Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/29/2005Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes November 29, 2005 Adjourned Meeting - 3:00 p.m. Page 1 of 22 file:// F:1 Apps1WEBDATA\IntemetlPlnAgendas120051mn11- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel an Henn - all present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director ron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner finger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Elwood Tescher, City consultant from EIP UBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on November 11, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the special meeting of November 17, 2005. Minutes Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to continue this item tc Continued to December 6, 2005. 12106/2005 yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and oes: Henn bsent: None bstain: None None HEARING ITEMS UBJECT: General Plan Update - Review of Draft Land Use ITEM NO.2 file:// F:1 Apps1WEBDATA\IntemetlPlnAgendas120051mn11- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 Page 2 of 22 General Plan Update goals and policies related to Land Use as part of the ongoing continued to Plan Update process. 12/06/2006 Elwood Tescher, consultant for the City, referenced the incorporates the recommended changes made by the emission, the City Council and the General Plan Advisory imissioner Tucker noted his substantive changes on page 15 dea the single family detached and duplex neighborhoods. He noted ;em of design issues changes that were made. He noted that I 'surrounding' is ladened with ambiguity and suggested that I be changed to 'neighborhood' under the second bullet point ur 1.5. This should be clearly stated as compatibility with ne hborhood development, including density, scale and street fa( ations. This is what was intended and you do not get into ambig what the word 'surrounding' means. Commissioners agreed to encourage the City Council to rperson Toerge added that in that same area under LU 5.0 at the I; ling we discussed, and it was unanimously endorsed, the suggesti we add a policy or supplement an existing policy to the effect ing with homes that have multiple bedrooms or are extremely lar whereby their impact on the neighborhood may result in parki and that exceeds two cars. We wanted, whether it be the number ►s, square footage, or the number of bedrooms, in some way requ when homes approach these certain thresholds that they provi on -site parking. Tescher noted that is correct, it was missed and will be included. Wood noted it could be incorporated in Policy 5.1.7, which ping Commission recommended deletion of, but the City Co red. She noted this will get into the Council's consideration. ar Cole asked what the Council recommended changes aesthetic features in LU 5.1.5 were based on? Tescher answered that a couple of Councilmembers were concen explicitly about the change of character in single far hborhoods. The point regarding orientation received the great ussion as to whether or not this could be codified into any meanini dards. The direction to staff was from a policy standpoint rporate it at this time, but rather than inferring design review that 'opriate mechanism for implementation would be finding a way file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Intemet\ PlnAgendas\2005\mn11- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 this within zoning requirements so it would not be a s in, so creating actual standards that would address each lar topics. Wood noted that Council had asked for comment from NE ner, co- chairperson of the GPAC, and she was supportive of ial language from the committee and felt it was important. iissioner Hawkins noting page LU 6.15.13 talks about "65 dB) 3 ", what is that footnote for? The Commission took a position c nizina two CNEL lines. This document does not refer to either one. r. Tescher referenced page 56, policy LY 6.15.24, the City Counc commended the addition of the language that refers to the 65 dBA VEL unless the City Council makes findings for overridin msiderations in accordance with State law. Referring to page 50, polic 15.4 the language has been stricken; the same reference to th sidential villages 6.15.9. For consistency it should be struck in 6.15.1 > well. The intent was the policy 6.15.24 on page 56 would apply to a )plications within the airport area. Rather than identifying it within th dividual parcels, the intent was to have it as a universal polio :rtaining to the airport area. s. Wood added the new language refers to the noise contour that and in the Airport environs land use plan. ommissioner Hawkins noted this should be specific noted they will re- structure the verbiage in LU 6.15.24 to limits as well. r Tucker noted language in 6.15.9 needs to be edited He also noted that the Council needs to make findings of the finding of inconsistency by the Airport Land I sinner Hawkins suggested, 'the City Council makes as required by State law.' followed. comment was opened. comment was closed. Center /Fashion Island Tescher noted: Page 3 of 22 file: //F:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet\ P1nAgendas\2005\mn11- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 • Recommendation of the Land Use Element pertains to poter opportunity for additional retail within Fashion Island, housing ; hotel rooms; limits office expansion. • There are policies addressing building location to orient it increase pedestrian activity within the area and connect individual parcels. . There were