The Village Board of Trustees approved a revitalization plan for Upper Port on Monday night, one step of a continuing process as local leaders attempt to turn around the area.

The plan devised by local firm Campani  Schwarting Architects – who are also working on a waterfront revitalization plan for the village – looks at making Upper Port a more walkable area with a higher residential population, calling for changes in zoning to promote growth while adding green spaces and utilizing the train station as a transportation hub.

The board’s decision to approve the plan – which was not on Monday night’s agenda – comes nearly a year after a public meeting on a preliminary version.

“I think our goal was to make walkable neighborhoods with commercial uses serving the local needs, and to utilize public transportation to maybe replace some of the automobile needs,” architect Michael Schwarting said in an interview on Wednesday.

The 2010 U.S. Census counted just 184 people living in the study area – which ran north of the train tracks to Sheep Pasture/North Country Road, and from Texaco Park to Oakland Avenue/Highland Boulevard. Though that number in actuality is likely higher, increasing the population able to serve commerce running down Main Street while beautifying the area with greenscapes and sidewalk improvements will be central to Upper Port’s revitalization, the duo said.

Francis Campini agreed with her partner, though added beyond adding more commercial space, “I would say a component of that is to actually increase the residential population. Which isn’t different from that, but a piece of that.

“In terms of revitalizing area, there is such a potential for residential, and it’s different from the general residences in area. The single-family house, typical suburban model. This is a real village model with a core. People would live there, shop there, maybe take the train to Stony Brook University, or take the bus and go somewhere else.”

With the board’s approval, the Upper Port plan will be used as a key part of Port Jefferson Village’s comprehensive plan.

The Upper Port revitalization plan suggests that the Village Board adopt mixed-use zoning along the Main Street “spine,” with commercial use on the bottom floor and residential up top. Currently, property owners can apply for residential use on top of the commercial corridor on Main Street, “but this is something we want to promote,” Campini said, adding that the plan calls for allowing four-story buildings along Main Street as well. Currently, three floors are permitted at most.

East of Main Street, the plan also calls for overlay zoning on top of several parcels that only permits office buildings currently. The overlay zoning would permit residential use on upper floors, over offices on the ground floor.

Hoping to draw places for families to play, the revitalization document looks at adding a half-acre park in the roughly six acres the village owns near Highlands Boulevard, while also upgrading the existing Texaco Park on the west end of Upper Port. Though no in-depth ideas were promoted for the rest of the land, uses such as an arboretum, active recreation such as ballfields, or even housing were suggested.

And hoping to play up the train station – a structure that dates back to the 1870s – Campisi and Schwarting call for a redesign of the parking lot, from the station itself to Main Street. While several “poorly undersized” spaces fill the area between the station and the road, Schwarting said he’s like to “bring the train station in better visual proximity to the street.” By re-organizing the spaces, and actually gaining three more, the plan would fill in much of the area with benches, brick walkways and landscaping.

In addition, Schwarting noted that the coordination of schedules between the Port Jefferson/Bridgeport Ferry, buses, and trains should be considered to utilize more use of all three.

Mayor Margot Garant did not immediately return requests for comment.

Gallery-owners Barbara and Ludo Leidevitz’s dream came true when they eyed a lease sign on a building they’d wanted for more than a decade.

The triangular-shaped space, complete with high ceilings and lots of windows, was across from the Festival of the Arts grounds and the Laguna Beach Playhouse. The couple got a business license, a conditional-use permit and a Planning Commission OK and opened the Ocean Forest Gallery just days before the festival season began last summer.

New businesses in OC in 2012

Lake Forest: 113

Rancho Santa Margarita: 28

Laguna Beach: 31

Anaheim: 3,996

Huntington Beach: 2,889

Newport Beach: 3,089

Irvine: 1,763

San Juan Capistrano: 1,582

Now, immersed in the arts community and embraced by nearby business owners, the couple’s business is thriving.

“I feel honored,” Barbara Leidevitz said. “It’s so renowned here for its artistic atmosphere. At times, I’m like, ‘Wow, we’ve really got an art gallery here.'”

The city’s arts reputation, its quality of life and its reputation as a thriving tourist destination are big draws for businesses, city officials say. In 2012, more than 31 businesses opened in the 24,942-resident town.

“More than 50 percent of people who want to do business because they’ve been coming here for years and have had wonderful experiences,” said Ann Larson, planning manager who’s been working with interested business owners for 22 years.

Cities countywide are positioning themselves to attract businesses and the sales tax revenue they bring. Whether by waiving business licenses, honing in on specific segments of the market or through some other approach, cities are tailoring their economic development strategies.

Some pay full-time staff, while others look to consultants to market the city’s vision to prospective companies and retailers. Many work with their chambers of commerce. Still others develop task forces to help prospective businesses get through red tape. When commercial properties fill up, demand drives up rents; that spills over to residential units and property values go up with demand for more employees, said Jan Brueckner, a professor of economics at UC Irvine.

