Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft_Minutes_12-20-2012NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 3300 Newport Boulevard Thursday, December 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING 1:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER — The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Brown III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, Toerge, and Tucker ABSENT (Excused): None 12/20/2012 Staff Present: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director; Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director; Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney; Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer; Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner; James W. Campbell, Principal Planner; Ruby Garciamay, Community Development Department Assistant IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES - None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 6, 2012 Recommended Action: Approve and file Chair Toerge noted his corrections to the minutes as well as those submitted by Jim Mosher, a member of the public. Interested parties were invited to address the Commission on this item. There was no response and public comments for this item were closed. Motion made by Commissioner Brown and seconded by Commissioner Tucker and carried 6 — 0 -1, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of the December 6, 2012, Regular meeting, as amended. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, Toerge, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: Ameri ABSENT (Excused): None VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 Uptown Newport (PA2011 -134) Site Location: 4311 -4321 Jamboree Road, North side of Jamboree Road between Birch Street and Fairchild Road Page 1 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 Chair Toerge read the project's title, opened the public hearing, and called for the staff report. Principal Planner Jim Campbell presented details of the report including background and consideration of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) at a previous meeting and new information and documentation for review at this time. He addressed the regulatory documents including the Planned Community Development Plan Amendment, Planned Community Development Plan Adoption, Traffic Study, Tentative Tract Map, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, and the Development Agreement. Mr. Campbell addressed the zoning documents, phasing plans, design guidelines and referenced comments received from Commissioner Tucker related to the various components. He noted that the design guidelines are flexible and addressed revised conditions of approval relative to the Tentative Tract Map and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, and he highlighted the recent revisions. Mr. Campbell addressed connectivity of land uses, dedication and improvement of streets, proposed new streets for increased public access, consistency with the General Plan, and details of the revised Phase 1, pedestrian connections, the existing bicycle path, and the possibility of additional pedestrian connections. . Discussion followed regarding of the need of vehicle connections to Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue, the need to revise the grading plans, and adding same as part of the conditions of approval. Chair Toerge reported receiving several letters from parties with interest in Koll Center, which expressed concern with rights to the common areas, and their lack of desire to have any connectivity or roads through Koll Center. Discussion followed regarding alternate plans should Koll withdraw their development application. Areas of concern include vehicle access and pedestrian connectivity, and access for emergency vehicles only, and possible considerations for off -site improvements. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill addressed the Birch Street access and the access envisioned by the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). Ms. Mulvihill reported that the applicant has presented a plan that allows public egress /ingress over the Birch Street driveway, and that it is incumbent upon the applicant to make sure that they have the legal authority to do so. The issue will need to be resolved by the applicable private parties and if the applicant cannot resolve that, he will have to redesign the project. As to other access through the Koll property, the ICDP covers a large area and it is the practice of the City of doing it parcel -by- parcel. Staff did not see a nexus to support a condition at this time Chair Toerge noted that development entitlements are not a right, but rather a privilege. The City needs to demand it if the applicant will not volunteer it. He added that at some point in time, Koll will have some requirements of the applicant which would be enhanced if they were to cooperate at this time. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill noted that the decision will be made by the Planning Commission. She felt that there is not sufficient support to require the acquisition of outside properties. Discussion followed regarding the original zoning of the property. Commissioner Ameri indicated that he understood that the project can be developed without any limitations with regard to the connection and is "stand- alone." He felt that off -site improvements are required when there is a project impact. He expressed concern with requiring the applicant to be obligated to provide an improvement when it is not required by the project's design and scope. Page 2 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 Community Development Director Brandt stated that staff looks at the vision of the General Plan when considering a phased project. Each phase must be considered with the hope that subsequent phases will occur, but consideration must also be given to the "what ifs ". She stressed the importance of looking