Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/21/1996CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1996 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ridgeway, Adams, Selich, Ashley Commissioner Gifford arrived late Commissioner Thomson was excused Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney srw Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Niki Kallikounis, Planning Secretary • Minutes of November 7. 1996: Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway and voted on to approve as amended the November 7, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes. Ayes: Ridgeway, Adams, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Noes: none Absent: Thomson Abstain: Kranzley Public Comments none Posting of the Agenda: Ms. Temple stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, November 15, 1996, outside of City Hall. 40 INDEX Minutes Public Comments Posting of the Agenda • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1996 1. SUBJECT: Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan • General Plan Amendment 92 -1 (C) • A. 856 A proposed specific plan for the Old Newport Boulevard commercial district. The proposed specific plan would establish new land use and property development regulations for: the Old Newport Boulevard commercial district. The proposed specific plan and accompanying general plan amendment would also increase the potential development yields permitted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Mr. Patrick Alford presented the staff report and summarized the contents stating that this proposed Specific Plan for Old Newport Boulevard establishes goals and policies for this commercial district and the property development and land use regulations to implement them. The Specific Plan will appear as Chapter 20.46 in the new format of the Zone Code with land use regulations primarily for retail commercial. It allows for modifications for institutional uses not permitted in the citywide commercial districts such as convalescent facilities and residential care facilities. It also allows for mixed use commercial /residential development which is currently allowed by the Residential Overlay District on the east side of Old Newport Boulevard. There are limits on incompatible land uses, such as automobile- oriented uses. Finally, vehicle and boat storage are allowed as interim uses with restrictions. The proposed Specific Plan Property Development Regulations would allow for: • a higher FAR (floor area ratio) limit only if two or more lots are combined to provide unified site design resulting in two development scenario possibilities: FAR of 0.75 if land uses are non - residential and /or a FAR of 0.65 and residential above the first floor, • required wall articulation to assist in breaking up the mass and bulk, • incentives to limit driveway cuts • minimum site landscaping • screening of refuse storage areas and mechanical equipment The public improvement components would be: • streetscape improvements • special paving treatments at pedestrian crossings • decorative street lighting • entry monuments • undergrounding of overhead utility lines • center median parking Two amendments are proposed: the GPA: • Land Use Element to reflect the increased development yields • Change boundaries to exclude residential properties • Amend Districting Maps #5 and #25 to reclassify the area from RSC to the INDEX Item No. 1 GPA 92 -1 (C) A 856 Approved City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1996 Specific Plan (SP) District The environmental analysis identified two potentially significant issues: Traffic - • impacts to the Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road intersection during evening (P.M.) peak hour traffic periods • mitigation is proposed to require a use permit to achieve the higher FAR limits • approval of a use permit requires a finding that the increase floor area would not cause significant traffic impacts to adjacent streets and intersections Noise - most of the area falls or will fall within the 60 CNEL noise contour of Newport Boulevard and other portions fall or will fall within the 65 CNEL noise contour Noise Element Policy requires that, prior to the issuance of building permits, the project design will meet exterior and interior noise standards mitigation is proposed requiring noise sensitive land uses to incorporate noise mitigation measures in the project design • Commissioner Kranzley asked for information regarding the noticing process on this item. Staff reported that all property owners (the last owner of record on the assessment role) in the specific plan area received a customized notice identifying the property and proposed change. In addition, the normal public hearing notice to all property owners within 300 feet was mailed as well as the notice appearing in the local newspapers. Commissioner Ridgeway asked staff to clarify the bulking of the design criteria regarding building bulk. Mr. Alford responded by referring to handwritten page 17, explaining that any structure with a FAR greater than .65+ would have to have a vertical setback. Discussion ensued regarding threshold heights and maximum heights with a use permit which currently applies to commercial properties. Commissioner Selich stated he had submitted a list of 18 questions to staff and asks that they become part of the record along with the responses. They have been made available to the public. What is the acreage of the specific plan area? Approximately 18.3 gross acres. 2. How much is public right -of -way? Open space? Approximately 6.2 acres of public right -of -way. • 3 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1996 Approximately 1,900 square feet of open space (Balsa Park). 3. How many parcels in the plan area? 58 parcels. 