Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/2006Planning Commission Minutes 05/18/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30p.m. Page 1 of 9 http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PinAgendas /2006 /mn05- 18- 06.htm 06/23/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cale, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - all resent. TAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Dan Campagnolo, GIS Analyst Jaime Murillo, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Elwood Tescher, City Consultant from EIP Carlton Waters, City Consultant from Urban Crossroads PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Temple noted that the Planning Department had received two awards from the Orange County American Planning Association Chapter. The LCP Coastal Land Use Plan received the Outstanding Comprehensive Planning (Small Jurisdiction) Award and he Sign Code received the Outstanding Planning Implementation (Small Jurisdiction Award. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on May 12, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of May 4 2006. Minutes Approved Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker and McDaniel Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Henn HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Yu -Chien Liao ITEM NO. 2 15 Vista Tramonto PA2005 -292 http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PinAgendas /2006 /mn05- 18- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 05/18/2006 peal of the Zoning Administrator's denial of a Modification Permit to construct a ought iron gate (8 -feet tall), combination block wall and wrought iron fence (overall 6- 7- feet tall) and related pilasters (7 -feet tall) that will encroach 7 feet into the required -foot front yard setback where the Zoning Code limits that height to a maximum of 3- )t 6- inches. Temple reported that the applicant has requested another continuance to allow for her attorney to be present as he is not available tonight. They have requested item be heard June 22nd. The City Attorney's office believes that we should inue this item. was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to June 22nd. istitute motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to continue this item to following consideration of all General Plan issues. discussion it was decided to continue this item to August 3, 2006. Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn None None None Land Use, Circulation Elements, Implementation Program and Draft EIR Wood summarized the City Council action: sort area - chose a new option 5 which would be trip neutral, 2,200 dwelling units cimum, 550 of which would be additive; density in the replacement area would rage 50 units per acre; Conexant would remain industrial; Campus tract would ;ive a new land use designation yet to be detailed, which will be called office/airport would have uses similar to what is there now in support of the airport and be lower generator than commercial would be. Policies will need to be drafted for the area may include density caps. ners Mile - elected option 1 which included residential development on the harbor of Coast Highway at the reduced density of 12 units per acre. Commercial erties inland east of Rocky Point will have an FAR .3 or .5 with lot consolidation. inq is a consideration. Policies will be modified as needed. Newport Boulevard - option 2, which designates the entire area for general office permits medical office use as well. The medical office would not be developed as isely as other office use because of the higher parking requirements. port Center - residential units limited to 450, the additional retail is at 75,000 squan additional hotel rooms 60, no additional office development. This would reduce from the EIR by approximately 3,000. There will be an additional 4,000 trips ction in entitlement in the EIR from The Irvine Company for residential and mercial in the surrounding areas. Sherman Gardens will be re- designated Private. :utional with .3 FAR that would reduce another 2,000 trips. The result of all these ges would be a reduction of 9,400 trips from the EIR and 1,371 fewer trips than tha ina General Plan. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple added that the entitlement refers to existing Page 2 of 9 Continue to August 3, 2006 ITEM NO. 3 Continued to June 1, 2006 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn05- 18- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 05/18/2006 ling. Ms. Wood noted a policy in the draft General Plan that does not allow the itional retail square footage transferability. Approval by both the Planning emission and City Council will be required and without any increase in trip Tescher, referring to the exhibit opposite page 30 -84, noted the proposed >mmendations having a significant savings for trips in the sum total. Village - EM staff recommends changing the land use designation from mixed use to Medium Density Residential for the harbor fronting lots. The most southerly lot is recommended to be re- designated as a marine commercial use that is a reflection of the existing land use. The mixed use designation