Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/2006Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 9 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn07- 06- 06.htm 06/23/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - Commissioner Henn was excused. STAFF 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: Ms. Wood presented a plaque to out -going Chairman Michael Toerge in recognition o his dedication and public service. Commissioner 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 06/15/2006 Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to approve the minutes as corrected. Approved Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker and McDaniel Noes: None Absent: Henn Abstain: Hawkins OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of June 22, 2006. ITEM NO.2 Minutes of Commissioner Eaton stated his question on the park dimensions; and, new residential 06/22/2006 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn07- 06- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/2006 Page 2 of 9 categories. Approved Ms. Wood noted this should be resolved when the policies are discussed as it needs some clarifying language. The minutes as written reflect what was on the tape. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge and McDaniel Noes: None Absent: Henn Abstain: Tucker M i W HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: 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 Commission meeting to allow for additional review and analysis pertaining to various policies of the City's new Coastal Land Use Plan. Motion was made by Chairperson Cole to continue this item to August 3, 2006. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker and McDaniel Noes: None Absent: Henn Abstain: None SUBJECT: 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 portion in the other designation provides for parking or some other amenity for he residential development. 2. The requirement for joint 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 http:Hwww.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn07- 06- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/2006 eout and underline from an earlier version. Page 2 of the staff report is an ne 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 Koli Company, noted both Koil 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 Od 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. Is. Wood noted she would not support adding the 'all or', because in doing that would change the land use designation. In all her discussions with the World remiere representatives she had said they would look at a way to take a small )rtion of an adjoining property to get to the 5 acres; but , she has always been mcerned about changing the land use designation. Page 3 of 9 http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO7- 06- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/2006 Ir. Venezia noted he does not believe they would be changing the land use esignation. It would still be PF and it would not have any other entitlements. Jhatever is developed on that portion of the property would still have to be rider the PF land designation. As the adjacent property owners, they are Diving the court house problem with parking and expansion needs. They are ying to come up with a plan that integrates residential, office, parking and Dmmunity amenities into one park. He noted the westerly property that is wned by several owners and stated that it would probably not be developed ue to the ground lease nature. He asked for language if a property that solves Dme of those policies, that it could come in with its own regulatory plan without aving to jump over to un- related properties. The City has no control over the 'F regulation, but with their plan of the integrated properties, the City would ave 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 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 ig Chairperson Toerge noted you need to put into specifics tonight what are asking for and then the Planning Commission will make their Venezia noted: . LU 6.15.11 - the first recommended change to add 'all of 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. 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? Is. Wood said it is possible to happen elsewhere. It is a bit of stretch from the rst phase of being 5 acres and so we were loosening up on that a bit to provid exibility for a situation such as this one. She is concerned with the words all r, then you will have lost that 5 -acre minimum. Even if it doesn't happen, it ould give the impression to the public that it would be allowing land uses in reas that are designated for other uses. followed. Cole clarified that the intent of the applicant was to allow them a Page 4 of 9 http :Hwww.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn07- 06- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/2006 ijacent space for parking to get over the 5 -acre minimum. It appears now that 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 ould 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 changing 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. ;ommissioner Hawkins noted he agrees with Chairperson Cole's comments. he only function 'all oe can serve is to enlarge the area and therefore get the m acres. I don't see 'afilde as separate from the regulatory plan. What we ave is WPI that owns 1.7 acres and under contract more land to create 4.1 cres. He would go along with enlarging the 5 acres due to the parking menities 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 the residential development.' vote - supported. ing Chairperson Toerge noted for the second request LU 6.15.15 Regulatory ns - 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 1...' for clarity? missioner 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 rental, sales and service. 