Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/27/1973coMMlssloNeRS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TT i P T � P P L CALL ^ Present Absent 0 0 Special Planning Commission Meeting Place: City Council Chambers MINUTES Timer 7:30 P.M. nz+F - Cnn4emhn.. 97 INDEX X X X X X X X EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director David R. Baade, Assistant City Attorney STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Asst. Community Development Dir. Rodney L. Gunn, Advance Planning Administrator Dottie Banks Item 1 Request to amend the Residential Growth Element GENERAL and the Land Use Element of the General Plan of PL RES. GROWTH .& the City of Newport Beach adopte y the City Council on May 29, 1973. Initiated.by: The City of Newport. 'Beach. LAND USE ELYMEITTS CONT. TO Chairman Agee reviewed the application with the Planning Commission. OCT. 11TI Community Development Director Hogan stated that the.Council has clarified their request to the Commission and directed the Planning Commission.to review those properties undeveloped and unclassifi d plus those planned community districts having un- developed properties not vested. Mr. Hogan furthe stated that a new report has just tieen distributed to the Commission indicating those properties that are undeveloped and .unclassified. Mr. Hogan re- viewed the report.with the Planning Commission while Advance Planning Administrator Gunn indicate the locations on the map. Assistant City Attorney Baade distributed report on. Vested Rights to the Planning Commission and reviewed said report with the Commission and answered questions relative thereto. In response to the Commission, Community.Developme Director Hogan reviewed the ownership.of the t properties involved. 1. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T INIL CALL T p p September 27 1973 MINUTES ' INDEX Following discussion, Chairman Agee opened the public hearing. Michael Gering, 1350 -2nd Lane, Newport Beach, appeared before the Commission and stated that he was representing the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce and stated that time would be better spent on new issues rather than rehashing the Residential Growth and Land Use Elements and that the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce recommends that.the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the elements as previously adopted be ratified. '.Motion X The Planning Commission moved to use lights limit - Ayes X X X X X ing speakers to 5 minutes. Motion carried. Abstai X Absent X Following discussion, Chairman Agee stated that • the Planning Commission would consider the entire Residential Growth and Land Use Elements as ad- vertised. Barbara Eastman, 2602 Vista Drive, Newport Beach, representing the Citizens' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee, distributed the . C.ommittee's report on Density Limits recommending approval of reducing density in undeveloped "unclassified" and "planned community" districts. to 8 dwelling units per gross acre and read said report before the Commission and answered ques- tions thereto. Mrs. Emory Moore appeared before the Planning . Commission, stated that as a permanent resident for 2:5 years she has vested rights, and was in favor of lowering density. Larry Moore, Associate Director of Planning Administration, The Irvine Company, appeared befog .the Planning Commission and commented on the Irvin Company achieving diversity of dwelling unit types thereby making.a community more viable by a vari- ation in life style. 2. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ry m -PA ,1 T Spntpmhpr 97. 1Q71 MINUTES Motion Y The Planning Commission moved to grant Mr. Moore Ayes X X X X X Y an additional 10 minutes. Motion carried. Absent X Mr. Moore stated that the Irvine Company has made a tremendous effort to hold density down; that Stat. Area K built out at 8 d.u.'s /A. which would be about half the density of other areas; that in Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, Balboa Peninsula, and West Newport the types of structures are cottages, duplexes, and single - family detached which equals density of 18 units to an acre; and that if forced to build 8 d.u.'s /A., Newport Beach would be the loser by orovidino_ for only one segment of the population._ Richard Lyons, 103 Bayside Place, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he is a permanent resident and plans to continue to live in area for many more years and supports density . limitation of 8 units per acre. Donald Strauss appeared before the Planning Commission and commented on the quality of life in Newport Beach and stated he was in favor of supporting lower density. Tully Seymour, an attorney with offices.at 366 San Miguel Drive, Newport Center, appeared before the Commission and stated he was representing property owners in Statistical Ares F -2 and these same property owners appeared in opposition a week ago to an 18 -unit condominium project proposed at 307/311 Carnation Ave. in Corona del Mar and re- quested that the staff be instructed to develop . new R -3 proposals for Corona del Mar. Stewart Woodard, 3709 Ocean Blvd., Corona del Mar, .appeared before the Planning Commission, stated he.was the architect for the project Mr. Seymour mentioned and would comment.;on the subject in rebuttal. Mr. Woodard stated that as`the result of hearings and homeowners' meetings, the consensus of opinion was not to downzone and that possibly the Commission could set a goal population of • X amount of people with standard design ordinances and codes PUD with a concept. 3. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - GI MINUTES .,I ,.e„ M September 27, 1973 �-- INDEX Motion X The Planning Commission moved to grant Mr. Woodard Ayes X X X X X X an additional 2 minutes. Motion carried. Absent X Regardingthe project mentioned by Mr. Seymour, Mr. Woodard stated that the project site is now zoned 36 units per acre and the proposed is for 18 units and that density is less than R -2. Mr. Woodard stated further that if there is a con- cern for the environment in Corona del Mar, that R -2 should be reduced to R -1. Russell W. Lamoreaux, Vice President of Interhope, Inc.' 1475 Sixth Avenue, San Diego, presented and read letter to the Commission in opposition to 8 d.u. /acre as it would make it economically im- possible to develop a 3 residential, 16 story con - dominium towers comprising a maximum of 245 units on a 7 acre parcel in Newport Center. In response to the Panning Commission, Advance Planning Administrator Gunn stated that the Planning Commission recommended 30 dwelling units per acre in Newport Center but the Council in the adopted Residential Growth Element approved 35 dwelling units.per acre for residential development in Newport Center subject to the approval of the City. John Curci, representing the Lido Peninsula, appeared before the Commission, addressing Stat.. Area 6, Lido Peninsula; and stated that with the restriction of various ordinances to control and limit the development of property, there is no need.for reduction to 8 d.u. /A. which will limit most creative planning. Dick May, 615 Poinsetta, Corona del.Mar, appeared before the Commission in favor of 8dwelling units per.acre and suggested a one year moratorium on building. Elaine Linhoff, 1760 Ocean Boulevard, Balboa, appeared before the Commission and stated that at last week's meeting of Newport Residents United with an attendance of 68 +, the majority were in support of 8 d.u. /A. 4. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH YC �^ y T D O T n m rs�� m - September 27, 1973 MINUTES - Snvex Dotty Hutchinson, 1559 East Ocean Blvd., Balboa, appeared before the Commission in support of lowering density. Rod Calderhead, Corona del Mar, appeared before . the Commission and stated he was in agreement with Mr. Stevens' newspaper article and that he felt it.was not City's perogative to limit, downzone, .or restrict density. Mr. Calderhead further stated he thought the Irvine Company had done an excellent job. Since there was no response, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. Planning Commission recessed at 9 :30 P.M. and re- convened at 9:35 P.M. Chairman Agee reopened discussion on Item No. 1. .Qotion X Following discussion, the Planning Commission moved that they have taken testimony and would- like-to advise the City Council that they do not feel.that there should be any changes to.the_Resi- dential Growth and Land Use Elementa at this time. Discussion followed with Commissioners stating their reasons for making or not making changes to the Residential Growth and Land Use Elements. Commissioner Seeley stated that although citizens desired less density and open space,.they vote down park bond issues, changes in rezoning; property owners should be restricted by design criteria and certain zoning; and would a property owner pay the price to ease traffic.congestion by using a mini -bus and not parking in front of his own home. Ayes X X The Planning Commission voted on motion. Motion Noes X X. X X failed to carry for lack of majority. Absent X Discussion followed on vested rights.. 5. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 27, 1973 In response to the Planning Commission, Larry Moore, Associate Director of Planning Admi'mistra- tion, Irvine Company, appeared before the Commis- sion and stated that no money had been expended, to the best of his knowledge, on the MacArthur / Coast Hwy. site but money has been expended on the Jamboree /Coast Hwy. site; i.e., EIR's, con - ceptual drawings, engineering plans, grading plans etc. Community Development Director Hogan stated that Mr. Gunn.reminded him that these two sites are unclassified and undeveloped so no vesting or zoning exists. .Chairman Agee opened discussion on number of units in.the Undeveloped and Unclassified Areas (Jamboree /Coast Hwy. and MacArthur /Coast Hwy). Motion X Following discussion, Chairman Agee.moved that he felt these sites should not exceed 6 dwelling units to an acre. •Substi X Commissioner Hazewinkel made a substitute motion tute that the two sites (Jamboree /Coast Hwy. and Motion MacArthur /Coast Hwy.) be considered separately. Ayes X X X X Substitute motion carried. Noes X. X Absent X Motion X The Planning Commission moved that a limit of Ayes X X X 15 dwelling units per acre be retained for the Noes X X X MacArthur /Coast Hwy. Motion failed for lack of Absent X majority. Motion X Following discussion, the Planning Commission moved that the parcel at MacArthur /Coast Hwy. be zoned to an average density of 6 dwelling units per acre. In response to the Commission, Community Develop -. ment Director Hogan stated that the most recent State law on the General Plan limits number of changes to three a year. Substi tute Kot.i on yes Noes Absent Following discussion, the Planning Commission made a substitute motion that the MacArthur /Coast Hwy. parcel be zoned to a maximum of 6 d.u.'s /A. but that the property may be developed to a maximum of 15 d.u.'s /A..provided the owner /applica can offer a plan of development to the City demon - strating.that there are facilities and services to the property supporting that increased density. Substitute motion carried. 6. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 011 r.,, September 27 1973 Motion Ayes Noes Absent Motion Substi tute Motion Ayes Noes Absent Motion Ayes Woes Absent ' INDEX Following discussion, the Planning Commission if X X moved that the Jamboree /Coast Hwy. parcel be zoned X X X to a maximum of 6 d.u.'s /A. but that the property X may be developed to 'a maximum of 15 d.u.'s /A, pro -. vided the owner /applicant can offer a. plan of 'de- velopment to the City demonstrating that there are facilities and services to the property supporting that increased density. Motion fails for lack of majority. X The Planning Commission moved that the Jamboree/ 'Coast Hwy. parcel be zoned to a maximum of 8 d.u.'s /A. X Chairman Agee made a substitute motion that the Jamboree /Coast Hwy. parcel be zoned to a maximum of 6 d.u.'s /A. Motion carried. X X X X X X X X Following discussion, the Planning Commission X X X X moved to combine Items 1 and 2 and to open public X X hearing on Item 2 since Multi - Family Sites in X PC Districts and Big Canyon are closely related. Motion carried. Item 2 Request to amend the Planned Community Development AMENDMEN Standards for "Big Canyon" by reducing the densi - N 386 ties in Areas 1, 6, 10, and 14. Location: Portion of Blocks 55;56, 92 and 93 CONT. TO OCT. 11T of Irvine's Subdivision, located north of San Joaquin.Hills Road, west of MacArthur Boulevard, south of Ford Road and east of Jamboree Road. Zone: P -C Owner: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach Chairman Agee stated that in view of previous motion combining Items 1 and 2, discussion will be opened on Big Canyon first and then Harbor View Area second with the issue of vesting beginning the discussion. 7 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. rt T T R T w 7c ew � A s MINUTES -, eAI, SeotembPr 27_ IQ73 INDEX Community Development Director Hogan presented a letter to the Commission from McLaine Development Co. received that day objecting to a decrease in density as it would cause a substantial hardship in terms of time and direct costs in sites 1 and 6 of Big Canyon. Following discusssion, Chairman Agee reopened the public hearing on Item 1 and opened the public hearing on Item 2. Larry Moore, Associate Director of Planning Administration, The Irvine Company, appeared be- fore the Commission and addressing Big Canyon .. stated that at its inception Big Canyon was design d for a sophisticated complex structure due to diffi Culty of topography paid for by density and if unable to build high- density projects, they would have designed Big Canyon differently perhaps with no golf course, one type of unit, no p.rivate streets, etc. Mr. Moore further stated that 86% of residential acreage is presently developed and 59% of dwelling units have been built and that costs directly contributable to Sites 1, 6, and 10 of Big Canyon are $424,000 and based on this,_ those sites are vested. Discussion followed on a specific breakdown of $424,000 and Planning Commission requested that Mr. Moore submit all the information available that bears on the subject of vesting. Stewart Woodard, 3709 Ocean Blvd:; Corona del Mar, appeared before the Commission and stated that the Planning Commission could control population by a low maximum for standard planning and a high maxi- mum for incentive planning and architecture and cited Big Canyon as an example of every innovative, contemporary planning concept. Bob McLain of McLain Development Co.. appeared be- fore the Commission and stated that the Irvine Co. has stated that they would like 15 d:u.'s /A. al- though their plans are for a lower density. In response to the Commission, Mr. Moore stated that the lease is not signed with the McLain Development Co. 8. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Z A P 18ILL CA i;� September 27 Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent 0 Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent Is MINUTES.. 1071 Community Development Director Hogan stated that from a professional standpoint Big Canyon is a reliable and reputable planning approach to density. X Following discussion, the Planning Commission X X X X X moved to continue the public hearing on Items 1 X and 2 to October 11, 1973 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: X Planning Commission adopted Resolution.No. 837, X X X X.X X setting a public hearing for October 11, 1973, to< X consider amending portions of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as they pertain to residential development . standards. x Planning Commission amended Resolution No. 825 xi X X X X X (A =391) to cover am.ending portions of Districting. x Maps No. 5 and No. 25 from the C -1 and C -1 -H Districts to the A -P District. (Property on both sides of Old Newport Boulevard from Catalina Drive north to the City boundary at 15th Street.) (Set for hearing on October 18, 1973.) X Planning Commission amended Resolution No. 829 to X X X X X X eliminate amending the Municipal Code by adding X Chapter 20.49 entitled "Planned Development "; and to consider amending the Municipal Code by amendin Cha ter 20.51 entitled "Planned Community District' Set for hearing on October 18, 1973.) X Planning Commission adjourned at 12:00 Midnight. x X x x x x x 4JSEPH ROSENER, JR., Se retar Y Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 9.