HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes-07-06-06Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/2006
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
• July 6, 2006
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
4
4
Page 1 of 9
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \07062006.htm 07/26/2006
INDEX
ROLL CALL
ommissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn -
ommissioner Henn was excused.
TAFF PRESENT:
Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager
Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney
Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager
Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Chairman - Commissioner Cole
Vice Chairman - Commissioner Eaton
Secretary - Commissioner Hawkins
PRESENTATION:
s. Wood presented a plaque to out -going Chairman Michael Toerge in recognition o
s dedication and public service.
ommissioner Tucker noted the appreciation of the Commission for Commissioner
oerge's tenure highlighting his handling of the General Plan process.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
None
POSTING OF THE AGENDA:
POSTING OF
THE AGENDA
The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on June 30, 2006.
CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEM NO.1
OBJECT: MINUTES of the adjourned meeting of June 15, 2006.
Minutes of
06/16/2006
Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to approve the minutes as corrected.
Approved
Ayes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker and McDaniel
Noes:
None
bsent:
Henn
bstain:
Hawkins
ITEM NO.
OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of June 22, 2006.
Minutes s of of
06!22/2006
Commissioner Eaton stated his question on the park dimensions; and, new residential
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \07062006.htm 07/26/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/2006
4
I•
L
Page 2 of 9
tegories.
Approved
s. Wood noted this should be resolved when the policies are discussed as it need
o clarifying language. The minutes as written reflect what was on the tape.
Mme
otion was made b Commissioner McDaniel to approve the minutes as corrected.
yes:
Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge and McDaniel
Noes:
None
bsent:
Henn
bstain:
Tucker
. «.
HEARING ITEMS
OBJECT: D'Amato Residence (PA2004 -189)
ITEM NO. 3
2319 Pacific Drive
PA2004 -189
Sub-divide an existing lot into two parcels of land for single - family development on
Continued to
each.
August 3, 2006
Request for Variance No. 2004 -002 to allow portions of a new single - family residence
to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and Modification Permit No. 2006 -072 to allow
portions of the garage and an architectural entry wall element to encroach into the
required front yard setback.
Ms. Wood noted that staff requests a continuance to the August 3rd Planning
ommission meeting to allow for additional review and analysis pertaining to various
policies of the City's new Coastal Land Use Plan.
otion was made by Chairperson Cole to continue this item to August 3, 2006.
yes:
Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker and McDaniel
Noes:
None
bsent:
Henn
bstain•
None
OBJECT: General Plan Update
ITEM NO.4
Land Use Element and Map
Chairperson Cole asked that Commissioner Toerge act as chairman for this item for
Continued to
consistency on how this item has been handled.
July 13, 2006
Ms. Wood noted the main areas for review:
Airport area policies
1. The ability to include land with a different land use designation in the 5 -acre
minimum that is required for the first phase of the residential development if that
ortion in the other designation provides for parking or some other amenity for
he residential development.
The requirement forjoint planning for residential development in the area
here the infill units (550) are allowed.
3. The number and size of residential villages.
Staff has drafted new language for consideration as shown in the attachment as
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \07062006.htm 07/26/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/2006
it and underline from an earlier version. Page 2 of the staff report is an
of where the new changes are.
ng Chairperson Toerge asked if the Planning Commission or City Council
provide the necessary discretionary action regarding residential
elopment usage as noted on page 3.
Wood answered that at this point that would be something to be written
the zoning to implement.
is comment was opened.
rol McDermott, representing Koll Company, noted both Koll and Conexant
ie been working with staff to address joint planning efforts and have agreed
the language as presented in the strike out version. She then noted that
irld Premiere is asking that their parcel be allowed to work with the court
ise property.
Venezia, Vice President of World Premier Investments, noted:
The WPI site is 4.1 acres and to get to 5 acres they only need to
incorporate the court house parking structure area and community areas
as part of their village.
They feel they do not need to change the zoning of the PF district.
He then read the proposed language on LU6.15.11 and asked that it be
modified instead of the language to, '...include part...' , it would be '...all or
part...' to allow flexibility for the overall General Plan as it may apply to
other properties if there was a change to PF properties.