Businesses look for well-maintained communities to settle in, experts say. A good community lifestyle helps draw workers. Businesses also look to see what other businesses have set up shop in town. Settling near another, similar, business makes it easier to find skilled workers because they’re already in the area – and, in some cases, ideas from one business may rub off on another, Brueckner said.

“Once a place gets the ball rolling, they get a cumulative advantage,” Brueckner said.

SOUTH COUNTY CITIES

In inland Orange County, Lake Forest is home to at least 40 businesses with national and international headquarters. The city promotes itself as both a geographically well-positioned and a family-oriented location for business. In the third quarter of 2012, the city’s business parks had 98 percent occupancy, compared to 94 percent in Irvine and 96 percent countywide, said Jessica Gonzales, economic development manager.

Oakley occupies seven buildings and is the city’s largest employer, with 2,400 people. In 1997, the company was one of the first to buy land in what is now Lake Forest’s corporate community. Other sports-action companies like Sole Technology now operate in the city. More than 113 businesses opened in 2012 in the 73,000-resident city.

This summer, Applied Medical, based in Rancho Santa Margarita, will expand into Lake Forest. The company has purchased two buildings there.

Top reasons new businesses say they come to Lake Forest include no business license requirement, expedited permitting and plan-check processes, one-on-one business consultations and competitive lease rates. Five new master-planned communities will be built in the city in the next few years bringing more than 4,000 new homes conveniently located for employees.

City officials in Rancho Santa Margarita last week discussed a plan to attract more business to their 50,000-resident community. The city budgeted $48,780 to hire a consultant.

Two recent successes for Rancho are In-N-Out Burgers and Cinepolis, a high-end, six-theater entertainment complex where guests can order food and alcoholic beverages from their cinema seats.

Both businesses were recruited to the city through efforts by council members. Three years ago, former Councilman Jerry Holloway attended the International Council of Shopping Centers, a group that helps members network through education, research and action on legislation. There Holloway made contact with representatives from In-N-Out. At that time Rancho was one of 200 cities vying for the burger eatery.

“We got a lot of input from residents saying they would like it,” he said. “Having it here will also get people to stop in town that otherwise might not. It generates a nice sales tax revenue.”

Cinepolis took an interest in Rancho when Mayor Tony Beall and several city representatives including Lt. Brian Schmutz, the city’s chief of police services, traveled to Del Mar to review an existing location. City leaders wanted to make sure that the theater and serving alcohol would be neighborhood compatible.

Ultimately city leaders want to blend resident-serving business with a balance of high-profit companies. The city has 13 businesses with national headquarters, including Cox Communications and DeNaults True Value. Last year 28 new businesses opened in the city.

DRAWING ON STRENGTHS

While Lake Forest is home to large companies in action sportswear, avionics and food retail, Rancho wants to add businesses that offer needed services to residents. Laguna Beach uses art as a primary strategy to attract bed and sales tax revenues for economic growth and to create jobs.

In December, Laguna got a Turning Red Tape Into Red Carpet award from the Orange County Business Council for its arts-oriented economic development campaign.

The campaign, an effort between the City Council, the Visitor’s Bureau and the Arts Commission, creates funding from the city’s Business Improvement District, which adds 2 percent to the existing bed tax.

The funds are used to market Laguna Beach nationally, regionally and locally as an arts-tourist destination and to provide revenue to the Laguna Art Museum, the Laguna Playhouse and the Laguna College of Art Design. In 11 years, the program has generated nearly $15 million in funding to promote tourism and the city’s arts. It is the only California business improvement district dedicated entirely to arts-related tourism purposes.

City officials want to quell the idea that doing business in Laguna is difficult. In 2010, a business-assistance task force was created to analyze the local business climate. It looked at how to retain businesses, help businesses prosper and attract new businesses. It also worked to reduce fees and provide tax reductions to draw new business.

Recently, the city developed “Open for Business,” a way for prospective business owners to see what approval hurdles they might encounter and how to overcome them, Planning Commissioner Ann Johnson said.

All businesses who want to open in the city’s 118-acre downtown specific plan have to get Planning Commission approval. The area is restricted by types of businesses and their locations. A plan is under way now look at the downtown area’s restrictions to see what works and what doesn’t.

Workshops have been set up by the Planning Commission with businesspeople, landowners, architects and local groups to review requirements. Traffic, parking and landscaping are among the issues under scrutiny. Next steps include public input on specific areas.

As for the Leidevitzes, the city’s business climate works. Their gallery, for years in an industrial area of Santa Ana, is now in a venue that provides high visibility.

“We revised our mindset in what we’re showing and really grown as a gallery,” Leidevitz said. “When we were just in college we were drawn to Laguna. We’d come here and make a whole day of it and dream of a gallery here.”

Contact the writer: 949-492-5152 or eritchie@ocregister.com or twitter.com/lagunaini

A committee of Elkhart County land use stakeholders is continuing to react to a December vote by the Elkhart County plan commission to pursue a more restrictive zoning ordinance. That policy direction, according to one plan commission member, represents the views of a “silent majority” who want the county to limit residential growth in rural areas.

