is included in the Development Agreement so it' efore the Planning Commission. If there is ck of a recommendation or a"no" vote, the matter dies h and does not go before Council. Commissioner Hillgren stated the inten ' to pass this on to Council for' consideration. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and s onded by mmissioner Koetting and carried to recommend this item to City Council with a recommendation that ouncil consider additional incentives to the City for the requested change in the timing of payments. AYES: Hillgren, Koettin , nd Myers NOES: Kramer an cker RECUSED: Lawler ABSENT: B n Chair Tucker st there are some matters where City Council does not care what the anning Commission thinks. He ed that Council will figure out whether they want to ask for more incentives, or n C issioner Lawler returned to the Chambers and took his place on the dais. VIII. NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO.4 HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT FOR WEST NEWPORT MESA(PA2015-047) West Newport Mesa Discussion of a Zoning Code Amendment to allow increased residential building height in the Multiple Residential (RM) Zoning District within Statistical Area A2 in West Newport Mesa in conjunction with the provision of enhanced project design and amenities. Associate Planner Nueno provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing the proposed amendment, vicinity map, initiation of the amendment by City Council, land uses in the vicinity, General Plan policies implemented through the Zoning Code, height limits for properties in the district, building height stipulations, and details of the proposed guidelines for the district. She presented an example of a nearby project that could be developed through the height overlay. Associate Planner Nueno noted the need for Planning Commission feedback and stated that depending on the discussion and direction provided, staff will schedule a noticed public hearing for the next Planning Commission meeting and that, if approved by the Commission, the matter will be forwarded to City Council for review. She added that correspondence was received and forwarded to the Commission regarding the development of a specific plan for the area. However, Council has only directed the establishment of an overlay district, at this time. In answer to Commissioner Hillgren's questions, Associate Planner Nueno stated that forty feet would be the maximum height for sloped roofs and flat roofs and would accommodate a three-story design with a roof deck and guardrail. She added that the proposed height overlay would be for additional height over what is already allowed under discretionary approval in order to allow for a three-story design with a roof deck to take advantage of views in the area. In order to provide enhanced amenities, enough area is necessary, and the Planned Development Permit requires a one acre minimum. Smaller lots have the potential to be merged in order to take advantage of the overlay district. If the site is less than an acre, it may not be large enough to provide any benefit to the City or neighborhood for having the additional height. She addressed existing and proposed setback requirements as well as landscaping, creation of a "village" and street improvements, and noted that the guidelines will help with development of a cohesive, public realm. Page 6 of 9 J_9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/19/15 In reply to Chair Tucker's inquiry, Associate Planner Nueno stated that evaluation would be done on a case-by- case basis in terms of those wanting to take advantage of the overlay. Chair Tucker commented on specific plans and Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski noted that, in this kind of setting, specific plans have been used less and less as this is a built environment with multiple property owners. In such cases, master programs and design guidelines are more commonly used. Discussion followed regarding parks, getting cooperation from property owners, and creating and offering incentives for public benefits. Chair Tucker opened public comments. Alan Beek, SPON Secretary, referenced a letter submitted to the Commission and commended staff for focusing on the subject area. He added that staff is making a good start in the right direction and suggested holding community meetings regarding the issue, and stated that SPON is concerned that the entire area should be treated comprehensively rather than piecemeal. Jim Mosher spoke of the need for clarity in terms of what Council expects the Planning Commission to achieve. He discussed the process of the initiation and how it was brought about at the request of Council Member Petros with little direction to the Planning Commission. He commented on promises made that have not been realized regarding implementation of specific plans. David Szecsei spoke regarding the bottom portion of the subject zone as being included within the coastal zone and asked if consideration has been given to a possible need for approval from the Coastal Commission. Additionally, he wondered why the same differential cannot be made regarding the