no recommended changes by the Advisory Committee. . The Council ended their discussion at the airport area, so there no additional Council comments from this point on. Eaton: . LU 6.14.6 regarding architecture in Fashion Island - is this only Fashion Island? Tescher answered that for buildings located outside of the Fashior id area for the residential, all the design guidelines in the up front of the document that address multi- family residential would apply tc residential in here. These are policies that are supplemental to those icular policies as well. Since the plan does not provide for new office sings, the issue of siting a building would not be relevant. The iential and hotel are covered by the comprehensive polices at the ! of the document and would apply. missioner Eaton asked about the transfer of retail to office within )ort center area. Are transfers no longer possible when this Gen is adopted? . Wood noted that the 40,000 square feet is not transferable o avertible to other uses and should be in Table 1. Staff will make tha ustment. The intent was not to allow further transfers. mmissioner Tucker: . Referring to page 45, noted in the first paragraph, '....and is framec by this mixture of office, entertainment, residential, and housing.....' It should be residential or housing. Referring to 6.14.4 it says 'require that some new development located and designed to orient....' The word 'require' is problem; and suggested it be replaced by' encourage'. The map as Figure 8 needs to be updated. Staff answered that the end of the discussions, the wording on this will be reflective a the final guidance given. Page 4 of 22 file: //F:l AppsI WEBDATA 1InternetlPlnAgendas120051mnI 1- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 Referring to 6.14.2 regarding limited expansion of existin< businesses in certain locations, what will this mean in 20 years? Existing as of when? Staff answered to change the word business to buildings. Commission Eaton's inquiry, staff noted that 6.14.4 urban for auage encourages pads there with the thought with more residential Ad be more beneficial. It was agreed to use the word 'encourage'. sioner Hawkins asked if there would be text regarding General Plan? Wood answered that there will be mapping and a table. mmissioner Cole noted the words equivalent or higher design stated in LU6.14.6 needs to be re- worded or removed. He su< novina the first sentence as it is ambiguous. Wood suggested striking the words, 'or higher'. comment opened. Dan Miller, of The Irvine Company, noted: Prefer the word 'encourage' for 6.14.4, 6.14.5 and 6.14.6 possible. On the transferability, we would be looking at the new retail 125,000 square feet and keeping the existing transferability on existing entitlement. comment closed. mmissioner Tucker noted he supports these recommendations. ted he would like to see what the traffic study shows with the additi these particular land uses. We may need to have a discussion ms of consequences of additions above and beyond the exist) Wood noted that distributed at the last meeting was an E ,nary chart that lists what the average daily trip was for each of s; existing with development on the ground today with the adol oral Plan being built out; and GPAC recommendations iatives that were studied earlier. nmissioner Tucker noted the conversation needs to be done time of the Circulation Element presentation. Toerge asked the Commission for their opinion on file://F:\Apps\WEBDATA\Intemet\PhiAgendas\2005\mnI 1-29-05gp.htm Page 5 of 22 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 the requires to encourage; he was given a consensus. Miller noted the colored map depicts Blocks 500 and 600 nercial /recreational only and not mixed use. Weren't those ai 1 to be mixed use with hotel and potential housing units? Tescher noted that was intended and the map will be adjusted. Commission gave consensus to that change. Ranch Tescher gave an overview of the report, noting: The basic recommendations are a priority established for space on the site with a series of policies with the type distribution and form of uses if it should not be acquired as space. He then referenced the changes in the staff report on p 31 and 33. S. Wood added that staff recommends that the number of 1,37; sidential units that was established by the City Council, may not be th( ial number when the General Plan is adopted, but we are willing to worl th the property owner and the environmental groups to work out detail: i a phased approach, when and how much development can occur. aintaining flexibility is important. At Commission inquiry, she added tha would be better to keep the higher number for the retail commercia ;es to give more flexibility during the development process. nmissioner Tucker noted that this is an expensive piece of prope the reality is that the open space is in need of a lot of work to get it point of habitat value. Henn asked about the acquisition for open space. s. Wood answered there is nothing in writing because it is still in the mussion phase with the environmental groups and the land owner. weever, we are considering a time limit to acquire the land as oper ace but not an indefinite period after which the developer would be able proceed with his plans. This issue will be brought back to the Planninc immission and City Council when appropriate. )mmissioner McDaniel noted his concern on the timing of velopment and the request to specify numbers. He noted his sul the bigger numbers as suggested. iissioner Eaton, referencing Lt1 6.5.2, asked if a 30 acre minima was placed in the Recreational Element as suggested by Page 6 of 22 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA \Internet \P1nAgendas\2005\mnl 1- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 answered they would check. 