The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11 - Attachment C - PC Minutes 4-7-11Attachment C Minutes from the April 7, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting 105 100 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2011 Regular Meeting — 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL. Commissioners ton, Unsworth, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge, Ameri, and Hillgren - present STAFF PRESENT: James Campbell, Acting P ning Director Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planne Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Att ey Javier Garcia, Senior Planner Fern Nueno, Assistant Planner Marlene Burns, Administrative Assistant POSTING OF THE AGENDA: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on 31, 2011. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES: None CONSENT ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES the regular meeting of March 17, 2011. ITEM NO. 1 Motion made b ommissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins Approved approve the ' utes as corrected. Motion vied with the following vote: Aye Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, McDaniel, and Toerge N s: I None Abstentions: Ameri and Hillgren PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: North Newport Center Planned Community Amendment — (PA2011 -017) ITEM NO. 2 800, 840, 860, 880 Newport Center Drive PA2011 -017 A planned community development plan amendment to incorporate the Block 800 Approved Newport Center Planned Community (PC -23) into the North Newport Center Planned Community (PC -56) and a code amendment to change the zoning classification of this property from PC -23 to PC -56. Additionally, the proposed amendment includes revisions to the sign and lighting standards within the PC -56 Development Plan. Fern Nueno, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff report with a brief PowerPoint presentation. Also an amendment to page 14 of the North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan which was amended to be consistent with Section IIB, "Table 2 — Development Limits' on page 13, was distributed. Commissioner Hawkins asked if Table 2 was being amended. Ms. Nueno responded that no changes affected the square footage that is permitted by the General Plan and that it reflected transfers of allowed Development previously approved by the City Council and changes incorporating the Pacific Financial property. Commissioner Hawkins asked if that in addition to affecting Block 800, it affected Block 100 and asked if he needed to recuse himself as he has an office within Block 100. Assistant City Attorney, Leonie Page 1 of 5 107 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 04/07/2011 no conflict as there is no decision Commissioner Hawkins, referring to Table 2, asked that footnote C be expanded to reflect changes of the previous transfer as well as the transfers related to Block 800. After discussion, the Commission identified and presented the following questions: Referring to Section 1113, "Table 2 — Development Limits' from the North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan, Commissioner Eaton inquired as to where the square footage was applied from Block 100. Ms. Nueno responded that it was transferred to the two other blocks, and that the square footage cannot be built until Block 100 is demolished or made uninhabitable. Commissioner Hawkins recused himself, because as he indicated before, he has an office in Block 100 of PC -56 after Ms. Mulvihill indicated that he might have a conflict of interest after learning more about the specifics of the amendment. Regarding residential units, if the table is transitory, Commissioner Eaton asked why were units which are currently allocated to Block 500 not updated in the "Table 2 — Development Limits." Dan Miller, representing Irvine Company, responded by stating that the transfers were based on positive traffic impact analysis and the units are allowed in any of the Mixed -Use Blocks. Ms. Nueno added that the 430 units could be placed under Block 500 with a footnote remaining under each of the Mixed -Use Blocks to make it consistent with the rest of the changes to 'Table 2 — Development Limits." All were in agreement. In response to a question by Commissioner Eaton regarding what the plans were for Block 100, Mr. Miller replied that the square footage was transferred to Block 600 to allow the construction of a new building. Mr. Miller added that before the Certificate of Occupancy for the new building will be issued, the buildings within Block 100 would be made uninhabitable, unless there was square footage that is left over only then could it be transferred back after approval by the City Council. A clarification was requested by Commissioner Unsworth as it related to "Eating and Drinking Establishments," and if they were to be treated the same as Zoning Code. Ms. Nueno responded by saying that they were not the same definitions and indicated that on page 30 of the North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan the definition was established. Commissioner Unsworth, referencing Section 1113, Table 1 of the North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan, Fashion Island under Eating and Drinking Establishments, asked would the "P" with an asterisk (Minor Use Permit Issued by the Planning Director) apply to eating and drinking establishments that stayed open after 11:00 p.m. Fern Nueno answered that yes in Fashion Island restaurants are permitted by right and with approval of a Minor Use Permit if they are proposing to sell alcohol. In conclusion, the PC Development Plan supersedes the PC Zoning Code if something is addressed within it; otherwise if it is not addressed in the PC Development Plan, then the PC Zoning Code regulations prevail. Commissioner Unsworth received clarification that in Fashion Island, for the sale of alcohol after 11:00 p.m. an Operator's License would be needed, therefore it would apply to Block 100, 400, and 800. Furthermore, it was confirmed that under the Planned Community Development Plan, there is a combination Minor Use Permit with an Operator's License required. It was suggested by Commissioner Unsworth that it be clearly stated that all decisions made by the Planning Director as allowed in the Development Plan be appealable to the Planning Commission then to the City Council. Page 2 Qf� NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Miller stated that he agreed with Public comment period was opened. No public comments. Public comment period was closed. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Unsworth, to adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2011 -001 and Code Amendment No. CA2011- 004 with the following modifications: • Modify the Resolution with the addition of, `The square footage numbers indicated for each block in Table 2 (Development Limits) of the PC -56 Development Plan may not be current or correct due to allowable transfers of development rights under the Development Agreement, General Plan, and PC -56 Development Plan. The square footage numbers cannot and are not being increased by this application as the development limits are regulated by the General Plan." • Addition of Amendment that was presented, page 14 of the North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan was updated and distributed as it was made consistent with Section 1113, "Table 2 – Development Limits" on page 13. Motion carried with the following vote Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, McDaniel, Ameri, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Recusals: Hawkins ECT: West Newport Amendments – (PA2010 -182, PA2010 -190, and PA2011 -014) 6904, 6908 -6936, and 6480 West Coast Highway Hawkins returned to join the meeting. Amendments to liw General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code to change the designations of Dwee properties from Two -Unit Residential (RT and RT -E) to ' itor Serving Commercial (C or Mixed Use (MU -V) land use designa' s. The amendments were initiated the property owners who are seeking to ontinue the existing nonconforming comme I use of their properties. All thr properties are currently developed with commercia d mixed -use buildings, an o new land use or development is proposed at this time. Javier Garcia, Senior Planner, gave a brief ove w of staff report with a PowerPoint presentation. He mentioned that the original reco endati0n was to change all three properties to Visitor Servicing Commercial (CV , ut t General Commercial (CG) is more appropriate for 6480 West Coast Hi ay, even tho the applicants proposed Mixed Use - Vertical (MU -V). Commissioner Hawkins asked a o the reason of the change in dec n of not going forth with the Mixed Use -Vert' (MU -V) land use designation. Acting Plan g Director, Jim Campbell, responded at the reason for the recommendation of General C ercial (CG) is that it would ow for a broader list of uses thereby achieving the goal the applicant to prole ,preserve, and continue the existing commercial and residential use . Commission awkins also disagreed with staff's assessment of the aesthetics of the Frog Ho . person McDaniel stated that in addition to considering the applicants' requests, was a need to look at the long -term needs of the City as well. 04/07/2011 ITEM NO PAW-10 -190, - AND PA2011 -014 Approved Page 3 Qf� 110