4. Is there a typical parcel size? Commercial parcels range from 650 square feet to 40,150 square feet. The average commercial parcel size is 9,278 square feet and the median commercial parcel size is 6,745 square feet. 5. Do you have a map showing land subdivision pattern and /or building footprints. A large map showing property lines is being prepared for the public hearing. There is also a small, crude map showing property lines on the last page of the staff report (handwritten page 68). No map is available that shows building footprints, the GIS Division has not completed their survey of that area. 6. How many off -site parking spaces are there now? Is [the] area deficient to current parking standards? If so, by how much? No off -site parking is provided in the subject area, save for on- street parking. However, the number of on- street parking spaces is difficult to estimate, • since few are striped. No formal survey of off - street parking was conducted. However, it is likely that a number of properties do not meet current off - street parking requirements. Did you consider [a] parking district as opposed to parcel by parcel parking? If not, why? If so, why was it rejected? The Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Committee did not formally consider a parking district since the City has no mechanism for establishing such a parking district at this time. 8. How was [the] ]floor area increase determined for Scenario A and B? (Methodology and assumptions used) The land area was estimated on a block by block basis, then multiplied by the floor area ratio limits for each development scenario. it was assumed that lot consolidation would take place, that the maximum floor area permitted would be developed and that all land uses would be Base FAR land uses. 9. What is the cost of [the] improvements in Section 20.46.070 (by item; A, B, C, D, E, & F)? Public Works estimated that the Item A (Median Improvements would cost between $220,150 to $238,800. No estimates were prepared for the other • INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1996 items. 10. Was [the] economic value of [the] floor area increase tied to projected improvement costs or the property owners share of [the] improvement costs? No. 11. How is [the] City['s] share of [the] improvement cost[s] to be determined? Current City policy is that all costs above that of standard improvements must be borne by the property owners. 12. Was [the] potential increase in revenue to [the] City tied to [the] City's share of the improvement costs? No. 13. Was any cost benefit analysis done? Is [the] increase in floor are[a] projected [to be] enough to pay for [the] improvements? No. Not known at this time. 14. Was any consideration given to [granting] additional floor area for consolidation of more than 2 lots or some square footage criteria? • No. Originally, the ONBSP Committee wanted a FAR limit of 0.75 by right. Council Member Glover persuaded them to accept the requirement of lot consolidation in exchange for the increased FAR limits. 15. Where is [the] additional lane referred to in [Section] 20.46.070 (G). It is at the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road. 16. Where are [the] entry monuments to be located? What will they say? Although not specified in the specific pion text, it was envisioned that they would be constructed in either City or CalTrans property. No message was specified, however, it was suggested the signs would say "Old Newport Boulevard Business District" or language to that effect. 17. Why is this specific plan necessary? What is being done with this specific plan that could not be done with conventional zoning? A specific plan for this area is mandated by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. All of the provisions of the specific plan could be implemented by conventional zoning with the exception of the public improvement component. However, no existing zoning district allows for the land use and property development regulations proposed by the ONBSP Committee. A new base zoning district or overlay district would have to be developed. • INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1996 18. Was use [the] of [an] assessment or improvement district for public improvements discussed in committee meetings. If so, was it rejected? If not, why? Yes, it was discussed at many meetings. It was not rejected. On the contrary, it was recognized that it was the most likely method of financing the improvements. It was also recognized that it would involve a separate process. Following the pattern of the McFadden SquarelConnery Village and Central Balboa specific plans, no financing mechanisms were not identified in the specific plan. Commissioner Selich continued by asking for and receiving clarification of the Land Use Table presented on handwritten page 36 and the table on handwritten page 31 Exhibit A and the staff report numbers. Mr. Alford stated that the differences were based on calculations with a slightly different yield. Changes in traffic policy occurred from the time when the Traffic Study was first done. The figures on page 31 are the most accurate for the projected land use. Commissioner Ridgeway, referring to page 7, commented about potential traffic impacts. As the build out increases, a use permit is required for evaluation of the • traffic impacts to adjacent streets and intersections. In his opinion this sets a scenario for future inequity to later applicants. This is unfair, and suggests that the city do a capital improvement estimate for the widening of Newport Boulevard at Hospital Road based upon the worst case scenario and that a funding mechanism be established as part of the Specific Plan. Mr. Alford explained that the use permit process ensures review of each project to make sure that the additional floor area that is allowed through lot consolidation would not get out of control and create traffic impacts as indicated in the traffic study. He continued by answering that there were no projections for the additional lanes, and that an estimate had been done for the proposed parking about two years ago and it was approximately $250,000 to $280,000. Commissioner Ridgeway continued, if the City has the capital cost of the parking, and is doing a capital cost estimate for the widening, instead of using a use permit, create a capital assessment district and assess fees for future improvements for Newport Boulevard