Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 - Pacific Bay Homes, One Ford Road, PA2001-250�E -WP�kr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: August 13, 2002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 20 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Todd M. Weber NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 949- 644 -3209 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: Pacific Bay Homes (PA2001 -250) One Ford Road SUMMARY: Appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny a request to amend the Planned Community Development Plan to allow the installation of independent kitchen facilities within guest cottages. The l l properties associated with the request are identified as Parcel Nos. 1 through 8 (on Troon Drive) and Lot Nos. 9 and 13 (on Tumberrry Drive) of Tract Map No. 15387 and Lot No. 21 (on Honors Drive) of Tract Map No. 15389. ACTION: l ) Conduct the public hearing; 2) Uphold the Planning Commission decision to deny the applicant's request; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2002- denying the appeal of the Planning Community Development Text Amendment No. 2001 -003 for the single - family residential community identified as One Ford Road. APPLICANT: Pacific Bay Properties LOCATION: Within the One Ford Road residential development bounded by Ford Road to the south, Bison Road to the north, Jamboree Road to the west and the Belcourt Park residential development to the east. Introduction and Background The applicant, Pacific Bay Properties, filed a request to amend the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan to allow selected properties within the One Ford Road residential development to include kitchen facilities within the guest cottages. As originally proposed, the amendment would have affected l l lots within Planning Area 4 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC- 24) District Regulations. Ms. Carmen L. Vali, Ph. D., of Hogle- Ireland, Inc., represents the applicant. The original request resulted from a 2001 Variance application that sought kitchen facilities within a proposed guest cottage. The inclusion of additional kitchen facilities makes the guest cottages Accessory Dwelling Units and Second Units by definition pursuant to the Zoning Code. Therefore, the Variance requested the authorization of a prohibited use that staff deemed 40 inappropriate and returned to the applicant. The Planning Commission denied the applicant's request at the April 4, 2002 meeting by a 4 -2 -0 decision (1 absent). The City Council first held a hearing on the appeal application on June 25, 2002. It was subsequently continued twice, the last continuance to this meeting. The continuances were granted in an effort to give the applicant an opportunity to address rental and parking concerns from the City and surrounding property owners. Site Overview The project site is the One Ford Road single - family residential development. The development is situated between Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard, on the north side of Ford Road extending to Bison Avenue. While not completely built -out, the private, gated community is fully improved and only 6 of the 8 lots along Troon Drive are vacant. All of the parcels associated with the original request are or will be developed with single - family homes. The 3 properties not located on Troon Drive already have guest cottages (or structures that may serve as such) constructed in conjunction with the main residence. A review of the building permits revealed square footages for 2 of the cottages: 536 square feet (sq. ft.) and 919 sq. ft. The applicant indicated the cottages would be built in varying sizes. Project Overview The applicant's representative proposed two different methods to accomplish the request. The first method was to amend the Planned Community Text for One Ford Road, allowing R -1.5 Zoning for the 11 properties associated with the request. Ms. Vali's letter states that making the requested change would allow for the guest "cottages to be classified as second units." The second method suggested using the Use Permit process to approve second units for the 11 properties. Finally, the original letter stated that the respective landowners would be willing to stipulate that the guest cottages could not be leased or rented independently from the main residences. Since the June 25b meeting