4lowing a discussion, it was agreed that the larger numbers for the velopment density /intensity is recommended to reserve the flexibility. Iditionally, it was discussed that a time frame is referenced in LU 6.4.1 be determined by the Council; and the acquisition by non -City entities. )mmissioner Tucker noted that most of this property is in the iat happens to the numbers that we have designated in the an with respect to the part that is in the City? Should they be 1 some way? Wood noted there would be input from the County Plannir mission and that some of it is incorporated. The density is 3.4 to per acre, so that is what we would allow, within that range, in tl porated area . ssioner Cole noted that in LU 6.4.1 he would like to see tl language remain, 'substantial portion' versus 'majority' with Dee to percentages, which would restrict our ability to create that the City would like to see go forward. Henn, noted that there appears to be 200 acres that a brief discussion, it was decided to leave 'majority' in. ommissioner Tucker, referencing LU 6.4.7, noted he would strik 'front onto and form a common building wall along sidewalks'.... I'm n ire of buildings stacked along the sidewalk would look well. It will be anned community that is zoned and this should be addressed there, n policy in the General Plan for this one small shopping center. There A a lot of footage here. Tescher noted this reflects the trend in commercial developments. intent was to use the building forms to create a community gatherinc e as well, recognizing that if there are 1,300 or so dwelling units e is the need for a community center of some kind. Toerge listed the consensus items: . Residential units at 1,375; . Retail Commercial at 75,000; . Leave the word 'majority' in place in 6.4.1; . Staff will check the recreational acreage in 6.5.2, and Page 7 of 22 file: //F:Wpps \WEBDATA \Internet \P1nAgendas \2005\mnl 1- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 . the deletion in 6.4.7 of the language 'front onto and form a building wall along sidewalks'. mmissioner Eaton asked if the reference to circulation in 6.4.9 in the Circulation Element, and his concern of the term 'major'. Edmonston answered the term major refers to arterial. This is ration for a regional connection in this part of the City. Wood noted that this is the place a potential developer will look f ance in doing their basic planning and is therefore helpful to have However, it can be re- worded in a better format. immissioner Hawkins discussed the timing of any open s quisition in 6.4.1. He stated that the Policy 6.4.1 should include a year by which acquisition must be completed Commission agreed. comment was opened. Gardner, co -chair of GPAC, noted the following: . GPAC specified the smaller numbers to provide the housing that required and help us in other areas but also to try to not over -do t amount of development. . The airport area may be an avenue to handle some of the development needs. We are listening to the visioning process and we know that people do not want to over do this. The philosophy behind the smaller numbers was to keep it from being too large because the sentimerr is to either compensate the owners for the whole thing somehow or, letting the developer make some money but also keeping this a: much as we can open space. This is one of the last areas tha would connect with Orange Coast River Park. In older areas we can not find open park space. . She also agrees with some type of a time frame. continued on the basis of density/intensity numbers, and acquisition of open space. Basey, representing the owners of Banning Ranch, gave of the property owners due diligence over the past few years: The current General Plan allows for up to 2,735 residential along with commercial /office and industrial uses totaling Page 8 of 22 file: //F:\ Apps\ WEBDATA \Internet\P1nAgendas\2005\mnl 1- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 450,000 square feet. . Owners are voluntarily pursuing a reduced alternative in respc to the community of 1,750 units with a maximum 75,000 square of commercial with a small coastal inn concept with 75 rooms. . This plan would come with significant open space for both habitat preservation and recreational uses. . The GPAC is recommending 875 residential units and square feet of commercial and the 75 room inn. . The Commission had concurred to essentially permit the p owners proposed uses, i.e., 1750 unit plan be evaluated for purposes in the General Plan update. . The City Council then countered that concurrence and reduced number to 1,375 residential units and 75,000 square feet commercial and the 75 room coastal inn. . It is our desire to continue our efforts of exploring a plan on this property. . We urge that you leave the 1,750 residential units, the 75, square feet of commercial in order to pursue a viable center, the apparently non - controversial coastal inn. . It is our objective to have some timeframes and it would be objective to have that to the Commission by next spring. . We agree with the modification on the circulation in LU6.4. however it may be more appropriate to change the wording from definite statement of linking to some statement to facilitate a link there are substantial portions outside our property. . On the design and