Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0_Attachment_004 - Draft Planning Commission Minutes From July 21, 2016 Attachment No. PC 4 Draft Planning Commission Minutes from July 21, 2016 129 V� QP �P ISO NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/21/16 S: Dunlap, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Koetting,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: ne ABSENT: Zak VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2. TROESH RESIDENCE APPEAL (PA2015-122) Site Location: 336 Catalina Drive and 333 La Jolla Drive Continued to August 18, 2016 under Request for Continuances. O150 NEWPORT CENTER(PA2014-213) Site Location: 150 Newport Center Drive Summary: Community Development Director Brandt introduced the item. Associate Planner Nova presented a PowerPoint presentation outlining the legislative applications, changes since the June 23, 2016 study session, vicinity map of the project site, existing residential development in Statistical Area L-1, Zoning Code Amendment and requested Planned Community Development Plan with 10-acre minimum waiver, proposed project height, existing building heights in the south end of the Newport Center area, building setbacks, view impacts, and public comments. She noted the applicant has decreased the number of units to 45 and reduced the height of the proposed project to 6 stories (65 feet 6 inches to top of roof) from 7 stories (75 feet 6 inches to top of roof). Additionally, staff is recommending a further reduction in height to 5 stories(55 feet to the top of roof). Community Development Director Brandt presented a PowerPoint presentation explaining Charter Section 423, (Greenlight and/or Measure S analysis) with regard to a major General Plan amendment. She discussed the threshold calculation and trigger for voter approval. She stated the primary question before the Planning Commission was whether a General Plan Amendment(GPA) is appropriate for the property. Chair Kramer stated the Commission would be reviewing the legislative issues, GPA, code amendment and planned community development plan. He explained that the site development review, tentative tract map, Development Agreement (DA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be considered at the next hearing. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Associate Planner Nova described the extent of the North Newport Center Planned Community. She explained the application requested by the Irvine Company in 2009 to incorporate the central portion of Block 100 into the North Newport Center Planned Community. Vice Chair Koetting questioned why all of Block 100 was not included. He asked about the vision for Fashion Island. Community Development Director Brandt stated Fashion Island was a regional shopping destination. She explained the concentration and intensity of development in the upper half of Newport Center. Vice Chair Koetting questioned why the City previously approved the height increase for Block 100. Associate Planner Nova explained that this was an individual application request made by the property owner of the middle of Block 100 whereas the other parcels are under a different property ownership. For this application, she explained staffs consideration of height limits and existing building heights in the area as a range of heights in Newport Center when preparing a recommendation as to whether a height increase is appropriate for the area. Chair Kramer stated it was necessary to determine what was best for Block 100. He discussed inconsistencies and anomalies in the surrounding blocks. He indicated support for mixed use and suggested the possibility of a Mixed Use (MU) designation. Associate Planner Nova stated the applicant requested RM and MU which could be denser. Chair Kramer expressed concern with the waiver of 10-acre minimum for a planned community district and suggested 150 Newport Center be incorporated into an existing planned community. Associate Planner Nova stated the project could be incorporated as a subarea of North Newport Center. Community Development Director Brandt Page 2 of 8 131 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/21/16 recommended incorporating it into North Newport Center because it is contiguous. Chair Kramer discussed existing grade and proposed height. Associate Planner Nova stated staff had suggested a 50-foot height limit to the applicant. She explained that by removing one additional floor, the project height would be 55 feet and the overall height would be 61 feet with appurtenances. Chair Kramer expressed concern with the setbacks and driveway issues. He stated it was necessary to determine the appropriate number of units and height. Commissioner Weigand discussed responses to the EIR and read a portion of the Irvine Company letter. He requested copies of the responses. Associate Planner Nova explained that responses were being prepared for CEQA related comment letters and would be available for the August 4, 2016 meeting. In response to Commissioner Dunlap, Associate Planner Nova stated the project was 1.3 acres. She stated the EIR considered 49 units and 7 stories. In response to Commissioner Lawler, Associate Planner Nova explained that the existing 12 planned community waivers in the City ranged from 0.76 acres to 9.63 acres, with half of those under 2 acres in area. She explained the benefits of a planned community which provides more flexible development standards. Community Development Director Brandt clarified the 20 percent reduction in units for prior General Plan Amendments that applies under Section 423. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Community Development Director Brandt stated staff would bring back options for combining 150 Newport Center in other planned communities within Newport Center and a breakdown and background of existing planned communities with a waiver of the 10-acre minimum. Chair Kramer requested historical background on the 32-foot height limit for properties in Newport Center. Commissioner Hillgren discussed height restrictions in relation to the cascading master plan and view protection. He suggested a taller and thinner rather than a short and wide project. In response to Vice Chair Koetting about the 100 dwelling unit threshold, Community Development Director Brandt clarified that there are only 5 unbuilt/unentitled dwelling units remaining in Newport Center and the proposed application requires an increase in units currently allowed under the General Plan. She explained that the 100 unit threshold is tied to Charter Section 423 and the trigger for voter approval. She stated the threshold applies over a rolling 10-year period. Vice Chair Koetting asked if there were any potential residential sites. Associate Planner Nova stated there is a current application at the Orange County Museum House site,which consists of 100 proposed dwelling units. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Mike Lutton, representing the applicant, stated the initial project was for a seven-story building with no environmental impacts. He explained the reduction to six stories. Elaine Linhoff stated the opponents had to prove why changing the law was bad. She expressed doubt about the applicants statement that traffic would be reduced. She stated the only benefit of the project was increased revenue. She suggested the amendment be denied. Enrique Gonzalez suggested implementation of the Specific Plan. He suggested recycled water be required for car washes. Tom Fredericks asked if displacement of car wash customers were included in the car trip calculations. He stated the residents would drive to and from the project. He questioned the less than minimal footprint increase. Jeffery Stephan stated he was the former carwash owner. He stated the carwash recycled water and it was a good business. Page 3 of 8 132 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/21/16 Dennis Baker, representing SPON, read comments from their letter sent to the Planning Commission regarding the DEIR, highlighting the inappropriateness of a Planned Community Development(PCD)as an egregious example of spot zoning and precedent for relaxing height limitations and use of PCD for small parcels. Beth Kiley expressed concern about setting a bad precedent. She stated the project was a 34-unit per acre development, which would change the lifestyle in Newport Beach. She urged the Commission to retain the General Plan vision. Debbie Stevens expressed appreciation for staff and Planning Commission review of the project. She stated she did not support the waiver for a Planned Community nor the height. She requested the opportunity to review the response to comments on the EIR. Lorian Petry discussed the City Hall location which was initially intended to be a freeway exit. She described the City's General Plan as a desired end through 2025 and urged the Commission to implement the vision. Allan Beek discussed development measures and stated the people did not want the development. He stated that staff had thoroughly analyzed whether the project could be approved but urged the Planning Commission to carefully consider whether the project should be approved. Jean Watt expressed disagreement with the application of prior land use changes toward the current Section 423 thresholds and concern about the "domino effect" of increased project heights. She stated the precedent setting resulted in different landscape in Newport Center. Cindi Schwartz, owner of Muldoon's, discussed the 200 block of Newport Center. She questioned why the applicant was not sensitive to blocking the views from Muldoon's. She stated the scale, height and width of the development must be considered. She urged the Commission to implement the General Plan and retain the commercial zoning. She suggested two or three stories should be adequate. Jim Warren suggested that the parameters for the property have been set and that the applicant should make the project fit within the rules. Susan Skinner suggested that the project should consider increases due to traffic diverted to other car washes. She expressed concern about the project acting as a tipping point for more intense development characteristic of Los Angeles and requested the Commission deny the proposed development. She stated the project required a Greenlight vote as a result of the 79 dwelling units associated with the San Joaquin Plaza project and emphasized that the ballot box provides residents with a powerful voice and recourse for the bad choices of City leaders. Nancy Skinner commended the Commission for its thoughtful consideration of the project. She expressed concern with development exceeding the 2006 General Plan and impacting the charm and character of the community. She stated the project was too tall and massive. She urged the Commission to deny the exceptions and enforce the General Plan. Carl Cassidy urged the Commission to take a holistic approach with fiscal responsibility. He discussed potential litigation when going against the public. Jim Mosher stated the planning staff did not realize the City's rigid limitations on structure height. He discussed the 50-foot height limits for Block 100. He discussed conversion of units and the Greenlight policy. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Mr. Lutton discussed outreach and efforts to benefit the community. He stated they owned and operated the car wash and new carwashes were opening at nearby gas stations. Page 4 of 8 133 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/21/16 Community Development Director Brandt corrected the typographical error on page 4 stating it should read 69.2% rather than 60.2%. She acknowledged the time needed to review the response to comments on the EIR and recommended continuing the matter to August 18, 2016. Chair Kramer stated the proposed continuance seemed reasonable. Mr. Lutton concurred. Commissioner Weigand stated the Museum House study session was tentatively scheduled for August 18, 2016 as well. Commissioner Lawler discussed existing planned community development waivers of the 10-acre minimum and requested further analysis of these waivers. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Associate Planner Nova discussed the possibility of incorporating the project into the North Newport Center Community. Chair Kramer stated the issues were height, number of units, and intensity. Vice Chair Koetting thanked the Commission, staff, and public for its input. He stated there was work to be done on the project. Commissioner Dunlap stated he was also impressed with the public comment. He stated he heard the community did not want residential on the site. He discussed alternatives which could be worse. He agreed with looking into the possibility of tying the project into another planned community. Chair Kramer stated he did not see a problem with changing the zoning to residential. He stated the issue was the zoning code amendment and opportunity for planned community. Motion made by Chair Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to continue the hearing to August 18, 2016. AYES: Dunlap, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Koetting, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak RECESS Chair Kramer called a recess at 9:03 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:09 p.m.with all Commissioners present except Commissioner Zak. VIII. RENT BUSINESS ITEM NO. WEST NEWPROT MESA STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN (PA2015-138) Location: West Newport Mesa Associate P er Ben Zdeba gave a brief introduction of the project and introduced the consultant for the ter Plan, Brian Hannegan of RRM Design Group. Mr. Hannegan explained the Is of the Master Plan, outreach efforts, and existing and proposed improvements. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's comment a t undergrounding utilities in the area, Mr. Hannegan noted that would not be part of the prop d improvements; however, should undergrounding be completed, the Master Plan would sti applicable to the increased parkway area. Mr. Hannegan discussed proposed trees and shrubs and the near-term phase. Page 5 of 8 23.4