)mmissioner Tucker re- stated the sentence with the suggested change. He
ted that the wording has to show that this works well and needs to function.
ie concept of the functionality and a level of discretionary by the City has to
the verbiage.
Venezia noted the City would have discretionary review over any plan that
nissioner Tucker noted that some additional language needs to be
led to not only be sufficient and it needs to be something that adheres to
planning principles and performs a function to that which is intended.
mmissioner Eaton noted if all of the court house property was to be included
t would mean you would have ten acres for a whole village. If the majority of
courthouse property was to remain PF then all the more to require the need
some discretionary means.
Wood noted she would not support adding the'all or', because in doing that
)uld change the land use designation. In all her discussions with the World
niere representatives she had said they would look at a way to take a small
ion of an adjoining property to get to the 5 acres; but , she has always been
,,erned about changing the land use designation.
Venezia noted he does not believe they would be changing the land use
Page 3 of 9
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \07062006.htm 07/26/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/2006
,ignation. It would still be PF and it would not have any other entitlements.
atever is developed on that portion of the property would still have to be
ier the PF land designation. As the adjacent property owners, they are
ving the court house problem with parking and expansion needs. They are
ng to come up with a plan that integrates residential, office, parking and
nmunity amenities into one park. He noted the westerly property that is
ned by several owners and stated that it would probably not be developed
to the ground lease nature. He asked for language if a property that solves
ne of those policies, that it could come in with its own regulatory plan without
ring to jump over to un- related properties. The City has no control over the
regulation, but with their plan of the integrated properties, the City would
re those controls.
Chairperson Toerge noted that the issues that had been asked for in
is meetings, have been addressed. What you asked for, staff has
modated by giving you the opportunity to use part of that PF property to
your development as a mixed use development. What more do you
Venezia answered that they would like the. ability if they do have ten acres
a to come in with their own regulatory plan without having to jump across
er Road. We would limit the uses that are permitted under the PF
ipnation.
ig Chairperson Toerge noted you need to put into specifics tonight what
are asking for and then the Planning Commission will make their
!rmination.
r. Venezia noted:
LU 6.15.11 - the first recommended change to add 'all or' to .
LU 6.15.15 - proposed that if a property contains a minimum of 10 acres,
and consists of PF zoned property then a regulatory plan could be
submitted strictly for that property.
ng Chairperson Toerge asked about proposed modifications to LU6.15.11.
nissioner Tucker noted if we were to do that, towards the end of that
nce add, ..'if the city finds a sufficient portion of the contiguous property is
to provide functionally proximate parking, open space or other amenity for
;ntial development.' Is this the only place where this could happen?
. Wood said it is possible to happen elsewhere. It is a bit of stretch from the
t phase of being 5 acres and so we were loosening up on that a bit to provid
Jbility for a situation such as this one. She is concerned with the words all
then you will have lost that 5 -acre minimum. Even if it doesn't happen, it
ild give the impression to the public that it would be allowing land uses in
as that are designated for other uses.
followed.
hairman Cole clarified that the intent of the applicant was to allow them a smal
ijacent space for parking to get over the 5 -acre minimum. It appears now that
Page 4 of 9
file: //F: \Users \PLMShared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \07062006.htm 07/26/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/2006 Page 5 of 9
e applicant is trying to create their whole village to itself in the ten acre
quirement so that they don't have to go across the street. That is what I am
terpreting what the applicant is asking for now by doing 'all or' part. Certainly
part should allow them to meet the 5 -acre minimum but still provide that they
Duld have to be part of a 10 acre initial phase that they would have to do a
gulatory plan with adjacent land owners. I am also concerned about changin!
e land use because this happens to be a PF designation, but it could apply to
her zonings in other parts of the airport area that might be going from
dustrial to a mixed use, and use the entire parcel to do a residential
welopment That was not the intent of the Planning Commission originally.
nmissioner Hawkins noted he agrees with Chairperson Cole's comments.
only function 'all or' can serve is to enlarge the area and therefore get the
acres. I don't see'al / /or' as separate from the regulatory plan. What we
e is WPI that owns 1.7 acres and under contract more land to create 4.1
:s. He would go along with enlarging the 5 acres due to the parking
)nities to be provided; but not the whole thing.
sting Chairperson Toerge then suggested language for LU 6.15.11 to read,
his acreage may also include part of a contiguous property in a different land
e category, if the City finds that a sufficient portion of the contiguous property
used to provide functionally proximate parking, open space or other amenity
r the residential development.'
vote - supported.
