Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 - Design Criteria for Single and Two Unit DevelopmentCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. I February 27, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3219, gramirez @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Ordinance Establishing Design Criteria for Single and Two Unit Development — Second Reading Adopt ordinance establishing design criteria for single and two -unit development DISCUSSION At their meeting of February 13, 2007 the City Council introduced the draft ordinance as proposed by staff with the following addition: C. Applicabilitv Exception. Single and two -unit developments of four or fewer parcels or dwellings, that are subject to a Homeowner's Association design review process, are exempt from the provisions of this ordinance. Environmental Review: This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that the proposed action is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) since the act applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061(3) of the CEQA Guidelines). Public Notice: A display add was placed in the Daily Pilot ten days in advance of the February 13, 2007. Additionally, public hearing notices were sent to all homeowner and community association and to approximately 200 developers and design professionals who conduct business in the City prior to that hearing. Single and Two Unit Development Regulations and Design Criteria February 27, 2007 Page 2 Prepared by: Gregg B. Ramire Senior Planner Attachments: A. Revised Ordinance Submitted by: Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager Attachment A Revised Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 2007- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ESTABLISHING DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SINGLE AND TWO -UNIT RESIDNENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Newport Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006 -76 on July 25, 2006, approving a comprehensive update to the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Charter Section 423 and the Measure S Guidelines, the comprehensive General Plan Update was placed on the ballot and approved by the electorate at the General Election of November 7, 2007; and WHEREAS, Section 10 of Resolution No. 2006 -76 directs the Planning Department to begin the preparation of revised zoning and other ordinances necessary to implement the new General Plan, accepting that applications will be made before the implementing ordinances are in place; and WHEREAS, Section 11 of Resolution No. 2006 -76 declares the General Plan the officially adopted policy for the growth, land use, development and protection of Newport Beach such that if it is in conflict -with any other City ordinance or action the General Plan shall take precedence; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide a method and procedures for the earliest possible implementation of the General Plan during the interim period while the Zoning Code and other ordinances and regulations are being updated for consistency with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council on January 13, 2007, held a noticed public hearing meeting regarding this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed action is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) since the act applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061(3) of the CEQA Guidelines). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: This Ordinance applies to single and two-unit residential projects submitted for plan check on or after April 1, 2007. 4 City Council Ordinance No. 2007- SECTION 2: Single and Two -Unit residential developments consisting of four (4) or fewer dwelling units shall be subject to the following: A. Purpose. To implement applicable design policies in the General Plan Land Use Element until the comprehensive re -write of Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 20, Zoning is complete. B. Applicability. These regulations apply to all single and two -unit developments of four (4) or fewer parcels or dwellings, and additions thereto. Review of projects under this ordinance is ministerial and shall occur concurrently with the review of plans for building permit issuance. C. Applicability Exception. Single and two -unit developments of four or fewer parcels or dwellings that are subject to a Homeowner's Association design review process are exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance. D. Criteria. The following criteria shall be used in determining a project's consistency with the purpose of this Ordinance and with the General Plan. Long unarticulated exterior walls are discouraged on all structures. Massing offsets, varied textures, openings, recesses, and design accents on building walls should be used to enhance the architecture. Front facades shall include windows. 2. Portions of upper floors should be set back in order to scale down facades that face the street, common open space, and adjacent residential structures. Upper story setbacks are recommended either as full length "stepbacks" or partial indentations for upper story balconies, decks, and /or aesthetic setbacks. 3. Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places, including alleys, is encouraged. Treatments may include window treatments, cornices, siding, eaves, and other architectural features. 4. Where the neighborhood pattern is for the primary entrance to face the street, the primary entry and windows should be the dominant elements of the front facade. Primary entrances should face the street with a clear, connecting path to the public sidewalk or street. Alternatively, entry elements may be visible from the street without the door necessarily facing the street. The main dwelling entrance should be clearly articulated through the use of architectural detailing. 2 7 City Council Ordinance No. 2007- 6. Impervious surfaces in front yards should not exceed 50% of the front yard area with the remaining area landscaped. The use of hardscape for walkways, porches and outdoor living areas is permitted. Where a neighborhood pattern of front yards being completely developed with hardscaped outdoor living areas exists, the 50% minimum shall not apply. Under no circumstances shall hardscaped areas, other than driveways, be used for parking of vehicles. 7. Site planning should follow the basic principle of designing development to fit the features of the site rather that altering the site to fit the design of the development. Whenever possible, natural features such as cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, natural vegetation should avoided or the extent of alteration minimized whenever possible. Adequate buffers should be provided to protect significant or rare biological resources. 8. Trash constrainer storage shall be out of view from public places, and may not be located in required parking areas. 9. Driveways visible from public right -of -way shall be no larger than required to access size of garage as follows: • One Car Garage: 10 Feet • Two Car Garage: 20 Feet • Three Car Garage: 25 Feet • Four Car garage: 32 feet D. Appeals. Staffs determination of compliance maybe appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 20.95 of the Municipal Code. SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty -two (32) days (April 1, 2007) after the date of its adoption. 3 0 City Council Ordinance No. 2007- This Ordinance was. introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on February 13, 2007 and approved on February 27, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: U ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK 4 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT COUNCIL 1�GERJDA NO �1 LI2`11V j Agenda Item No. L February 13, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3219; gramirez @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Ordinance Establishing Design Criteria for Single and Two Unit Development RECOMMENDATION Introduce the attached ordinance and schedule for a second reading on February 27, 2007. DISCUSSION • At their meeting of December 12, 2006, the City Council directed staff to prepare development regulations to implement the Single and Two Unit residential design polices included in the General Plan to go into effect on April 1, 2007. Section 2 of the City Council Resolution No. 2007 -3, Adopting an Interim Development Review Process, exempts single and two unit development submitted for plan check prior to April 1, 2007 from compliance with new General Plan policies. If introduced tonight, a second reading and adoption of the ordinance will occur on February 27th and the ordinance would become effective on April 1, 2007. The proposed ordinance would apply only to single and two unit development. All tract maps (subdivisions with four or more parcels /units) and all multiple -unit developments must comply with all General Plan policies and be reviewed against them as required by the adopting General Plan Resolution and the Interim Development Review Process. Staff recommends that these regulations be temporary and has drafted the ordinance as an uncodified ordinance rather than including it in Title 20 (Planning and Zoning). Staff believes that these issues warrant closer analysis during the comprehensive Zoning Code update. In addition, this approach eliminates the need for initiation of a Title 20 amendment by the Planning Commission or City Council and the requirement for a hearing before the Planning Commission. These time savings are necessary to have the ordinance in place by April 1, and Single and Two Unit Development Regulations and Design Criteria February 13, 2007 Page 2 may also be important if amendments to the ordinance are needed after we have some experience with it. The proposed criteria were presented to the General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee (which includes three members of the Planning Commission) at their meeting on January 31, 2007. After a brief review, the Committee directed staff to bring the item to the City Council for consideration. What Polices and Why The draft ordinance contains design criteria only for those General Plan policies staff recommends be implemented at this time. Several policies that apply to single and two unit development will require a more comprehensive analysis during the comprehensive Zoning Code update. Two major reasons for not including some policies are 1) a direct relationship with commercial regulations and the