Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Adjourned Minutes-11-29-05Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes • November 29, 2005 Adjourned Meeting - 3:00 p.m. 4 F- L Page 1 of 19 file: //H:\Plancomm120051112905gp.htm 01/06/2006 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - all present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Elwood Tescher, City consultant from EIP UBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS one 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 to December 6, 2005. Continued to 12/06/2005 Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS BJECT: General Plan Update - Review of Draft Land Use Element ITEM NO.2 General Plan Update Discuss goals and policies related to Land Use as part of the ongoing General Plan Update process. continued to file: //H:\Plancomm120051112905gp.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11 /29/2005 Page 2 of 19 Elwood Tescher, consultant for the City, referenced the document that incorporate 12/06/2005 recommended changes made by the Planning Commission, the City Council and General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). nmissioner Tucker noted his substantive changes on page 15 dealing with the • fle family detached and duplex neighborhoods. He noted his concern of design ies changes that were made. He noted that the word 'surrounding' is ladened with biguity and suggested that the word be changed to 'neighborhood' under the second let point under LU5.1.5. This should be clearly stated as compatibility with newer ghborhood development, including density, scale and street facing elevations. This what was intended and you do not get into ambiguity with what the word rounding' means. Commissioners agreed to encourage the City Council to consider that. airperson Toerge added that in that same area under LU 5.0 at the last meeting cussed, and it was unanimously endorsed, the suggestion that we add a polic, :)plement an existing policy to the effect of dealing with homes that have mull drooms or are extremely large size whereby their impact on the neighborhood.[ ;ult in parking demand that exceeds two cars. We wanted, whether it be the nurr rooms, square footage, or the number of bedrooms, in some way require that w mes approach these certain thresholds that they provide more 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 the Planning • nmission recommended deletion of, but the City Council restored. She noted thi get into the Council's consideration. loner Cole asked what the Council recommended changes on features in LU 5.1.5 were based on? Tescher answered that a couple of Councilmembers were concerned very explic ut the change of character in single family neighborhoods. The point regardi ntation received the greatest discussion as to whether or not this could be codif any meaningful standards. The direction to staff was from a policy standpoint irporate it at this time, but rather than inferring design review that the appropri; ;hanism for implementation would be finding a way to imbed this within zoni Arements so it would not be a subjective question, so creating actual standards tl dd address each of these particular topics. Wood noted that Council had asked for comment from Nancy Gardner, person of the GPAC, and she was supportive of the original language from nittee and felt it was important. mmissioner Hawkins noting page LU 6.15.13 talks about "65 dBA CNELT what is it footnote for? The Commission took a position of recognizing two CNEL lines. is document does not refer to either one. . Tescher referenced page 56, policy LY 6.15.24, the City Council recommended th • dition of the language that refers to the 65 dBA CNEL unless the City Council make dings for overriding considerations in accordance with State law. Referring to pagel , policy 6.15.4 the language has been stricken; the same reference to the residentia file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \112905gp.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 Page 3 of 19 villages 6.15.9. For consistency it should be struck in 6.15.13 as well. The intent was he policy 6.15.24 on page 56 would apply to all applications within the airport area. Rather than identifying it within the individual parcels, the intent was to have it as a iversal policy pertaining to the airport area. Wood added the new language refers to the'noise contour that is found in )rt environs land use plan. Hawkins noted this should be specific. noted they will re- structure the verbiage in LU 6.15.24 to include noise limits ,nissioner Tucker noted language in 6.15.9 needs to be edited for consistency. noted that the Council needs to make findings for an override of the finding isistency by the Airport Land Use Commission. >ioner Hawkins suggested, 'the City Council makes appropriate findings by State law.' followed. comment was opened. comment was closed. Center /Fashion Island Teschernoted: . Recommendation of the Land Use Element pertains to potential opportunity additional *retail within Fashion Island, housing and hotel rooms; limits of expansion. . There are policies addressing building location to orient it to increase activity within the area and connect the individual parcels. . There were no recommended changes by the Advisory Committee. . The Council ended their discussion at the airport area, so there are no additiona Council comments from this point on. Eaton: . LU 6.14.6 regarding architecture in Fashion Island - is this only for