heights of sloped roofs at 40 feet versus 35 feet for flat roofs, and required guest parking is not as clearly defined as the common open space requirement and suggested stating a specific percentage above the code requirement. He wondered whether the impact of additional traffic has been considered and mentioned the possible need for a traffic study. He suggested the need for more discussion with all stakeholders. Coralee Newman, Principal of Government Solutions, 1881 Dover Drive, resident of Newport Beach, and representative for the property owner that initiated the discussion, commented positively on the proposed overlay. In terms of traffic and the General Plan of 2006, the public voted on the General Plan and stated that they saw this area as high-density residential. However, there is no intent to increase density and that the request is that the area be considered to be improved with a new type of product that currently is not allowed. There is no new traffic being generated by the proposal. She added that this is asking the Planning Commission for the ability to do some creative planning and that the product is very popular with the younger demographics. The proposed zone change is not forcing anyone to build that product, but merely allowing development of the same. She noted that the benefit includes the ability to do some beautification with greater setbacks, more open space, and more parking than what currently exists. She added that the subject property is within Council Member Petros's district and that is why he brought it forward to Council. Chair Tucker closed public comments. In reply to Chair Tucker's question, Associate Planner Nueno reported that the size and unit count would remain the same or may decrease because of the additional setbacks and amenities required and confirmed that the floor area would be more vertical. Chair Tucker expressed concern about reducing the floor area, but noted that this is just another option available for new development. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski added that it can be demonstrated that an 18 dwelling units per acre development can be achieved with the stated setbacks and on-site amenities and that the overlay offers flexibility. Discussion followed regarding the density, parking, landscaping, providing views, setbacks, amenities, and open space. Chair Tucker commented on specifying the quality of the architecture and materials. Page 7 of 9 20 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/19/15 Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski noted that language can be added to the code specifying criteria to ensure quality of the architecture and materials. Chair Tucker stated he would like that explicitly addressed. Associate Planner Nueno reported that depending on the feedback at this meeting, staff can have the matter scheduled for a public hearing on April 9th. Commissioner Hillgren commented on the density and the possibility of increasing the number of units or floor area ratio. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that staff does not anticipate offering a density bonus and that more units would only be allowed subject to the density-bonus law(affordable housing). Discussion followed regarding the possibility of a bonus density with the contribution of some community benefit. It was noted that doing so would require a General Plan Amendment. Vice Chair Kramer commented positively on the proposed overlay and stated his support. He stated he would like additional discussion regarding the possibility of adding five feet relative to a sloped versus flat roof for increased architectural breadth in the area. Commissioner Koetting commented on the need to consider signage and crosswalk amenities to identify the ,'village"for increased cohesiveness as part of a specific plan. Chair Tucker commented on the Planning Commission's free reign as this is an area under the Commission's jurisdiction, and commented positively on the proposed overlay. He directed staff to move forward with the ordinance, schedule the matter for a public hearing, and that this direction does not imply that the Planning Commission will recommend approval as presented at the next hearing. Chair Tucker confirmed that there was no opposition to the direction provided by the Commission to staff. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS I NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO. 