need for detailed study and 2) the lack of good "one size fits all" criteria. Staff believes that placing too many speck regulations for all residential neighborhoods may be counterproductive given the diverse geographies and identities of many of the single and two unit residential neighborhoods in the City. It is anticipated that the design criteria can be improved on during the Zoning Code update and that criteria can be developed specifically for the differing • neighborhoods in the City. Attachment A includes all applicable General Plan polices and a brief explanation of why design criteria are not being proposed for certain policies at this time. Review Process and Proposed Criteria Review of projects under the proposed ordinance would occur during the residential plan check process. Planning staff would review proposed construction against the criteria and require changes to plans that do not meet the criteria. Applicants would have the right to appeal staffs decision to the Planning Commission. Staff recommends that the following criteria be used in determining a projects consistency with the intent and purpose of this section and with the General Plan. The applicable General Plan policy is noted in parentheses. Long unarticulated exterior walls are discouraged on all structures. Massing offsets, varied textures, openings, recesses, and design accents on building walls should be used to enhance the architecture. Front facades shall include windows. (LU 5.1.5, LU 5.1.7, LU 5.6.2) 2. Portions of upper floors should be set back in order to scale down facades that face the street, common open space, and adjacent Single and Two Unit Development Regulations and Design Criteria February 13, 2007 Page 3 • residential structures. Upper story setbacks are recommended either as full length "stepbacks" or partial indentations for upper story balconies, decks, and /or aesthetic setbacks. (LU 5.1.5, LU 5.1.7, LU 5.6.2) 3. Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places, including alleys, is encouraged. Treatments may include window treatments, cornices, siding, eaves, and other architectural features. (LU 5.1.5, LU 5.1.7, LU 5.6.2) 4. Where the neighborhood pattern is for the primary entrance to face the street, the primary entry and windows should be the dominant elements of the front facade. Primary entrances should face the street with a clear, connecting path to the public sidewalk or street. Alternatively, entry elements may be visible from the street without the door necessarily facing the street. (LU 5.1.5, LU 5.1.7, LU 5.6,2) 5. The main dwelling entrance should be clearly articulated through the use of architectural detailing. (LU 5.1.5, LU 5.1.7, LU 5.6.2) 6. Impervious surfaces in front yards should not exceed 50% of the front • yard area with the remaining area landscaped. The use of hardscape for walkways, porches and outdoor living areas is permitted. Where a neighborhood pattern of front yards being completely developed with hardscaped outdoor living areas exists, the 50% minimum shall not apply. Under no circumstances shall hardscaped areas, other than driveways, be used for parking of vehicles. (LU 5.1.6) 7. Site planning should follow the basic principle of designing development to fit the features of the site rather that altering the site 'to fit the design of the development. Whenever possible, natural features such as cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, natural vegetation should avoided or, the extent of alternation minimized whenever possible. Adequate buffers should be provided to protect significant or rare biological resources. (LU 5.6.4) 8. Trash constrainer storage shall be out of view from public places, and may not be located in required parking areas. (LU 5.1.6) Driveways visible from the public right - of-way shall be no larger than required to access size of garage as follows (LU 5.1.6): One Car Garage: 10 Feet Two Car Garage: 20 Feet Single and Two Unit Development Regulations and Design Criteria February 13, 2007 Page 4 • Three Car Garage: 25 Feet • Four Car Garage: 32 Feet Conclusion Staff believes the draft ordinance contains design criteria that will ensure that single and two unit residential construction complies with the General Plan design policies. Although we have kept the criteria and process as simple and basic as possible, we recognize that the introduction of these criteria will likely increase the plan check review time, and the subjective nature of some of the criteria may make implementation a challenge, especially during initial implementation. For these reasons, staff recommends that this ordinance should be uncodified and temporary and that more objective or area specific regulations be crafted during the comprehensive Zoning Code rewrite. Environmental Review: This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that the proposed action is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) since the act applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061(3) of the CEQA Guidelines). Public Notice: A display add for this hearing was placed ten days in advance of this hearing in the Daily Pilot. Additionally, public hearing notices were sent to all homeowner and community association and to approximately 200 developers and design