Island? Tescher answered that for buildings located outside of the Fashion Island area fo residential, all the design guidelines in the up front part of the document tha ress multi - family residential would apply to any residential in here. These are ;ies that are supplemental to those particular policies as well. Since the plan doe; provide for new office buildings, the issue of siting a building would not be relevant. file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \112905gp.htm 01106/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 Page 4 of 19 � he residential and hotel are covered by the comprehensive polices at the front of the ocument and would apply. issioner Eaton asked about the transfer of retail to office within the Newport • area. Are transfers no longer possible when this General Plan is adopted? Wood noted that the 40,000 square feet is not transferable or convertible to otl- > and should be in Table 1. Staff will make that adjustment. The intent was not v further transfers. Tucker: . Referring to page 45, noted in the first paragraph, '....and is framed by mixture of office, entertainment, residential, and housing.....' It should residential or housing. . Referring to 6.14.4 it says 'require that some new development be located designed to orient....' The word 'require' is problematic and suggested it replaced by'encourage'. . The map as Figure 8 needs to be updated. Staff answered that at the end of discussions, the wording on this will be reflective and the final guidance given. . Referring to 6.14.2 regarding limited expansion of existing 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 form language ;ourages pads there with the thought with more residential it would be more ieficial. It was agreed to use the word 'encourage'. nmissioner Hawkins asked if there would be text regarding the existing General Wood answered that there will be mapping and a table. nmissioner Cole noted the words equivalent or higher design quality as stated in 3.14.6 needs to be re- worded or removed. He suggested removing the firs tence as it is ambiguous. . Wood suggested striking the words, 'or higher'. )lic comment opened. Dan Miller, of The Irvine Company, noted: • Prefer the word 'encourage' for 6.14.4, 6.14.5 and 6.14.6 if possible. • On the transferability, we would be looking at the new retail of 125,000 squa • feet and keeping the existing transferability on the existing entitlement. blic comment closed. file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \112905gp.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 Page 5 of 19 Commissioner Tucker noted he supports these recommendations. He noted he would like to see what the traffic study shows with the addition of these particular land uses. We may need to have a discussion in terms of consequences of additions above an ghgyond the existing entitlement. As. Wood noted that distributed at the last meeting was an ADT Summary chart t ists what the average daily trip was for each of the areas; existing with development he ground today with the adopted General Plan being built out; and GP. ecommendations and alternatives that were studied earlier. ner Tucker noted the conversation needs to be done during the time of Element presentation. Jerson Toerge asked the Commission for their opinion on changing all as to encourage; he was given a consensus. Miller noted the colored map depicts Blocks 500 and 600 ercial /recreational only and not mixed use. Weren't those areas going to 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 open space on the with a series of policies with the type and distribution and form of uses if it sh not be acquired as open space. He then referenced the changes in the report on pages 31 and 33. Wood added that staff recommends that the number of 1,375 residential units established by the City Council, may not be the final number when the Get i is adopted, but we are willing to work with the property owner and ronmental groups to work out details on a phased approach, when and how n ;Iopment can occur. Maintaining flexibility is important. At Commission inq added that it would be better to keep the higher number for the retail comets r to give more flexibility during the development process. )mmissioner Tucker noted that this is an expensive piece of property and the rea that the open space is in need of a lot of work to get it to the point of habitat value. Henn asked about the acquisition for open space. Wood answered there is nothing in writing because it is still in the discus: ,e with the environmental groups and the land owner. However, we idering a time limit to acquire the land as open space but not an indefinite pei which the developer would be able to proceed with his plans. This issue will ght back to the Planning Commission and City Council when appropriate. (Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern on the timing of this development and the file: //HAPlancomm120051112905gp.