for the remainder of area A is recommended for 1.5 FAR as opposed to the maximum of 2.0 in the draft plan reflecting existing development. followed on the non - conformity issues, current densities, commercial and uses. ab Area B at the far end of Via Lido is less likely to support commercial uses. It is commended by staff that this be designated as Medium Density Residential (RM) density of 18 units per acre. Tescher noted that the sum results of the changes will generate about 3,200 less > than the currently adopted General Plan and almost 5,000 trips less than was sidered in the EIR. discussion, the Commission decided to recommend that Sub Area B be 1 as RM -B with up to 20 units per acre and agreed with staffs idation on the northerly portion of Sub Area A, but changed staffs idation as to the southerly portion from RM -A (13 units /acre) to RM -B (20 for Sub Area A. Village - C- . No change is proposed from the mixed use designation. • The recommendation is to take a portion of Newport Blvd frontage south of 32nd Street and to designate that as Visitor Serving Commercial (CV -A) as reflected i the traffic model. • This would save about 3,848 few trips than the existing General Plan. ssion followed on compatibility issues, upgrade parcels and mixed use nations a G - designated for mixed use in the draft plan. Staff believes that commercial is more appropriate designation and recommends Neighborhood Commercial (CN -B) :h of 32nd Street and Visitor Serving Commercial (CV -A) in the remainder. Waters noted that Area G was studied as commercial in the traffic model. The Page 3 of 9 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mnO5- 18- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 05/18/2006 benefit is proportional to that FAR and back to reducing from 2.0 down to 1.5. e Planning Commission decided that the changes recommended by staff for the MU- 1 area G north of 32nd Street be made and that south of 32nd Street not be made and at it stay the way it is as MU -A1. MU -A1 is a vertical mix use category that permits )using above lower level retail, limits the retail portion to the cumulative FAR as a Inge of 1.5 to 2.0, the retail portion may be limited to .7. nmissioner Eaton requested that he be recorded as objecting to the majority of the s recommendation keeping the MU -A1 for the southerly portion of Sub Area B ause he strongly favors MU -A2, which had a lower FAR and permitted office use on first floor. comment was opened. comment was closed. Tescher continued: Square - . An error was detected in another review of this area. The correction adds trips for some areas. • Area E and F staff recommends reducing the mixed use intensity from 2.0 FAR 1.2 FAR due to the trip issue. This would be a new category of mixed use that would limit the amount of commercial to .3 and the balance of .9 for residential. • This achieves a reduction of 5,000 trips from the EIR projection. • The net change in trips for the correction and recommended intensity change would be 3,949 fewer than the EIR, resulting in 549 more trips than the existing General Plan. ion followed on the use of densities on the map to go along with Charter 423. Planning Commission set the maximum FAR at 1.25, as in the existing General comment was opened. rol McDermott, speaking for the Lido Shipyard project, verified that the intensity and ✓elopment that has been existing would be preserved. Not included in the trip aeration were the boat slips in the surrounding the area. It is not clear that the anges recommended for McFadden SquE:re would be allocated to the shipyard area well. Wood answered that is staffs intent. Regarding the boat slips, they have not itionally been included in the traffic model as they are not land uses. Those trips included to the extent that they are associated with what occurs on the adjacent ind. For instance, we also do not count trips for moorings out in the water. comment was closed. Village - Tescher noted: Page 4 of 9 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO5- 18- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 05/18/2006 • Fun Zone area is owned by the Nautical Museum and the intended long -term use of that site is recommended to be designated Private Institution (PI -B) instead of commercial. • Staff recommends leaving the balance of the waterfront area Visitor Servicing Commercial (CV -A). • The original traffic calculations looked at this as a mixed area and has been scaled back to the balance of the area being Mixed Use. • The result of these two changes would be a decrease of 991 trips from the EIR and 123 fewer trips than the existing General Plan. • The ferry landing would be CV-A. • The change to Private Institution complies with the Local Coastal Plan and will not require and amendment. • The MU -A2 is the category that limited the FAR to 1.5 in the vertical mixed use and allowed either office or retail on the ground floor. Planning Commission agreed with staffs recommendations. comment was opened. 