Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/1973COMMISSIONERS n M q m D •L CALL Present CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Special Planning Commission Meeting Place: City Council Chambers Time: 3:30 P.M. net_ M.........6_.. 1 'in" MINUTES 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, Assistant Director - Planning William R. Laycock, Senior Planner William R. Foley, Senior Planner Shirley L. Harbeck, Secretary Item A -1 Request to amend the Planned Community Development AMENDMENT Standards for "Big Canyon" by reducing the densi- NO. 386 ties in Areas 1, 6, 10 and 14. APPROVED Location: Portion of Blocks 55, 56, 92 and 93 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 Community Development Director Hogan commented on the matter of vesting as it relates to the develop ment in Big Canyon and reviewed past actions of the Planning Commission and City Council on the question of densities. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Larry Moore, Associate Director, Planning Administ a- tion, The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission and advised of the position The Irvine Company is taking in connection with this matter in that Big Canyon is vested based on the fact that it was designed as a unit, built as a unit and approved as a unit and that now the Company's course of action is irreversible. To Page 1. fi r COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT rmzz�mm n m m 1kL CALL T A P Nnvnmhcv. 1 1071 BEACH MINUTES INDEX make any further reduction in density would change the project radically from the original intent and had The Irvine Company known the City "s desires at the beginning, the project would have been designe entirely different. Streets, utilities, the golf course, and club house have all been constructed and the matter of vesting should be considered on the entire Big Canyon area rather than the remain- ing sites, as all areas are inter - related to the entire master plan. Planning Commission and Staff discussed the quest i n of amendments to planned community texts either with or without the consent of the applicant. The also discussed whether vesting should be considere on the basis of each individual sector or the enti e project. The concept of planned communities was also discussed. Allen Beek appeared before the Planning Commission and commented on the reduction in density through- out the City, the apparent reluctance on the part the Irvine of Company to supply evidence in connec. tion with vesting and urged the Planning Commissio . to subpoena the required data in order that they could make a proper decision. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion Motion was made that the Planning Commission make a finding that there is no vesting in Areas 1, 6, and 10 of the Big Canyon Planned Community. Planning Commission discussed the motion and recommended the following findings be included in the resolution to the City Council: 1. No facts have been provided to justify vesting in Areas 1, 6, and 10. 2. Past history on this particular planned com- munity district is such that it has been treated on a sector by sector basis and has been amended on a sector by sector basis and therefore, based on this precedent, although not specifically spelled out in the P -C • ordinance, the matter of vesting should be considered on a sector by sector basis. On a sector by.sector basis, no evidence has been presented to indicate there was vesting and therefore find that no vesting exists. Page 2. r° COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT Y T S Z o P T r% m T r T % sf T p m OL ceu T p November 1. 1973 BEACH MINUTES -- INDEX 3. The City has established a policy of 8 dwelling units per acre, with the possibility of 15. dwelling units per acre upon a showing of adequate public facilities and support systems. 4. It is the right and responsibility of the City and the Commission to reserve control over development within its boundaries for the benefit of the community and its citizens. Ayes X X X X The motion was then voted on and carried. Noes X X X It was the feeling of those voting against the motion that vesting in Big Canyon had occurred for the following reasons: 1. There has been in excess of $3,000,000. spent developing Big Canyon with 59% of the dwelling constructed and 86% of the area developed. • 2. Since a Planned Community intends to classify various areas in order to provide a more comprehensible development which is inter- related for the benefit of the entire communit , the P -C should be looked at in its entirety rather than area by area. Motion X Motion was made that Amendment No. 386 be approved Ayes X X X X X and that the density in each individual area of Noes X X Areas 1, 6, 10, and 14 not be greater than an average of 8 dwelling units per acre, except where there is a showing that there are public facilities and support systems which are suffici- ent to support a density not to exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 5:30 P.M. dEPH ROSENER, JR., Secre ary • Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page 3.