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 Page 6 of 19 request to specify numbers. He noted his support of the bigger numbers as suggested. Commissioner Eaton, referencing LU 6.5.2, asked if a 30 acre minimum park was placed in the Recreational Element as suggested by a councilmember? • Staff answered they would check. Following a discussion, it was agreed that the larger numbers for the development ensity/intensity is recommended to reserve the flexibility. Additionally, it was discussed that a time frame is referenced in LU 6.4.1 to be determined by the Council; and the acquisition by non -City entities. Commissioner Tucker noted that most of this property is in the County; what happen to the numbers that we have designated in the General Plan with respect to the pari that is in the City? Should they be pro-rated in some way? Ms. Wood noted there would be input from the County Planning Commission and tha some of it is incorporated. The density is 3.4 to 6 units per acre, so that is what w would allow, within that range, in the incorporated area. imissioner Cole noted that in LU 6.4.1 he would like to see the original language ain, 'substantial portion' versus 'majority' with no reference to percentages, which Id restrict our ability to create a project that the City would like to see go forward. imissioner Henn, noted that there appears to be 200 acres that is buildable. swing a brief discussion, it was decided to leave 'majority' in. • nmissioner Tucker, referencing LU 6.4.7, noted he would strike, ...'front onto an i a common building wall along sidewalks'....I'm not sure of buildings stacked along sidewalk would look well. It will be a planned community that is zoned and this uld be addressed there, not a policy in the General Plan for this one small shopping ter. There is not a lot of footage here. Tescher noted this reflects the trend in commercial developments. The intent was use the building forms to create a community gathering place as well, recognizing it if there are 1,300 or so dwelling units, there is the need for a community center o ne kind. airperson 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 • the deletion in 6.4.7 of the language 'front onto and form a common building wall • along sidewalks'. file:/ /H:\Planconun\2005 \112905gp.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Conunission Minutes 11/29/2005 Page 7 of 19 f Commissioner Eaton asked if the reference to circulation in 6.4.9 should be in they (Circulation Element, and his concern of the term 'major'. Edmonston answered the term major refers to arterial. This is a reiteration for anal connection in this part of the City. Wood noted that this is the place a potential developer will look for guidance g their basic planning and is therefore helpful to have it here. However, it can orded in a better format. mmissioner Hawkins discussed the timing of any open space acquisition in 6.4.1. stated that the Policy 6.4.1 should include a date or year by which acquisition mus completed Commission agreed. comment was opened. Gardner, co -chair of GPAC, noted the following: . GPAC specified the smaller numbers to provide the housing that is required a help us in other areas but also to try to not over -do the amount of development. . The airport area may be an avenue to handle some of the housing needs. . We are listening to the visioning process and we know that people do not want over do this. The philosophy behind the smaller numbers was to keep it frc being too large because the sentiment is to either compensate the owners for t whole thing somehow, or, letting the developer make some money but al keeping this as much as we can open space. This is one of the last areas tl would connect with Orange Coast River Park. In older areas we can not fi open park space. . She also agrees with some type of a time frame. ussion continued on the basis of density/intensity numbers, county acquisition of open space. Basey, representing the owners of Banning Ranch, gave an overview of owners due diligence over the past few years: . The current General Plan allows for up to 2,735 residential units along commercial /office and industrial uses totaling over 450,000 square feet. . Owners are voluntarily pursuing a reduced alternative in response to community of 1,750 units with a maximum 75,000 square feet of commercial a small coastal inn concept with 75 rooms. This plan would come with significant open space for both native preservation and recreational uses. file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \112905gp.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 Page 8 of 19 • The GPAC is recommending 875 residential units and 35,000 square feet of commercial and the 75 room inn. • The Commission had concurred to essentially permit the property owners • proposed uses, i.e., 1750 unit plan be evaluated for CEQA purposes in the General Plan update. • The City Council then countered that concurrence and reduced the number to 1,375 residential units and 75,000 square feet of commercial and the 75 room coastal inn. . It is our desire to continue our efforts of exploring a redevelopment plan on property. . We urge that you leave the 1,750 residential units, the 75,000 square feet commercial in order to pursue a viable center, and the apparently ni controversial coastal inn. • It is our objective to have some timeframes and it would be our objective to have that to the Commission by next spring. • We agree with the modification on the circulation in LU6.4.9; however it may be more appropriate to change the wording from a definite statement of linking tc some statement to facilitate a link as there are substantial portions outside ou property. • On the design and development there are different categories of wetlands tha • may be definitional to different agencies. Perhaps drop the word 'require' bu development should be designed to preserve major on site wetlands. Chairperson Toerge, noted: • LU 6.4.9 and the practicality that the property does not connect to Newport Boulevard. It is a worthwhile