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Deputy Community D lopment Director Wisneski reported that on March 10 , Council conducted a study session related to alcohol-s ing establishments on the Peninsula. The res a quested the business community to come together pro ting a best-practices approach and s ing knowledge to address issues that have been raised. Additionally they uested that any pending a ications that would have been addressed through the Zoning Administrator, be pre ted to the Plannin ommission. She added that currently, there is one pending application for alcohol to be se at Lido e Theater which will be presented to the Planning Commission within the next few months. Regarding Sessions, the deadline for appeal s today and ppeals were filed. Council approved condominium reg ions for Balboa Island and at it ext meeting the Council will consider an initiation for a minor code clean hat will be presented to the Planning Co ission,for review. Deputy Community D elopment Director Wisneski addressed the Planning Com sion schedule for future meetings and ite for discussion. She offered options for meeting times for a study sion on April 9th to discuss the L . The anning Commission concurred to meet at the regular time, 6:30 p.m. Page 8 of 9 21 �� QP �� ��P P�" O� �� �� \�� Attachment No. PC 3 Correspondence Received 2S �� QP �� ��P P�" O� �� �� \�� March 30, 2015 SUBJECT: HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT FOR WEST NEWPORT MESA (PA2015-047) Dear Chairman Tucker and Members of the Commission: I am a homeowner within the proposed West Newport Height Overlay District. Please consider the following before making any decision on this proposed subject, which seeks to allow increased residential building heights in Statistical Area 2 ("SA2"). SA2 has no Specific Area Plan. It is governed by the generic zoning code with respect to height, floor area ratio, setbacks, parking and guest parking, etc., applicable to the City generally where there is no Specific Area Plan. The Housing Element of the Newport Beach City's General Plan is required by State Law to conserve and improve the condition of housing and neighborhoods, including existing affordable housing; and Preserve for lower income households the publicly assisted multi-family housing developments within each community. Within the proposed Height Overlay District are 6 apartment complexes housing 152 very low, and low income households. There are also 4 mobile home parks within the District which house 298 households, many extremely low, very low and low income households. Based on a survey conducted for the Relocation Impact Report prepared for the Ebb Tide Project by Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc., page 6 states: "Eighteen of the 24 respondent households reported gross household income, and the results are as follows: six households qualify as Extremely Low Income; two households qualify as Very Low Income; eight households qualify as Low Income; and two households qualify as Moderate Income." Because a portion of the area within SA2 is within the Coastal Zone, the Commission's review should consider potential impact to the Coastal Land Use Plan; there is no mention of this in the March 19 meeting agenda. There is also no mention of the Affordable Housing rules which apply to properties within the Coastal Zone, and what possible impacts from this proposed code amendment might be in the future from the loss of affordable housing, which would be a likely result if this subject is approved. 25 The Coastal Land Use Plan states "should a conflict exist, the land use intensity or residential density limit that is most protective of coastal resources shall take precedence". Policies Section 2.2.2-4 states "Implement building design and siting regulations to protect costal resources and public access through height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, building bulk, and other property development standards of the Zoning Code intended to control building placement, height, and bulk." Has the proposed Height Overlay District Code Amendment been reconciled to the Coastal Land Use Plan to determine if it is most protective of coastal resources compared to the existing Coastal Land Use Plan, and what additional steps might need to be taken to comply and obtain approval, if applicable? "Additional guest parking" is vague. Current zoning requires one guest parking space for every two units. One option might be to define the additional guest parking increase similarly to how the common open space/unit increase is defined; for example, the current code requires 75 sf of common open space/unit, and the proposed Code Amendment clearly defines the increase to100 sf; 25 sf increase or 33%. The proposed language for the proposed Code Amendment could be drafted to include clearly written requirements such as two guest parking spaces for every three units to achieve a similar proportional increase and clearly define the new requirements. "Additional findings required" is vague and more specific and transparent language should be provided in advance of a future public meeting before the Commission considers taking a vote on the subject. Has the proposed Code Amendment been evaluated to determine if this would be considered a "major" amendment to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, and therefore be required to be put to a public vote? The proposed Code Amendment agenda states that a three-story building with a roof deck cannot be accommodated within the 32-foot guardrail height limit, which brought about the Code Amendment. However, the One Nautical Mile Subdivision (three stories) within SA2 was developed in 2005 under current City Municipal Code height limits and is within a half mile of the proposed Ebb Tide Subdivision. I suggest the Commission consider inquiry of the Applicant for