development there are different categories wetlands that may be definitional to different agencies. Perh, drop the word 'require' but development should be designed preserve major on site wetlands. Toerge, noted: LU 6.4.9 and the practicality that the property does not connect tc Newport Boulevard. It is a worthwhile suggestion, facilitating a link. The Commission agreed. . LU 6.5.4 the recommended language that, development should designed to preserve major on -site wetlands. The Commiss agreed. Page 9 of 22 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \P1nAgendas \2005\mnl 1- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 Page 10 of 22 • The residential number of units at 1,375 and the 75,000 square feet of retail commercial. The Commission agreed. • The 75 unit coastal inn is separate from the 75,000 square feet The Commission agreed. mmissioner Hawkins noted his concern of the term 'major' wetlands as ng ambiguous. He suggested deleting the word 'major' and replace i'on -site wetlands regulated by State and Federal law'. missioner Tucker stated he does not agree. Little amounts of v come from natural sources or surrounding housing developrr the years. Sometimes, it becomes impractical to deal with e of wetland. This property will be a real challenge, if they ate it all. ig discussion, 'Development should be designed to pi on -site wetlands or preserve or mitigate impacts to s,....' The Commission agreed so staff will edit the wording. Newport Mesa (formerly referred to West Newport Tescher gave an overview of the staff report noting specific locatior the exhibit. He noted that GPAC wanted to provide the flexibility for ation of either a comprehensive specific plan or development plan f entire area, or sub -areas within this that might combine one or moi They also requested that the City be pro- active and provic sntives for the attraction of marine -based industries or uses. nmissioner Eaton asked if 'master plan' was the best language. ;d this should be done by a 'specific plan' so that the boundaries 'fuzzy'. Tescher noted that the intent of GPAC was to create the option of ;h of a mixture of integrated uses as possible within these areas. nmissioner Hawkins added that the maps should mean something. then noted the increase of height to five stories was a concern anc what it is currently. . Temple answered for the commercial districts, the zoning height lir )ws two stories, which can be increased to three through the u *mit process. In the residential areas, they are all zoned MFR, which feet and allows up to three stories. er Henn noted he is not concerned with introducing a limit as this is one of the primary areas where there is to achieve affordable objectives and we need to allow file: //F:\.Apps1WEBDATA\ Internet\ PlnAgendas\20051nm11- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 that can be economic and provide for that. son Toerge asked if on 6.6.5 there was consensus to chan plan to specific plan' and was answered yes. Additionally, of the Commission agreed that five stories was agreed as well. comment was opened. comment was closed. Peninsula Tescher gave an overview of the recommendations of the advi: mmittee and the staff report as well. The change of the committee i question of whether the Lido Village area should or should not �signated for mixed use development. That was the basic change fi original recommendations. nmissioner Henn noted that some sort of mixed use component has in this portion in order to get and assure a positive change for t Commission inquiry, staff noted that the designation allows bed �akfast and overnight lodging facilities. ssioner Tucker noted that along the waterfront in other a has recommended no residential, what is the reason for that? Wood answered that we consider this one of the waterfront areas y ild have the ability to have commercial uses that might be noisy a 'upt potential residential neighbors because there is a great distan Dss the turning basin to other commercial uses. It is far from Lido I; you wouldn't be disturbing those neighbors. Therefore, we shot tect those areas for waterfront commercial use rather than letting all m going to residential. imissioner Tucker suggested that if we say that the land along 0ront has to be commercial, would that address that issue? Or think it is the noisy adjacencies that is involved? i. Wood answered that adding that language would help here, but an opportune site for waterfront commercial uses and we don't h my sites left. If it is zoned residential, it will go residential. immission inquiry, she added that along Mariner's Mile it is not ong with the qualifying policies that were inserted at the nsideration of this with the 50 %. The draft policy now has mmercial along the waterfront, of course, that may change. Toerge asked about the residential component of the Page 11 of 22 file: //F:\ Apps\ WEBDATA\ Intemet\ P1nAgendas \2005\mn11- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 development across the street in this area and if it had the effect renatinq the commercial section there. Staff answered no. [mmissioner Hawkins noted since Cannery Lofts mixed use velopment, that Village area has been revitalized. It may not be tha u have a host of marine related uses, but there are a lot of people dking around. If one of the goals of the General Plan is pedestriar entation, that is what the Cannery Village has become. It has worked. ie of the problems we face is the economics of marine related uses. I e are going to get the area developed we have to give the property