suggestion, facilitating a link. The Commission agreed. • LU 6.5.4 the recommended language that, development should be designed t preserve major on -site wetlands. The Commission agreed. • The residential number of units at 1,375 and the 75,000 square feet of retai commercial. The Commission agreed. • The 75 unit coastal inn is separate from the 75,000 square feet The Commission agreed. Commissioner Hawkins noted his concern of the term 'major wetlands as being ambiguous. He suggested deleting the word 'major and replace with 'on -site wetland regulated by State and Federal law'. • Commissioner Tucker stated he does not agree. Little amounts of water can corn from natural sources or surrounding housing developments over the years. Sometimes, it becomes impractical to deal with every area of wetland. This propert ill be a real challenge, if they can mitigate it all. file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \112905gp.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 lowing discussion, 'Development should be designed to preserve major or tlands or preserve or mitigate impacts to other wetlands,....' The Commission ag staff will edit the wording. Newport Mesa (formerly referred to West Newport Industrial Area) Tescher gave an overview of the staff report noting specific locations on th bit. He noted that GPAC wanted to provide the flexibility for a creation of either prehensive specific plan or development plan for the entire area, or sub -area n this that might combine one or more use. They also requested that the City b active and provide incentives for the attraction of marine -based industries or uses. missioner Eaton asked if 'master plan' was the best language. He noted Id be done by a 'specific plan' so that the boundaries are not'fuzzy'. Tescher noted that the intent of GPAC was to create the option of as much of ure of integrated uses as possible within these areas. nmissioner Hawkins added that the maps should mean something. He then increase of height to five stories was a concern and asked what it is currently. Temple answered for the commercial districts, the zoning height limit allows es, which can be increased to three through the use permit process. In iential areas, they are all zoned MFR, which is 28 feet and allows up to t mmissioner Henn noted he is not concerned with introducing a five story height limi this is one of the primary areas where there is an opportunity to achieve affordabl ectives and we need to allow for developments that can be economic and provid that. arson Toerge asked if on 6.6.5 there was consensus to change 'master plan plan' and was answered yes. Additionally, a majority of the Commissi that five stories was agreed as well. comment was opened. comment was closed. Peninsula Tescher gave an overview of the recommendations of the advisory committee staff report as well. The change of the committee was a question of whether Village area should or should not be designated for mixed use development. the basic change from the original recommendations. 3sioner Henn noted that some sort of mixed use component has to be in in order to get and assure a positive change for the better. Commission inquiry, staff noted that the designation allows bed and breakfast -might lodging facilities. Tucker noted that along the waterfront in other areas, GPAC Page 9 of 19 file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \112905gp.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 Page 10 of 19 recommended no residential, what is the reason for that? Wood answered that we consider this one of the waterfront areas you would have ability to have commercial uses that might be noisy and disrupt potential residential • ghbors because there is a great distance across the turning basin to other nmercial uses. It is far from Lido Isle so you wouldn't be disturbing those ghbors. Therefore, we should protect those areas for waterfront commercial use ier than letting all of them going to residential. mmissioner Tucker suggested that if we say that the land along the waterfront ha be commercial, would that address that issue? Or do you think it is the nois acencies that is involved? Wood answered that adding that language would help here, but this is ', ortune site for waterfront commercial uses and we don't have many sites left. If it ad residential, it will go residential. At Commission inquiry, she added that aloe iner's Mile it is not as strong with the qualifying policies that were inserted at tl consideration of this with the 50 %. The draft policy now has the commercial aloe waterfront, of course, that may change. Toerge asked about the residential component of the mixed t across the street in this area and if it had the effect of rejuvenating section there. Staff answered no. mmissioner Hawkins noted since Cannery Lofts mixed use development, that lage area has been revitalized. It may not be that you have a host of marine related • es, but there are a lot of people walking around. If one of the goals of the Genera in is pedestrian orientation, that is what the Cannery Village has become. It has irked. One of the problems we face is the economics of marine related uses. If we a going to get the area developed we have to give the property owners sufficien :entive if we are going to allocate all bottom floors are marine related or water pendent or whatever the most restrictive definition is, then I think we can get th vitalization for the water related or marine uses and still have the vital village