at the phasing and the ultimate goal of the General Plan but also the need to consider uncontrollable factors that may affect the General Plan's implementation. Ms. Brandt noted that it is very important to ensure that each phase is "stand- alone." Commissioner Tucker felt the proposal is consistent with his vision of the project. He spoke in opposition to offsite conditions noting that they are often for public improvements or where none of the land has been developed. He suggested anew condition indicating that "prior to issuance of the first building permit in phase 2, evidence of the right to use the Birch Street easement, acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be provided. He added that the plan is dependent upon that occurring. Chair Toerge suggested amending the condition to indicate "public use" of the access and Commissioner Tucker agreed with the change. Mr. Campbell reported the amendment of Condition 15 requiring a change to the phasing document where at a future date, when connections go through; there may be additional improvements after the initial construction where the applicant will be obligated to complete any missing links to connections. Koll may make improvements before completion of phase 2 and the condition will ensure that the connections are made at the appropriate times. In response to Vice Chair Hillgren's inquiry, Mr. Campbell reported that the conditions are binding upon the applicant/property owner and if there is a successor in interest, the obligation would be transferred to them and would be part of the phasing plan. Ms. Brandt reported there are no CC &Rs at this time but that they could be drafted. She noted the importance to remember that this is the "umbrella" regulatory document and noted that there will be a Master Site Plan review process and the subsequent individual site development review; all of which will have conditions of approval, and there will be a better idea of how the phasing is proceeding in relationship to adjacent properties. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of future development agreements. Mr. Campbell presented staffs recommendations. Chair Toerge invited those interested in addressing the Commission on this item, to do so at this time. William Shophoff, Chairman and CEO of the Shophoff Group, addressed the grading, noted that it has been added to the text and that his company is agreeable to it. Regarding roads versus storm drains, he reported that they have the right to do the storm drains by existing easements. He acknowledged the efforts, work and time expended on this item and comments made by the Commission, staff, and the public. All of the comments to the planning documents are agreeable with minor issues including the Planned Community Document regarding adding a loading zone and he reported that there is a loading zone nearby and is in a more appropriate location and asked that be reconsidered. Regarding landscape guidelines, he addressed the provision of a landscape design that if flexible for a variety of uses, he proposed language to "provide a landscape design that is consistent with the urban character and theme of the Uptown Newport Planned Community." Mr. Shophoff reported on the Von Karman Avenue access issue noting that the easement allows for emergency ingress and egress and also allows for non - emergency access. He felt there are existing issues with the location of the easement and that they would prefer to defer and study at a later date. Page 3 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 He addressed multiple drive aisles, the parking structure, and that the area is not the best location for unrestricted public egress /ingress at this time. Discussion followed regarding location of an existing easement for interim access and addressed perimeter conditions, existing conditions, and proposed new edge conditions and fencing. Mr. Shophoff addressed comments regarding building setbacks and presented three alternatives for consideration by the Commission. Regarding architectural enhancements he noted new language to be added to the design guidelines: "Buildings adjacent to exterior property lines shall feature 'four - sided' architecture whereby continuity of the design character is extended to the front, side, and rear elevations." He addressed ways of bringing additional urban activity to the central areas and commented on elements of the design guidelines. He addressed the City's right to review CC &Rs and indicated willingness to work with adjacent property owners. He noted the attendance of his design team. Commissioner Tucker acknowledged that the applicant has been very responsive and expressed his appreciation. Roger Stone expressed concerns that the EIR allows for approximately 8,000 cars to enter and leave the project on a daily basis based upon the residents that will live there. He felt that it will negatively impact traffic during rush hour. Chair Toerge noted that the traffic study has been well -vetted and the impacts and mitigation measures are addressed in the EIR. Mr. Stone wondered if affordable housing is the same as subsidized housing and stated there may be increased crime potential in the area. He noted that he has a solar project on his building and wondered if the height of the proposed buildings will interfere with his system. Jim Hasty, on behalf of Myer Properties, expressed concerns with the proposed residential units and noted amenities needed that do not currently exist. He reported that he understands the motivation for the project in terms of meeting State requirements for providing affordable housing and generating revenue but expressed concerns with the politics that drive the project. Mr. Hasty addressed a direct correlation between the density of the project and negative impacts on adjacent properties including shade and shadow issues, traffic and mitigation efforts. He stated that the properties will experience an increase on common -area expenses and