the applicant has revised the request to only apply to the 8 Troon Drive properties exclusively. Analysis In reviewing the two methods proposed to approve the project, staff made the following determinations. The One Ford Road community is defined as Planning Area 4 under Section IX of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community District Regulations, which permits Single - Family Detached subdivisions and custom home development. The District Regulations do not list Accessory Dwelling Units or Second Units as permitted uses. Changing the Zoning for the 8 properties along Troon Drive from custom lots and homes to R -1.5 in order to accommodate Second Units would be inconsistent with the General Plan which designated the area for single - family development, the R 1.5 District is a multi - family district. The second method proposes to approve the Second Units through the use permit process. This approach would also be problematic due to the same inconsistency issue. This is why the request Pacific Bay Homes (PA2001 -250) August 13, 2002 Page 2 of 4 . was presented to the Planning Commission as a new definition for the guest cottages, in order to distinguish them from Second Units. The staff report from the June 25" City Council meeting has been attached so that the information in that report would not have to be repeated. The main issues are discussed below. Potential Issues Through staff's analysis and communication from One Ford Road residents, staff had previously identified 3 potential issues to be considered in conjunction with this request and subsequent appeal: 1) the possible rental of the cottages; 2) parking adequacy; and 3) equity among similar properties in the development. With the applicant now wanting to limit the request to the Troon Drive properties, the equity issue appears to have been removed. The applicant contends that, due to the exclusive nature of the existing community and the high cost of the properties, there is limited risk that the proposed guest cottages will be rented or used for separate households. The intent is to provide separate quarters for family, guests, or live -in service providers. However, concern about potential rental of the cottages is the most frequent comment staff has received from residents of the community. After extensive review of current case law and the development's Covenants, Codes & Restrictions (C.C. & R.'s), staff does not feel that the City would be able to preclude the rental aspect nor limit the range of potential rental candidates in a manner that would be acceptable to all concerned parties. Furthermore, cities are prevented from delegating enforcement of their regulations to third parties such a community associations. The Assistant City Attorney has advised that it is not clear whether a restriction on the rental of the cottage separately from the main dwelling is enforceable. Furthermore, the City cannot establish a range of acceptable renters while precluding others. The courts have determined this practice to be discriminatory and an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. Issues pertaining to parking also have been raised from people living in the community who are aware of this request. The parking and guest parking provisions of the Planned Community District Regulations require a minimum of 2 spaces per detached dwelling unit with another 2 spaces required per unit for guest parking (of which only 1 may be provided in the driveway). With the revised proposal now only seeking the guest cottages for the lots on Troon Drive, staff feels that requirements for guest parking would not be a problem. The issue of equity appears to have lessened, if not removed altogether. Since all of the lots on Troon Drive are a combination of two former lots, there is a distinct separation in size between them and the remainder of the properties in the development. The original request resulted in a dilemma for staff in that properties of the same size were not being treated equally. The revised request only regards the larger Troon Drive lots that are easily distinguishable from the next largest lot type in the development. Pacific Bay Homes (PA2001 -250) August 13, 2002 Page 3 of 4 The continuance was allowed so that the applicant was afforded an opportunity to submit additional information to address the rental concerns of staff and the general public. While additional