rners sufficient incentive if we are going to allocate all bottom floors are arine related or water dependent or whatever the most restrictive finition is, then I think we can get the revitalization for the water relatec marine uses and still have the vital village we are talking about. If the ue is the noise that commercial can create, then the developer of the xed use is going to have to address that. That is what the folks cominc on a mixed use development are going to have to face. There is a wal do it and in the General Plan we do not need to be specific about wha ppens, but I think if we put the first floor and then allow mixed use ove, I think that is the way to do it in the General Plan. )mmissioner Henn noted it is not his purpose to solely revitali immercial. He would like the area revitalized to a more attractive a :tter use than it is currently devoted to. He would not have a proble ound the water ground floor commercial purpose with resident ove. If we don't provide enough flexibility here, there won't be chap id therefore we will be stuck with what we have for a long time, and tt what he does not want. )mmissioner McDaniel noted we have adequate experience with wt esn't work and that is what we have there. We have a tremendo �mand for residential and agrees to give the mixed use concept )mmissioner Tucker noted that retail on the ground floors of thes( eas is going to be problematic in the Lido Village area and the 280 reet area because it is out of the main area. Developers want to com( and do residential and mixed use but the reality is that there are som( -,as that are designated for this type of use that won't work at all as thei off the beaten path. We need to be careful where we pick thes( rious land uses because we want them to succeed and not fail. There only so much retail that will be supported and you can see around tow[ me of the things that have been done that haven't worked. Canner Rage works because it is in the hub of an area that already had a lot o tivity. The previous points are that you are not going to see Development that is going to straighten out something like Lido Marini Rage and turn it into something productive and worthwhile until there i; ough incentive so that somebody will actually buy a building and [an( :n tear down the building and build a different type of product there. iat means that at some point you need enough incentive and if yot Page 12 of 22 file: //F:\ Apps\ WEBDATA \Intemet\PlnAgendas\2005\mnl 1- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 e it all commercial designation that is there today, that is what y going to see until there is enough land value play for somebody those buildings and the land and build new buildings. You need at the economics behind some of these land use decisions a be the citizenry doesn't care if something happens in that area rperson Toerge asked for a consensus of mixed use or not rr in section A? The Commission majority agreed with the mixed nmissioner Hawkins asked if all the Specific Plans are referred general text. Tescher referred to page 43, 6.12.2. Wood noted it is referenced in the Cannery Village and the fissions and should be and will be added in the McFadden iissioner Henn asked what happens to the existing specific the new General Plan is approved? Temple noted that they may need to be redone, depending on decision changes, and will be made to conform to the new plan. nmissioner Tucker suggested changing the designation of B to MU that it doesn't have to be retail below but can be used for office I. The Commission agreed. , he noted: . 6.10.2, regarding residential building design, it was decided include illustration in the text. 6.10.1, regarding corner parcels development - discussion for land use objective was to create a residential neighborhood. i extreme was to allow residential on the ground floor and not req retail on ground floor. However, there should be nodes of n activity in the area to serve be it a ground floor coffee shop, i very small scale retail. It was the intent to create some key pc at which commercial would occur. comment was opened. McDermott of Government Solutions, noted: The narrowness of some of the language is the restriction planning in such a way that a policy is created to apply to Page 13 of 22 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005\mnl 1- 29- 05gp.htm 6/2612008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 instance. To preclude some residential from being on the wa creates a limitation for site planning and incentives. Whereas Mariner's Mile, that language allows for a percentage limitation a a connection with other uses to incentivize the revitalization of area with the possibility of some residential on the water but i allowing a whole parcel to develop fully residential. There is who the incentive comes and the opportunity to do good site planni comes in. You created the flexibility without putting restrictions tight. . She asked for an allowance of uses with certain limitations but would encourage the revitalization. comment was closed. oner McDaniel suggested looking at each area with and deal with them then. Wood summarized the key points: . Lido Village sub area A, the Commission is recommending use with the requirement that the ground floor be commercial. . Sub area B, is MU -A2. . Language on 6.10.2 be made clearer with an illustrative added. Commission agreed.' Village: Tescher noted the committee recommendation was to restrict id use to section B on the map and not along the waterfront. iissioner Eaton asked for