noted they have made a long -term commitment to the City. He noted unanimous opposition to the project. Sandy Throop, Corner Stone Real Estate Advisors, spoke in opposition to the project. He felt there is too much development and a lack of sensitivity to existing surrounding uses. He stated the need to complement the design objectives with the existing project and felt that the edge conditions are insensitive to the adjoining uses. He felt that the project will have a negative economic impact to existing properties and suggested that the building heights should be lowered along the entire border along Jamboree Road. He addressed connections and increased uses to common areas, subsequently increasing costs without any consideration and reimbursement to existing properties. Discussion followed regarding impacts by the proposed Koll project, increased traffic, massing, edge conditions, unknown benefits of retail uses, orientation of the structures, blocked views, and mitigation through increased setbacks. Mr. Throop felt that the proposed buildings will have an effect on the desirability of leasing suites in his building. Page 4 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 Brian Adams requested the addition of a new condition which prohibits construction traffic during phases 1 and 2 from using the Birch Street easement. He expressed concern with the proposed density in buildable areas and the calculations used for determining density. He felt that the applicant has not addressed their request for increased setbacks and encouraged the Commission to consider decreasing the density, the building heights, and increasing the setbacks. John Adams, President of the Courthouse Plaza Association, noted that there have been a significant number of real estate professionals commenting on this project and none have commented in its support. He felt that the entire issue comes down to the density of the proposed project and suggested reducing the density, lowering the perimeter heights, mitigating some of the traffic issues, and increasing setbacks. He requested the addition of a condition related to prohibiting construction traffic during phases 1 and 2 off Birch Street. Whitney Allen, an airport area employee, spoke in opposition to the proposed project as currently planned. She stated that she is an advocate for affordable housing and supports a well - planned, sustainable project that is mutually beneficial to the region. She expressed concerns with environmental and societal issues related to the project and addressed thresholds for air quality and noise levels. Ms. Allen felt that the City should be looking at creating jobs in the area and felt that as proposed, the project would be detrimental to the City's economy. Emery Ledger addressed the easement and reported that the area is private property and felt that the burden should be shifted to the developer, Mr. Shophoff, to close the easement until he obtains a court order to use it for his intended purpose. He addressed the need to protect the property rights of the existing development. Bruce McDonald addressed consistency with the General Plan and felt that the Commission is trying to consider a project contingent upon what may or may not happen in the future. He encouraged the Commission to consider the project on its own. He reported that the present cul -de -sacs are private and permanent and wondered if the standards are correctly met. Mr. McDonald addressed the easement to Birch Street and felt that the Commission is considering building half a project without the guarantee that the second half will ever be built. He felt that the traffic study should not rely on access to relieve the congestion and wondered if access will be ever allowed to Von Karman. Mr. McDonald wondered how the Commission could place an off -site condition on an adjacent property owner. He wondered if the intentions of the General Plan are being met and addressed public parks but felt that the traffic study has not taken into account public use of those parks. He encouraged the Commission to consider building massing. There being no others wishing to address the Commission, Chair Toerge closed public comments for this item. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill noted that the City Attorney's office was unaware of the existing easement and changed her opinion as to the issue of whether or not requiring the acquisition of right - of -way was supportable. She stated this easement is different from the Birch Street easement as far as implementation of the roadway depicted on the ICDP. She stated that there is nothing as to the applicant's ability to guarantee or maintain any particular connection. The easement is not consistent with what is depicted on the ICDP. She expressed concerns that the easement is currently not as depicted on the ICDP and therefore, not conditioned. Chair Toerge commented that the configuration of the ICDP is similar to what is on the ground and the grantor has voluntarily redirected the easement into a location that is not shown in the ICDP. Commissioner Tucker suggested addressing issues raised during the public hearing. Page 5 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 Chair Toerge noted that the project is not subsidized housing, but rather affordable housing with an appropriate income limit assigned. Regarding the density calculation, Mr. Campbell explained that there is sufficient acreage to support the proposed density. Vice Chair Hillgren addressed net acreage and Mr. Campbell explained that the lettered lots are paseos and are included in the acreage. He explained that sidewalks and street parcels not included in the density calculations. Commissioner Ameri commented on net acreage and net buildable areas and addressed the distinctions between the two. Mr. Campbell stated that staff can work with Mr. Adams to ensure clarity in the calculations. He also agreed with adding a restriction relative to prohibiting construction traffic during phases 1 and 2 along the Birch Street access. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Tucker, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine stated that he is comfortable that the traffic study was conducted according to TPO and CEQA standards. He addressed the length of the cul -de -sacs and stated he was not aware of a City code that sets the length of cul -de -sacs. Commissioner Ameri indicated the standard would be 1,000 feet. Commissioner Tucker commented on property rights and noted that they went through a thorough vetting process and that the density is allowed by the Code. He indicated that the project fits and what the applicant has requested is allowed. He noted that the project was driven by the need for affordable housing in the City and that this is an allowed land use within the City, and the General Plan requires a Development Agreement. Commissioner Tucker noted that the Commission does not have the ability to impose a mitigation on something that has not found to be a significant impact. Chair Toerge addressed zoning and use and that the public voted to allow this kind of development if it complies with all of the requirements of the General Plan and the Zoning Code. Brief discussion followed regarding density. Ms. Brandt reported that the Koll Center Community Development Plan Amendment is included on page 72 of the agenda packet. She added that it is an amendment which deletes the subject property from the zoning regulations so that a new zoning document can be created for it. A straw vote was conducted regarding the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Text amendment and it was considered acceptable, unanimously. Regarding the Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan, Ms. Brandt reported it includes three separate components. Commissioner Tucker commented on page 1 of the Land Uses Development Standards & Procedures. Cora Newman, representing the applicant, referenced written comments provided under separate cover for consideration by the Commission. Chair Toerge commented on a number of typographical errors on page 7, addressed existing industrial uses, and provided suggestions for alternative language. Page 6 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 In response to Chair Toerge's inquiry, Mr. Campbell noted that the drat text allows the existing land uses to continue. The industrial use standards have been excerpted from the existing Koll Center Planned Community Text. Ms. Brandt further clarified that sections I and II are subsets of Section 2.1.1 Existing Uses and it indicates that these are how the existing light industrial uses shall be permitted until the sunset date of March 12, 2027. Mr. Campbell added that the provisions are reflective of the existing Koll PC text and that staff did not attempt to change or edit them in any way. Vice Chair Hillgren addressed Transfer of Development Rights. Discussion followed regarding the area requiring a certain amount of critical mass to be in place and transferring units out is contrary to the requirements of the General Plan and the need to require a minimum of 30 units per acre. It was noted that the General Plan provides a range from 30 units to 50 units per acre. Ensuing discussion followed regarding transferring units in, but not out. Ms. Brandt noted that the transfer of development rights is a discretionary review which would require a General Plan consistency finding. Mr. Shophoff agreed with eliminating the right to transfer units in and noted that the language came out of the General Plan and that they would agree to the right to not transfer out more than 20 units per acre. In response to Chair Toerge's inquiry, Mr. Campbell suggested appropriate language to address the issue and reported that staff will work on the matter. Chair Toerge addressed limiting the sale of animals and services. Commissioner Tucker commented on defining the terms "adult daycare" and "daycare ", animal sales and services, allowing fast food with late hours on the Jamboree Road frontage only, and implementation of the AHIP. Vice Chair Hillgren commented on issues of concentration related to adult daycare Commissioner Myers wondered if this is limited to the retail space. Ms. Brandt reported there are different types of licensed State facilities that allow six or fewer residents and the State has preempted local regulations when they are licensed facilities. She added that child daycare is an in -home use. Mr. Campbell added that both the small child daycare and small adult daycare is intended for residential occupancies, subject to licensing. Vice Chair Hillgren expressed concerns regarding limits on child daycare facilities and the possibility of setting similar limitations on adult daycare facilities. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill addressed current State laws regarding the matter noting that small daycare facilities must be treated as residential use. The large adult daycare would be within a congregate care home or a convalescent facility and that is when the City could regulate adult care greater than six. Page 7 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 Mr. Campbell referenced footnote number 3 relative to child daycare and stated that the footnote should relate to the daycare general category instead. Commissioner Tucker requested consensus to delete "animal sales and services" and allow grooming and veterinary services but no boarding of animals. CONSENSUS: Members of the Commission concurred to delete "animal sales and services" and to allow grooming and veterinary services but no boarding of animals. Mr. Shophoff requested limiting fast food with late hours to the Fairchild entrance. Discussion followed regarding addressing the issue of fast food with late hours through a minor use permit. Vice Chair Hillgren addressed the issue of setbacks and building heights and the various options offered. He indicated his preference towards option C which allows