Chairperson Toerge noted for the second request LU 6.15.15 Regulatory
- straw vote - no change.
Chairperson Toerge referred to LU 6.15.10:
al units may be developed only as the replacement of underlying
non - residential uses.' Should this read'only when replacing
for clarity?
imissioner Tucker recommended strike words'as the' and replace with'in'.
Commission agreed.
Cole referred to LU 6.15.5:
'subject to discretionary review by the Planning Commission'. What is being
Wood noted the discretionary review would apply to the three automobile
5, rental, sales and service.
irperson Cole asked about LU 6.15.8:
'requiring property owners within the Campus Tract to upgrade the street
)ntages of their properties with....' That is hard to interpret and asked what
Aual intent is.
IMs. Wood answered, to improve the appearance of the Campus Tract, which
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \07062006.htm 07/26/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/2006 Page 6 of 9
has been one of the City's goals for at least ten years. This is where the
automobile rental places need to be and the best thing is to write policies so
that they are developed in a visually more pleasing manner. That is why we are
A&sking for the landscaping.
ollowing discussion, it was agreed to the following language change,
..'require property owners within the Campus Tract to upgrade the appearance
f their properties with expanded, well maintained landscaping, well designed
ignage, and/or other amenities that improve the area's visual quality.'
Commission inquiry, Ms. Wood noted the number of villages was determined
the consultant (ROMA) and staff. It just happened that the original
portunity sites grouped into 4 villages but it was never intended to be a
iiting factor. However, with the elimination of the 65 CNEL area and the
auction of the number of units the consultant didn't believe it made much of a
ference. He was firm on a ten acre minimum for a village. The requirements
a park dedication will in themselves keep the number of villages down.
iblic comment was opened relative to the land use designations and policies
the airport area.
comment was closed.
Chairperson Toerge then opened the meeting for all the elements of the
it Plan Update.
s. Wood discussed the issue of the measurements of the parks on LU
15.18:
• Not require parks to be square, 150 x 150;
• Nor have them long and narrow and be unusable.
• This requirement references the one acre for the village, not the half acre
requirement for the first phase.
p Bettencourt noted he agrees with this recommendation based on his
rience. He had presented a park concept in the Quail Street residence
that had a minimum 150 foot frontage with short sides to accommodate
of the buildings. Looking at Koll Center and Newport Place Planned
munity, the planned community text is the vehicle for establishing these
nsions rather than managing a design in the General Plan. He went on to
:ion other parks that did not have a dimension of 150 feet.
Chairperson Toerge noted the intention is to create an environment
one can throw a ball, frisbee, whatever.
;arol McDermott, noted that there may be some irregular boundaries and may
iot be rectangular. There are other guidelines on how this gets prepared
Recreation Element), but it is important to have flexibility. The regulatory plan
another mechanism to establishing that dimension. She supports the fact th
Freqular dimensions can meet that intent.
Following discussion on dimensions it was determined via straw vote that the
econd paragraph under the Design and Development of the Neighborhood
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \07062006.htm 07/26/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/2006 Page 7 of 9
Parks Standards should start with, "In every case, the neighborhood park shall
be at least eight percent of the total Residential Village Area or one acre in
rea, whichever is greater, and shall be of a size and dimension adequate to
ccommodate informal playfields `-" haye a miRimuffi r:..-...,,.:, n e4 4 cn feet
-person Cole noted there will be certain discretion that the City has and so
light want to leave the planning to a later date. We are trying to stay away
a non - linear type park and so we maybe should leave it at that.
Use Element
blic comment was opened.