the Ebb Tide Subdivision (PA2014- 110) to explain why special new rules should be adopted to accommodate the proposed Ebb Tide Subdivision when the current Municipal Code was sufficient to allow development of an almost identical Subdivision, One Nautical Mile? 20 Significant increase in traffic in the proposed District would be likely, as most one and two level structures within SA2 will be quickly replaced by three level structures. The Commission should consider a Traffic Study to identify long-term impacts that could be expected in the area. The Commission should also consider the need to amend the City's General Plan and obtain voter approval for significant increase in traffic that would be expected quickly in the Statistical Area. The proposed Height Overlay District Code Amendment is being rushed through with no defined Plan in order to benefit one developer within the District representing about 5% of the total land area without giving the owners and residents of the other 95% of the total land area sufficient time to study the proposal or even comment upon it. This proposed Overlay District was first brought to public discussion on Thursday March 19, and public comments are closed by Monday, March 30 to be included in the April 9 agenda, leaving only 7 business days for Staff to draft and review the new Code and have City Attorneys review for potential legal implications, including California Coastal Land Use Plan and the City's General Plan Housing Element. Is 7 days a sufficient amount of time to fully conduct this complicated process, and also a reasonable amount of time to allow the public to study the proposal sufficiently and consider all of the relevant impacts, many of which are likely significant? The West Newport Mesa area should become a place where the design features of the whole area make for a livable community with appropriate facilities included so as to fulfill the requirements of new planning rules calling for more "walkable, livable, sustainable" areas where people don't have to involve their cars for their every need. There is currently no design or community plan for the area that will allow the increasing residential population to provide for most of their needs within a short distance of their home. There should be a new Specific Area Plan for Statistical Area 2 prior to piecemeal amendments. I respectfully request the Commission postpone its decision on the Height Overlay District Code Amendment to allow sufficient time to conduct a full study of the potential impacts; to allow preparation of a new Specific Area Plan for Statistical Area 2; and to prevent the rushing of this complex proposal to benefit one developer by sacrificing the rights of the numerous business and home owners and residents neighboring the developer within the District. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. David Szecsei 27 •City Council does not need your vote to reduce development or traffic:only to INCREASE it.The only reason this Measure is on the ballot is because the City Charter requires voter approval of General Plan amendments that significantly increase traffic,residences or square footage of development in"statistical areas,"in this case Newport Center and the Airport Area. . . . . Affordable) Eadiest Possible Date of "act Nome/Locoten Typ e of AssWance Received Change Number of UntslType Section 8(rental assistance voudiers) Newport Harbor Apartments Density Bonus 2020 26 Lav-Income 1538 Placentia Avenue Community Development Stock Grant (CDBG) Section 8 Newport Harbor I Apartments Density Bonus 2023 10 Law-Income 1530 Placenta Avenue CDBG 4 Very Law-Income In-Lieu Fee Funds Section 8 Newport Seacrest Apartments CDBG 2016 20 Very Law-Income 843 15^Street Fee Waivers 45 Law-Income Tax Credit Finandng Pacific Heights Apartments Section 8 8814387 W.151h Street 0�4y Bonus 2019 7 Low Income Newport Seashore Apartments Section 8 849 West 15^Street Fee Waivers 2018 15 Law•Ircome Newport Seaside Apartment Section 8 1544 Placenta CDBG 2017 25 Very Low-Income Fee Waivers Sea view Lutheran Plaza(Seniors) Section 202(federal grant) 2039 100 Extremely Low and 2800 Pacific View Orae Section 8 IVery Low-income Senior Via del Este 2026 2 Moderate-Income 401 Seaward Road - (ownership) Via Siena 3 Moderate-income 2101 15,Street Density Bonus 2021 (ownership) Bryview Landing(Seniors) IMieu Fee Funds 24 Very Low 1121 Bads Bay Drive Tax Feedrt iversdng 2056 95 Low-income SOIRCE Ory dNenpor Beach PranmgD•.san lldendll�, adeTate otic to Facilitate acni encourage rage the de%vks fsment, nuntenance and limprwovwwritalf hr usi,Yg for hausehdds of all ocistornic levee. iurluding fsermxis with ckubihtiem. Remove, as Yl� f asihle and apprOpriate,9",tpIUIr r1tJ con trailtar to dee proiduction, maintmance.and improwvnw-nt of hau.+sing fir prersom or an incouwc iti-asincluding periom with dimbihiles; rmisa in the dcw•tlaspmast „f adCgUAtC h0li ting to meet the "CCS Of kM-- aa►d ra te- n me 6-PU l•+K-Ms; C*rmTUV and irniprove he emawdn or hong and rsugl$,orFxx-k it:cftis N chrfic! adlRoTcl.rhk hourdne; V'rombtL- lxmft oFpamrnit9ft for all Fwrsow repirdless of ram,rehgton6 sex.marital s;taan.ancestry-,national origin, coloir. Ifannilisl sinus. 