1r. Edward Healy requested his properties on 15th Street be re- designated as :sidential, without a commercial component. He also stated that the Van Ornums at 07 15th Street are also asking for that same designation. Referring to his handout, he oted an exhibit showing the commercial areas that are listed as mixed use. He noted iat there are other apartments in the area zoned residential. There is no potential for ommercial in his opinion on his side of the street which does not front Balboa oulevard or Ocean Front. scussion followed on commercial next to residential, parking problems, noise, viability commercial uses on comers and looking at mid -block as being residential. e Dove, owner of the corner of Balboa and 15th Street, which is mixed use. She i she wants to keep it as mixed use. The Oceanfront property at 15th Street is mixed use with the front commercial and the back residential. uving the discussion, the Planning Commission recommended that the mixed use (nation developed for Cannery Village, MU -134, be used for all the properties on ti side of 15th Street, south of Balboa Boulevard. This designation allows residenti lopment without a commercial component on interior lots, but requires mixed use ngs at street intersections. The Commission also recommended that the iption of this land use classification be amended to allow either mixed use or sively commercial development at street intersections (not alleys). comment was closed Newport Highway - Tescher noted: • Purpose was to consolidate commercial lands and a couple of nodes near the intersection of Coast Highway and Orange and near the intersection on the southerly end. • Consolidation was also to create a more efficient pattern of commercial development at those locations. • The net result is an increase of about 800 trips above the existing General Plan. • Staff has no recommendation for a change in this area. Page 5 of 9 http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn05- 18- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 05/18/2006 There was a submittal including a map to take a portion of the area designated CV -A between 61st and 62nd Streets and to re- designate the rear half of those properties as residential while retaining the commercial designation along the frontage. Staff is recommending against that change even though making the change would eliminate 387 daily trips, but it would divide the existing parcel. This is counter to the intent to create larger parcels that are more suitable for commercial in this area by splitting and reducing the commercial capacity in this area when you already have a legal parcel of size that has already been consolidated to meet the objectives of the plan. )wing a discussion on lot consolidation, setbacks, parking requirements and needs, sub - divisions, the Planning Commission supported staff recommendations. del Mar - r. Tescher noted the draft General Plan does not change the land uses in the Corona d Mar business area. erman Gardens area - change the land use designation from Neighborhood immercial (CN -B) to Private Institution (PI -B). That designation results in a reduction 2,303 trips from the EIR. This area is not anticipated to ever change to a commercial ighborhood category. Cove Senior Care Community - change the land use designation from orhood Commercial (CN -B) to Private Institution (PI -B). The change would ely reflect the current and anticipated future land use and trip generation eristics. The change will result in a reduction of 1,783 trips from the EIR. and vacant lots (3900 -3928 East Coast Highway) - change the land use ion from Neighborhood Commercial (CN -B) to Medium Density Residential The change would result in a reduction of 477 trips from the EIR. ie overall decrease in trips for the sub -area with changes to these three properties is 157 trips below the existing General Plan (without the reduction for Sherman srson Toerge noted that the word 'commercial' needs to be added to Policy in two places as well as consistency for this policy. comment was opened. McDermott, noted: • The owner of the vacant lots had noted public access from Coast Highway and from the residential portion back of the lots. • A car dealership had been proposed for that area, but it was denied. • He is trying to put residential for those vacant lots as they abut Buck Gully and views that would be compatible to that use. Gardner, co -chair of GPAC, noted: • Concern with the traffic numbers. • Sherman Gardens and Crown Cove are in such different categories and by changing the designation, the reality is the same. Page 6 of 9 http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn05- 18- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 05/18/2006 Waters, noted the concern of staff: • Is overstating the potential future traffic that would be generated here by leaving the designation of commercial retail uses for these properties that do not generate traffic levels consistent with a commercial retail center. • The traffic model is used to represent these uses consistent with the actual on the ground usage today. Although we are recommending designations that are similar for both of the properties, the way that we have represented them in the traffic generation numbers is directly dependent on the character of the project. • Crown Cove is being represented as elderly residential housing and the Sherman Gardens is