we a king about. If the issue is the noise that commercial can create, then the develope the mixed use is going to have to address that. That is what the folks coming in on xed use development are going to have to face. There is a way to do it and in th meral Plan we do not need to be specific about what happens, but I think if we pu a first floor and then allow mixed use above, I think that is the way to do it in the =neral Plan. mmissioner Henn noted it is not his purpose to solely revitalize commercial. F aid like the area revitalized to a more attractive and better use than it is curren (oted to. He would not have a problem around the water ground floor commerc -pose with residential above. If we don't provide enough flexibility here, there wo change and therefore we will be stuck with what we have for a long time, and that at he does not want. Commissioner McDaniel noted we have adequate experience with what doesn't work and that is what we have there. We have a tremendous demand for residential and • agrees to give the mixed use concept a chance. Commissioner Tucker noted that retail on the ground floors of these areas is going t be problematic in the Lido Village area and the 28th Street area because it is out of the file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \112905gp.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 Page 11 of 19 n area. Developers want to come in and do residential and mixed use but t lity is that there are some areas that are designated for this type of use that wo k at all as they are off the beaten path. We need to be careful where we pick the ous land uses because we want them to succeed and not fall. There is only ,h retail that will be supported and you can see around town some of the things tf e been done that haven't worked. Cannery Village works because it is in the hub area that already had a lot of activity. The previous points are that you are r ig to see redevelopment that is going to straighten out something like Lido Mari age and turn it into something productive and worthwhile until there is enou ;ntive so that somebody will actually buy a building and land then tear down t ding and build a different type of product there. That means that at some point y d enough incentive and if you leave it all commercial designation that is the 3y, that is what you are going to see until there is enough land value play iebody to buy those buildings and the land and build new buildings. You need c at the economics behind some of these land use decisions and maybe t :enry doesn't care if something happens in that area or not. irperson Toerge asked for a consensus of mixed use or not mixed use in The Commission majority agreed with the mixed use concept. Hawkins asked if all the Specific Plans are referred to in the Tescher referred to page 43, 6.12.2. Wood noted it is referenced in the Cannery Village and the Balboa discussions Ad be and will be added in the McFadden Square discussion. > sioner Henn asked what happens to the existing specific plans when the I Plan is approved? Temple noted that they may need to be redone, depending on land use iges, and will be made to conform to the new plan. sioner Tucker suggested changing the designation of B to MLI-A2 so that have to be retail below but can be used for office as well. The Commissic , he noted: . 6.10.2, regarding residential building design, it was decided to include in the text. 6.10.1, regarding comer parcels development - discussion for the land use objective was to create a residential neighborhood. One extreme was to allow residential on the ground floor and not require retail on ground floor. However; there should be nodes of retail activity in the area to serve be it a ground floor coffee shop, or a very small scale retail. It was the intent to create some key points at which commercial would occur. comment was opened. (Carol McDermott of Government Solutions, noted: file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \112905gp.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 Page 12 of 19 • The narrowness of some of the language is the restriction of site planning in such a way that a policy is created to apply to every instance. To preclude som residential from being on the water creates a limitation for site planning and incentives. Whereas in Mariner's Mile, that language allows for a percentag • limitation and a connection with other uses to incentivize the revitalization of a area with the possibility of some residential on the water but not allowing a whol parcel to develop fully residential. There is where the incentive comes and th opportunity to do good site planning comes in. You created the flexibility withou putting restrictions so tight. • She asked for an allowance of uses with certain limitations but that would encourage the revitalization. comment was closed. missioner McDaniel suggested looking at each area with individual concerns with them then. Wood summarized the key points: • Lido Village sub area A, the Commission is recommending mixed 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 photo added. • Commission agreed.' Iboa Village: Tescher noted the committee recommendation was to restrict the mixed use to ;tion B on the map and not along the waterfront. mmissioner Eaton asked for clarification of the parcel designations along Balboa r. Tescher noted that they should be MU -A1 so the boundary will be missioner Tucker noted his support of the GPAC recommendation on the 1 the water with a lot of activity. However, if there is residential along the N it may be better to have MU -A2 for B so that it could be retail or office ential above to allow more flexibility. Wood noted that office might work in some of those areas; however, in the itown area we would like to keep uses that draw pedestrians and many offices do Sometimes that could take off and the area dies on you. That is why we were mmending retail on the ground floor. We have a policy in another area that offic • would be allowed on the ground floor if they are the types of uses that draw :strian traffic. IMs. Temple added that is contrary to what was done in the LCP, including office in thin file: //H :\Plancomm\2005 \112905gp.