information was submitted, it did not remove the concerns regarding the rental aspect. Affordable housing is a priority for the State of California and any efforts to preclude such through a rental prohibition may not be supported by the courts if challenged. Additionally, if approved, the request raises concerns from staff regarding additional requests for the same second set of kitchen facilities from other developments similar to One Ford Road. It would not be unreasonable to expect a proliferation of similar requests throughout the City, effectively changing the character of many communities that were designed as single - family developments. Based upon these concerns and the Planning Commission's decision, staff is not supportive of the applicant's request. Recommendation Uphold the Planning Commission decision of June 6, 2002 that denied the applicant's request. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE �Planning Director 11 �JCM(eil �1� Exhibits Prepared by: TODD M. WEBER Associate Planner i At . 1. Letter from Ms. Carmen. L Vali, Ph. D., representing the revised request 2. City Council staff report from the June 25" meeting. Pacific Bay Homes (PA2001 -250) August 13, 2002 Page 4 of 4 L J 0 • HOGLE IRELAND II•iy A fmd Planning 6'Deuelopnwnt ConsutdngFirm August 6, 2002 Todd Weber, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Weber, As You know, Pacific Bay Homes, developer of One Ford Road, has submitted an appeal to a Planning Commission action regarding the application for a Planned Community Text Amendment. This application addresses second units on properties within the One Ford Road development. As you may recall, the owner, Pacific Bay Homes, would like the guest cottages within the project to allow for more than one food preparation facility. Currently, more than one food preparation facility causes the cottages to be defined as a second unit. The original application included eleven (11) properties within the development. At this time, Pacific Bay Homes would like the apphcation/appeal to contain only those eight (8) properties located on Troon Drive. Six (6) lots are vacant and will be sold as custom home sites, and two horses have been built. Only one of the completed homes has a guest cottage already on -site. Pacific Bay Homes would like, at this time, to drop the other three (3) lots from the original application and is only asking for consideration of the remaining 8 lots. Our application is for an amendment to the Planned Community Text allowing 1.5 Residential Zoning for the homes on Troon Drive. This change in zoning would allow these cottages to be classified as second units, and they could therefore contain more than one food preparation facility. These guest cottages, or second units, if allowed at One Ford Road, would be useful to help temporarily house family members, live -in service providers, and provide a unique and private environment for guests of the homeowners. In fact, the land owners would be willing to stipulate that these units would not be for sale, rent or lease at any time, and would be willing to accept any sanctions the City may deem appropriate to prevent these cottages from becoming income - producing properties. It is our hope that the City Council of City of Newport Beach can accommodate this request. Should you have any questions or need more information or materials regarding this application, please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 553 -1427. Sin ely, 7�e �. Carmen L. Cave Ph.D. Assistant Project Manages Exhibit No. 1 5 Corporate Park, Suite 160, Irvine, California 92606 - 949/553 -1627 - FAX 9491553 -0935 I R V I N E- R I V E R S I D E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2002 -003 FOR THE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY IDENTIFIED AS ONE FORD ROAD WHEREAS, the applicant has requested the approval of additional kitchen facilities for certain properties along Troon Drive through the changing the zoning or through the use permit process; and WHEREAS, on March 7, 2002, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 4, 2002 for the application of Planned Community Development Text Amendment No. 2001 -003, and denied the applicant's request, subject to certain findings; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 2002 the applicant filed to appeal the Planning Commission decision to deny Planned Community Development