Steve Warner, a Goshen farmer and plan commission member, voted with the majority to bar high density residential construction in agricultural zones. The 5 to 4 vote came in December during the plan commission’s final meeting of 2012.

Interviewed last week by telephone, Warner said the approach favored by planners, and the county commissioners, is outlined in a proposal known as Draft E, produced in 2011. Draft E allows residential development to occur on tracts of three or more acres in agricultural zones. However, developments occurring on less than three acres would require a rezoning.

The current ordinance allows homes and subdivisions to be constructed in agricultural zones without a rezoning. Warner said this has led to “explosive” population growth, causing many conflicts.

“I contend that Draft E is perfectly fine,” he said.

Warner added that he hears support for the ordinance from almost everyone he talks with. But he said those people haven’t been speaking up at public meetings.

“There is a very large silent majority,” he added.

Among the critics of Draft E, according to Warner, are the Elkhart County Farm Bureau and tea party supporters. He said those groups have offered few constructive ideas.

“Progress is what we’re looking for and not all of the criticism,” Warner said.

He said Draft E is not a perfect document, but 80 percent of it is “fine.” Warner said, though, that he would like to eliminate the standards for landscaping and home businesses. He added that Draft E is “not the scary thing (that has) been painted” by some critics.

According to Warner, one thing that was lacking in the 2011 debate, and remains missing in the 2012-13 effort, is some sort of communication plan whereby the plan commission can promote the land use proposal to the public. Although the discussions are well underway and the residential-in-ag issue has been decided, he said it is not too late for the plan commission to develop and implement a communications plan.

When Draft E was initially proposed two years ago, the Elkhart County Farm Bureau and other critics said it contained too many regulations. According to the group’s representative on the policy committee, Dwight Moudy, that is still a major concern.

Moudy said Draft E has five agricultural zones, along with “cumbersome” standards for landscaping, fencing and the number of animals allowed.

Last summer, planners appointed the policy committee to review Draft E and come up with ideas for improvement.

Six months into its task, the policy committee—which consists of farmers, realtors, developers and other concerned citizens—is working through Draft E, sometimes line by line. Progress has been slow but steady.

Much of the committee’s time and energy thus far has been focused on the issue of residential development in agricultural areas.

Instead of embracing Draft E, the committee wants to modify the current ordinance to require greater setback distances and notification requirements for homes built downwind of farms. On two occasions, the panel voted unanimously to support that proposal over Draft E.

Moudy is one of 15 members on the committee. He said Elkhart County Farm Bureau’s No. 1 goal in this process is to protect private property rights.

After the plan commission’s December vote, the policy committee asked for clarification—point-by-point reasons why the current zoning ordinance is not working. At the panel’s monthly meeting Tuesday in Dunlap, planning director Chris Godlewski said those explanations would be coming soon.

During last week’s telephone interview, Warner said that he and the four other people who voted with him in the majority were planning to meet to provide the explanations desired by the policy committee.

Meanwhile, county commissioner Mike Yoder, responding to a Jan. 11 editorial published in the Exchange, said in an e-mail that there were certain aspects of the commissioners’ plan that were not communicated properly. He stated that Draft E prohibits high density residential development in agricultural zones. He added that some people mistakenly interpreted the proposal to mean that no residential development would be allowed whatsoever.

At the plan commission’s Jan. 10 meeting, Yoder’s replacement on the panel, fellow commissioner Frank Lucchese, restated the commissioners’ position—that a rezoning should be required for homes built on parcels of less than three acres but not for homes built on three or more acres.

According to Jim Wilson, a business owner and member of the policy committee, that clarification from Lucchese was key. But for other members of the committee, like realtor Dean Slabaugh and farmer Ed Pippenger, they remain upset over the plan commission’s decision to choose a policy direction that is different than the one they supported. They point out that the policy committee began this effort with a good faith belief that its recommendations would receive serious consideration from the plan commission.

But Yoder, in his e-mail, pointed out that Draft E is the product of two years of give and take.

“There is no more room for compromise on this policy,” he wrote.

On Tuesday, Pippenger questioned whether he still wants to devote his time and energy to serving on the committee.

“If it’s all going to be for nothing, (then) I want to walk to the door and get out now,” he said.

Moudy, however, urged fellow committee members to continue their work.

“So as the voice of the people, which we all agree – we’re trying to get a good cross-section – we do our job. We come up with a good ordinance, like we’ve talked about,” he said. “Hopefully, we can convince the planning commission that it’s a good deal. They send it up (to the commissioners), then it’s in their court.”

Also weighing in was county surveyor and plan commission member Blake Doriot. He urged the policy committee to finish its task, thereby putting pressure on the commissioners to either accept or reject the panel’s recommendations.

While the commissioners have the final authority on the makeup of the county zoning ordinance, and can therefore reject the policy committee’s opinions, Doriot said the commissioners will have to defend their decisions during a public hearing at some point.

While the outcome of this debate is uncertain, it is clear that both sides believe the public is with them—whether it be the “silent majority” that Warner cites, or the “voice of the people” that Moudy said is represented by members of the policy committee.