for increased heights along Jamboree and the 100 -foot height limit adjacent to properties on Birch Street and allowing a 55 -foot height limit along the first row of units on the western boundary to allow better integration with adjacent properties. Discussion followed regarding the differences between the various options. In response to Commissioner Kramer's inquiry regarding a 55- foot height limit in the center portion of the project, Mr. Campbell reported that the lower the height is intended to allow more sunshine to the park. Vice Chair Hillgren reported that the park to the south would be in the sun and stated he agreed with having increased height along the park since one park would be in the sun and the other would have increased shade. Commissioner Ameri commended the applicant for incorporating his previous suggestions and stated that he would accept option C because it seems logical to have more density along the park to allow open areas along the buildings. He indicated he would like other areas converted to high rises between the parks and suggested increasing the building setbacks to 200 feet and converting that area to a high rise. Chair Toerge agreed with the concept of bringing the high rises to the center of the project. He did not agree with increasing setbacks to 200 feet and suggested option A with the opportunity to include high rise on the parcel between the parks. Commissioner Ameri indicated he would like to see more concentration of residential and more open space to allow for increased amenities and facilities. Commissioner Tucker stated that he would support option A with a high rise between the two parks. Vice Chair Hillgren agreed but suggested allowing a 55 -foot row along the western edge of the project, with the units along the east at 75 feet. Commissioner Brown indicated that he supports the lower heights along the perimeter. Commissioner Myers agreed with Commission Brown and stated that he would encourage increased setbacks along Jamboree Road. Page 8 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/2012012 Commissioner Kramer suggested making the adjacent building also at a 55 -foot height Mr. Shophoff clarified that the first row of units would be at 55 feet with the second row stepping to 75 feet and the high rises requiring a 100 -foot setback. Discussion followed regarding parcels becoming high rise zones and the need to specify dimensions. Mr. Shophoff stated support for a 50 -foot setback along the property line with no more than a 55 -foot height limit along the edge. He noted there would be a "wedding cake" look as it moves towards the high rise with a shift in intensity. Mr. Campbell explained the basis for calculating the setbacks and stated that staff could work with the applicant to determine the height and setback standards. Vice Chair Hillgren addressed the revised exhibits relative to activating ground floor building frontage and it was noted that the issue is addressed in the Design Guidelines. He commented on the proposed size of the balconies and felt that the stated the 60 square foot minimum is too large. He felt that there should not be a minimum square footage for the balconies. Ms. Brandt suggested providing a minimum dimension and noted the intent to provide a usable balcony area. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of having a mix of balcony sizes, balconies not being required but provided as an option, noise issues, and the possibility of requiring no balconies. CONSENSUS: Members of the Commission concurred to delete the sentence regarding a minimum size for balconies. Chair Toerge commented on the northerly cul- de-sac grading. Mr. Campbell reported that the phasing document shows a conceptual grading plan and suggested discussing that issue at a subsequent Master Site Plan review. Regarding page 20, Chair Toerge wondered regarding requiring no public hearing regarding the site development application. Mr. Campbell clarified that no public hearing notices would be sent out to the area. Ms. Mulvihill reported that it would be up to the Commission to decide if it should be a noticed public hearing and that the item will be presented to the Planning Commission. Ms. Brandt reported that two discretionary review processes are proposed noting that the next step is a Master Site Plan review which will be a noticed public hearing with all of the City's standard procedures for more definitive information and conditions of approval. The next step is a Site Development review and the approval for that is proposed to be delegated to the Community Development Director which would not require a public hearing. Chair Toerge suggested removal of the word "other' under page 20 number 1. He addressed typographical errors needing correction. Commissioner Tucker addressed neighborhood parks regarding public and private uses. Ms. Brandt suggested that it could simply indicate public use. Page 9 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 Commissioner Tucker addressed the street definition noting that some may be private, and Ms. Brandt suggested addition that these streets are available for public access. Discussion followed regarding a master association and its membership. It was noted that in general, the City does not regulate them but would make sure that there are CC &Rs in place to ensure there is a functioning management association that is capable of meeting obligations including remedies should the association not meet its obligations. Commissioner Tucker noted there is a provision added to the conditions of approval that make all of the maintenance duties in the CC &Rs enforceable by the City. Chair Toerge addressed the Land Uses Development Standards and Procedures and noted that the applicant has done an enormous amount of work to address many of the Planning Commission's concerns. He stated that the proposed community is a "bicycle unfriendly" place and there are no bike lanes delineated on the streets. He expressed concerns with the lack of bicycle accessibility. A straw vote was taken regarding support of the document with the changes discussed and Vice Chair Hillgren and Commissioners Ameri, Brown and Tucker indicated acceptance of the document. Chair Toerge introduced the Phasing Plan and commented regarding the ceasing of the use of the Tower Jazz facility. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill reported that if it were not to occur, it would be a breach of the Development Agreement. She added that the City Council would have the right to extend the Development Agreement beyond the stated 15 years and noted that there are options to extend it. Mr. Campbell reported that the Land Use Development document has the provision to modify uses ceasing at that point. Chair Toerge addressed demolition of the liquid ammonia tank and wondered if the distance for relocation could be increased. Mr. Campbell reported that 200 feet is the minimum distance Mr. Shophoff reported that the location being evaluated exceeds the 200 foot distance and would be located in the rear of the TowerJazz facility. Chair Toerge proposed no change to the item. He addressed the grade differential issue and requested the addition of a condition addressing the matter. Vice Chair Hillgren inquired regarding drainage and water quality and potential impacts to storm runoffs on adjacent properties. He felt that the proposed would improve water quality. Chair Toerge commented regarding page 13 relative to the northerly access into the site off Jamboree Road allows a left -hand turn and felt that it was a good addition. Regarding the grade differential, Mr. Campbell indicated that it is anticipated to be a five -foot grade differential. Chair Toerge indicated he wants to make sure that it is workable. Page 10 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 Commissioner Tucker commented on the roadway and the possibility of a pedestrian gate with steps down. Mr. Campbell stated there may be a need to place ramps in that location and addressed edge conditions between phase 1 and 2. Vice Chair Hillgren questioned the need for a significant amount of fencing in the area and he suggested requiring less fencing in order to make the area more inviting. Mr. Campbell indicated that the matter may be addressed within the Design Guidelines. Chair Toerge addressed the "emergency only" easement leading to Von Karman Avenue and felt it may have similar rights as the Birch Street easement and noted no requirements to use that easement were placed on phase 1. Discussion followed regarding what would be provided by the connection. Chair Toerge felt that it provides a secondary access in and out of the site to Von Karman Avenue, to the airport, and areas west. He commented on the importance of circulation, integration, cohesiveness, and the opportunity for vehicle access flowing west. Commissioner Ameri commented on the differences between the two easements. Commissioner Tucker felt that is the wrong place to locate access to Von Karman because it would be too close to MacArthur Boulevard. Chair Toerge noted that his proposal is that phase 1 includes a complete public access to Von Karman Avenue, not simply an emergency access. A straw vote on Chair Toerge's proposal failed with 5 noes and 2 ayes. Mr. Campbell address modification to condition number 15 adding language to include additional provisions as listed in the presentation to ensure accommodation of future connections at the appropriate time. Discussion followed regarding amending the phasing plan rather than including a condition, and Mr. Campbell agreed to include the language in the phasing plan and delete condition 15. Commissioner Tucker suggested requiring the applicant to allow Koll to complete the street connection. Discussion ensued, and Brian Rupp representing the Shophoff Group stated that as a condition of approval, the applicant is obligated to offer dedication for their streets up to the property boundary. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill suggested adding a condition requiring the applicant to provide access rights for the purposes of constructing the access connections. It was noted that it only needs to be in the CC &R document. A straw vote of the Phasing Plan resulted in approval of the document with changes discussed above. Chair Toerge introduced the Design Guidelines for consideration. Page 11 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 Commissioner Tucker felt that there is no particular architectural theme and suggested developing an understandable theme or deciding that each building should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Brown agreed and wondered what "enhanced" architecture means. He felt that there is a need to define a theme. Chair Toerge addressed changes made in the document, bicycle access, and the vision statement. Discussion followed regarding the retail center (core). Vice Chair Hillgren referenced page 7 relative to images depicted and felt that the images should be consistent with the theme. Commissioner Ameri felt that the images are helpful in illustrating what the applicant intends to do. Vice Chair Hillgren commented on better describing the retail core suggested. He reported visiting the area noting that it has an appropriate amount of retail that serves the community well. He felt that if the appropriate uses are included and the sidewalk is widened, it would create a "town" in Uptown Newport and an inviting environment for the public. He suggested incorporating other retail uses in other than the L- shaped area. Chair Toerge reported that the current plan shows the retail further south on the building that fronts Jamboree Road. Commissioner Ameri stated that he doesn't get a sense of community within the project and felt there needs to be a core. Commissioner Myers felt that the sizes of the proposed parks are inadequate and felt that to create a usable friendly environment, more than two acres of parks would be