at Hospital Road and the parking area. Chairperson Adams added that under the public improvement component the south right hand turn lane on Newport Boulevard is listed. Discussion continued on mitigation measures being singled out with other items not considered as mitigation. Commissioner Ridgeway continued stating that staff has identified the real issues • INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1996 such as cumulative impacts, but have done nothing to mitigate these issues until it cumulatively falls on the last person to apply. The entire burden may fall on that person and will be unequitable. This is not a city cost being suggested, rather a cost to the people benefiting from this process. Commissioner Gifford asked staff about the portion for undergrounding utilities costs borne by the City. Could it be an assessment district or through use of City's capital improvement budget? Staff answered that following previous specific plans, no funding mechanism is identified within the specific plan. Mr. Rich Edmonton stated that Mr. Alford had identified all of the improvements without really identifying who would pay for them. In the question of underground utilities, the city's participation extends to the park parcel in the area. Typically, assessments are based on the parcels basis, the remainder of the undergrounding would be borne by the other property owners. City Council has the ability to change this if they choose, but there is nothing in the plan that indicates this happening. Commissioner Ashley then asked for and received clarification of the proposed • removal of 32 feet out of the center of Old Newport Boulevard at Westminster Ave. and replaced with median parking, does this mean that the lanes will be reduced in both directions? Mr. Edmonston answered and expanded on this area referencing concept plans. He concluded that it is not known what the net effect on traffic will be. Commissioner Kranzley stated that he is disturbed by the fact that not enough residents were notified on this item assuming landlords would not send out notices on this item. He wanted to know what else could be done? He concluded by stating that an extra effort should be made. Assistant City Attorney Clauson answered that unless there is some specific request or requirement from the Commission that the tenant be noticed, the owners of the property are the ones who have the interest in the property and its use in relationship to the zoning. All that is legally required is notice to the property owners. Anything over and above that would be extra. It would be a matter of cost ratio and problems with noticing tenants because you don't know who they are or there has been a change over. It would become a legal issue with a potential implied obligation. With a set notice requirement, all owners of the property on the latest assessment role, then the legal requirement has been met by the City. Ms. Temple added that this issue does come up both at City Council and Planning Commission levels. When it comes to a specific directive from the City Council, the • INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes November 21,1996 determination has always been to comply with the legal requirements. Discussion continued regarding notice processes both within the City and outside the City. Posting for this item is not required. However, it has been noted in the newspapers and well publicized. Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Jerry Tucker, 466 Flower St., Costa Mesa, property owner of 508 Old Newport Boulevard - asked the Commission for and was granted additional time to speak as the president of the Old Newport Property Owners Association and as a member of the ad hoc specific area plan committee. He addressed the issue of notification that was done by his organization over four years ago. The agendas for the ONPOA meetings are posted. Speaking on behalf of the association he stated that they support the plan for the following reasons: • encourages development • upgrades the area • establishes guidelines for a unified design • improves the streetscape • improves the parking arrangements • The area can be greatly enhanced by proposed plans to include: • center median parking with landscaping • enhanced pavers at specific areas • street lighting • specific street trees • monument signs at both ends • underground utilities The plan provides for mixed use on both sides of the street. Potential land use problems have been identified and explored by the committee and have over time been either eliminated or controlled by a use permit. The plan also provides incentives for consolidation of lots. Referencing the staff report, he indicated that the 'Worst case scenario" listed "could happen, but won't:' It is not desirable for .each of these 50 foot lots to develop individually. Therefore, the plan promotes design unification and consolidation of properties with fewer curb cuts. He then provided the Commission with an exhibit explaining the consolidation of lots incentives that the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Area Plan includes. Mr. Tucker then spoke about the traffic and noise issues and indicated that the committee has been meeting for four years. The property owners would like to see this plan approved by the Commission. Commissioner Kranzley asked why they want residential on the west side of the 400 block of Old Newport? • INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1996 Mr. Tucker answered that the property owners want to unify the whole area. The whole area should be under the same, mixed use zoning classification. - Commissioner Ashley stated that the study group wanted to achieve design unification and reduce the number of curb cuts through a consolidation process and that might be encouraged by adding an increase in the FAR. The group recommended that consolidation of two lots would qualify for an increase in FAR. Is that going to achieve sufficient design unification and reduction of curb cuts if only two lots will be consolidated? What about a minimum of four lots consolidating before an increase