4r dLubrirty; and Pres-Ne rbr Ewer hir-amw hous6olds the puhlirly armiaedmulti-family hnudrrrg deve.Upments witUri ewe community. Tile Housing Flemient is mandated by Sectkms 6SS90 to 65589 of the Gover=ant Code. State Housing Element lair requires that e:cis city and county idenit 6- and xtalyzc existing arta ejected hosing needc. within its jurisdiction Arul prqAre goils.palseks, progpms,and yuwtified objrectives. to further the dcvclt prat Lt, impm%viiertt, And pteseav tion of hcjusing. Tn than end. Shane law reyaBres that time hrpuair g elernent. 22 TabIeH11 Mobil& Moble Home Park a Address Tdd•d Spoces i d Acres i d Spacesl Acre B ayside V gage 300 East Coast HghNay 270 �4:� 10.95 Beach and Bay 47 1.41 33.33 7204 W.Coast Hgvay h CanneryVi" 34 1.40 24.29 700 Lido Park Drive(replaced with manufactured homes) Ebb Tide4.16 20.67 1564 Placentia Avenue Newport Sands(two-sbry manufactured homes) 12 0.31 38.71 7000 W.Coast Highovay Harbor 1535 Superior Avenue 37 192 19.27 Udo Peninsula Resort ive 214 12.40 17.26 710 Lido Park Dr Manna Park' 58 4.94 11.74 1770 W.Balboa Blvd. Newport Terrace F56427 13.11 824 W. 15th St Sea life Moble Park" 119 9.11 13.06 890 West 15''Street Total(10 Parks) 933 SOURCE 1?-ie0ydNepor.Beach PamngDvscn.2W7 'Fppvied krdoure. !op vved krdosum Det renarvV open per personal=mrraaon wti"rw9v Feb"")2013 Additional guest parking Guest parking above the code requirement that is where limited off-site on- street parking is available distributed throughout site Common Open Space Dedicated t0 Recreational 100 square feet per unit Amenities (does not include pathways) Code Amendment The Code Amendment would create a Height Overlay District that would provide a mechanism to request additional height above the 32 flat/37 sloped roof limit for properties that meet certain criteria. The City has a pending application for a residential subdivision within the potential Height Overlay District. The design is a three-story building with a roof deck in order to better take advantage of views, which cannot be accommodated within the 32-foot guardrail height limit. This project brought about the Code Amendment. �9 2.0 Land Use and Development 2.1 Land Use The Coastal Land Use Plan was derived from the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is intended to identify the distribution of land uses in the coastal zone. The Land Use Element may contain more precise development limits for specific properties. Should a conflict exist, the land use intensity or residential density limit that is most protective of coastal resources shall take precedence. However. in no case, shall the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan be interpreted to allow a development to exceed a development limit established by the General Plan or Its implementing ordinances. 2.1.1 Land Use Categories Policies: 2.2.2-1. After certification of the LCP, require a coastal development permit for all development within the coastal zone, subject to exceptions provided for under the Coastal Act as specified in the LCP. 2.2.2-2. Incorporate coastal development permit procedures into the implementation plan to ensure that all public and private development in the coastal zone is consistent with the LCP. 2.2.2-3. Prior to approval of any coastal development permit. the City shall make the finding that the development conforms to the policies and requirements contained in the Coastal Land Use Plan. 2.2.2-4. Implement building design and siting regulations to protect coastal resources and public access through height. setback. floor area, lot coverage. building bulk. and other property development standards of the Zoning Code intended to control building placement, height.and bulk. 1 11 ALUILLM PA2014-110 Address T52014-007-Traffic Study 1560 PLACENTIA AVE CA2014-006-Code Amendment PC2014-003-Planned Comm Devlop Plan NT2014-002- Tentative Tract Map SD2014-004-Site Development Review Contact:F.Nueno-949-644-3227 Status:APPLIED Applied:6/20/2014 Follow-up Rev: Approved: Final: Effective: Description:TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Date Activity-Status 06120/2014 Application-SUBMITTED 07/18/2014 Letter Sent-APPLICATION DEEMED INCOMPLETE 08/12/2014 Other-APPLICANT SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON JULY 29,2014.APPLICATION IS STILL INCOMPLETE. 09/24/2014 Other-ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT. 10/22/2014 Letter Sent-APPLICATION REMAINS INCOMPLETE. CnY OF NEWPORT100 CMC CENTER 1' 1' 1 I 3200 30 Planning Commission - April 9, 2015 Item No. 2a: Additional Materials Received Height Overlay District Zoning Gode-Amen m9nt for West Newport Mesa (PA2015-047) Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 I Balboa Island , CA 92662 949 . 864 . 