required. Mr. Campbell noted that the General Plan requires a minimum of two acres but that doesn't mean that the parks cannot be larger. Commissioner Brown also expressed concerns regarding the size of the proposed parks. Chair Toerge agreed that the retail is located where there is more off -site visibility but not necessarily placed where it will best serve the community. He agreed with a lack of a sense of community center. Commissioner Tucker indicated that he is agreeable with the scale of the parks and felt that they are consistent with the General Plan. He commented on the location of retail uses and felt that the plans are acceptable. Commissioner Kramer indicated it all depends on the market and that there is always an opportunity that higher densities will create more ground area for additional parks. Commissioner Myers felt that the project will attract many young families and that it is so isolated that the demand for more park space will be greater rather than smaller. He felt that the parks, as proposed, are not adequate. Brian Rupp indicated that a large amount of private recreation amenities are planned as part of every building. They will have private pools, outdoor courtyard areas, seating areas, club houses, theaters and business centers, in addition to the parks. He believes the parks are of adequate size and Page 12 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 addressed the revenues generated in park fees. He reported that activating the spine street in the center will help to create a town center environment and addressed graphics provided to the Commission. In response to Commissioner Tucker's inquiry, Mr. Shophoff addressed construction cost differentials between the various heights of the buildings. He reported that an urban environment will not have an active sports park. Commissioner Brown questioned whether the parks are large enough for any organized activities. Chair Toerge addressed angle parking on public streets. Mr. Brine replied that is allowed in the City and originally he was concerned with vehicles stacking onto Jamboree Road. Discussion followed regarding the lack of bicycle accessibility, architectural themes, and designs. Commissioner Kramer felt that some of the guidelines are confusing and need to be cleaned up. He felt that the main concern is quality of construction and design and that there needs to be formal parameters requiring all buildings to have certain massing, incorporating traditional forms of architecture, and eliminating a bias towards contemporary architecture. Mr. Shophoff noted that one option would be to bring the architecture back to the Planning Commission as part of the Master Site Plan process. Rather than bringing back individual buildings, he suggested returning to the Commission with an increased level of details and understanding what the quality and materials will be. Commissioner Kramer expressed concern regarding making sure that the language is clear and specific enough to guide future approvals. Chair Toerge agreed with the need for specific language relative to the architecture. Discussion followed regarding the timeline for subsequent project approvals, and Mr. Shophoff indicated he expected to be working on this issue immediately. Commissioner Tucker noted that final maps will drive subsequent approvals and felt that all other documents will return at the same time. Commissioner Hillgren suggested making Chapter 3 subject to the Master Site Plan approval which will return to the Commission. In response to Chair Toerge's inquiry, Ms. Brandt noted that specific sections could be carved out because this is a multi -step project and the architectural guidelines are a sub -set of the overall plan. The Commission could forward on their recommendations with a component trailing Commissioner Ameri suggested that there is sufficient information to vote on the entire project at this time. He disagreed with carving out little pieces and suggested approving the project and place a condition that prior to the time the matter goes before Council, the applicant would have a presentation that would satisfy the Commission with regard to the architectural aspects of the project. Chair Toerge indicated that he wants to be respectful of each Commissioner's opinions. Mr. Shophoff presented various alternatives and indicated intentions to move forward with the project asking the Commission to approve the project except for the Design Guidelines. Page 13 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 In response to Commissioner Tucker's inquiry, Ms. Mulvihill indicated that to carve out the Design Guidelines in its entirety, would compromise all of the other project - related findings. She agreed with Ms. Brandt's suggestions to recommend the project except for the architectural style. Ms. Brandt expressed concerns regarding trailing an entire document or documents because it is an integrated project and the findings are all interrelated. She noted that what Ms. Mulvihill referenced was the architectural theme which doesn't affect height, massing or placement. She addressed the Master Site Development Plan review process and recommended including review of the architecture design and materials as part of the Master Plan review. Commissioner Tucker expressed concerns that documents would have already been approved without a theme element to guide the future review. RECESS /RECONVENE Chair Toerge called for a recess at 5:30 p.m. The assembly reconvened at 5:40 p.m. with all Members present. Mr. Shophoff presented suggestions including adding language that the architectural design will come back as part of the Master Plan review process and eliminate the rest of the section in Chapter 3. He noted that those are not things that will be part of mitigation measures. Ms. Brandt clarified Mr. Shophoffs recommendations. She reported that the Airport Land Use Commission overrule process is scheduled for City Council consideration on January 8, 2013. She noted