in the FAR? Mr. Tucker stated that two lots was proposed as the number due to the constraints posed by existing uses. Commissioner Ridgeway brought up the subject of an assessment district for funding of the field of parking and special paving treatments. He asked Mr. Tucker if there are property owners opposed to that funding mechanism. Mr. Tucker answered that not all property owners agree. Hopefully, in the future all will agree. • Commissioner Ridgeway explained he was in favor of increased FAR's, but not without some type of funding component by the City and the property owners for future improvements. Now is the time. Funding can be done either through an assessment or an impact fee. Impact fee would be imposed at the time of proposed development, if it is not used within five years, it could be refunded. Assistant City Attorney Clauson asked if Commissioner Ridgeway is suggesting the City make an assessment district approval a condition on the approval of this plan. He answered if it was possible, yes. If not, then at least an impact fee that can be assessed for the increased FAR. Ms. Clauson stated it can't be conditioned on the zoning. The city can put in process the impact fee provision for certain types of improvement. The adoption of general zoning for the area can not be so conditioned. Ms. Temple stated that there is a city -wide program underway to address the specific issue of traffic impacts. A comprehensive amendment to the circulation element and a significant alteration to the city's traffic phasing ordinance will be proposed as a result of this process. A city -wide system to identify needed improvements with costs as part of a capital improvement program and assessing projects as they are implemented is being considered. Chairperson Adams stated that the issue tonight is in a very specific area and FAR changes for that area and at the same time, talking about enhancements for the E INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1996 area, i.e., median parking, pavers, lighting. These have nothing to do with traffic impact fees, it has to do with an area impact. This is not appropriately funded by the whole city. He then asked Mr. Tucker about the concept of unified development. Mr. Tucker referenced a letter sent by Mr. Brion Jeannette to the Commission. What they mean is strictly the amount of curb cuts that break up the street and interfere with the circulation of the street. With a larger lot, the architect has more design flexibility. The objective is not to have all the buildings look the same, but unified by landscaping and center parking median strips and pavers. The unified design is the street scape, not building design. Discussion continued on the benefits versus cost equations, expectation of property owner financing through assessment and city financing as well as greater incentives. City representatives had made presentations to the committee regarding assessment district procedures. Mr. Owen Minney, 447 Old Newport Boulevard appeared in support of this plan. He gave a history on the specific plan predicated with a general plan of 1988 and its requirements. He explained that the center median parking would be the only item for an assessment district as curb gutters, underground utilities and sidewalks • cost are to be borne by the developer according to the City policies. Commissioner Ridgeway asked Mr. Minney if the curb gutters, lighting and sidewalks were created now with an assessment, instead of waiting for development, would the owners like to see that done? He was answered that some of the property owners could not contribute to an assessment because some are on a limited income. Commissioner Ashley pointed out that there are several improvements suggested that need to be funded. Ms. Dolores Bowles, 510 Old Newport Boulevard - spoke in favor of "cleaning up the place" but is not in favor of an assessment fee because she is on a limited income. Commissioner Gifford stated that the proposed plan to improve the area does not require a fee, and asked if Ms. Bowles was in favor of it, to which she was answered in the affirmative. Appearing in support of the plan: Mr. Al Irwin, 449 Old Newport Boulevard and 1802 West Ocean Front Mr. George Baker, 434 North Old Newport Boulevard - did not favor an assessment Commissioner Ridgeway stated that an assessment would not be possible if it costs more than the potential to increase property value. He suggested that we find out 0 10 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1996 what the City can provide and the ultimate cost to the landowners. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonton stated that there are no current projects in the seven year capital improvements scheduled for Old Newport Boulevard. Ms. Barbara Rawlings, representing the property owner of 475 Old Newport Boulevard, June Johnson spoke. She stated that it has taken the Old Newport Boulevard Association four years to come up with this plan. It is a true community effort. She urged approval of this plan and mentioned that there is a Merchants Association on the street and she has kept the tenants apprised of what the property owners have been doing. Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Gifford clarified her understanding of the other specific area plans that have been approved in the city, none have had any kind of funding mechanism associated with them as a condition. Ms. Temple answered that no specific method of funding was committed to at the time of approvals. With each one that did carry an improvement plan, it is assumed that some type of assessment district would be considered. Commissioner Gifford stated that in terms of equity, it would not be fair to identify one specific area and suggest that it be treated differently and burdened with any conditions, They need the benefit of the same opportunity to work together and develop a plan. No speaker tonight has protested the plan, they do have mixed ideas about an assessment district to fund its public improvement component. The plan and funding are separate issues and have been treated that way in other areas of the city. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to approve General Plan Amendment 92 -1 (C) and Amendment 856 to the Districting Maps. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that there are two separate issues: 1. the Specific Area Plan improvements, which need to be dealt with through an assessment district 2. cumulative impact on the two intersections - the traffic phasing ordinance that Ms. Temple spoke briefly about may address this particular issue As part of what Commission is doing tonight, he recommends a consideration be made for some type of impact fee be put in place relatively soon since Commission is potentially approving an additional 175,000 square feet. This is a significant number on the impact on these two intersections. The impact fee would be imposed on an owner who pulls a building permit. Commissioner Kranzley stated that the mixed use areas in Newport Beach are E INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1996 currently not working very well. Cannery Village has proven to be a difficult problem for residents, business owners and the City. On Old Newport Blvd., a smaller area, there are presently four existing liquor licenses. Adding 93 residential units could create a problem. Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to exclude the 93 dwelling units on the west side of Old Newport Boulevard. Commissioner Selich supported the plan as submitted, however, he expressed concerns that 1) staff needs to put dollar amounts on costs of these improvements and 2) financing options should also be outlined prior to council consideration. Additionally, in the new zoning code, provisions for providing parking on a district wide basis have been made. This is a small area of about 18 acres, and 3) would be a good place for a parking district. This would go a long way to solve problems of the land owners for better circulation and less curb cuts. He proposed that these directions to staff be added to both the main and substitute motions. The makers of both motions agreed. Commissioner Ridgeway commented that this proposed plan is a great one and suggested that perhaps Mr. Tucker approach the city on obtaining Community Block Grants. Funding may be able from an ADA perspective. As to the mixed use, he supports it in this case. Chairperson Adams asked about the Traffic Study. The maximum and minimum scenarios discussed in the staff report were confusing. If the FAR opportunities were all taken advantage of that would result in an additional 2500 to 3000 vehicles to the traffic conditions. What is generated today? In Table one of the Traffic Study called current is that the actual use? Staff replied in the affirmative. Mr. Edmonston explained that the PM peak hour does generate more traffic, currently is 725 current trips. Under the minimum it goes tol,050 ±. Chairperson Adams asked about the area that is being omitted from the Plan and it was pointed out by Ms. Temple on the mounted map exhibit. It is a group of three lots on Holmwood that are R1 and another group of lots (duplexes) that are R2. They have received the general notification within the 300 foot radius. Substitute Motion amended: 1) staff to put dollar amount on costs of these improvements and 2) financing options be outlined prior to council consideration and 3) a parking district in this area, was voted on and failed: Ayes: Kranzley, Adams Noes: Ridgeway, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Absent: Thomson Abstain: none 12 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November21, 1996 Main Motion amended: 1) staff to put dollar amounts on costs of improvements and 2) financing options be outlined prior to council consideration and 3) a parking district in this area, was voted on: Ayes: Ridgeway, Adams, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Noes: Kranzley Absent: Thomson Abstain: none ..a ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - An oral report by the Planning Director regarding City Council actions related to planning - Ms. Temple reported that the review of the Development Agreement for CIOSA was approved, a public hearing was held to introduce the Ordinance for the removal of the RBR Chapter from Title 20 and passed to a second reading and that an in -depth report was given on the Cannery Village with alcohol related problems by the Planning Department, Police Department and City Attorney's office. The Council directed staff to re -visit this item in the near future. b.) Oral report by the Planning Director regarding Outdoor Dining Permits, Specialty Food Permits, Modification Permits and Temporary Use Permit approvals- Modifications for 124 Via Yella and 3000 West Coast Highway were approved. Modification for 500 and 500 1/2 Dahlia Avenue Condominium Conversion was also approved. No items were called up by the Planning Commission. C.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich reported that no meeting had been held since the last Planning Commission meeting. d.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee - Commissioner Kranzley reported that a workshop was held the previous day from 9 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. They will make a report to City Council on the 201h of January with a presentation to be scheduled for Planning Commission as well. e.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Kranzley asked for an update on the McDonalds Restaurant and the trailer by Savannah's. f.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Ms. Temple asked Commission if they would like to have a holiday festivity with or without staff on December 19th. Ms. Temple was directed by Chairperson Adams to contact the applicants on 13 INDEX Additional Business City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 21, 1996 the pending agenda for that date to ascertain if they could be postponed. Commissionwill then make the decision. g.) Requests for excused absences- none. ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 p.m. ED SELICH, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION i--qg L.J 40 14 INDEX