Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-10-84 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COI~ISSION REGULAR I~ETING DECEMBER 10, 1984 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: White, Well, McCarthy, Puckett, Sharp PUBLZC CONCERNS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. rqlnutes from Planning Commission meeting November 26, 1984. 2. Parcel Map 84-1027, 18231 Irvine Boulevard, Burnett Ehline. Commissioner Sharp moved, Wetl second to approve Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. VARIANCE 84-4 Applicant: Location: Request: Mr. 14i 11 lam Brown 153 N. Yorba Authorization to vary from the minimum lot width, front yard setback and maximum lot coverage requirements of the Single Family (R-l) District. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Mary Ann Chamberlain presented staff's report as contained in Report to Planning Commission dated December 10, 1984. Chatr~n White opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. and the following people spoke: Martin Schwartz, owner of 175 Yorba, asked a few questions and differed with staff on the age of the buildings on the street. He also felt the granting of this variance would encourage the property owner to do something with the property that is not to the benefit of the city. Bill Groob, Contractor, explained that Mr. Brown is in the hospital tonight and could not be here. They are asking that the lot be changed to allow an additional 400 sq. feet lot coverage. Minutes Planning Commission Dec. 10, 1984 page two Commissioner Sharp questioned if Mr. Brown plans to live in the house and clarified that Mr. Brown owns the property on the corner of Pacific and Main, and his mother owns the house next door. Mr. Groob responed that he did. Commission discussion ensued concerning the architecture design plan and the interior. They questioned the fact that Mr. Brown would travel through the garage and a shop to get to the rumpus room and he plans to install an elevator. Commissioner McCarthy further expressed concern that it appears the building is being designed for commercial use rather than residential. And, pointed out that on that side of the street this would be the only two story structure. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chariman White closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. Commissioner Well moved, Puckett second to continue to January 14, 1985 to allow Mr. Brown to recuperate and comment to the Planning Commission at their next meeting. Motion carried 5-0 4. USE PERMIT 84-27 Applicant: Location: Request: Hughes/Calder on behalf of Lyle Foster 550 West Sixth Street Authorization to construct a storage facility with on-site caretaker's residence and to vary from the minimum parking and side yard setback requirements of the zone. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Mary Ann presented staff's report as contained in Report to Planning Commission dated December 10, 1984. Commissioner McCarthy questioned if the land along the Santa Aha Freeway is dedicated to Caltrans. Mary Ann responded yes, Caltrans is proposing to take ten feet. He has shown a 25 foot setback for the rear so when they take the ten feet there will still be 15 feet and will be up to code. Chairman White opened the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. The following person spoke: Bill Hughes, applicant, agreed with the staff report and answered the Commission's questions. Commissioner Well questioned the reason for a Variance on the easterly side. Mr. Hughes responded that it is dead space. The building has to be sprinkled and so they don't have to provide fire access, so the closer the two buildings are, the better. Chairman White clarified that this is in fact a Variance and stated he could find a hardship based upon the constraints on the westerly side of project requiring larger than normal setbacks and consequently, less land. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chairman White closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m Mi nutes Planning Commission December 10,1984 page three Commissioner Wetl rebutted Chairman Whlte's assessment that there is a hardship. She feels it is a self inflicted hardship in that they are using the lot with knowledge of our standards. Unless we change the 3 foot standard, we should stick with the standard. Commissioner McCarthy questioned and Mary Ann responded that the adjoining property has a variance and also has a 6 inch sideyard setback. Commissioner Well expressed further concern with granting variances based on a previous variance. Lyle Foster, owner of Foster property, explained the variance was granted because they intended to buy the adjoining land and continue their building to the west. The footings in the building were built with the assumption a variance would be granted for this piece of property so they could join the two buildings. But, due to inheritance taxes they are forced to sell the property. He feels that if anything, these two buildings should be joined rather than have a foot of space between them. Mr. Hughes further explained that a hardship could be income. They have an on-site caretaker's residence and they need square footage to cover operating expenses as well as fixed expenses. There is a reason to have a setback when it benefits the community but when you have an existing building on the lot line it doesn't benefit the community. Commissioner Puckett questioned the type of wall protecting the space between the two buildings. Commission discussion ensued concerning the size of space. Mostly they favored six inches because there would be less of an undesirable area and it would act as a sound attenuation wall for the resldetial area from the freeway. Commissioner Sharp asked the City Attorney if there are sufficient findings in Resolution 2201 to protect us with a variance consideration on the basis of hardship. Suzanne said it is a little weak. Chairman White determined a hardship exists because of the excessive width on the west side of the property for the 40 foot encumbrance. If he has a right to do three feet normally, but the property is burdened with a setback, it would appear to be a setback. It puts you at a competitive disadvantage when you try to sell the property and develop it, you don't get the full utilization and square footage out of it. Commissioner Sharp moved, McCarthy second to approve Use Permit 84-27 and continue Resolution 2201 to the next meeting to allow staff to find sufficient findings to allow a variance due to hardship. Motion carried 4-1 (Well opposed) Minutes Planntng Commission December 10, 1984 page four ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS Old Business None. New Business 5. EXTENSION OF USE PERMIT NO. 83-26, SALTARELLI REALTY CO. Location: Request: Presentation: 13751Redhill Avenue A one year extension of use Permit 83-26 which is due to expire on December 12, 1984. Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Commissioner Sharp moved, Puckett second to allow a one year extension of Use Permit 83-26. Motion carried 5-0 The following two items were late additions to the agenda: 5.(a) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 84-1033, DOW AVENUE Location: Request: 2911 and 2961 Dow Avenue To subdivide one parcel into two parcels Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Mary Ann presented staff's report as contained in Report to Planning Commission dated December 10, 1984. She pointed out the applicant requested item 2.B. of Resolution 2202 be amended to reflect separate sanitary sewer services, domestic water services and any required fire service shall be provided to each parcel. Council policy has been that every parcel have it's own sewer. Per the letter request from Mr. Bell, they are requesting they record a covenant with the map which would provide for upkeep and continued maintenance of the system as well as for the parking and drive surfaces and also provide for reciprocal rights for ingress, egress parking. This covenant would run in perpetuity with the land. He would like to be exempt from taking out one sewer which services both buildings. Commission discussion ensued concerning hook-up fees for the Sanitation District and the City Council policy for separate connections. Commissioner Sharp moved, Well second to continue to January 14, 1985 for staff to answer the following questions: 1) What is the Council policy on sewer connection fees for individual parcels; and 2) What is the Sanitation District policy for lot splits relative to two separate sewer hook-ups to the trunk line. Motion carried 5-0. Minutes Planntng Commission Meettng December 10, 184 page ft ye 5.(b) Location: Request: Presentation: PARCEL MAP 83-1027, LAGUNA ROAD 1122 to 1192 Laguna Road To subdivide one parcel into two parcels Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Commission discussion ensued concerning Caltrans' future plans for freeway widening and the possibility that the City may have liability for approving this project with knowledge that a portion of this property may be taken. Commissioner Sharp moved, McCarthy second to adopt Resolution 2133 and recommend to the City Council for approval. Motion Carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS 6. Report on Council Actions December 3, 1984 Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner CONNISSION CONCERNS Commissioner McCarthy expressed concern over the "No Right Turn on Red" sign on the corner of Redhtll and Bryan. He thought it may be giving children a false sense of security in light of the fact that the sign is violated a great deal. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Wetl moved, Puckett second to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. to January 14, 198/5~ RONALD H. WHITE q)OI~NA ORR, Recording Secretary