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 ;tual intent is. Page 5 of 9 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn07- 06- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/2006 Wood answered, to improve the appearance of the Campus Tract, which been one of the City's goals for at least ten years. This is where the mobile rental places need to be and the best thing is to write policies so they are developed in a visually more pleasing manner. That is why we are ng for the landscaping. -ollowing discussion, it was agreed to the following language change, ...'require property owners within the Campus Tract to upgrade the appearance A their properties with expanded, well maintained landscaping, well designed signage, 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 iting factor. However, with the elimination of the 65 CNEL area and the luction of the number of units the consultant didn't believe it made much of a ` eeence. 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. is comment was closed. Chairperson Toerge then opened the meeting for all the elements of the al 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 a 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. irol McDermott, noted that there may be some irregular boundaries and may t be rectangular. There are other guidelines on how this gets prepared ecreation Element), but it is important to have flexibility. The regulatory plan another mechanism to establishing that dimension. She supports the fact th; sqular dimensions can meet that intent. Page 6 of 9 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn07- 06- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/2006 lowing discussion on dimensions it was determined via straw vote that the .ond paragraph under the Design and Development of the Neighborhood rks Standards should start with, "in every case, the neighborhood park shall at least eight percent of the total Residential Village Area or one acre in �a, whichever is greater, and shall be of a size and dimension adequate to ,ommodate informal playfields shall l9eye a minimung dimeneweig of 469 feel.' iirperson Cole noted there will be certain discretion that the City has and so might want to leave the planning to a later date. We are trying to stay away n a non - linear type park and so we maybe should leave it at that. Use Element comment was opened. '. Schroeder stated how the Planning Commission voted on this re -zone was sed on what the property owners wanted. He noted that is not what the rners want. He then read some of the minutes from the Council meeting garding a meeting with the association, etc. He continued noting his objection this down - zoning. He concluded by saying he did not want to lose the titlement on his property. Chairperson Toerge noted that this item has already been referred to the )uncil. r. Schroeder then presented a copy of the petition that was presented to the ty Council meeting. :ling Chairperson Toerge thanked him for this information and noted that due the public support, this item had been removed from consideration. comment was opened for the rest of the elements. comment was closed. nissioner Hawkins asked about the Implementation Program and if it has revised and circulated to the Commission. He stated he had had antial comments on the first version that may not be relevant to a the A 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 air 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 Page 7 of 9 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO7- 06- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/2006 Page 8 of 9 (fairly along with the other properties adjacent to the Ardell property. Ling Chairperson Toerge noted that the ground lease terms have to be abided and whatever the City could do would not allow Ardell to do something that uld be in violation of that ground lease. Commission inquiry, Mrs. Shepard noted her property is between the Ardell lding and the Windows Restaurant. ;. Wood referred the Commission to LU 26, which follows page 3 -120 in the !neral Plan update. At Commission inquiry, she explained the mixed use signation. (lowing a brief discussion, it was noted that any application by Ardell would ve to be signed by all the fee owners. rol McDermott, speaking for the Ardell property, noted that in informal cussions on this property they had always represented that they owned 400 tt, 100 foot easement, and 200 feet owned. One of the reasons they had lected to the idea that there be a minimum of 50% open space on the site s that they were constrained due to the two ownerships separated by an sement and that made it impractical to develop this parcel if those standards re imposed in a way that would require it to be located such that would be )blematic 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 sn done in a way to protect all rights involved. There have been several :etings and maps shown of the properties and explained in detail the different nerships. mmissioner Tucker asked if there was anything that needed to be in the licy 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. otion was made by Acting Chairperson Toerge to continue discussion on the !neral Plan to an adjourned meeting on July 13th. ,cussion followed on the packet materials and formats to be delivered. None Henn None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood reported that the Council had the see( 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. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn07- 06- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/2006 Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Committee - no report. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal P Certification Committee - Commissioner Toerge noted that at the last meeti another meeting was scheduled for July 17th. Discussion included the way I LCP has been drafted, the Implementation Plan (IP) and possible re- drafting applicable zoning ordinances related to coastal zone properties. Amendments the LCP were discussed and staff was directed to minimize the amount of the ordinances. 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. Project status — Commissioner Tucker asked about the status of replacement. Discussion followed. Requests for excused absences - Chairperson Cole is excused from August 17; imissioner McDaniel will be excused from the August 3rd meeting. Page 9 of 9 ADJOURNMENT: 8:30 p.m. JADJOURNME N ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PhiAgendas /2006 /mnO7- 06- 06.htm 06/23/2008