clarification of the parcel Balboa Blvd. Tescher noted that they should be MU -A1 so the boundary will sted accordingly. nmissioner Tucker noted his support of the GPAC recommendati the area along the water with a lot of activity. However, if there idential along the water then it may be better to have MU -A2 for B t it could be retail or office with residential above to allow me >. Wood noted that office might work in some of those areas; however the downtown area we would like to keep uses that draw pedestrian: Page 14 of 22 file: //F:1 Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet\ PtnAgendas 12005\mn11- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 i many offices do not. Sometimes that could take off and the area die,, you. That is why we were recommending retail on the ground floor. have a policy in another area that office uses would be allowed on the and floor if they are the types of uses that draw pedestrian traffic. . Temple added that is contrary to what was done in the LCP, includ ce in this area. The policies in the LCP focus the non - residential u: visitor serving retail. ommissioner Tucker stated that the Coastal Commission can not ordai( e market place and I question whether that would work. If staff agrees am okay with that; however, I don't think it will ever be upgraded. bsorbing some of that excess commercial space is what is going t( rengthen things down there, at least for the users that are there now. )mmissioner Henn noted this is retail death valley. There is very lit :ail that is of real value and sustainability. There should be some sort Ability of use here in order to maintain this as a vital area, r cessarily as retail in all cases. Area A has enough depth that it co,, pport some residential and therefore, with the idea to provide flexibil provide revitalization to take place supports the MU -C2 designation. A designation: nmissioner McDaniel noted that from the standpoint of the LCP to consistent as possible and not allow too many changes. B she lain as is and the mixed use as it still complies with the LCP. gests leave them the way they are. Cole noted he would be in favor of mixed use in area A. missioners Eaton, Hawkins, Tucker and Chairperson Toerge not( support of the GPAC recommendation. The Commission reached A2 designation - Commissioners Tucker, McDaniel, Henn and Cole. Commission reached a consensus. Temple noted that this area is too far away from anything for n ing visitor offices to come into and there are some offices that ide services for local residents, and I don't think it will be inconsist( iissioner Hawkins noted, and it was agreed, the boundary will be reflective of the straw votes taken. comment was opened. Page 15 of 22 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Intemet\ P1nAgendas \2005\mn11- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 comment was closed. Mile Tescher noted that the biggest difference the advisory committee has n to re- designate this area as marine - related and visitor serving retail aurant, hotel, institutional, and recreational uses retaining 50% as - residential uses on a project by project basis. Also there was e ulation of parcel size based upon linear feet of property frontage. The 4C recommendation would prohibit housing. GPAC sustained all the ;r recommendations for the inland areas, which there were a couple of 3s for commercial and also the possibility for inland housing. The >t significant differences were in LU 6.19.2 and 6.19.5 ier Eaton brought up a discussion of threshold issue on page 12 of the table that could be re- introduced. Toerge noted that the threshold issue is on parcel A. Gardner, co -chair of GPAC noted: . There was a concern that the housing along the waterfront would t dominant and the loss of what could be a vibrant commercial area. . By having mixed use inland, we can better support that area the waterfront. McDermott of Government Solutions, representing some s along Coast Highway in Mariner's Mile area, noted: . If housing was allowed in this area, it could somehow create residential wall that would block all views from Pacific Co< Highway similar to the apartments at the Bay Club. . Standards could be incorporated such as limiting residential on coastal side to 50 %, requiring a minimum parcel of 200 feet so site design could incorporate both open space and other uses a be addressed. . The owners along the bayside remind you that Mariners Mile area in great need of revitalization and they are looking for incentives create that. . GPAC saw good examples of mixed use that are vertical horizontal and the idea is to allow both but not one to the exch of the uses that you want to encourage that are non - residential. . She asked to reinsert the language the Commission and ( Council previously adopted, in particular the language on page Page 16 of 22 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet\ P1nAgendas \2005\mn11- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 under LU6.19.2. She then noted concerns in the FAR, referring to page 11 in MU -61 as applied to properties on the inland side of Coast Highway, there is a horizontal mixing with several types of densities or FARs. . The current General Plan designation is .4 to .75. In here it rang from .3 to 1.5 and she is not sure what it is the Commission trying to incentivize here with this variety of FARs. She then point out conflicting FARs between pages 8, 9 and 11. Referring to page 66, under LU6.19.8 regarding bay views i suggested language, for the benefit of one of her clients noted