HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-10-85HINUTES
TUSTIN PLANNING COf~ISSION
REGULAR I~ETING
&UNE 10, 1985
CALL TO ORDER: 7:36 p.m., City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION
ROLL CALL: White, Well, McCarthy, Puckett
PRESENTATIOMS
Resolution commending Commissioner James Sharp.
PUBLIC CONCERNS:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting May 13, 1985
Chairman White pulled this item from the Consent Calendar for corrections.
2. Resolution No. 222g, Carver Development
3. Resolution No. 2230, Green Valley
Puckett moved, Wetl second to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Motion
carried 4-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. USE PERMIT 85-11
Applicant: E.W. Rosenberg on behalf of Red Hill Lutheran Church
Location: 13200 Redhill Avenue
Request: Authorization to install a monument reader sign of 40 square
feet
Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
Chairman White opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak
he closed the hearing at 7:43 p.m.
Wetl moved, Puckett second to approve Use Permit 85-11 by the adoption of Resolution
No. 2237 with the addition of Condition of Approval No. 3 that the existing sign must
be removed. Motion carried 4-0.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1985
page two
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED
5. USE PERMIT 85-12
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Presentation:
John Haretakes on behalf of Spires Restaurants, Inc.
13451 Newport Avenue in Larwin Square Shopping Center
Authorization to obtain a beer and wine (on-site) license.
Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
Chairman White opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak
he closed the hearing at 7:46 p.m.
Well moved, McCarthy second to approve Use Permit 85-12 by the adoption of Resolution
2243. Motion carried 4-0.
6. USE PERMIT 85-13
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Mobil Oil Corporation
13872 Redhill Avenue at Laguna Road
Authorization to install a mini market in an existing sales
area.
Presentation:
Jeff Davis, Associate Planner
Chairman White opened the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. George Hillyard, project
applicant, expressed his opposition to the 10 foot dedication required by the
engineering department. Frank Greinke, 1011 Laguna Road, supported this project and
the applicant's request to waive the 10' dedication. Harry Ericson, enginneer for
Mobil Oil, stated their current lease has ten years left and they normally renew
their leases for 10 or 20 years.
Puckett moved, McCarthy second to approve Use Permit 85-13 by adoption of Resolution
No. 2228 and forward to the City Council. Motion carried 3-1, Well opposed.
7. A. ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-6
Applicant:
Locati on:
Request:
City of Tusttn
12821 Newport Avenue
To change the zoning designation from (R-3) Multiple Family
Residential to the {P&I) Public and Institutional District.
Presentation:
Ed Knight, Senior Planner
Chairman Whited opened the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to
speak he closed the hearing at 8:03 p.m. Puckett moved, Well second to approve Zone
Change No. 85-6 by adoption of Resolution 2231. Motion carried 4-0.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1985
page three
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED
B. ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-7
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
City of Tustln
Northeasterly corner of Preble Street and Main Street
To change the zoning designation from (R-3) Multiple Family
Residential to the (CG) Commercial General District.
Presentation:
Ed Knight, Senior Planner
Chairman White opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak
he closed the hearing at 8:04 p.m. Puckett moved, McCarthy second to approve Zone
Change 85-7 by adoption of Resolution 2232. Motion carried 4-0.
C. ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-8
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
City of Tusttn
15352 William Street known as Tustin Village Mobile Home Park
To change the zoning designation from (R-4) Suburban Residential
to (MHP) Mobile Home Park
Presentation:
Ed Knight, Senior Planner
Chairman White opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak
he closed the hearing at 8:05 p.m. Puckett moved, Weil second to approve Zone change
No. 85-8 by approving Resolution No. 2233. Motion carried 4-0.
D. ZONE CHANGE 85-9
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
City of Tustln
Properties located at the southerly terminus of Carfax Avenue,
westerly of School Lane.