professionals who conduct business in the City. This complies with and exceeds the notice required for amendments to the Zoning Code. Prepared by: Gregg 9.Kamiree Senior Planner Submitted by: Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager 0 • n LJ Single and Two Unit Development Regulations and Design Criteria February 13, 2007 Page 5 • Attachments': A. Single and Two Unit Residential Policy Review Summary B. Draft Ordinance E Cl c Attachment A Single and Two Unit Residential Policy Review Summary rI is January 31, 2007 SINGLE AND TWO -UNIT RESIDENTIAL POLICY REVIEW Highiigbted"p_olicies are those that staff believes are not relevant to the custom or "spec" single and two unit dwellings. Comments for each are in italics. Keep in mind, tract maps (subdivision with 4 or more lotsfunits) and multi family developments are required by the adopting General Plan Resolution and the adopting Interim Procedures Resolution to adhere to all General Plan goals and polices. Residential Neighborhoods LU 5.1 Residential neighborhoods that are well- planned and designed, contribute to the livability and quality of life of residents, respect the natural environmental setting, and sustain the qualities of place that differentiate Newport Beach as a special place in the Southern California region. Policies All Neighborhoods L_U S.lih Cortpah le-- 'but;Dtvets e;l?evelopmerit The combination of the existing regulations and those proposed to implement LU5.1.5 will achieve this in the interim. LO SF 1'32 �,�,� Compatible =Infefa._ces Must be analyzed in conjunction with commercial regulations during the code re- write. LWk51.3 NeighUorltood;IdenfificJa on January 31, 2007 Will be encouraged for any new residential developments or major reconstruction of existing neighborhoods. Will be formally addressed in code re- write. On -going through existing code enforcement functions. SINGLE - FAMILY DETACHED AND DUPLEX NEIGHBORHOODS LU 5.1.5 Character and Quality of Single - Family Residential Dwellings Require that residential units be designed to sustain the high level of architectural design quality that characterizes Newport Beach's neighborhoods in consideration of the following principles: ► Articulation and modulation of building masses and elevations to avoid the appearance of "box -like" buildings P. Compatibilitywith neighborhood development in density, scale, and street facing elevations ► Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places ► Entries and windows on street facing elevations to visually "open" the house to the neighborhood ► Onenesuab le s'uiGght nduie Single and two unit re- development typically limited in building orientation by existing subdivision patterns. LU 5.1.6 Character and Quality of Residential Properties Require that residential front setbacks and other areas visible from the public street be attractively landscaped, trash containers enclosed, and driveway and parking paving minimized. (Inp 2.1) LU 5.1.7 Renovation and Replacement of Existing Residential Units Require that residential units that are renovated and rebuilt in existing single - family neighborhoods adhere to the principles for new developments, as specified by Policy 5.1.5 above, Consider the appropriateness of establishing single - family residential design guidelines and/or standards and review procedures for neighborhoods January 31, 2007 impacted by significant changes in building scale and character. (Iffp 2.1, 8.2) This should be analyzed during the comprehensive code update. This is a major change in policy. Goal Policies LU 5.6 Neighborhoods, districts, and corridors containing a diversity of uses and buildings that are mutually compatible and enhance the quality of the City's environment. LUMM"PikC.orripatrble evelbpme`rit This policy will be analyzed during the code re -write especially in regard to commercial and residential interfaces. LU 5.6.2 Form and Environment Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. (Irnp 2.1) January 31, 2007 Appropriateness to single and two unit developments will be analyzed during code re- write. Existing regulations limit the use of external lighting for tennis courts, swimming pools, etc. LU 5.6.4 Conformance with the Natural Environmental Setting Require that sites be planned and buildings designed in consideration of the property's topography, landforms, drainage patterns natural vegetation, and relationship to the Bay and coastline, maintaining the environmental character that distinguishes Newport Beach. (I»p 2.1, 8.1) Not applicable to residential. Comprehensive plan to be done in conjunction with code update. Proposed Criteria No.7 should address this policy in the interim 0 Attachment B Draft Ordinance • • ORDINANCE NO. 2007- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY • OF NEWPORT BEACH ESTABLISHING DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SINGLE AND TWO UNIT RESIDNENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Newport Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006 -76 on July 25, 2006, approving a comprehensive update to the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Charter Section 423 and the Measure S Guidelines, the comprehensive General Plan Update was placed on the ballot and approved by the electorate at the General