The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Minutes 09-08-86MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING CO~ISSION REGULAR I~EETING SEPTE#BER B, 1986 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Wetl, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontious, Absent: Puckett PUBLIC CONCERNS: None CONSENT C~ENDAR: 1. Minutes of August 25, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting. Baker moved, LeJeune second to approve the Consent Calendar. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 2. TENTATIVE TRACT 12732 Applicant: Bren Company Location: Lot 2 of Tract 12345 (East Tustin) Request: Presentation: Motion carried 4-0. Authorization to subdivide for phasing purposes, lot 2 of Tract 12345 for residential condominium purposes. The subdivision would permit development of 248 condominium units. JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner Commissioner Wetl moved, Pontlous second to recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Tract 12732 by the adoption of Resolution 2356 with an amendment to condition 19 excluding building permits on model homes. Motion carried 4-0. Chair Pro Tem Well opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Ronda Heacock, Bren Co. representative, made herself available for questions. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Well closed the hearing at 7:41 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1986 page two 3. USE PERMIT 86-25 Applicant: Location: Michael Todd Northwesterly corner of Redhill and Edtnger Avenues Request: Authorization to allow retail uses in an industrial zone Presentation: MARY ANN CHAMBERLAIN, Associate Planner Chair Pro Tem Wetl opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Michael Todd, applicant, answered questions from the Commission concerning parking ratios for retail and R&D, and explained that a typical tenant would have retail use in the front with warehouse or manufacturing in the back. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chair Pro Tem Weil closed the hearing at 7:49 p.m. The Commission, staff and applicant discussed square footage calculations for the proposed retail uses. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Baker second to approve Use Permit 86-25 by the adoption of Resolution 2361 amending condition II.B. to include that retail uses may not exceed 60% of the gross floor area (37,260 square feet). Motion carried 4-0. 4. ZONE CHANGE 86-1 Applicant: Location: An action initiated by the Planning Commission 335, 345, 355, 365, 405, 415, 425, 435 and 445 W. 6th Street Request: To consider re-zoning of properties from Single Family Residential (R-l) to Planned Community Single Family Residential (P.C. Residential) Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner 5. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 11 Applicant: Location: An action initiated by the Planning Commission 335, 345, 355, 365, 405, 415, 425, 435, 445 and 455 W. 6th Street Request: Adoption of a development plan in the form of a Specific Plan. Said Specific Plan would authorize the development of single family residential homes on minimum lot sizes of 6,000 square feet. These homes would be limited to single story structures. Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1986 page three 6. USE PERMIT 86-26 Applicant: Locatl on: Ainslie Development 405, 415, 425 W. 6th Street Reques t: Authorization to construct eight (8) single family detached homes in accordance with proposed Specific Plan No. 11 Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner 7. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12833 Applicant: Request: Mark Alnslie To consolidate and re-subdivide three lots into eight lots for single-family residential purposes. Location: 405, 415, 425 Sixth Street Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner Chair Pro Tem Wetl combined the public hearings on Zone Change 86-1, Specific Plan No. 11, Use Permit 86-26 and Tentative Tract Map No. 12833. She opened the hearings at 8:16 p.m. for testimony from the audience. The following people spoke: Mark Ainslie, applicant, gave background on project and explained the Zone Change and Specific Plan would provide continuity for the entire area. This plan encourages lot consolidation and encourages development and improvement of existing properties. John Sauers, 515 S. Pacific, opposed the project; thought the Commission was giving the applicant preferential treatment; and, disputed staff's traffic count. Richard Vtntng, 400 W. Main, opposed the project; saw the Planned Community as a vehicle to circumvent the 7200 sq. ft. lots; this only benefits the applicant; creates spot zone situations; eight units where there are three creates an adverse impact on surrounding area; not an orderly growth pattern. Charles Anderson, 255 W. 6th, opposed the project; only benefits the applicant; The City Council promised the citizens during the bed and breakfast hearings the area would be left as it is and would not be touched again. He also requested his curb be re-painted red. Ed Gage, 405 Main, opposed to project due to lack of recreational area; puts 50 to 60 people into an area designed for 25; negative impact on 6th Street due to limited access. Jack Carlile, 355 and 365 W. 6th, in favor of the plan because it should enhance the value of existing properties. Barbara Cox, 450 1/2 S. "B" Street, opposed; cited inaccuracy in public hearing notice; preferred six houses; the current zoning already allows property owners to build four houses on two lots so this proposal only benefits the applicant; she further cited the staff report, "the residents are urged to consolidate their lots" in her concern on overall density changes. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1986 page four Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chair Pro Tem Weil closed the hearing at 9:05 p.m. Commission discussion ensued: Commissioner LeJeune questioned the lot configuration, which is the front and back of the lot; asked for clarification on the increase in number of units per lot when lots are consolidated; stated that a consistent plan providing for two houses per lot would be fair. Commissioner Baker expressed concern with the public hearing notice information being incorrect and confirmed that the property owners received legal notice. He further clarified the procedure for amending the Specific Plan in the future. Chair Pro Tem Weil explained to the audience that this project was well planned with single family homes using the Housing Element as a guideline. She further stated that she thought these houses and the Specific Plan would be an asset to the area. She also outlined how much the city had listened to the testimony by changing the project from R-3 to single family houses. Commissioner Pontious moved, Baker second to recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 86-1 by the adoption of Resolution 2358. Motion carried 3-1, LeJeune opposed. Commissioner Well moved, Baker second to recommend to the City Council approval of Specific Plan No. 11 by the adoption of Resolution 2359. Motion carried 3-1, LeJeune opposed. Commissioner Well moved, Pontious second to approve Use Permit 86-26 by the adoption of Resolution 2360. Motion carried 3-1, LeJeune opposed. Commissioner Well moved, Baker second to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 12833 by the adoption of Resolution 2362. Motion carried 3-1, LeJeune opposed. Chair Pro Tem Well called for a recess at 9:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m. 8. VARIANCE 86-4 Applicant: Request: Mark Atnslle Authorization to vary with the lot size requirement in order to develop eight single family homes Location: 405, 415 and 425 Sixth Street Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner Rob Balen informed the Commission the applicant had requested withdrawal of his Variance request. Commissioner Baker moved, LeJeune second to accept the applicant's withdrawal of Variance 86-4. Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSIMESS None. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1986 page five ST~ CONCERNS 9. ~port on Council Actions of August 18, 1986 Presentatt on: Rob Balen, Planning Consultant C(]IIMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Baker wondered what the construction is on the 5 Freeway between Newport and East Tusttn area. Commissioner Wetl questioned the purpose of the joint meeting with the Council. Since staff had not been informed of the purpose, the Commission asked for clarification due to a letter received from Parents Who Care which assumes they are the reason for the meeting. Commissioner Well further requested clarification on the Sign Code and on CC&R's in Planned Community regulationns. Her concern is to reduce the city's liability by making the city part of the review process. Commissioner Wetl further informed that she is representing the Commission in meetings with North Tustin residents regarding annexation. AIXIOURI~ENT Commissioner LeJeune moved, Baker second to adjourn at 10:05 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on September 22, 1986 for a tour and dinner meeting prior to the regularly scheduled 7:30 Planning Commission meeting. Recordtng Secretary Motion carried 4-0. Chairman