being represented as a cultural and learning center with a trip generation rate that is actually out there today. • We are doing away with the illusion that they would be a higher generating use in the future based on the existing zoning and land use designation of commercial retail. Ilowing a discussion on reduction of commercial area and future residential impacts commercial uses on adjacent properties, the majority of the Planning Commission �eed with staffs recommendations. Toerge noted he would like to bring up comments on the Implementation 'he Commission then suggested a number of minor clarifications and corrections to the nplementation Program as well as some questions that require staff research. They iscussed: • Section 423 to the City Charter - what constitutes baseline for the voters, cumulative affects for a statistical area, determination of additive, using old General Plan or new General Plan for statistical areas that are not changed. • Development Standards - include a harbor walkway in item P; add word public to view corridors. • Imp 19.4 - OCTA separate bullet point regarding Santa Ana crossing. • Development Agreements on page 13.21. 'additive' residential use is allowed in the Airport Area and Newport Center, the property owners would be receiving an extraordinary benefit because they would not be required to reduce or eliminate existing development in exchange for the residential entitlement. Following discussion, the Commission recommended a requirement of a development agreement for these developments so that the City has the opportunity for a significant contribution to public infrastructure in exchange for the private benefit. Staff suggested that this be a policy. • Imp 23.2 - Tiered water rates - to be discussed. • Imp 44.3 - Administer In -Lieu parking fees to be added. • Annual Reviews • All changes that have occurred in the elements will be reflected in the IP. • Development Standards - delete imposing in lieu fees in reference to Mariner's Mile. • Imp 3.1 and on page 13 -22 under Overview - Add Fish and Wildlife. • mooring permits not mooring titles on page 13.15. • Imp. 11.1 and 12.1 - add General Plan. • Imp. 19 -3 - work with Airport LUC not Airport Authority. • Discussion on Mello Roos districts comment was opened. Page 7 of 9 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn05- 18- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 05/18/2006 Page 8 of 9 ancy Gardner, representing the Coastal Bay Water Quality Committee noted the :red water rates were recommended by the committee. The water department noted at the pricing will be revenue neutral. .iblic comment was closed discussion then followed on the need for and items to be discussed at special eetings. Special meetings will be called for June 1st and June 15th. Comments on e EIR are due by June 8th. otion was made by Chairperson Toerge to continue and adjourn this hearing to June >t ammissioner Hawkins moved to reconsider the Vista Tramonto issue. He then asked e Assistant City Attorney about continuing this item to make sure the record was -an in connection with a potential legal challenge. Do we run a problem with the mtinuance into August? Realizing he was in the majority to push this into August, is ere going to be a record problem? asistant City Attorney Harp answered no ammissioner Hawkins, withdrew his motion to reconsider. Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn None None None BUSINESS: I ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that at the last meeting, the City approved the Pendragon Automotive request. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Developmen Committee - Commissioner Henn noted that a presentation on the new Orangf County Cruiser, fashioned after the classic Woody surf wagon will be a bus cruise tour bus that will have three routes that all connect at the Newport Pier and providf transportation nodes on the peninsula for visitor serving functions. Anothe presentation was made by the Restaurant Association and a short discussion on the COP Initiative, which did not garner enough signatures to be placed on the ballot. Work on the strategic planning document is continuing with the sub - committee. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Upd Committee - no meeting; however the sub - committee did meet and is planning meeting more regularly. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - none. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda action and staff report - Commissioner Tucker noted that the vicinity map prepa for the appeal was not very informative and needs to have more information as all future vicinity maps. Project status - Ms. Temple noted that Our Lady Queen of Angels will is http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn05- 18- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 05/18/2006 Page 9 of 9 cheduled for the last meeting of July depending on the scheduling of the General Planl review. She then gave an update on the Aerie project as well as the South Coasii Shipyard. ) Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 10:20 D.m. 1 ADJOURNMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /Mn05- 18- 06.htm 06/23/2008