To change the zoning designation from Industrial and Planned
Industrial to the {P&I) Public and Institutional District
Presentation:
Ed Knight, Senior Planner
Chairman White opened the hearing at 8:05 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak he
closed the hearing at 8:05 p.m. Puckett moved, Well second to approve Zone Change
85-g by approving Resolution 2234. Motion carried 4-0.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1985
page four
E. ZONE CHANGE 85-10
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
City of Tusttn
12931 and 1201 Irvlne Boulevard
To change the zoning designation from (R-l)
Residential to Public and Institutional District
Single Family
Presentation:
Ed Knight, Senior Planner
Chairman White opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak
he closed the hearing at 8:06 p.m. Puckett moved, Well second to approve Zone Change
85-10 by approving Resolution 2235. Motion carried 4-0.
F. ZONE CHANGE 85-11
Applicant:
Locati on:
Request:
City of Tusttn
Properties located on the south side of Ntsson Road between
Redhill Avenue and Browning Avenue for the Trail Way Park
To change the zoning designation from (R-2) Duplex Residential
to (MHP) Mobile Home Park District.
Presentation:
Ed Knight, Senior Planner
Chairman White opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak
he closed the hearing at 8:07 p.m. Puckett moved, Well second to approve Zone Change
85-11 by approving Resolution 2236. Motion carried 4-0.
8. EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY/PHASE I RESIDENTIAL
Draft EIR 84-3
General Plan Amendment 84-4
Zone Change 85-4
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Monlca Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company
An area bounded by the I-5 freeway, Bryan Avenue, Browning
Avenue and the proposed Jamboree Road.
To amend the General Plan Land Use designation and property
zoning to permit development of a Planned Residential Community
consisting of single-family detached, attached and apartment
dwelling units adjoining a public park.
Presentation:
Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development
Chairman White opened the public hearing at 8:42 p.m.
Commissioner McCarthy questioned the zero lot line versus the 5' side set back on
each house. With the easement given to the adjoining property owner, can the
adjoining property owner build a brick patio or anything else on it. Staff responded
that the easement is for surface use only which include landscape purposes and
non-permanent structures which would not require a permit. They could surface it
with some material that would not violate their CC&Rs. McCarthy further questioned
if flood insurance would be required because this is a flood plain area. Staff
responded they believe when the project is in place and adequate flood control
protection is provided homeowners would not be required by their lenders to have
flood control insurance. However, The Irvine Company could better address this.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1985
page five
Brad Olson, The Irvtne Company, explained that after the public testimony at the last
meeting they reviewed what had been proposed and what adjustment in the plan could be
done to address the public concerns. Referring to the statistical summary, page
three of the May 13, 1985 staff report, he proposed some adjustments to the maximum
density per gross acre category for each of the three density classifications shown:
Medium/Low density (33 gross acres, orgtnal request 10 units per gross acre) they
propose to reduce that maximum density to 8 units per gross acre which would delete
66 detached dwellings; 21% reduction in density for the single-family detached area
or the medium low density area. Medium density area (14 units per gross acre) they
proposed a reduction of 1 unit per gross acre from 14 to 13. This reduces the total
dwelling units from 294 to 273; 21 units a 7% reduction. Apartment area across the
street from the auto center (22 units per gross acre) they propose a reduction to 19
units per gross acre bringing total unit count from 594 to 513 or a 14% reduction.
The combined total change from the original proposal is a decrease of 168 units
approximately 13.8% overall reduction and a decrease in the overall density. He
continued to address the development standards with respect to future use permits.
He further addressed parking. He referred to the parking study they performed.
Their commitment is to park their projects within the boundaries; it is their belief
that the parking ratios offered will work based on past experience. They have
included a variation in the parking standards for assigned units. With some
flexibility with one permanent and one flexible it solves the problem and spreads the
parking.
Finally, the zero lot line type of development is a good idea. It provides for
flexibility and variation in street scene. They would happy to incorporate it.
The environmental concerns have been dealt adequately. Flood control and circulation
long term improvements are incorporated in the assessment district petition on file
with the city. The interim improvements will be provided whether as part of the auto
center or residential. They have no interest in creating a project with houses that
flood. Also, the circulation improvements planned will provide relief from the
congestion.