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 Page 13 of 19 karea. The policies in the LCP focus the non - residential uses on visitor serving retail. iissioner Tucker stated that the Coastal Commission can not ordain the me and I question whether that would work. If staff agrees, I am okay with i ier, I don't think it will ever be upgraded. Absorbing some of that ex( ercial space is what is going to strengthen things down there, at least for that are there now. nmissioner Henn noted this is retail death valley. There is very little retail that is I value and sustainability. There should be some sort of flexibility of use here er to maintain this as a vital area, not necessarily as retail in all cases. Area A h )ugh depth that it could support some residential and therefore, with the idea vide flexibility to provide revitalization to take place supports the MU-( ;ianation. A designation: mmissioner McDaniel noted that from the standpoint of the LCP to be as consi: possible and not allow too many changes. B should remain as is and the mixed it still complies with the LCP. He suggests leave them the way they are. Cole noted he would be in favor of mixed use in area A. nmissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Tucker and Chairperson Toerge noted their support GPAC recommendation. The Commission reached a consensus. C7 designation - Commissioners Tucker, McDaniel, Henn and Cole. sion reached a consensus. Temple noted that this area is too far away from anything for non - serving as to come into and there are some offices that do provide services for lents, and I don't think it will be inconsistent. ioner Hawkins noted, and it was agreed, the boundary changes made will of the straw votes taken. comment was opened. comment was closed. Mile Tescher noted that the biggest difference the advisory committee has been to re �ignate this area as marine - related and visitor serving retail, restaurant, hotel !itutional, and recreational uses retaining 50% as non - residential uses on a projec project basis. Also there was a stipulation of parcel size based upon linear feet o perry frontage. The GPAC recommendation would prohibit housing. GPAC tained all the other recommendations for the inland areas, which there were < iple of areas for commercial and also the possibility for inland housing. The mos iificant differences were in LU 6.19.2 and 6.19.5 file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \112905gp.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 Page 14 of 19 nmissioner Eaton brought up a discussion of threshold issue as designated on le 12 of the table that could be re- introduced. airperson Toerge noted that the threshold issue is on parcel A. • icy Gardner, co -chair of GPAC noted: • There was a concern that the housing along the waterfront would be dominan and the loss of what could be a vibrant commercial area. • By having mixed use inland, we can better support that area along the waterfront. -ol McDermott of Government Solutions, representing some property owners along ast Highway in Mariner's Mile area, noted: • If housing was allowed in this area, it could somehow create a residential wall that would block all views from Pacific Coast Highway similar to the apartments all the Bay Club. • Standards could be incorporated such as limiting residential on the coastal side to 50 %, requiring a minimum parcel of 200 feet so that site design could incorporate both open space and other uses could be addressed. • The owners along the bayside remind you that Mariners Mile area is in grea need of revitalization and they are looking for incentives to create that. • GPAC saw good examples of mixed use that are vertical and horizontal and th • idea is to allow both but not one to the exclusion of the uses that you want to encourage that are non - residential. • She asked to reinsert the language the Commission and City Council previous) adopted, in particular the language on page 64 under LU6.19.2. • She then noted concerns in the FAR, referring to page 11 in MU -131 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 ranges from .3 to 1. and she is not sure what it is the Commission is trying to incentivize here with this variety of FARs. She then pointed out conflicting FARs between pages 8, 9 and 11. Referring to page 66, under LU6.19.8 regarding bay views the sugge language, for the benefit of one of her clients noted to provide for unobstructed view could be a taking of property rights. She reque clarification of the issue of views from Coast Highway. They understand agree with the concept but not the restrictiveness. Lasher, property owner on the bayside in Mariners Mile noted: I • . Her property is a little over 100 feet wide and it is leased to a local tenant. file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \112905gp.