Text Amendment No. 2001 -003 in accordance with Zoning Code Section 20.95.050(A); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.95.060, the City Council held public hearings on June 11, June 25 and August 13, 2002 to consider the appeal. NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. The single - family residential properties within One Ford Road are afforded substantial property rights without the approval of an amendment to the Planned Community Development Plan. The property owner is not deprived of the use and enjoyment of their property as a result of the strict application of the General Plan, the Planned Community Development Plan, and the Zoning Code. 2. The establishment of full kitchen facilities in guest houses for selected properties will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the legislative intent of the Zoning Code in that it would change the single - family character of the existing development. Exhibit No. 2 1 This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of August 2002 by the following vote to wit: . AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK F: \USERS\PLN\ Shared \PA's\PA2001 - 250 \PD2001 -003 ccresolution.doc • 1] b 0 I* James E. Thompson 2 Crooked Stick Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 July 31, 2002 The Honorable Tod Ridgeway Mayor of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mayor Ridgeway: '02 RUG —7 A 9 :21 OF' !' E OF f'L Si i Y CLERn CITY F NPORT BEdCIi Pacific Bay Properties' request for kitchen appliances in guest quarters is reasonable, and I am writing in ag= . Homes the size and value of those contemplated will no doubt have either live -in help, or quarters for a relative, both of which would benefit by having separate cooking facilities. Please vote YES. Thank you, Jim Thompson 2 Crooked Stick Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Date —L l�--a' Copies Sent To: ,-19-M-ayor �,2'Ea ,oncil Member Manager ❑ A rney ■ AUG- 13-2002 09:41AM FROM- NOGLE- IRELAND 9485530935 `622 ? 002/002 F -386 EIHOGLE-IRELAND i� Lnnd!'Innnmg.'r Uctr.lnpinrnr (:nncrJring FS u 1 August 13, 2002 LaVonne Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RE: Appeal to City Council of Planning Commission Decision on PA2001 -250 ]dear Ms. Harkless, On behalf of Pacific Bay Homes, I would like a withdrawl of our appeal on the above referenced matter. This item is scheduled for today's City Council Meeting. The applicanl/owner, Pacific Bay Homes, has decided not to pursue this matter further. Thank you for your consideration. Sine ely, Carmen L. Cave Hoglei- Ireland, Inc. For Pacific Bay Homes Date Caries Sent To: []-Mayor ❑ Council Member ❑-Manager ❑ Attorney El 42 Curilu rn rr I'.lr k, Soil, 250, liywi,., C,lliliriilia D2606 • ]-r9 / 553 -14 ?7 - rnx 9119 / 557 -11y35 • Hn.'m 0111 r nm I K I N E. - fa1 \1 F. R S 1 0 E Tom & Arabelle Brown 4 Vintage Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Todd M. Weber Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Pacific Bay Homes (PA2001 -250) One Ford Road Dear Mr. Weber, eiJ r. �0 .. k w3,_ RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AUG ? , 2002 01 PN1 Being a homeowner in this single family home area has been very enjoyable. We lived in our previous home in Corona Del Mar since 1988. So many residents began renting out areas above garages, rooms, etc., even though we lived in an R1 zoned area it did not stop people from renting out portions of their property for income. These homes exceed the size and price of the homes in One Ford Road, but the homeowners still modified their homes and rented out portions of the property, which pushed the cars that should have been parked in garages, out onto the street. I am asking you to vote against Pacific Bay's appeal to allow kitchens in the homes on Troon Drive. It would give other homeowners the go ahead to get permits to allow them the same luxury. Attached is a map of our area showing homes that can be converted easily into rental properties. This number exceeds over 40 homes, not counting Troon Drive. If you add two cars per rental property, you can see how many more cars would be on our streets, which are already too narrow for emergency vehicles to reach some areas. This would be an ongoing problem for our association or the City Council to constantly be monitoring. Sincerely, Tom & Arabelle Brown THIS IS A MAP OF OUR AREA SHOWING • BALBOA HOMES I —II PHASE PHASE • STONEYBROOK II 1 -3 4 • STONEYBROOK III ALREADY C J BALBOA BUILT —OUT SECOND HOUSE ® DF'3iG'N CE "VTt91 L_.