Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-12-88MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COIRNISSION REGULAR HEET'[ NG DECEFIBER 12, 1988 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGZANCE/]:NVOCATTON ROLL CALL: Present: Well, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontlous, Shaheen PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of t~e November 28, 1988.~lanning Commission Meeting Commissioner Wetl moved, Ponttous seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 5-d. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. General Plan Amendment 88-02 and Zone Change 88-02 (San Juan Apartments) APPLICANT: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MESA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 2925 COLLEGE AVENUE, #A-3 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 ATTENTION: MR. LARRY CAMPEAU 1432 SAN JUAN STREET A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-02; TO RECLASSIFY THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM C (COMMERCIAL) TO MF (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) 2) ZONE CHANGE 88-02; TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM PC-C1 (PLANNED COMMUNITY/RETAIL COMMERCIAL) TO R-3 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolutions No. 2546 and 2547, denying General Plan Amendment 88-02 and Zone Change 88-02. PlannJng Commission Minutes December 12, 1988 Page two Resolution No. 2546 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-02 A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM C (COMMERCIAL) TO MF (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1432 SAN JUAN STREET. Resolution No. 2547 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ZONE CHANGE 88-02 A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1432 SAN JUAN STREET FROM PC-C1 (PLANNED COMMUNITY/RETAIL COMMERCIAL) TO R-3 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). Presentation: Daniel Fox, Associate Planner Commissioner Wetl asked if there was any response to the notices that were mailed. Staff responded that there were no written responses, that only one call was received and that was to verify that the subject project was not the same project in which he lived. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the zoning requests were originally made by a church. Staff responded that it was not, that this was a request for separate properties to be rezoned. The public hearing was opened at 7:09 p.m. Josephine Vau~hn, 1431 San Juan Street, Tustin, noted that originally all of the property belonged to the church, which subsequently sold certain parcels. She stated that she felt that 10 apartments on that property would be too conjested and adequate parking would not be provided. She noted that five apartments would be acceptable and that she would like to know more information regarding this project. Larry Campeau, 2925 College Avenue; A-3, Costa Mesa, California 92626, noted that the applicant on the staff report should be San Juan Apartments, and not Mesa Development Company. He stated some background on the project, that in February he entered into an escrow with a condition that the property was zoned R-3. He said the City told him that the zoning was R-3 and that the City wanted something other than what was existing on that street. They tried to design a compatible project and put parking quasi-subterranean. They submitted plans to the City on June 3rd. On July 15th they closed escrow. He stated that he had received the conditions of approval for the construction drawings, removed the hazardous materials and demolished the building that was on the property. On October 5th they turned in the plans for approval. He indicated that the Community Development Department had made an error and that the property was not zoned R-3. His options were to redesign or rezone. He stated that they had already invested $70,000 plus the cost of the lot. They had designed an upscale three bedroom apartment complex with units of 1100 square feet that would rent at $1,000 per month. He stated that the property on both sides of the proposed project was zoned the same. He was not concerned with the church or baseball diamond as a neighbor to the complex. He also noted that affordable housing is this developers' specialty. P]annlng Commission Mtnutes December 12, 1988 Page three Dorothy Kellams, 1401 San Juan Street, Tusttn, spoke in opposition of the project. She noted there was already too much traffic in the area at all times and that there was a tremendous parking problem. She felt that there was not a need for any more apartments or condominiums in this immediate area. Commissioner Shaheen noted that the area was inappropriate for commercial. Jeraldine Vaughn, 1431 San Juan Street, Tustln, stated that she felt that a real estate office, church or office would be appropriate, however, that apartments would create more traffic in an already congested area. Mr. Campeaux, noted that there were 24 designated parking spaces on the site. The Director noted that the Planntng Commission was unable to condition a zone change. Lois Jeffrey, Deputy City Attorney, noted that in this case the City did a review but the applicant did not receive any written approval. She indicated that the applicant was aware that the development process is very risky. One of those risks is mistakes. Another risk is that the Zoning or General Plan will change before the project is finished. This is an issue of vested rights which is a harsh issue and is a normal risk of development. The developer has no vested rights until a butldtng permit is issued, as long as the permit wasn't issued in error. There are no equity rights. Unfortunately, these are the normal risk of the developer process. Mr. Campeaux asked if the Planning Commission could approve a Zone Change conditioning approval to development of their specific project. Lois Jeffrey, indicated that handling this process in that manner would be considered spot zoning, or parcel by parcel zoning, which ts not what the City desires. Mr. Campeaux stated that he was disturbed that he went to the ultimate source and thought he was upgrading the area. He stated that he understood that this was a risky business. The Director added that the developer had submitted plans which had not been approved; the plans were in the preliminary review process. There were still many unresolved matters. As an example, in three separate plan reviews, the City asked for a legal description that was never adequately provided by the applicant. This in itself complicated the zoning determination issue. The public hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked staff if the plans were submitted and reviewed if the first thing to verify would be the zoning. The Director responded affirmatively but noted that the plans were in preliminary review and that zoning questions still existed because of the lack of a legal description originally being provided for the property. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what could be built on this property. Planning Commission Mtnutes December 12, 1988 Page four Staff responded that PC C-1 allows a wide range of uses including retail, office, commercial and small scale retail uses subject to a Conditional Use Permit after a Planning Commission public hearing. Commissioner Shaheen asked staff if the property were rezoned residential if the City could require condominiums to be built at this location. Lgls. Jeffre¥ noted that this was a legal issue and that the City could not restrict the district to owner occupied units or condominiums. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the issue could be dealt with later. The Director stated that there are no public hearings under the R-3 designation for future submittals and that Zone Change and General Plan would establish the maximum density of the project with no discretion by the Commission. Commissioner Well asked if it was possible to designate the property as R-3 at 2700 square feet to reflect the area across the street enabling the developer to construct six units on the property. Staff responded affirmatively. Commissioner Well stated that she felt a .41 acre office project facing San Juan would be detrimental and that she had reservations leaving the commercial designation. She also had reservations converting this area to an R-3 designation. She noted that she had driven by and noticed that the parking and traffic problems were definite concerns. She felt that the R-3 2700 square foot cut down the density and the parking burden considerably. The public hearing was re-opened at 7:47. Mr. Campeaux noted that the project would not make a profit with only six units and it would be questionable if eight units would break even. He stated that he was stuck with a piece of property that did not have a commercial frontage. He also noted that he did not want to cheapen the project. Commissioner Wetl noted that the problem is that an experienced contractor should not go into a project without proper verification. Mr. Campeaux noted that he felt building permits would be issued when he received the conditions of approval from staff. Lois Jeffrey noted that escrow had closed prior to any plan check approval. Commissioner Wetl asked if the developer had written conditions of approval. Lois Jeffrey noted that he had a list of corrections needed plans, no plan check approval. Mr. Campeaux noted that he did not know if six units would make a profit. The public hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1988 Page five Commissioner Le Jeune asked for more information regarding the project. The Director noted that the building would be three stories on one level but classed as a two story, but some elevations are actually three stories in height. Commissioner Baker agreed that this was a difficult problem but felt that the City should stay with the existing program. Commissioner Well noted that she preferred to see an office project on that site. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that this was not the proper place for a commercial project. Commissioner Ponttous noted that she saw both sides; that the lot does not lend Itself to a commercial development and that R-3 would probably be a better use for the stte. Commissioner Well asked if a designation of R-3 2200 could be used in order to allow eight units on the site. Lois JeffK~¥ noted that there were only R-3 1750 and R-3 2700 and that the developer has the right to develop the property to the maximum. The Director noted that she did not feel it possible to establish an R-3 2200 designation. Staff noted that when the area was annexed the R-3 2700 square foot designation was established to mirror the county zoning. Both are legitimate zoning based on compatibility with the surrounding areas, anything else would be spot zoning. The public hearing was opened at 8:03 p.m. Geraldine Vaughn asked if she could tear her house down and build four or five units. The Director indicated that it depends on the parcel zoning. Ms. Vaughn is allowed to build to the maximum of the zoning designation. The code varies depending on the size of the property. She also offered to met with Ms. Vaughn to review the zoning possibilities for her property. Donald Saltarellt, 13751 Red Hill Avenue, Tustin, property owner of the adjacent real estate office, noted that the developers are good people that are trying to do something constructive with the church property. He also added that the developer may have paid a high price but that is not a valid reason for inappropriately allowing something to be built. He noted that it would be nice if the developer could do something economically advantageous, but not at the neighbors expense. He also noted his concern about a three story building in this area. He also cautioned the Commission that staff had researched the recommendation thoroughly. The public hearing was closed at 8:10 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if it was advisable to postpone the application to look at an alternative. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1988 Page six Commissioner Wetl stated that the Commission seemed undecided. The public hearing was re-opened at 8:10 p.m. Mr. Campeaux requested a continuance. The Director noted that if the application were modified, the City would have to renotice for another public hearing. Staff noted that the City would need to know if there were any changes in the application prior to December 19th. The public hearing was closed at 8:13 p.m. Commissioner Well noted that the Commission was sensitive to the monetary clock. Commissioner Baker inquired if the developer had drawn on the construction loan. The public hearing was re-opened at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Campeaux noted that he had drawn $270,000 from the construction loan. The public hearing was closed at 8:17 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Pontious seconded to continue this item until the next regular meeting on January 9, 1989. Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS 3. Sign Code Amendment - Update Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he would like to have a committee meeting before bringing the Sign Code back to the Commission. Report was received and filed. 4. Sidewalks in Industrial Areas Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Report was received and filed. 5. ~91tcy on Temporary Use Permits for Cold-air Balloons Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Staff was directed to submit a staff report to City Council. Planntng Commission Mtnutes December 12, 1988 Page seven NEW BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS 6. Report on Actions Taken tn December 5, 1988 City Council Meettng Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development The following Items of tnterest were on the December 5th Ct ty Counctl agenda: Variance 88-7 Final Vesttng Tract Map 13096 EIR 88-02 for the Second Redevelopment Plan Amendment COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Baker asked staff to look 1nfo the size of the slgnage at the Ctrcle K on Newport and Mitchell. Staff responded that the signs had been approved by a Use Permit. Commissioner Le Jeune asked If further color changes at Tusttn Market Place could be approved at staff level. The Director noted that any colors for signs other than Terra Cotta and Purple would have to be approved by the Commission. Commissioner Le Jeune asked If the lot behtnd Sizzler was approved for Christmas tree sales. The Otrector noted that staff approved a 30 day Temporary Use Permtt for the lot, whtch ts standard procedure. Commissioner Baker asked what the authorized color of the Tusttn Market Place monoltthe was. The Dtrector responded the color was purple. Commissioner Ponttous noted that the color purple has put Tusttn on the map. She also noted that ther~ were flags at the Taco Bell. The Otrector noted that she ts In the process of setttng up atratntng session for the Commissioners tn the beginning of the year. Commissioner Well asked that a portton be added to staff reports nottng that the public heartng nottces were sent out and how many responses were received. She thanked the Irvlne Company for their sensitivity to the colors at the Market Place and asked staff tf it was posstble to hold a workshop regarding the Clubhouse for the Golf Course. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1988 Page etght AI)dOURI~qENT At 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Well seconded to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting on January 9, 1989. Motion carried 5-0. Chairman Penni Foley Secretary