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 Page 15 of 19 . She stated it seems limiting to talk about not allowing residential in this are forever. • She would like the wording regarding residential be placed back in for LU 6.19.2. • To put no residential in seems short sighted. n Daniels with Ardell Investment Companies, owner of 700 feet of bayfront propert, ng with a 500 foot property on the other side of Coast Highway, noted: • His concern with the FAR has to deal with the commercial only. • Mixed use with residential would be the impetus for revitalizing his parcel as we as elsewhere along Mariners Mile. • He asked to consider removing the words 'adequate and unobstructed' iron 6.19.7 as they are hard to define. Offing, City resident noted: . At the GPAC meeting, this was a very difficult determination as this is the piece of bay front view along PCH. . During the visioning process it was theorized to have residential on one side on the other side have mixed use with homes with pedestrian walkways parking to accommodate all the areas. This would cause a lot of traffic problems. . She noted her support of the GPAC recommendations. . She concluded that if the homes are not put there, you are not going to get t bayfront corridor, which a lot of the restaurant owners did not want to provide because it would impact their business for the boat parade and for their diners enjoy the views. . There are considerations that need to be made for the liability. . She suggested that pictures be taken of what is there today and put them the sidewalk for people to see in the future what used to be there. blic comment was closed. imissioner Cole noted that during the visioning process people seemed to indica this was an appropriate place for mixed use. It certainly is an area in need Alization and without certain encouragement, incentives and flexibility this area v be revitalized. He is in favor of keeping the existing mixed use designation M It also allows for the policy language of view corridors that is an important iss allows for certain open space requirements. These are notable and worthwh actives. He agrees with the bayview language as being restrictive and broad a Id be in favor of replacing the original language. Eaton noted the language of C1 -MU referring to a master or file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \112905gp.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 Page 16 of 19 plans to be required is not restated in the language in Mariner's Mile. That affects his threshold opinion as well as the language in 6.19.7 where residential and mixed use is justified along on the Coast side. With regard to bay view, he would strike 'unobstructed' and replace that with 'visual corridors' or, restore it to the original • ner Henn noted his agreement with Commissioners Cole and Eaton. d that the view corridor should be significant. Rather than the wo and 'unobstructed', perhaps the word 'significant'. ommissioner Tucker noted on the view corridor issue, that was the whole issue of ie scout base on Coast Highway. What we ended up working with the applicar imed out great. The building and view corridors were great. There are policies in th, CP that have to do with developing properties along the frontage that are going t upersede whatever is here for that type of property. He suggested including th inguage of the 50% or 200 linear feet with a mixed use with the language on 6.19. here there are planning principles provided. His concern is the loss of opportunitie long the bay for marine types of uses. This language providing for housing located t ie rear or above the harbor fronting uses is probable, at least at this stage, somethin e would want see retained. Any site studies that we see between now and when w ave to vote that shows it just doesn't work, then maybe he would change his opinio efore the vote. At this point it is a worthy goal. He asked staff for any opinions on th AR issues. Tescher noted on the inland side, the intent was not to deviate from the FARs that presently permitted within that area. So, staff will go back and reconcile and mak • they are correctly represented. nmissioner Tucker noted that when the Council is done with this there will be a it understanding of where the Land Use Element stands. Maybe sometime in uary we can get that document back to us and out to the public and schedule the d Use Element again for a public discussion, giving them an opportunity to see th! in. Wood noted the Commission is not done with the policy and the element revie next Tuesday with the Circulation. We have you booked one or two times nary for a few more elements yet to come. The Land Use Element return may be later than that. Mr. Tescher noted there will be a workshop scheduled before it comes back to th ormal process as well, hopefully at that time the public will come and look at the map nd provide comments on the policies. Chairperson Toerge noted that he agrees that we are losing a lot of opportunity fo marine related uses and that a large portion of the bay frontage is currently residential. He noted his support of the GPAC recommendations deleting residential. However, should residential be permitted in this area the provisions of 6.19.7 should be included as well as the provisions in 6.19.2 whereby properties developed for housing locate the units in the rear and above commercial. • Commissioner Hawkins noted his concern of the loss of commercial bay frontage; however, it is the economy and the economics of the situation which may dictate such loss. He agrees that A should have a residential component that should be modes file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \112905gp.