__J CARMH p ! "FtOVt1�EDlCF hpcAr)t:5 STONYHROOK i �.` SUMMERHOUSE 60 I I0R ,c 3e ul wi / rfX 711 I�_ WON �. t. PROVIDENCE qTH SCa 63 p� 4PAMISI{ AT} Ia x0P 69 71 •D rOi.r 3 a 51;L. n4 m 1A {R 3C 114R q7 "1i IC xA IIA 'R IN If �] a0p P 90 45 J 4 y 72 9 10 Il 2tl I a 3CT 0 N 1 40. •C IY rR C0. 10� 10n (t7 73 3A 12 j3 i4 I$ IG 137 )VM1 3CN rF i.1 -1 Si 16 ,57 IN pi xn � O >@ B UPITER IDLLS D IR 19 ° °" .N to aeN �x al 41 74 3as a x RivE Itl anx PARR p 18 3 ae b7 6G 11 �� OpV 19 ¢ 2 75 Ia xa ¢R au ��+ GS a o :li R 31 i1 pl, I.oNP LI ,c IM k 3O z0x 1� GJ 4" Q Ib.' 9P 38 rA aC IyA 277b 25 2q 23 21 � 7G )e mn em 6[.' w a1 G! 16 OP a fC r80. � l0R 90P Iq 15 {P 1 2 O 9aR 3pR 20P) d. P ea 3 7 A q 10 12 ena OtD - 7U is GI 20R � a0a3 Ix x 1% COURbE 4Rj}!E:, 1r, 71 x G11 15 EA lxc ee 3 3@;z ICa EDGEIVOOD O 111CR 2 3C50. 2y ° ® 3 Q 72 aap 77]�� 4 `4 au 5A � i4 43 9 41 4f eR aM8 RIVE A4 r I lD xM 1 V_11111,ffl�}C m "o G U w 471xt 4C 81 iD IU OAR TREE DRIVE A Ewa .k r BAVff°0.A55 OR. e e zo l 2h .xR )7 A 40 xn zc 79 u 13xrn 'na lLR BnsR I7 14 15 Ib 17 RI 711 �i SO la ae 78 cj ER xasH rD Icx x ° S7 la y SG a 3C le ae xw: xn 31 3xa xD 32 30 x 3na .r0. IN P Fn 51 )n InR 77 O 14 rD IS Ib 17 IB 51 x I[r. 5.5 Iv 3n iC I� 52 ae }BR 7G MA }DSTDr.2E D0.1vL -- itit) iD )[ a0 3030P KR 33 ' j 31 r , iC Pe L3 L$ 2e q 53 is {na 75 yraa L 10 � "� 71 2U 19 IA 291c aoa 3-0 N � SO {0 :p SJ o 22 24 DP. u 54 ec ina 74 Ian 21 20 3OSa 0x00.5 DR1V6 R� 31 1� ♦Ly .e )c NO 2B xu )5 �' 49 xFP � TU0.iW I7 SS a Raa 77 Iq IeR iDS us ` 2q 25 27 3u g; .. 'a_r. 53 2aT li 3 IB S6 3v IxRn72 29 r0 31 2g 26 V I`1 ua nsa xP 3U � � Irn 36 S.' LI 2l1 x �� Rc 2Na uv 3OR an ,D 4R ac O� 34 rp OYSTER BAY D0.. IS' 29 {BR IB 311 3u 3CP ID 571%OR 71 ae ra 27 yR1vE I RCR aD xR ro 37 q7 )ne 3Ja 1c 14 IS I6 $BxCP ]0 xA 2G �5y, ?5'O 33 32 rn 1.1 5'] i�92CR TNU04D 34 rC 3as ` �: 4h 3nP IPR ana Raa J8 37 ten 12 62616�cR bg lnax !6 750 ins iu xx x049 JSR:. �4 141 40 9� 45 S 2c 0C II ie l% L p 3C67:cRY xG 2C0 xDS dh 47 48DR 45 R 70 03 (� c X .16 37 44 v2NJ� a9 51 55 56 '�. )rn �$ <u ORS L A 3as ins 4J ^F• \y' RD 52 53 '� Joa c w0E' y; 1• �� .1 38 xR 42 O 50x \. x eNa ... ..... RL dL SS 4 lu }DR 3DS R zn 31) 10 2C0. acR 7 SIU U 4( 1 41 5110 •xi_ 3 l 1/� i� lee DLD COURS•nRPV .. C4D1 '� —' 4U 41 42 43 44 � (... -- aG' 24 31R )C 1 78R 3A ••:5 IS �,.: •t lout 2l 2 t0u 9 DD4 InP ID N j g o C 4J1'E P I4R 14 a 0 4 zc p - �5 "rR IT 6 It a 15 7 3C eC 14 R It IIt�_ O I' Ill � EURn ROAD O N E F O R D R O A D Chad E. Deegan, Sr. Erin E. Deegan 31 Long Bay Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 August 12, 2002 The Honorable Tod Ridgeway Newport Beach Mayor P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Pacific Bay Properties/One Fad Road Dear Mayor Ridegeway; RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTP,9FN7 AUG i 3 2002 AP9 P' silulA•161{5 We are residents of the One Ford Road community and are writing to express our opposition to the proposed addition of a second kitchen on one property. The following concerns have not been addressed to our satisfaction. This community was designed as a single - family neighborhood. Not a double residence. Adding an additional kitchen to certain homes takes away my right as a homeowner to benefit from what I originally purchased and the original intent of the neighborhood. Should the petition be granted to the homes on Troon Drive, the likelihood that other homeowners in the neighborhood will seek kitchens still remains strong. If denied, these homeowners will appeal the decision on the grounds that it is discrimination (i.e. cannot limit the additional kitchen to certain homes at the exclusion of the other homes in One Ford Road). The additional kitchen would most likely be utilized for servant's quarters where the residents do not want them in the main house. Conversely, a guest of a homeowner would always be welcome to sleep in the separate quarters and use the main kitchen. Again, this could have been contemplated in the initial community proposal. We did not buy in a community that intended to have servant's quarters. If someone wants live-in help, let them live in. The actions of the planning commission thus far have been consistent and reasonable. Please consider our concerns as the proposal is discussed again. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Y - Chad E. Deegan, Sr. Erin E. Deegan Jack B. King 32 Long Bay Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 August 12, 2002 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTNIFN T CITY C�- N1 -`r F- .,-,;,H %J02 The Honorable Tod Ridgeway AM AUG 3 Phil Mayor Of Newport Beach "rlri I : "�ht fit,; I 3i''ISIv P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: One Ford Road Amendment of Community Development Plan Appeal Dear Mayor Ridgeway, On the surface, Pacific Bay Properties' request to amend our community plan may seem to be a legitimate request for a community such as One Ford Road given the cost of entry into the community, particularly on Troon Drive. When one looks deeper, beyond today's considerations, I believe that future problems may arise in the community which would adversely affect the lifestyle that we sought when we purchased a home inside the gates of One Ford Road. It is my understanding that in order to grant Pacific Bay's request the city would have to re -zone the community from R -1 to R -1.5, and that a restriction of this concession would likely not hold up in court in the future, should other homeowners in the community decide to add kitchens to their cassitas or upstairs in homes with 2 'd floor access to the ground via external stairway. Some families in the community may feel that this fear is unfounded. To those I would point out that there have already been situations created in the community where a homeowner has chosen to rent their One Ford Road residence to multiple tenant occupants, creating undesirable traffic and parking problems. (To see where this could lead in the future one needs only to try and find a parking place in Corona Del Mar neighborhoods.) In one instance such a One Ford Road home rental may have brought sought after criminals (drug dealers) into the community. This has already happened without changing the zoning from R -1 to R -1.5. It is my concern that such a zoning change, could, over time, outweigh the obvious advantages to certain homeowners who would benefit from the request under your consideration. For the reasons above stated, I am opposed to Pacific Bay Properties' request and believe that their appeal to your (correct) decision should be denied. Please vote NO! Thank you, Jack B. King 32 Long Bay Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 John & Alison Fairbanks 65 Old Course Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach City Council Todd M. Webber 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Pacific Bay Homes (Pa2001 -250) One Ford Road Dear City Council, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPA9Th,1FNT CITY C " ,17 AU` i 7-002 j The possibility of changing our zoning from an R1 to an R1.5 concerns my wife and I a great deal. We have enjoyed many aspects of our community, particularly, a single family residential area. That was one of the reasons we purchased a home in One Ford Road. Our home is a `Balboa' style. We enter our garage through an alley behind our home. One of the concerns we have is that the parking is currently very busy around our streets and many of our neighbors are currently parking in the alley ways, making it difficult for us, not to mention emergency vehicles, if the occasion arose. If the City Council approves the homes on Troon drive to modify the zoning, it will affect many models of Balboa II and some of the Balboa I style homes. They have back stairways that can easily be converted to entrances that could be rented and would increase the difficulty we have with parking. This would not stop people obtaining permits to do this modification on their homes. We have very strong reservations about this issue. We do not support a change in our zoning in any way. you, rJo and Alison Fairbanks Nancy and Robert Robison 34 Long Bay Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 August 12, 2002 RECEIVED BY PEANNINC DEPARTiIiFNT The Honorable Steven Bromberg Mayor Pro Tem P.O. Box 1768 2 %�� �;�i�11�1' "�i� i•i7�U Newport Beach, CA 92658 - 8915,. Re: One Ford Road Amendment of Community Development Plan Appeal Dear Steve, We are opposed to Pacific Bay Properties' request to add kitchens to cassitas and upstair homes with 2nd floor access to the ground via external stairway. We understand that if this request was granted the city would have to re -zone the community from R -1 to R -1.5; which would change the lifestyle here and we, and our neighbors, bought here because we liked the lovely, peaceful surroundings and single family dwellings.. We hope you will vote against this Amendment. Thank yo Thank and b Robisonc��� 334 Long ay Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 RECEIVED BY / PLANNING DEPARTMFM! i CITY L.'