there is one more Planning Commission meeting on January 3, 2013, prior to the City Council meeting. If it is the Planning Commission's desire, to take a straw vote in terms of the overall position on the project, it could forward on to Council a recommendation that the Commission is considering approval of the project however, the Commission is still refining the architectural design and theme for the project. Ms. Mulvihill reported that the straw vote would not bind the Planning Commission on the final vote on the project. In reply to Chair Toerge's inquiry, Ms. Mulvihill reported on the significance of Council's meeting on January 8, 2013, regarding the Airport Land Use Commission overrule process. Discussion followed regarding the need for Design Guidelines before further consideration and acting before the item is set to appear before Council for consistency and thoroughness. Ensuing discussion followed regarding next steps and possible recommendations to Council. Chair Toerge reported that he is not ready to vote on the project, absent the Design Guidelines. Discussion followed regarding providing Council with an update regarding the Planning Commission's thoughts on the project thus far. Motion made by Vice Chair Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Tucker and carried 6 — 1, to direct staff to provide notice to Council that the Planning Commission has considered this project over the course of three meetings and straw votes in favor of some components of the project were made and that formal, final approval will not occur until the Design Guidelines are considered. Page 14 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/20/2012 Commissioner Tucker added that the motion should include that the Commission sees no reason that Council should not send a notice of intent to overrule the Airport Land Use Commission at this time. Discussion followed regarding issues related to the Airport Land Use Commission's concern of introducing residential under the John Wayne Airport flight zone. Ms. Brandt reported that the consistency determination rests with the Airport Land Use Commission and they are looking at safety, noise and land uses for compatibility. The report that staff would present to Council is that the Planning Commission has reviewed the building heights and spatial layout of the project, has taken straw votes, and the components remaining for the project are the Development Agreement, the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, Conditions of Approval on the Tentative Tract Map, and the Design Guidelines. Vice Chair Hillgren agreed to Commissioner Tucker's proposed amendment to the motion. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers and Tucker NOES: Toerge ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None Motion made by Commissioner Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried 7 — 0, to continue this item to February 7, 2013. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, Toerge and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None Chair Toerge commented positively on the collaborative process. Mr. Shophoff expressed his appreciation to the Commission. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 3 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO.4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT- None ITEM NO. 5 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT - None ITEM NO. 6 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Vice Chair Hillgren and Commissioners Kramer and Tucker indicated they will not be available to attend the meeting of January 3, 2013. Page 15 of 16 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VIII. ADJOURNMENT 12/20/2012 There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on December 14, 2012, at 3:50 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. Michael Toerge, Chairman Fred Ameri, Secretary Page 16 of 16 ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED Items 1, 2, 3 & 4 Additional Materials Received Planning Commission January 3, 2013 Comments on January 03, 2013 PC Agenda Items The following comments on items appearing on the January 03, 2013 Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(a)_vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Item No. 1 Minutes Of December 20, 2012 I did not attend this meeting, nor have I had a chance to review the audio, so I can't comment on the substance of the minutes, but I noticed a number of minor grammatical errors, the most definite of which include: Page 4: "Sandy Throop, Corner Cornerstone ( ?) Real Estate Advisors, spoke in opposition..." Page 6: "... sidewalks and street parcels are not included in the density calculations." Page 7: "...the elrat draft text allows the existing land uses to continue." Page 8: "Mr. Campbell reported that the lower the height is intended to allow..." Page 8: "Commissioner Myers agreed with r� °n °e ; Commissioner Brown and stated..." Page 9: "... and felt that the stated the 60 square foot minimum is too large." Page 10: "He felt that the proposed?? would improve water quality." Page 11: "Mr. Campbell aeldr-ess addressed modification to condition number 15..." Note: although closely related to the project, the discussion and recommendation regarding the Council's action on the ALUC decision (page 15) does not seem to have been adequately noticed in the agenda or briefed to the Commission by staff. 1 2 Corporate Plaza PC Amendment (PA2012 -145) I found confusing The4a a in the applicant's letter reproduced on the final page of the staff report, seeming to indicate thre osed medical /dental tenants at 3 Corporate Plaza with a total square footage substantially exceedln requested in the resolution. Kay Sims has clarified that the ophthalmologist in Suite 140 would be �aroom for the dentist in Suite 210. At the same time, it appears that the current medical /dental uses at 3 Corporate 3,175 square feet, slightly exceed the 3,100 sf allowed by the current PC text.