provide for this unobstructed view could be a taking of grope rights. She requested clarification of the issue of views from Co Highway. They understand and agree with the concept but not I restrictiveness. Lasher, property owner on the bayside in Mariners Mile noted: • Her property is a little over 100 feet wide and it is leased to a loc commercial tenant. • She stated it seems limiting to talk about not allowing residential this area forever. • She would like the wording regarding residential be placed back for LU 6.19.2. • To put no residential in seems short sighted. Daniels with Ardell Investment Companies, owner of 700 feet ont property along with a 500 foot property on the other side t Highway, noted: . His concern with the FAR has to deal with the commercial only. . Mixed use with residential would be the impetus for revitalizing parcel as well as elsewhere along Mariners Mile. . He asked to consider removing the words 'adequate unobstructed' from 6.19.7 as they are hard to define. Offing, City resident noted: . At the GPAC meeting, this was a very difficult determination as is the last piece of bay front view along PCH. . During the visioning process it was theorized to have residential file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA \Internet \P1nAgendas\2005\mn 11 -29 -05 gp.htm Page 17 of 22 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 one side and on the other side have mixed use with homes wit pedestrian walkways and parking to accommodate all the areas This would cause a lot of traffic and problems. . She noted her support of the GPAC recommendations. . She concluded that if the homes are not put there, you are ne going to get the bayfront corridor, which a lot of the restauran owners did not want to provide for because it would impact thei business for the boat parade and for their diners to enjoy the views. e There are considerations that need to be made for the liability. . She suggested that pictures be taken of what is there today and 1 them along the sidewalk for people to see in the future what used be there. comment was closed. nmissioner Cole noted that during the visioning process peopl( med to indicate that this was an appropriate place for mixed use. I ainly is an area in need of revitalization and without certair ouragement, incentives and flexibility this area will not be revitalized. is in favor of keeping the existing mixed use designation MU -C1. I � allows for the policy language of view corridors that is an importan e and allows for certain open space requirements. These are notable worthwhile objectives. He agrees with the bayview language as ig restrictive and broad and would be in favor of replacing the original )mmissioner Eaton noted the language of C1 -MU referring to a mat specific plans to be required is not restated in the language iriner's Mile. That affects his threshold opinion as well as the langu( 6.19.7 where residential and mixed use is justified along on the Co le. With regard to bay view, he would strike 'unobstructed' and replE it with 'visual corridors' or, restore it to the original language. ssioner Henn noted his agreement with Commissioners Cole anc He emphasized that the view corridor should be significant. than the words, 'adequate' and 'unobstructed', perhaps the wort ­0 tmissioner Tucker noted on the view corridor issue, that was le issue on the scout base on Coast Highway. What we ended (ing with the applicant turned out great. The building and v dors were great. There are policies in the LCP that have to do v )loping properties along the frontage that are going to supers( Lever is here for that type of property. He suggested including uage of the 50% or 200 linear feet with a mixed use with uage on 6.19.7 where there are planning principles provided. Page 18 of 22 file: //F:\ Apps\ WEBDATA \Intemet\P1nAgendas\2005\mnl 1- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 cern is the loss of opportunities along the bay for marine types s. This language providing for housing located to the rear or abc harbor fronting uses is probable, at least at this stage, something ild want see retained. Any site studies that we see between now a m we have to vote that shows it just doesn't work, then maybe dd change his opinion before the vote. At this point it is a wort I. He asked staff for any opinions on the FAR issues. Tescher noted on the inland side, the intent was not to deviate ft FARs that are presently permitted within that area. So, staff will c and reconcile and make sure they are correctly represented. tmissioner Tucker noted that when the Council is done with this there be a clear understanding of where the Land Use Element stands. ,be sometime in January we can get that document back to us anc to the public and schedule the Land Use Element again for a publi( ussion, giving them an opportunity to see this again. Wood noted the Commission is not done with the policy and 1 ent review after next Tuesday with the Circulation. We have y .ed one or two times in January for a few more elements yet D. The Land Use Element return may be a little later than that. Tescher noted there will be a workshop scheduled before it coi ( to the formal process as well, hopefully at that time the public e and look at the maps and provide comments on the policies. drperson Toerge noted that he agrees that we are losing a lot iortunity for marine related uses and that a large portion of the t stage is currently residential. He noted his support of the GP, )mmendations deleting residential. However, should residential miffed in this area the provisions of 6.19.7 should be included as v the provisions in 6.19.2 whereby properties developed for hous ate the units in the rear and above commercial. immissioner Hawkins noted his concern of the loss of commercial b ntage; however, it is the economy and the economics of the situati ich may dictate such loss. He agrees that A should have a resident mponent that should be modest and agrees with the recommendati 6.19.7. He noted that the language of adequate and unobstructed )blematic. He recognized 6.19.5 as a means to address a lar >blem and suggested adding at the end of that, '....visitor servi d /or....' Toerge noted: . 