With respect to schools, The Company has initiated a facility financing study. It is
their hope that this study will identify how existing closed facilities can be
brought back on line and identify future funding sources. They intend to work
cooperatively with the district and to find a way to accommodate the students
generated from this project. They agree that the request from the District is not
within the city's power to compel or the Company's power to deliver but it does not
get in their way to work with the District and to accommodate the students added to
the area.
Clayton Parker, of Parker and Covert representing the Tustin Unified School District,
referred to letters previously filed with the city on this project. Addressed his
comments solely to the impact on the schools in TUSD and how to assure there will be
schools to serve children generated by this project.
McCarthy expressed his pleasure with the new densities proposed but still had
concerns with parking and thought park acreage should be greater in higher density
areas; namely the apartment area.
Further Commission discussion ensued concerning park allocation for private parks and
recreattn areas in townhome and condominium areas.
Planntng Commission Minutes
June 10, 1985
page slx
In response to Commission questions, staff explained the Planntng Commfsston would
have the authority to determine tf the park locatton and configuration ts
appropriate; the equipment wtthin the park has to meet a certatn mtntmum level to
qualtfy for parkland dedication credttatlon outltned in the parkland dedication
ordinance. Ultimately acceptance of a park credit, prtvate or publlc, ts up to the
Ctty Counctl upon Commission recommendation. The Count11 makes the ftnal decision as
to the dollar credltatton.
Whtte questioned how many total unl ts are being proposed. Olson: 1050.
Puckett asked for clarification on the planned community zoning regulations, Section
4 Item C ". . whenver the regulations contained herein conflict with the
regulations of the city of Tustin zoning code the regulations of the East Tustin
Phase I residential planned community district shall take precedence". Staff
explained East Tusttn is being processed via a planned community process. The
statement referred to is somewhat of a generic one so that if by chance during the
authorship of this document, which was somewhat of a joint effort between the Company
and city, a particular development standard was missed then we are to use the city's
zoning code. But, if the standards are listed in both the city code and the East
Tusttn Phase I document, the regulations take precedence.
Wetl proposed that anything more than a two bedroom house require an 18' driveway,
sufficient for an extra car. A three bedroom house has a very good chance of having
a third family car. Her goal is to provide facilities so that family cars can be kept
off the street.
Staff explained that the present city zoning code which applies to multiple family
requires two covered assigned spaces per unit regardless of the number of bedrooms
and one guest space which is unassigned and open for every four units. This equates
to 2.25 spaces per unit. That applies in all multiple family zones. The Irvine
Company proposal is more related to the size of the unit versus a flat standard. The
number of spaces is related to the bachelor, one and two bedroom. The bachelor and
one bedroom are less than our current standards. They originally sought one space
covered and assigned for the bachelor and 1.50 of which one would be covered for the
one bedroom. This is less than our original code. We have submitted a compromise
proposal; its in the original staff report on page 7. In essence, the parking
standards are less than what we presently have in effect for bachelors and one
bedroom condominiums and townhomes; less for apartments up to two bedrooms; three
bedrooms are the same as our code.
Staff further clarified that our present code requires a double car garage per single
family home regardless of the size. It also requires a 20' set-back which equates to
a 20' driveway. In apartments we presently require the two spaces per unit covered
assigned and 1/4 space for every unit. The same ratio for multiple family.
Brad Olson interjected that there are several ways to address parking. First, the
width of the street to accommodate cars parked on the street. It is not effective to
not park on the street with what it costs to build the street. Another alternative
is through CC&Rs you can impose a requirement that folks who have two cars must keep
those cars in the garage. Often the garage gets used for storage and the driveway
for parking. He further commented that with densities of 8 per acre with 18' to 20'
set backs what you basically do is trade a driveway for a backyard. Everything is
forced back into living area. It becomes a trade off. They are trying to maximize
the living area left on the lot.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1985
page seven
Staff explained that in the event there is no conditional use permit process the
Commission would have the design review process for final site plans for placement of
the homes, the driveway lengths, the street widths, typical elevations of each of the
homes, exterior wall designs along perimeter arterial roads and the landscape set
back treatment along interior and exterior streets, and the park plan. It would be
"non-discretionary". The Commission would only have the authority to change it
within tolerable limits to meet the intent of the code.