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 Page 17 of 19 nd agrees with the recommendation of 6.19.7. He noted that the language o adequate and unobstructed is problematic. He recognized 6.19.5 as a means t address a large problem and suggested adding at the end of that, '....visitor serving d /or....' Toerge noted: . 6.19.8 - Require that buildings be located and sites designed to significant visual corridors to the Bay from Coast Highway. Commissioners gave a consensus. Wood noted that the word unobstructed was added by GPAC because of t em of things other than the buildings obstructing the view. We do the site plan •e there is a view and then there is an elaborate gazebo, wrought iron scaping put in so that the view is no longer useful. missioner McDaniel noted that there will be boats in the water that will obst thing. So I think 'unobstructed' is too strong because there is going to tithing in the way sometime and there is no way to guarantee that, although want to say, not build any other structures. In Tescher noted that in addition the words 'sites designed' were intended to I azebos and other elements. The Commission agreed. The parking condition Iso agreed to by the Commission. Toerge summarized: . 6.19.2 - the language removed by GPAC be reinserted and would be mixed (MU -C1) and in Table 1. . 6.19.5 - at the end of the sentence add, ' visitor service andlor. . . 6.19.7 - reinsert language and note the rear of is going to be street side. . 6.19.8 - Require that buildings be located and sites designed to signirrcant visual corridors to the Bay from Coast Highway. Newport Tescher noted there was one significant recommendation was the mix of us g the corridor with commercial nodes, residential in between and the possibility i space at the western entry parcel which is 6.17.1. The deviation was from 1 Council to re- designate the parcels that are R -2 in this area to R -1 in this area ce the capacity and reflect the trend in this particular area. son Toerge asked for confirmation that research was conducted by the Citl ig that the vast majority of the homeowners supported the change to R -1. Mr agreed. comment was opened. Nick Hamilton, resident of Newport Shores, noted that corridors are defined as shallowl epth parcels located along arterial streets and are significantly impacted by traffic. T file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \112905gp.htm 01/06/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/29/2005 Page 18 of 19 v commercial properties to be developed at a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 as an ntive for re- development seems contrary to the definition of a corridor. He asked t kind of development is envisioned here at a higher density? He concluded by ng it seems contradictory to increase the density when the definition of corridors i • they can't handle high density. lic comment was closed. irperson Toerge asked for clarification. Tescher noted that a number of parcels would need to be aggregated to Great er development footprints and the intent of the 1.0 incentive was to provid nomic value to support the aggregation and /or consolidation of lots into bigge slopment sizes. They would still have to comply with parking and landscaping Newport Boulevard Tescher noted the GPAC recommendation that differs in this area was to all, A use only on the east side and basically restrict the uses on the west side e /medical office/ retail uses. There was a recommendation of improvements of 1 tern parcels on both sides of the properties to assure visual quality along the n /port Boulevard. ;mmissioner Tucker noted that under policies on page 61 there is a reference to MU what is that ?. He then stated support of the GPAC recommendation. • Tescher noted there is no MU-4 and that a correction will be made. >mmissioner Eaton noted his agreement of the GPAC recommendations. )mmissioner Hawkins noted his support except for the building heights. LU6.18. is three stories. It is problematic to have three stories in this area along the sidential uses in the Heights. He suggested to bring that down to two. s. Temple noted that three stories are allowed in the existing zoning with a use irperson Toerge noted that he supports the GPAC recommendation. On 6.18.3 one area where the City would protect private view? Wood suggested removing . ...... provided that the viewsheds of upland residential ; are maintained.' Discussion followed on the findings to allow 3 stories treatment. Commission gave consensus. is comment was opened. lic comment was closed. . ona del Mar file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \112905gp.htm 01/06/2006 ..wiumg commission Minutes 11/29/2005 Tescher noted there are no deviations and GPAC supported all the text. Commission gave consensus. comment was opened. comment was closed. )mmissioner Tucker asked about the housing and commercial along the watert there anything that would stop somebody from building just the commercial part residential part? Is there anything to require that integration? will deliberate on this issue. was made by Chairperson Toerae to adioum the Page 19 of 19 I ADJOURNMENT: 6:36 p.m, to the next adiourned meeting at 6:30 p.m. (ADJOURNMENT) BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 0 //H:\Plancomm120051112905gp.htm 01/06/2006