Election of.November 7, 2007; and WHEREAS, Section 10 of Resolution No. 2006 -76 directs the Planning Department to begin the preparation of revised zoning and other ordinances necessary to implement the new General Plan, accepting that applications will be made before the implementing ordinances are in place; and WHEREAS, Section 11 of Resolution No. 2006 -76 declares the General Plan the officially adopted policy for the growth, land use, development and protection of Newport Beach such that if it is in conflict with any other City ordinance or action the • General Plan shall take precedence; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide a method and procedures for the earliest possible implementation of the General Plan during the interim period while the Zoning Code and other ordinances and regulations are being updated for consistency with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council on January 13, 2007, held a noticed public hearing meeting regarding this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed action is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) since the act applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061(3) of the CEQA Guidelines). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: This Ordinance applies to single and two unit residential projects submitted for plan check on or after April 1, 2007. 10 City Council Ordinance No. 2007- • . SECTION 2: Single and Two Unit residential developments consisting of four (4) or fewer dwelling units shall be subject to the following: A. Purpose. To implement applicable design policies in the General Plan Land Use Element until the comprehensive re -write of Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 20, Zoning is complete. B. Applicability. These regulations apply to all single and two unit developments of four (4) or fewer parcels or dwellings, and additions thereto. Review of projects under this ordinance is ministerial and shall occur concurrently with the review of plans for building permit issuance. C. Criteria. The following criteria shall be used in determining a project's consistency with the purpose of this Ordinance and with the General Plan. 1. Long unarticulated exterior walls are discouraged on all structures. Massing offsets, varied textures, openings, recesses, and design accents on building walls should be used to enhance the architecture. Front facades shall include windows. 2. Portions of upper floors should be set back in order to scale down facades that face the street, common open space, and adjacent residential structures. Upper story setbacks are recommended either as full length "stepbacks" or partial indentations for upper story balconies, decks, and/or aesthetic setbacks. 3. Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places, including alleys, is encouraged. Treatments may include window treatments, cornices, siding, eaves, and other architectural features. 4. Where the neighborhood pattern is for the primary entrance to face the street, the primary entry and windows should be the dominant elements of the front facade. Primary entrances should face the street with a clear, connecting path to the public sidewalk or street. Alternatively, entry elements may be visible from the street without the door necessarily facing the street. 5. The main dwelling entrance should be clearly articulated through the use of architectural detailing. 6. Impervious surfaces in front yards should not exceed 50% of the front yard area with the remaining area landscaped. The use of • hardscape for walkways, porches and outdoor living areas is permitted. Where a neighborhood pattern of front yards being 2 completely developed with the 50% minimum shall n hardscaped areas, other 1 vehicles. City Council Ordinance No. 2007- hardscaped outdoor living areas exists, it apply. Under no circumstances shall ian driveways, be used for parking of 7. Site planning should follow the basic principle of designing development to fit the features of the site rather that altering the site to fit the design of the development. Whenever possible, natural features such as cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, natural vegetation should avoided or the extent of altemation minimized whenever possible. Adequate buffers should be provided to protect significant or rare biological resources. 8. Trash constrainer storage shall be out of view from public places, and may not be located in required parking areas. 9. Driveways visible from public right -of -way shall be no larger than required to access size of garage as follows: • One Car Garage: 10 Feet • Two Car Garage: 20 Feet • Three Car Garage: 25 Feet • Four Car garage: 32 feet D. Appeals. Staffs determination of compliance may be appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 20.95 of the Municipal Code. SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty -two (32) days (April 1, 2007) after the date of its adoption. 