Commission discussion ensued concerning flooding and the E1Modena channel capacity.
The city's position is that since The Irvine Company will pay $36,000,000 to improve
the channel from Browning and Bryan to I-5 it is the Orange County Flood Control
District's responsibility to improve the channel upstream.
Further discussion ensued concerning the school district concerns. The city is in
the business of land use control not education, but are cognizant of the district's
needs and trying to work with them. There has not been total cooperation between the
city and district at this point. Don Lamm asked publicly that the district, city and
Irvtne Company get together on this issue to try to resolve it. There is no
statutory law for the city to impose fees on the Irvine Company.
Wetl moved to adopt Resolution 2223 recommending approval of the Draft EIR 83-3
subject to the mitigation measures, Puckett second. Motion carried 4-0.
Puckett moved approval of General Plan Amendment 84-4 by adopting Resolution 2224,
Wetl second. Motion carried 4-0.
McCarthy moved approval of Zone Change 85-4 to allow the counter proposal on the
density by The Irvine Company of 8 units for medium low, 13 for medium density and 19
for medium high density. Well seconded for discussion. Commission discussion ensued
concerning parking standards and the possibility of considering them separate from
the zone change. Well continued with one minor change to the PC regs, under B.3.(f)
(animals prohibited from the properties) would like to include poultry be prohibited.
Olson stated that The Irvine Company is agreeable to two covered parking spaces for
the multi family for sale two bedroom units.
Further Commission discussion ensued concerning parking for four bedroom units.
White restated the motion again. Moved and seconded that the zone change be approved
with the new unit limit; with the parking ratio as amended for 2.0 covered and
addition of a 4 bedroom unit; and, prohibiting poultry. Motion carried 4-0.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1985
page eight
9. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12345
Applicant:
Locati on:
Request:
Monica Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company
An area bounded by the I-5 freeway, Bryan Avenue, Browning
Avenue and the proposed Jamboree Road.
To subdivide approximately 107 acres of land providing for
development of specific land uses pursuant to the Phase I
Planned Community zoning regulations.
Presentation:
Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development
Chairman White opened the public hearing at 10:00 p.m.
Brad Olson, The Irvine Company, referred to the June lOth staff report. He
questioned item 6, existing condition 20, proposed language ".. reservation or
dedication as determined by the city engineer of adequate right-of-way for future
Interstate 5 .... " The Company proposed" . . reservation for future acquisition
of adequate right-of-way .... " Dedication implies a gift. He thought how the
acquisition of the right-of-way takes place is between The Company and Caltrans.
Clayton Parker, TUSD, expressed the same concerns as with the Phase I. They do not
think the map should be recorded until the district certifies that adequate school
facilities are available or the developer has provided mitigation as requested by the
school district in its letter addressed to the city dated March 21, 1985.
Carol Taylor, 13532 Farmtngton, asked Mr. Parker when Utt school would be reopened.
Mr. Parker responded that one of the requests of mitigation is to open Utt school.
The District does not have the funds to reopen.
Staff addressed Mr. Olson's concern with item 6.
the land; dedication means they do not have to.
Engineer had the option in working with Caltrans.
Reservation means Caltrans pays for
We worded the condition so the City
Seeing no one further wish to speak, Chairman White closed the hearing at 10:10 p.m.
White moved approval of Tentative Map 12345, Puckett second. McCarthy amended that
no grading or berming in the Phase I area be allowed until the E1 Modena Channel is
complete. Well seconded the amendment. Well moved to amend item 6 to read
"reservation". McCarthy second.