6616 April 6, 2015 OFFICERS PRESIDENT Marko Popovich City of Newport Beach Planning Commission c/o Larry Tucker, Chair VICE PRESIDENT Elaine Linhoff Subject: Height Overlay District Zoning Code Amendment for West Newport TREASURER Mesa (PA2015-047) Dennis Baker Dear Chairman Tucker and Members of the Commission, SECRETARY Allan Beek Please consider these comments as a follow-up to our prior letter of March 18 in which we requested that you recommend a Specific Area Plan be prepared before any piecemeal amendments for Statistical Area 2. BOARD MEMBERS Nancy Alston We recognize that the direction given to you by the City Council was simply to Iryne Black consider and make a recommendation about the Height Overlay Amendment — Sandy Genis but are appreciative of the discussion you have had and consideration of the value Don Harvey of cohesiveness in planning for that area. Dorothy Kraus Donald Krotee Andrea Lingle As we have delved further into the matter we find many references to the area in Bobby Lovell various elements of our General Plan. All of them lead one to believe that a Jeanne Price Specific Area Plan or some variation of cohesive planning for the area is needed, Melinda Seely wanted, and referred to often in City documents. Jack Skinner Nancy Skinner Jean Watt In fact,the General Plan calls for a Specific Area Plan for the area albeit only using Portia Weiss the word "should" as a general direction. Examples of applicable General Plan Terry Welsh provisions include but are not limited to the following: STOP o` A 501.c.3 non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and y environmental qualities of Newport Beach. y �? OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport Planning Commission - April 9, 2015 Item No. 2a: Additional Materials Received Height Overlay District Zoning Gode-Amen m9nt for West Newport Mesa (PA2015-047) Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 I Balboa Island , CA 92662 949 . 864 . 6616 April 6, 2015 Page Two • Natural Resource Element, Policy 6.1: "Provide for walkable neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as services, parks and schools in close proximity to residential areas." • Circulation Element, Policy 5.1.2: "Link residential areas, schools, parks and commercial centers so that residents can travel within the community without driving." • Land Use Element, Policy, Policy 6.6.4: " Work with property owners and encourage the preparation of a master plan for the residential neighborhood defining park and streetscape improvements that provide amenity for local residents and enhance the area's identity. " • Implementation Program, Imp. 3.1, Preparation of New Specific Plans: "As specific plans are considered by the state OPR to be especially useful for large projects and sites with environment constraints, there are several potential applications in the City of Newport Beach. These may be prepared by either the City or private sector. However, responsibility for their adoption lies with the City Council." • Implementation Program, Imp. 3.1, b: "Specific plans may also be considered to satisfy the regulatory planning requirements for the residential villages proposed for the Airport Area and the integration of the mix of medical related, housing, commercial, and industrial uses in West Newport Mesa. In these cases, the specific plans would serve as important tools to guide the development of multiple properties into a cohesive district. It would establish standards for a suitable interface among the diverse permitted land uses, a high level of architectural design and site landscape, and the incorporation of parklands, unifying streetscapes, and other amenities." STOP o` A 501.c.3 non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and y environmental qualities of Newport Beach. y �? OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport Planning Commission - April 9, 2015 Item No. 2a: Additional Materials Received Height Overlay District Zoning Gode-Amen m9nt for West Newport Mesa (PA2015-047) Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 I Balboa Island , CA 92662 949 . 864 . 6616 April 6, 2015 Page Three The finding that"A unified streetscape design would enhance the appearance of West Newport Mesa and provide a cohesive neighborhood identity" leaves a great deal to be desired in terms of an area plan to accomplish the goals designated by many of our general plan policies as well as the current planning standards aimed toward achievement of "sustainable" communities and those in which people have the facilities and amenities needed to have a "livable" neighborhood and one which doesn't require constant and distant use of the automobile. The West Newport Mesa may present some challenges in that it has multiple owners but certainly that doesn't preclude cohesive and strategic planning for the area. In fact, given the current transitional status of the area, it seems like the perfect place to do such planning. In short,we do not believe that you are adhering to the clearly articulated General Plan goals, policies and programs. We need to work together to define and implement a cohesive planning process for the entire West Newport Mesa area. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. %K& ;V"`" President Copies to: Kory Kramer, Vice Chair Kim Brandt, Community Development Director Jay Myers, Secretary Brenda Wisneski, Dep. Community Development Director Tim Brown, Commissioner Fern Nueno, Associate Planner Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner Tony Petros, Council Member District 2 Peter Koetting, Commissioner Ray Lawler, Commissioner STOP o` A 501.c.3 non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and y environmental qualities of Newport Beach. y �? OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport Planning Commission - April 9, 2015 Height Overlay District 1nAMestd14LMN0GjrtrTAesweeting Height Overlay District Zoning Code Amendment (PA2015-047) Code Amendment No. CA2015-004 ( PA2015-047) '771 City Boundary City of Co t e... ♦. Aa Wl�N _ •�, X�j� a��a - -� Nie M i 5 it O B I 401 Of Planning Commission `�► .• Public Hearin g _ April 9, 2015 Planning Commission Item • • Additional RT • H,ig11 1, RM Properties u [ I OHMS WAY w -- —ii -- -- '� ^-- ; City of Costa Mesa PF ` ti°GsTR. y I W PPRODUCTION PL C I r z W W o RM a P O� 15T H ST W g '9 CN Q F+%LYARD FAQ^ ... .;,•a 'P/' R PC z �w 4 Legend o — - City Boundary Statistical Area A2 A, HOSPITAL�- MC _RD__ HOSPITAL RD �'�OSgTq� � mA RM > 1 acre N� NEIL �C HOAG°R C,PGN LN !�d yc j 2 Planning Commission - Anril 9, 2015 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Presen :, ,,, seting ht rlay District Zoning Code Amendme -047) OverlayDistric'i anges apStreetsce Master Plan Planning Commission - Anril 9, 2015 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Presen :, ,,, seting Height Overlay District Zoning Code Amendme "--047) Photograph r � o iEE ■ i Planning Commission - Anril 9, 2015 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Presen :, ,,, seting na Height Overlay District Zoning Code Amendme "1 '--047) Renderi At I ` I� f A 'Aid - -.- - - K',• r: r r.:. � rF,sf�,�,�fi�i�y�.h,i �,S IIA Planning Commission - Anril 9, 2015 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Presen -�eting Hat OvIrlay District Zoning Code Amendme "--047) Tentatnive Sche u e April 9t" : PC Public Hearing May 12t" : CC Public Hearing May 26t" : CC Second Reading of Ordinance June 26t" : Ordinance Effective 6 Planning Commission - April 9, 2015 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting w i h+ nwnr'ay District Zoning Code Amendment (PA2015-047) • j For more information contact: Fern Nueno 949-644-3227 fnueno@newportbeachca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov Planning Commission - April 9, 2015 Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Height Overlay District Zoning Code Amendment (PA2015-047) Height ODistrict Zoning Code Amendment Public Comment : Sunti Kumjim Planning Commission - April Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Height Overlay District Zoning Code Amendment (PA2015-047) q14L=FS—, - r sw. a 1 _ .:� rte- �._ z ��.• \it s PC y sit- M 41 AA ��Y\i=a �I•�1- �1 I� l I i it f 4 �� /Y� d.. _ w. �: did ,Fc r ti r�.E t ♦li �.t aX. ow Planning Commission - April 9, 2015 s` J Item No. 2c: Additional rials Presented at Meeting Height Overlay District Zoning mendment (PA2015-047) Planning Commission - April Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Height Overlay District Zoning Code Amendment (PA2015-047) /L Mir 4 .all. 1 l Pland Commission - April 9, 2015 Item No. 2c,,'Additionalerials Presented at Meeting Hei erl Zoning Amendment (PA2015-047) U I irk 71 I •�l P I y I ♦ 1 tt11 ! £ )yet f!iyi-�� Planning Commission - April Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Height Overlay District Zoning Code Amendment (PA2015-047) l rt �j �` . / S,�• �`o Planning Commission - April 9, 2015 Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Height Overlay District Zoning Code Amendment (PA2015-047) i 71r 11 n` B n LEGEND J 1. m ,y<ae!db M hmoae7 ^d enf w sd G�:b 9 I.�e h M aae a hov:L pod N+>x f 2 Secogay e•aebn-K eea aM std,eMCrmen!uwrbr,`L6C,.mrd oea0y arta.Tb arta r.alar d to Poo e�� 7. Wao04ee.aea:bdefreafe: b..aao wd gecee.�. ..1. I I�� ��r��'� ■+�y�m a Ad-h!k&b .cboeta.yradae�abde:earg + 6. �a-ofea,dNe tea Raepbde A pad ac.tde,e-. de pavg. — — L. Enbr.-se Eee.pewg eu.pad sae � 5. lw eab belxpe uxgaca0eb an0 wean gmxx 1Q �?K'�bllenmbouleaepaa.k sexes 14 =- • - F 1 06 —SAPANG miss// ■/ � c I\// /■/■/■/// ■■//g //M/■i/�////r - ■one //■///// 9 ] 4 4 ® ta. Schematic Enlargement Plan - Community Recreation Club Planning Commission - April Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Height Overlay District Zoning Code Amendment (PA2015-047) Thank you iy I JV 01 i r 3 .r � w Planning Commission - April 9, 2015 Item No. 2d: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Height Overlay District Zoning Code Amendment (PA2015-047) EXHIBIT "B" Chapter 20.28 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS (MHP, PM, B) Sections: 20.28.010 Purposes of Overlay Zoning Districts. 20.28.020 Mobile Home Park(MHP)Overlay Zoning District. 20.28.030 Parking Management(PM)Overlay District. 20.28.040 Bluff(B)Overlay District. 20.28.050 Reserved. 