6.19.8 - Require that buildings be located and sites designed provide significant visual corrldors to the Bay from Co Highway. The Commissioners gave a consensus. Page 19 of 22 file:// F:1 Apps1WEBDATAIIntemet\PlnAgendas120051mn11- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 . Wood noted that the word unobstructed was added by GP/ ;ause of the concern of things other than the buildings obstructing tl a. We do the site plan to insure there is a view and then there is borate gazebo, wrought iron or landscaping put in so that the view longer useful. mmissioner McDaniel noted that there will be boats in the water obstruct something. So I think 'unobstructed' is too strong berA ire is going to be something in the way sometime and there is no guarantee that, although you may want to say, not build any c Tescher noted that in addition the words 'sites designed' w ided to cover gazebos and other elements. The CommisE ed. The parking condition was also agreed to by the Commission. Toerge summarized: . 6.19.2 - the language removed by GPAC be reinserted and be mixed use (MU -C1) and in Table 1. . 6.19.5 - at the end of the sentence add, ' visitor service and/or'. . 6.19.7 - reinsert language and note the rear of is going to be side. . 6.19.8 - Require that buildings be located and sites designed provide significant visual corridors to the Bay from Co Highway. st Newport Tescher noted there was one significant recommendation was of uses along the corridor with commercial nodes, residential ween and the possibility of open space at the western entry par ch is 6.17.1. The deviation was from the City Council to re- design parcels that are R -2 in this area to R -1 in this area to reduce iacity and reflect the trend in this particular area. airperson Toerge asked for confirmation that research was the City confirming that the vast majority of the homeowners e change to R -1. Mr. Tescher agreed. comment was opened. Hamilton, resident of Newport Shores, noted that corridors >d as shallow depth parcels located along arterial streets and cantly impacted by traffic. To allow commercial properties to aped at a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 as an incentive for Page 20 of 22 file:// F: \Apps1 WEBDATA1 Intemetl PlaAgendas120051mn11- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 elopment seems contrary to the definition of a corridor. He a; it kind of development is envisioned here at a higher density? eluded by saying it seems contradictory to increase the density v definition of corridors is that they can't handle high density. comment was closed. Toerge asked for clarification. 1. Tescher noted that a number of parcels would need to be aggre create larger development footprints and the intent of the 1.0 inCA is to provide economic value to support the aggregation s nsolidation of lots into bigger development sizes. They would still comply with parking and landscaping requirements. Newport Boulevard Tescher noted the GPAC recommendation that differs in this are to allow mixed use only on the east side and basically restrict th s on the west side to office /medical office/ retail uses. There was >mmendation of improvements of the western parcels on both sides c properties to assure visual quality along the new Newport Boulevard. :)ner Tucker noted that under policies on page 61 there is to MU-4, what is that ?. He then stated support of the GPI Tescher noted there is no MU4 and that a correction will be made. Eaton noted his agreement of the missioner Hawkins noted his support except for the building heights. 18.3 has three stories. It is problematic to have three stories in this along the residential uses in the Heights. He suggested to bring tha i to two. Temple noted that three stories are allowed in the existing a use permit. iirperson Toerge noted that he supports the GPAC recommendation. 6.18.3 is this one area where the City would protect private view? Wood suggested removing, .....'provided that the viewsheds id residential units are maintained.' Discussion followed on ias to allow 3 stories treatment. Commission gave consensus. Page 21 of 22 file: //F:1Apps1WEBDATA\ Internet\ PlnAgendas 120051mn11- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 comment was opened. comment was closed. del Mar Tescher noted there are no deviations and GPAC supported all Commission gave consensus. comment was opened. comment was closed. imissioner Tucker asked about the housing and commercial along - rfront, is there anything that would stop somebody from building commercial part and no residential part? Is there anything to req integration? will deliberate on this issue. was made by Chairaerson Toerae to adiourn the 6:36 p.m. to the next adjourned meeting at BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 22 of 22 file: //F:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internetl PlnAgendas 120051mn11- 29- 05gp.htm 6/26/2008