11 • 0 i City Council Ordinance No. 2007- • This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on February 13, 2007 and approved on February 27, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES; NOES; ABSENT; MAYOR ATTEST: • CITY CLERK • 4 �r "RECEIVE AF ER AGENDA PRINTED: ", — (p • Harkless, LaVonne From: Ramirez, Gregg Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 8:36 AM To: City Clerk's Office Cc: Wood, Sharon Subject: FW: Ordinance Establishing Design Criteria for Single and Two Unit Development, City Council Agenda Item No. 16, February 13, 2007. I just want to make sure the.Council recived this. Thanks From: ronov [mailto:ronov@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 10:52 AM To: Gardner, Nancy; Curry, Keith; Selich, Edward; Daigle, Leslie; Rosansky, Steven; Webb, Don; Henn, Michael Cc: Bludau, Homer; Ramirez, Gregg Subject: Ordinance Establishing Design Criteria for Single and Two Unit Development, City Council Agenda Item No. 16, February 13, 2007. Dear City Council members: 1 felt compelled to write you on this item since I've had long time involvement in community association architectural design standards. I am an architect, and for the last several years I have been the chairman of the architectural review committee for the Newport Hills_ Community Association (NHCA). We are 500 + homes in the southerly half of Harbor View Homes (Port Streets). In recent years we have replaced or had major remodels of more than 60 % of our homes. In order to have a realistic design review process, it is necessary to require a preliminary design submittal, at which time design changes can be requested of the applicant without causing major upheaval. If the proposed changes are reasonable and make for a better design, they would probably be acceptable to the applicant and could relatively easily be incorporated into the final design. if on the other hand, as being proposed by the City, design changes are requested at the plan check stage, (final completed drawings) significant costs could be incurred by the applicant, with necessary drawing and engineering changes. The addition of a Preliminary Design Submittal in the process would of course extend what most people feel is already too lengthy of a process. I understand that the Council wants to implement as soon a possible the material in the Land Use. Element, Chapter 3 of the General Plan. However, I would like to suggest.another means of accomplishing this. Since the proposed design Rams are only suggestions; R seems unlikely that an applicant will want to make changes, since they would be coming so late in.the process. In the spirit . of trying to educate the public, why not put desired aesthetical treatments in what could be a fairly simple handout in a plastic ring binder, with colored photos of desired architecture and features. It could incorporate sketches showing setbacks, s'ideyards, driveways, etc. This Development Guide could be made available at the plan check counter and through a public awareness program. I think this could be a good start in improving design awareness. • A major concern in the community. is "mansionization "; of course the Council is aware of this. I recently did some analysis in order to review our Association (NHCA) lot coverage, which is a maximum of 67 % of the lot area, I checked with Santa Monica and Beverly Hills. (The North of 02/12/2007 Montana area of Santa Monica is comparable to the residential quality in our city.) Following is a comparison of R -1 maximum square foot coverage allowed in NHCA, Santa Monica north of Montana, Beverly Hills, and Newport Beach (zoning code), for a sample lot size of 7,500 s.f. NHCA (Newport Hills Community Association) Maximum Floor Area: 5,025 S.F. Santa Monica north of Montana 4,972 S.F. Beverly Hills (City) 4,900 S.F. Newport Beach (R -1 Zoning Code, 2 X buildable) 9,383 S.F. I think this demonstrates our real problem. I would be pleased to volunteer some time to be helpful in anyway possible to resolve design issues. Sincerely, Ron Hendrickson, AIA L 0 • Harkless, LaVonne From: Ramirez, Gregg Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 8:36 AM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FW: GP_CC_2- 13 -07_final.doc Please copy for City Council. Agenda Item No. 16. Thanks From: Dwoodarc@aol.com [mailto:Dwoodarc@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:17 AM To: Ramirez,.Gregg Subject: Re: GP_CC 2- 13- 07_final.doc Greg .... Thank you for sending me staffs recommendations for the establishment of "Design Criteria" for single family housing...... While I do not have time right now to properly respond, my initial reaction is that the planning dept. is not trying to implement an" interim" review process, rather it is initiating a far reaching process that will greatly and unnecessarily affect the nature of residential design well into the future. These proposals are very disturbing ......I chose not to believe that the city council had this in mind ...... And I strongly feel that the planning staff has no business in reviewing architectural design of single family haouses within this city.....