20.28.060 Height(H)Overlay District Add Subsection 20.28.010(D): D. Height(H) Overlay District. The H Overlay District is intended to establish standards for review of increased building height in conjunction with the provision of enhanced project design features and amenities. Add Section 20.28.060: 20.28.060 Height Overlay District A. Applicability. The Height Overlay District includes properties located in the Multiple Residential (RM)Zoning District within Statistical Area A2. B. Discretionary Review. A request for an increase in building height under the provisions of the Height (H) Overlay District requires discretionary review through either a site development review or planned development permit. C. Eligibility. Properties eligible for the Height (H) Overlay District must have a minimum lot size of one (1) acre. D. Maximum Height. The maximum height limit is forty (40) feet for a flat roof and forty-five (45) feet for a sloped roof. The development shall be three (3)stories maximum. E. Required Findings. The review authority may approve a planned development permit or site development review to allow a project in compliance with this Section only after finding all of the following in addition to the findings required for the discretionary permit application and the findings required by Subsection 20.30.060(C)(3): 1. The proposed project provides increased building setbacks from public streets and property lines above code requirements; 2. The proposed project provides project enhancements and on-site recreational amenities for the residents above code requirements; and 3. The proposed project provides quality architecture and materials. F. The following standards should be considered for compliance with Finding E(3)above: Planning Commission - April 9, 2015 Item No. 2d: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Height Overlay District Zoning Code Amendment (PA2015-047) 1. Enhanced treatment of building elevations facing public streets with respect to architectural treatment to achieve a high level of design and neighborhood quality (e.g., high-quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork, finishes, stoops, porches, etc.). 2. Building materials and colors should be selected that will complement the proposed design and existing buildings in the surrounding area. 3. Building materials should be high-quality, durable, and authentic to the architectural style. 4. If stucco is used it should have a smooth finish. Sand and lace stucco finishes should be avoided. 5. Lighting should be selected to provide ambiance, safety, and security, without unnecessary spillover or Iq are. 6. Building owners and tenants should keep the building exteriors and facades clean and in good repair. G. Subdivisions. Projects that include a subdivision shall adhere to the following criteria in order to ensure the provision of enhanced project design features: 1. Overall Lot Setbacks. The Multiple Residential (RM) Zoning District setback requirements are applicable to the overall development lot. 2. Primary Structure Front Setback. The minimum setback for primary structures is twenty-five (25) feet from any front property line abutting a public street. 3. Street Enhancements. A landscaped area is required within the first fifteen (15) feet of the front setback, and shall include trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Fences, walls, or hedges are allowed beyond the fifteen (15)foot front landscape setback. 4. Side Landscape Setback. A minimum five (5) foot landscape setback is required from any side Property line abutting a public street, and shall include trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Fences, walls, or hedges are allowed beyond the five (5)foot setback. 5. Public Sidewalks. Sidewalks are required to be a minimum width of eight (8) feet. A meandering sidewalk design is preferred for lots greater than three hundred (300) feet in width and must be designed to be compatible with abutting properties. 6. Common Open Space. A minimum of one hundred (100) square feet of common open space per unit is required, not including pathways, and must be dedicated to recreational amenities. 7. Recreational Amenities. Recreational amenities are required and may include a recreation building, seating areas, barbecue/grill, fire pit/fireplace, swimming pool/spa, bicycle racks/storage, activity area (such as playing field/lawn, sport court, horseshoe pit, playground, etc.), or similar amenities. 8. Additional Guest Parking. Where limited off-site, on-street parking is available, quest parking is required above the code requirement and must be distributed throughout the site. Modify Subsection 20.30.060(C)(2)(b) to read as follows: b. RM and RMD Zoning Districts Height Limit Area. In this height limit area the base height limit for structures with flat roofs is twenty-eight (28) feet (including guardrails and parapet walls) and the base height limit for structures with sloped roofs is thirty-three (33) feet. The height of a structure may be increased up to a maximum of thirty-two (32) feet with a flat roof or thirty-seven (37) feet with a sloped roof through the approval of a discretionary application as provided above. This height limit applies in all RM and RMD Zoning Districts as shown on the Zoning Map. For properties located within the Height (H) Overlay District, the height of a structure may be increased to a maximum of forty (40) feet with a flat roof or forty-five (45) feet with a sloped roof pursuant to Section 20.28.060.