_ J,I 1 ! 1 c�`.'c:rx- Li�LL1Ei y.t1�iQ15' �! i4,i� •�h�� �. � �� %L�� hf =r-=� fin"' /�/i %�'L` -7 � /� " /r4 r= ��✓ i oiri:7, - "� L " i" LPL' ��'vYJ2- CC7�_c�C �.Cd� c-� ,.• LL�fC�� -.;�— �.c��zr t� r (,� -'�.� . /L., ��-q'' .c`: ���- C�.��.- �2.e_e`,_ —_ �_.�LG7'1•�k_ c`Z.�`�u L :' ��.r.'`- �n�L_� ✓)�{�jC..i�/?l,.J /mss. {� C��.�- '- �.;.�. ��t -GL.�i Lt:� -1- -' '�(� /�i- `YL_6� -t \.' .rQi� --�-�� f"-' �" ✓� ?7 C.r13'(�, -1_ till"` %."'J /,(- � -.'l_" ���5� /v�i7'�l -E__ August 12, 2002 Elaine and Jeff Lieb Residents, One Ford Road 949 - 729 -1233 To: Newport City Council Re: Re- zoning One Ford Road to allow kitchens in detached units RECEIVED BY PLANNING DL'.R'\ 3Tk tF\MT' r i,r 'I�rI I�.�A.L �:. Edl � Ial o-ll alLa liJ We recently bought our home at One Ford Road. This neighborhood was represented to us as one - family residential. We have again been notified that several different plans of homes within our development have applied for permission to install kitchen facilities inside their detached structures. If this is allowed, it will mean that our neighborhood would then be a multi - family neighborhood. This is of great concern and disappointment to us. Aside fn.: q concerns regarding re -sale issues, we live in a cul -de -sac with no parking allowed anywhere inside the circle. When you add residences, you create the need for parking. We do not have adequate parking in this neighborhood as it is. Our main concern, however, is with the potential for rental units within these self contain structures. Please assist us in upholding the current status of our neighborhood. Sincerely, Greg & Kaye Foy 28 Long Bay Dr. Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Mr. Todd Weber Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Pacific Bay Homes PA2001 -250 One Ford Road Dear Mr. Todd Weber, K-CENEED ; ,Y We want to get our NO VOTE on the Pacific Bay's rezoning our R1 area to an R1.5. We have recently done a survey of the homes that can be easily converted to rental properties. The Balboa Two model has a stair way that can be converted to a rental. The Stonybrook Two, their garage can be converted into a guesthouse. We know that if you okay the change in zoning, the other residents would take every opportunity to convert their homes. This would change the make up of our area into another Balboa Island. We vote against Pacific Bay's proposed change. Best regards, Greg & Kaye Fo c 1 Katitza Schmidt 14 Gleneagles Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 August 12, 2002 The Honorable Tod Ridgeway Mayor of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mayor Ridgeway: HFCCIVED IV PLANNING UL 1r,11"i,,,IF[Yj :";J;3 I am aware of Pacific Bay Properties request to amend their development plan to allow for R1.5 zoning in the One Ford Road Community. I feel the Planning Commission was very wise in denying Pacific Bay's application, and the Commission's original decision should stand. The One Ford Road Community was marketed and sold as high -end single- family residences, and should continue as such. We have all seen the impact that multi - family residences have had in our city. One Ford Road should be protected from the negative effects that are inherent in multi - family zoning. These issues were eloquently addressed in the Planning Commission's report prepared for the August 13 hearing, and I whole- heartedly agree with the Commissions concerns. In reference to Hogle- Ireland's letter dated August 6, 2002 it would be impossible to enforce and probably illegal to ban the sale, renting, or leasing of said properties. Allowing the rezoning of the 8 properties on Troon Drive would be opening Pandora's box for future owners to petition for the same variance. Hogle - Ireland even admitted to such in the letter by stating "At this time, Pacific..." I request that you and The City Council stand behind The Commission's decision to deny rezoning for any and all of the One Ford Road Community. Thank you for your consideration. Sincere_ Katitza Schmidt' ti R CEIVED BY r GI FY A. INI {iUJ f LJi j[, I'