( Planners have no credentials for doing this 1 ) This review proposed process will lead to the oppressive process now in full force at Laguna Beach. ( Unless you have been subjected to Laguna's review, you can't know how horrible this is! )...It is, as you may have guessed„ a subjective process and is a process which leads to review of important, architectural principles which planners have no business in evaluating.... If this leads to a "design Review Commitee or a Design God on the staff level; I strongly object and will do whatever I can to see that this proposal does not get implemented ...... Our city is strong and it allows a reasonable level of design freedom compared to other cities. Everything should be done to keep it that way.... If you have underlying problems with the mass and scale and size of buildings, deal with this directly and keep away from this deceitful tactic of any design review proceedure..... Many of your code restrictions ( i.e. height regulations ) are so poorly written and III- conceived, that staff has to implement "policy" which is often arbitrary .... How about working on needed clarifications to current policy and keep away from your new design socialism? If you want to discuss this further, please feel free to call..... Dennis Wood, architect ( of custom single family houses ) 02/12/2007 Harkless, LaVonne • From: Ramirez, Gregg Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 2:27 PM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FW: DESIGN CRITERIA ORDINANCE Hi, Here's another for Agenda Item No. 16. Thank You From: Dwoodarc@aol.com [mailto:Dwoodarc @aol.comj Sent: Monday, February.12, 2007 10:25 AM To: Ramirez, Gregg Subject: DESIGN CRITERIA ORDINANCE Gregg: Having reread the-staffs proposals to "codify" planning staff"policy ", 1. once again feel that I must strongly object It is obvious that the heart of the of the staff proposals is in response to the concept of "mansionization ". within the city.... When I brought this issue up, you denied that this was the driving force behing staffs recommendations ..... Yet, the idea that single family "upper floors" should be "set back " from the street ( item # 2 ) is dearly an attempt to limit the size of a new house .... While it does . limit the mass and scale of the building by stair - stepping the building back from street fronts, it absolutely mandates the size and Beverly limits the type of architectural expression ..... In short, it is a pretense for maintaining the status quo in the older communities where beach cottages remain ....by disallowing new residents to take advantage of the area of their rare and valuable lot space... ... You know as well as I that it is very difficult to build a third floor within the height, limitation ordinances, so you might as well concede that you are mandating a revision to the size.ordinaoes.in effect while you apparently are afraid to actually come out in public and say so ..... And, Importantly, you are now molding the framework fora type of architectural design for the future. Why does. the planning staff feel that they should have the right to tell private property owners how to develope:their properties and how it should look? And how does the city plan to monitor these arbitrary design considerations ? ... Certainly, the planning staff, as I said before, is not qualified to pass judgement on architectural design by .qualified professional architects ....... Or maybe;you had in mind the outrageous tactics utilized by Laguna Beach with a board of lay persons, the Design Review Board, ( also unqualified ) to pass judgement on people who meet the standards of the zoning ordinance. This type of design review process imposes a major hardship with unnecessary financial and emotional expenses on individual property owners and leads to discontent, not harmony, among neighbors. The architectural treatment of "massive" ," unarticulated" and "poorly detailed " forms which dwarf the scale of an aging neighborhood are of ligitate concern, but this is not the way to go about it. You cannot legislate good design. If you want monotonous design, I suggest you go to Irvine. Please don't tell arch itercts where to put entry doors and windows, etc ... What makes staff think that they ..know better than we do ?. Personally, as-an owner of Property in the Balboa village area, I have confidence that the design community will gradually improve the quality of design over a period of time by bringing in inovative and refreshing design concepts..... But , like many, I am disturbed that.you suggest that the city should tell us that we should remain.stuck in the past with a bunch of old cottages; most of which were never designed with much architectural significance at all. These small cottages , while "cute, used to be short term summer: vacations "homes", not permanent residences. This is not supposed to be a preservation effort. Times have changed. The city, in the vote of approval for the General Plan did 02/12/2007 not mandate you to de -value their lots by limiting their buildable living spaces as you seem to • suggest. This is not a staff "policy" level item that we residents voted on for you to "codify".. Unfortunately, most people don't know much about good design and remain focused on the way things used to be ..... Let's .grow in a good way, unencumbered by new restrictions which were never intended to become codified ordinances in the first place.... respectfully, .Dennis Wood, architect riarKiess, t_avonne From: Ramirez, Gregg Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:12 AM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FW: Design Criteria Please forward to the City Council. • Agenda Item No. 16 Thank you, Gregg From: sk000ler@aol.com [maiito:sk000ler@aol.com] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 8:17 PM To: Ramirez, Gregg Subject: Design Criteria Hi Gregg: Thanks for sending me the proposed design criteria ordinance for single and two unit developments. After reading it I have some concerns regarding the proposed review process. Many of the ideas are good and should be part of the basic design process that all architects go through when applying their craft in all beach areas. However the proposed process for review is a dangerous path to go down. In essence the criteria for this review process asks a single staff member to make a discretionary design decision. That staff member is possibly put in the position of using their likes and dislikes to make their decisions. As do many architects in this City, I take pride as an architect that is able to use • my ingenuity in my ! approach to the design process. This narrows the choices that I can make further tying my hands in that process. An example of this problem is telling us that we are required to place the entry door at the front of a home just because other homes in the area have that condition. Allow us to work hard and use our ingenuity to make our building compatible with neighborhoods. Many of these principles of design can't be written as an ordinance. The basic reason is the following question. To what degree are each of these criteria followed or enforced? To compound this problem you are asking one person that may not be trained for this to make this decision. If the City of Newport Beach is serious about following this written criteria then there is only one way to do it. Have these design decisions made by a group that involves an informal hearing with the applicant. Sincerely, Todd Schooler Architect Todd Schooler & Associates inc. —..--.---.-..-.__._._. .._._......_._.._._...__.....__ _�� 949-646 -8805 Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free • access to millions of high - quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. un- rn RECE,a Ar RAG C ., a _ e-7 Harkless, LaVonne From: Ramirez, Gregg Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 4:40 PM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FW: DESIGN CRITERIA ORDINACE RE: Tuesday, Feruary 28, 2007 City Council Meeting Item No. 4 Please forward to the City Council. 190T. Ti Zvd* I From: Dwoodarc @aol.com [mai Ito: Dwoodarc @aol.com] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 9:54 AM To: Ramirez, Gregg Subject: DESIGN CRITERIA ORDINACE 7 -D7 FED 20' AA T. 57 Gregg: Thanks for taking the time to hear my concerns. While I do not intend to testify at the next City Council hearing, I still think that I would like to go on record that I strongly believe that City Council is going down the wrong path with the adoption of this ordinance ....... I feel that today's design "suggestions ", whereever they may have originated, will become tomorrow's "ordinances" and that any such ordinances limiting the nature of architectural expression are a bad idea ..... If only Council would know the true nature and complexity of regulating design ordinances. Mark my words, this direction affecting the design "character' of communities may easily lead to a situation similar to that in Laguna Beach where a most oppressive and unqualified Design Review Committee presides over design aesthetics and principals which should remain within be the domain of qualified architects. I urge the City Council to reconsider its stance on this matter and return it to committee for further discussion. Again, I would like you to know that I personally think that the City of Newport Beach is a terrific place to do business. I have no bad feelings towards you or the local planning staff. I feel that the local city building and planning departments are superior to those in adjoing cities ..... I would like to keep it that way. But I also feel that any efforts that you and the people involved with alterations to the General Plan should be brought to the specific attention of the local design community as well as the property owners of single family residences which might be affected by any design- oriented ordinaces. In voting for the ratification of the General Plan, the public and the design profession could not have been aware of the nature of these proposed design - related items .... If these items were brought into the open during the "visioning" process, prior to the city wide vote, it would have been a better time to discuss and modify such considerations. ( I attended several of these out -reach programs and these design items were not discussed. ). As it is, things will become more difficult....( Hopefully not adversarial. ).. When the time comes to become more specific and detailed and before these suggestions become "codified ", I would like to become involved. ( Maybe with a committee of design professionals and staff people ) And, ultimately, I'd like to see the city initiate a vote on any restrictions which might be placed upon their properties at that time. Only then will we see who actually approves of any unnecessary and ill- conceived design restictions. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts with me .... And please pass my latest thoughts along to City Council. Dennis Wood, architect 02/26/2007