Schroeder stated how the Planning Commission voted on this re -zone was
;ed on what the property owners wanted. He noted that is not what the
iers want. He then read some of the minutes from the Council meeting
arding a meeting with the association, etc. He continued noting his objection
his down- zoning. He concluded by saying he did not want to lose the
itlement on his property.
ting Chairperson Toerge noted that this item has already been referred to the
fy Council.
Schroeder then presented a copy of the petition that was presented to the
ty Council meeting.
.ting Chairperson Toerge thanked him for this information and noted that due
the public support, this item had been removed from consideration.
iblic comment was opened for the rest of the elements.
comment was closed.
immissioner Hawkins asked about the Implementation Program and if it has
en revised and circulated to the Commission. He stated he had had
bstantial comments on the first version that may not be relevant to a the
/ised one.
Wood answered it has been revised. She noted that this would have to
e special treatment after the rest of the plan is adopted as there is nothing in
Implementation Program that impacts what will go on the ballot and that is
action that needs to be taken by August 11th.
ieryl and Gary Shepard, residents of Newport Island, noted their concern with
Ardell property. Her family owns the center of Ardell, which they lease from
sir family for the next 50 years. She has seen Mr. Daniels speaking on behalf
Ardell as if they own all 700 feet of the property, which they don't. Her
ncern is that this property has been discussed with view areas and she is
ncerned that their leased property be used as a view area and become
)rthless in the next 50 years. They want to be sure that their property is used
rly along with the other properties adjacent to the Ardell property.
(Acting Chairperson Toerge noted that the ground lease terms have to be abidedl
file: //F: \Users\PLN\ Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \07062006.htm 07/26/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/2006 Page 8 of 9
by and whatever the City could do would not allow Ardell to do something that
ould be in violation of that ground lease.
t Commission inquiry, Mrs. Shepard noted her property is between the Ardell
uilding and the Windows Restaurant.
Ms. Wood referred the Commission to LU 26, which follows page 3 -120 in the
General Plan update. At Commission inquiry, she explained the mixed use
Ning a brief discussion, it was noted that any application by Ardell would
to be signed by all the fee owners.
of McDermott, speaking for the Ardell property, noted that in informal
ussions on this property they had always represented that they owned 400
100 foot easement, and 200 feet owned. One of the reasons they had
acted to the idea that there be a minimum of 50% open space on the site
that they were constrained due to the two ownerships separated by an
ement and that made it impractical to develop this parcel if those standards
e imposed in a way that would require it to be located such that would be
)lematic in terms of the holders of this fee ownership. Out intent was to
w the flexibility for this site to be developed in a way that would recognize
property rights of all. While Ardell has been seen as a spokesperson, it has
n done in a way to protect all rights involved. There have been several
>.tings and maps shown of the properties and explained in detail the different
iissioner Tucker asked if there was anything that needed to be in the
language to protect lease holders.
. Wood noted that with public noticing and signature required as a fee holder
applications, there is nothing else that should need to be done.
was made by Acting Chairperson Toerge to continue discussion on the
I Plan to an adjourned meeting on July 13th.
followed on the packet materials and formats to be delivered.
None
Henn
None
BUSINESS
City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood reported that the Council had the sec(
reading and adoption of the Code Amendment regarding the Exception for Li
Standards for Height Limits; and, all four of the Business Improvement Distr
were renewed; and, the Council had another public hearing on the General Plan.
7 ) ) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Developmen
Committee - no report.
Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \07062006.htm 07/26/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/2006 Page 9 of 9
ertification Committee - Commissioner Toerge noted that at the last meeting another
meeting was scheduled for July 17th. Discussion included the way the LCP has
been drafted, the Implementation Plan (IP) and possible re- drafting of applicable
zoning ordinances related to coastal zone properties. Amendments to the LCP
were discussed and staff was directed to minimize the amount of the IP ordinances.
1) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update
Committee — no meeting.
;) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at
subsequent meeting - none.
f) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda
for action and staff report - none.
3) Project status — Commissioner Tucker asked about the status of t
replacement. Discussion followed.
i) Requests for excused absences - Chairperson Cole is excused from August 17;
:,ommissioner McDaniel will be excused from the August 3rd meeting.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
0
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \07062006.htm 07/26/2006