Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-10-86MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COIIqlSSION REGULAR HEETING HARCH 10, 1986 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Weil, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting February 24, 1986. 2. Resolution No. 2305 deny off-site beer and wine license at 13842 Newport Avenue, Suite A. Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-2b Applicant: City of Tusttn Request: To update and amend the Noise Element of the Tustin Area General Plan. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Jeff Davis asked that these additions be made to the document: 1. On page 10 of the Draft Element, the first paragraph as it pertains to the Browning Corridor. Add a sentence at the end of that paragraph that states "Information also contained in this appendix (referring to appendix B) as it pertains to the Browning Corridor were compiled for the Master Plan for MCAS(H) Tustin." This is additional information and exhibits showing the noise contours as well as the actual confines of the Browning Corridor. Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1986 Page 'L'~o e On Table I, (before page 12) a notation should be made at the bottom of the page that states "These noise levels were computed without the benefit of any consideration for mitigating measures." e On page 17, the final sentence should be changed to read "Documentation supporting the finding of no adverse impact is found in the initial study questionaire completed for the Negative Declaration prepared in conjunction with this project." One final note that the information in appendix B referred to wasn't received at the time of agenda transmittal. This noise study, conducted by the County of Orange, is basically an information item only, that would be a part of the Element. A discussion followed between staff and the Commissioners regarding clarification of definitions of terms, additional information and some minor changes in the text of the document. Public hearing was opened at 8:50 p.m. public hearing section was closed. Seeing that no one wished to speak, the Commissioner McCarthy moved, Puckett seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2310, with the addition of minor changes, thereby recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 86-2b to the City Council. Motion carried 4-0. 4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-2c Applicant: Location: Physician's Office Service, Inc. 1101 Sycamore Avenue Request: To amend the land use diagram of the Land Use Element for the Tusttn Area General Plan. The proposal is to change the land use from Multi-family Residential to Public and Institutional. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner At 8:00 p.m. the public hearing session was opened. The following people spoke: Mike Fields, 3700 Parkvtew l-L, Irvine, Ca., 92715, working for Healthcare, offered to answer any questions and expressed his thanks for considering his request. Bill Greenwalt III, 601 Lido Park Dr, # 3D, Newport Beach, Ca., 92663, a Real Estate broker representing the owners of Rancho La Paz Apartments, offered to give tenants a 6 month notice to make other housing arrangements. In a discussion between Mr. Greenwalt and the Commission, he agreed to notify, in writing, all future tenants of the possibilities of eviction in the near future. The possibility of a relocation allowance will be brought up with the owner. Ltnda Clair, 1151Mear Ln., Tusttn, Ca., 92680, was concerned about the expansion of the hospital to Red Hill Avenue. She wanted to know what the long range expansion plans for the hospital were. Mr. Greenwalt responded that Healthcare International had no plans to acquire any other apartments in the area. Planning Commtssston Minutes March 10, 1986 Page three Rocct Ltuzzl, 1120 Sycamore, Tustln, Ca., 92680, noted concern about the expansion in a residential area. His concerns were about the traffic flow, height limits and the environmental impact on the area. Mr. Greenwalt responded the issue was whether the hospital was going to be allowed to expand to serve the community. Frank Ltuzzt, 1120 Sycamore, Tusttn, Ca., 92680, voiced his concern about the tentative plans to make this into a drug rehabilitation center. The public hearing was closed at 8:20 p.m. Chairman Well pointed out that there is a shortage of apartments in Tustin that will accept families, in spite of laws to the contrary; that La Paz Apartments seem to be well kept. She feels this request for General Plan change is contrary to our Housing Element that encourages the retention of low cost housing or replacement of the units with housing not institutional. Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution recommends approval of General Plan Amendment 86-2c. Motion failed: opposed. No. 2314 which Well, McCarthy 5. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-2d Applicant: Location: City of Tusttn Planning Commission The area bounded by Sixth Street on the south, "B" Street on the east, 333 feet northerly of Sixth Street on the north and 200 feet easterly of Pacific Street as the westerly boundary. Request: To amend the land use diagram of the Land Use Element of the Tusttn Area General Plan. The proposal is to change the current designation of Residential Single Family to Multtple Family Residential. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner It was noted that a written response was received from Ms. Jacqueline Haney, 13352 Ntxon Cir,. Tustin, CA., 92680, urging the Commission to vote no on this matter. Several people sought information from the public counter at City Hall, including Mr. and Mrs. Solberg, 460 S. "B" Street. They have requested that their property be included in the General Plan Amendment map. The public hearing was opened at 8:35 a.m. Jerome H. Shannon, 455 Pacific, Tusttn, Ca. 92680, questioned some of the information in this report and the criteria used in making these decisions. He stated that Resolution No. 2315 I. D. was not a true statement. Richard Vtntn~, 400 W. Main Street, Tustin, Ca. 92680, presented copies of a petition signed by over 200 people stating "WE, THE RESIDENTS OF OLD TOWN TUSTIN OPPOSE THE ABOVE PROPOSAL AS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION." He questioned where the measurement was originated from to send public hearing notices. He was also concerned with the traffic at Pacific and Main Streets, the possible parking problems, vandalism, and possible property improvements on Sixth Street. Planntng Commtsssion Minutes March 10, 1986 Page four Edward L. Gage, 405 W. Main Street, Tusttn, Ca., 92680, was concerned that area cannot withstand more traffic and noise problems. Steven Johnson, 420 W. Main Street, Tustin, Ca., 92680, a tenant that did not receive notice of this hearing. He questioned why the City of Tusttn was the applicant in this matter, why there is not an EIR on this zone change, recommended that the Planning Commission require an EIR, and where the 35% multi-family use figure was obtained. He was also concerned about the noise issue. He also questioned the requirements of R-3. He suggested the possibility of lot consolidation. He recommended that the Commission recommend against the approval of this project. Staff responded that notices were only sent to property owners within a 300' raduis. Seven seperate property owners requested this General Plan Amendment. Staff felt that making the city the applicant would simplify matters. John V. Sauers, 515 S. Pacific, Tustin, Ca., 92680, did not receive a notice. spoke in opposition of the amendment. He Etleen Vintng, 400 W. Main Street, Tusttn, Ca., 92680, wanted the zoning to stay the same and wanted no change. Commissioner Wetl reiterated that this issue is not a zone change. Lyn Allyn VanDyken, 235 S. "A" Street, Tustin, Ca. 92680, noted that the residents of that neighborhood did not want it changed. Charles W. Young, 340 W. Main Street, Tustin, Ca., 92680, spoke on the Main Street Zone Change, and in opposition of this General Plan Amendment 86-2d. Charles W. Anderson, 255 W. Sixth Street, Tusttn, Ca., 92680, spoke on his concern of the traffic and parking in the area and the situation at 545 S. "B" Street. Arthur Charleton, 460 W Second Street, Tusttn, Ca., 92680, questioned about the combination of general plan amendments altogether, along with his concerns about parking, water, and the cost of the existing apartments. He was opposed to the amendment. Barbara Cox, 450 1/2 S. "B" Street, Tustin, Ca., 92680, spoke in opposition to this amendment. Bob Edgell, 345 W. Main Street, Tusttn, Ca., 92680, asked who requested this General Plan Amendment and voiced his opposition. Mark Ainslie, 13641Malena Drive, Tustin, Ca., 92680, owner of 405, 415, and 425 W. Sixth Street, stated that he had no intent of building apartments. He wanted to build single family residences including a homeowner's association to guarantee the asthetics of the community. The parking would be more than required for. R-1. They would be two story duplexes, with a pool and jacuzzi. He indicated that he wanted to address the concerns of the homeowners of the area. He suggested that the R-3 zoning could be tailored to fit the areas needs. Planning Commisssion Minutes March 10, 1986 Page five At 9:25 p.m. a 5 minute break was called. The meeting was reconvened at 9:35 p.m. Mr. Sauers questioned if North Sixth street was considered a blighted area. A discussion ensued between staff and the Commission explaining the definition of a transitional area. Richard Vtntn9 asked that the area remain R-1. Lyn Van Dyken questioned who decides whether the area is in transition or not. She also commented that if the property were rezoned to R-3 another developer could build a 3 story apartment complex. She was concerned that the developer's concerns were profit and not to help the neighborhood. Jerry Shannon stated that adding congestion would not help the neighborhood. Charles Young stated his concerns about the usage change on the property. Ltnda Price, 520 S. "B" Street, Tusttn, Ca., 92680, stated that the apartments have changed the atmosphere of the neighborhood. She again stated here opposition. Sharrt Clark, 545 Pacific, Tustin, Ca. 92680, stated her opposition. Libby Panke¥, 320 W. Main Street, Tusttn, Ca., 92680, stated her opposition. There were no other people wishing to speak. The public hearing was closed at 9:50 p.m. Commissioner McCarthy moved, Puckett seconded, that this project be continued until the March 24, 1986 meeting to give Mr. Atnslie an opportunity to present his project to the people. A general discussion ensued between the Commissioners in regard to the continuation. At 9:50 the public hearing was reopened. Ed Gage stated the City has already stated that the street is too noisy for residential. The street can't handle any more noise. The public hearing was closed at 9:55 p.m. There was more discussion among the commissioners. Staff was instructed to re-notice,by mail, all property owners within 300 feet of the affected area. Motion carried 3-1 (On the continuance). Baker opposed. Planning Commissston Minutes March 10, 1986 Page si x e GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-2f Applicant: Location: City of Tusttn 13881 to 13895 Browning Avenue Request: To amend the land use diagram of the Land Use Element of the Tustin Area General Plan from the current Single-family Residential designation to the Multi-family Residential designation. Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner At 10:00 p.m. the public hearing was opened. Herbert Huber, 13882 Dall Lane, Tustin, Ca. 92680, asked that the City send him a letter guaranteeing that this amendment would not cause him any additional expenses in taxes, assessments, sewer services, water services, etc. After some discussion between staff, Suzanne Atklns and the Commission, staff was instructed to write a letter to Mr. Huber reflecting that guarantee. Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution 2313 which recommends approval of General Plan Amendment 86-2f to the City Council. Motion carried 4-0. Seeing no one wishing to speak further on this subject, the public hearing was closed at 10:07 p.m. o GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-2e Applicant: Location: City of Tustln 1800 San Juan Street Request: To amend the land use diagram of the Land Use Element of the Tustin Area General Plan from the current Multi-Family designation to the Public and Institutional designation. Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner The public hearing was opened at 10:10 p.m. Seeing there was no one wishing to speak the public hearing was closed at 10:11 p.m. Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2312 which recommends approval of General Plan Amendment 86-2e. Motion carried 4-0. 8. VARIANCE 86-2 Applicant: Location: H. B. Sign Company 17th. Street and Carroll Way Request: Authorization to vary with the sign code and contruct a 260 sq. ft. monument sign. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner The public hearing was opened at 10:15. Planning Commlsssion Minutes March 10, 1986 Page seven Barry Watktns, owner of the French Quarter, 17251 E. Seventeenth St., Sutte D, Tusttn, Ca., 92680, stated that the sign ts needed because the extsttng one ts at a hetght Inadequate for visibility from Seventeenth Street. Larry Stewart, representative for Miller's Outpost, 3932 Elmwood Ct., Riverside, Ca., 92506, stated some concerns about landscaping and future buildings obstructing the sign. He was in favor of this variance. Jack Brttton, applicant, H.P.Signs, 210 Adams, Huntington Beach, Ca., stated that he did not want to change the sign, he just wanted to raise the height of the existing sign. Letters opposing this variance were received by the Planning Commission. These letters were from Maurice Enderle, Enderle Center, P 0 Box 989, Tusttn, Ca. 92680 and Jim E. Shtmozono, 1920 E. Katella Ave, Sdite S, Orange, Ca., 92667. There was some discussion of the Commission, staff, Watktns, Stewart and Brttton regarding the alternatives in this matter. The public hearing was closed at 10:45 p.m. Commissioner Puckett moved~ Baker seconded to approve Variance 86-2 with the condttto6s that the sign must be the same size as the existing sign and the base be raised to no more than 5 feet higher than presently installed. Resolution No. 2203 will be rewritten and placed on the consent calendar of the March 24, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. 9. USE PERMIT 86-8 Applicant: Location: Shu Jul Huang on behalf of Master Chicken 17292 - L McFadden Avenue REquest: Authorization for an on-site beer and wine sales license. Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner The public hearing was opened at 10:50 p.m. Since there was no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 10:50 p.m. After staff and Commission discussion, staff was directed to add "F. The location of this establishment is more than 1800 feet from a public school" to Resolution No. 2311. Commissioner Well moved, McCarthy seconded to approve Use Permit 86-8 by the adoption of Resolution 2311 (with a minor addition). Motion carried 4-0. AI)MI#ISTRATIVE I~A1TERS 01d Business 10. Pacific Bell Emergency Episode Transportation Management Plan Puckett moved, McCarthy seconded to recommend the approval of the proposed Pacific Bell Emergency Episode Transportation Management Plan to the City Council. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1986 Page eight New Bustness None, STAFF CONCERNS 11. Oral Report on Council actions of March 3, 1986. Presentation: Edward M. Knight, Senior Planner At the March, 3 1986 City Council meeting the Circulation Element passed through Resolution No. 86-27. The East Tustin Planned Community public hearing was continued until the March 17, 1986 meeting for further input. An agreement has been reached between the City of Orange, the City of Tusttn, The Irvine Company, and the County of Orange regarding the Peter's Canyon Regional Park Memorandum of Understanding. All Planning Commission actions were ratified, with one appealed item, the Hockenberry office building on "C" and Second. COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURIIqE#T Commissioner Puckett moved, McCarthy seconded a motion for adjournment at 11:10 p.m. Motion carried 4-0.