Discussion ensued concerning increased flooding potential during construction of the
auto center and the Company request that the berm improvement be at the discretion of
the City Engineer.
Well withdrew her second to the motion.
White moved, Puckett second to approve Tentative Map 12345 with the density
reflecting that in the Planned Community Zone Regulations, Puckett second. Motion
carried 4-0. First amendment: Well moved, Puckett second to require a storm drain
phasing plan shall be processed through the City Engineer and approved by him to show
that the construction of this project shall not in any way make the flooding
situation worse before it gets better on Browning Avenue. Motion carried 3-1.
Second amendment: amend condition 19 to delete the word "dedication" and replace it
with "reservation". Motion carried 4-0.
Planntng Commission Minutes
June 10, 1985
page nt ne
10. VARIANCE 85-3
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
James Needham on behalf of Basic Shelter, Inc.
510 S. "C" Street
Authorization to vary from the requirements for the width of the
lot and the size of garages in the multi-family residential
(R-3) zone
Presentation:
Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
Chairman White opened the public hearing at 10:35 p.m. James Needham, applicant,
made himself available for questions. White closed the hearing at 10:38 p.m.
Puckett moved, McCarthy second to approve Variance 85-3 by approving Resolution
2242. Motion carried 4-0.
11. YORBA STREET STUDY
Ae
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-1
ZONE CHANGE 85-5
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 9
Applicant:
Locati on:
Request:
City of Tustin
Certain properties located on Yorba Street between First Street
and Irvine Boulevard.
To amend the General Plan designations, zoning designations and
to create a specific plan establishing development guidelines
Presentation:
Jeff Davis, Associate Planner
Chairman White opened the public hearing at 10:46 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to
speak he closed the hearing at 10:46 p.m. Well moved, Puckett second to approve
General Plan Amendment No. 85-1. Motion carried 4-0. Puckett moved, Well second to
approve Zone Change 85-5. Motion carried 4-0. Puckett moved, Well second to approve
Specific Plan No. 9. Motion carried 4-0.
12. SOUTH/CENTRAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT DEIR AND PROJECT PLAN
Review and consideration of a Draft Environmental Impact Report {EIR 85-1) for the
proposed amendment to the South/Central Redevelopment Project. The subject
properties are located in the territory bounded by Edinger, Redhill Avenue, Valencia,
and the Costa Mesa {SR-55) Freeway. Copies of the Draft EIR are available for
inspection at the Community Development Department in Tustin City Hall and the Tusttn
Branch of the Orange County Library.
Presentation:
Dr. R. Kenneth Fleagle, Consultant
Chairman White opened the public hearing at 11:00 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to
speak he closed the hearing at 11:00 p.m. Well moved, McCarthy second to approve by
adopting Resolution 2241. Motion carried 4-0. Puckett moved, Well second to
authorize by Minute Order a response to the City of Santa Aha.
Planntng Commission Minutes
June 10, 1985
page ten
ADMIIiISll~ATIVE #A'II'ERS
Old Business
13. Final Parcel Map No. 84-1032
Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development
Well moved, Puckett second to approve staff recommendation. Motion carried 4-0.
New Business
14. La Mancha Master Sign Plan Revision
Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner
Well moved, McCarthy second to approve staff recommendation. Motion carried 4-0.
15. Vacation of Moulton Parkway
Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner and Dale Wick, Assistant
City Engineer
Well moved, McCarthy second to approve staff recommendation. Motion carried 4-0.
16. Extension of Use Permit 84-11, Union Oil Co., 17280 E. 17th Street
Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
Well moved, McCarthy second to approve staff recommendation. 4-0.
STAFF CONCERNS
17. Review of City Council action May 20, 1985 and June 3, 1985
Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development
COI41qISSION CONCERNS
Chairman White requested staff report to the Commission on the proper procedure for
multiple motions (Robert's Rules of Order).
ADdOURIOIE#T
OOI~NA ORR,
Recordtng Secretary
Adjourned at 11:35 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Planning
Commission.
RONALD H. WHITE,
Chairman