Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-03-80TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular Meeting November 3, 1980 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, November 3, 1980, in the Council Chambers of the Tustin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, Cali- fornia. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Saltarelli at 3:01 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Sharp and the invocation was given by Mr. Saltarelli. ROLL CALL VOTE Present: Chairman Saltarelli; Agency members: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, and Kennedy Absent: None Also present: Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Director Alan Warren, Senior Planner Dan Blankenship, City Administrator James Rourke, City Attorney Eva Solis, Recording Secretary Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk MINUTES The minutes of the meetings held October 6 and October 20, 1980 were approved as written, and with the waiving of reading same. PUBLIC HEARING Zone Chan~e 80-3 and Variance 80-17 Applicant: Location: Request: Joseph Nardulli Southeasterly corner of Norwood Park Place and Yorba Street. To change the zone from Single-family (R-i) to Planned Develop- ment (PD) with related site plan approval which allows a variance of the side yard setback in the PD District. Mr. Brotemarkle said this particular site is a 1.33 acre site of R-1 zoned property at the southeast corner of Norwood Park Place and Yorba Avenue. The staff presented some slides showing the subject property from different angles and also a sketch of the site plan showing the existing house and the adjacent structures on the four R-1 lots that abut the subject site. The slides showed some of the well kept homes in the immediate vicinity and also the garage structure that would be removed. He said this is a remnant parcel which was "not a part" of Tract 6273 which was filed in 1964. The R-1 zoning applied to the property permits single detached family homes on 7200 square foot lots. The zone change is a request to establish a PD-7180, or a density of one single family home for each 7,180 square feet. This is 19.25 square feet less than on the individual lots. If you divided the total parcel by 7200, 7.978 units would be permitted on the site. However, the R-1 zoning by use permit, does have a provision that could create eight units on the prop- erty. He said the applicant's approach was not as a traditional subdivision since that would have precluded retention of the two-story 3700 square foot spanish style home. It was approached through PD zoning to be restricted by condi- tions to single-family detached homes only, as a one-lot subdivision with a maximum of one dwelling unit for each 7,180 square feet. The variance Planning Agency tinutes - November 3, 1980 page 2. request supercedes and includes the normal use permit processing for site plan review of the seven proposed homes. This project, he said, is similar to one acted upon previously by the Agency on Gylah Way off Warren, in the northern part of the city for 5 single-family detached condominiums. Mr. Brotemarkle said the open space and parking requirements of the PD zoning have been exceeded by the proposal and the two-story height at 29 feet is in conformance with other single-family development in the area. The variance request, he said, actually involves only two units; the unit in the southwest and southeast corners respectively, requesting a side yard set- back of 6 and 5 feet respectively rather than the 15 feet required by PD District. The issue being that the PD standards address only row housing in our development standards, but do not address single-family detached homes and the setbacks requested would be in conformance to the R-1 standards applicable to the adjacent properties. Mr. Brotemarkle said if Agency approved this request, due to the fact there are large lots with pools adjacent to the subject site, it would be recom- mended that the second story windows of the proposed homes be visually screened from the adjacent R-1 properties on the large cul-de-sac lots to the south and east. Further, if approved, staff would recommend that they be di- rected to prepare an amendment alternative to provide for single-family home detached developments under PD standards. He said in reviewing the environ- mental status and the work prepared by Nelson Engineering, staff noticed that had the units been attached, the project would have been exempted under CEQA regulations, while only up to three single-family homes are so exempted. The project is directly comparable to the existing permitted uses and no signifi- cant impacts would appear to result over the tradtional tract development, however, staff did ascertain that the actual construction would result in the loss of the existing mature trees, landscaping, and hedges. It did impose a mitigating measure that all trees possible be saved during development. This would be an item that would be reviewed by the Planning Agency on the sub- mittal of the final development site plan. Mr. Brotemarkle further stated that the hearing notices that were mailed to adjacent property owners on October 23, 1980 has promoted some intense concern among the residents and numerous counter and telephone contacts have been re- ceived. Some have commented about their concerns over the increased density; apartment development; property value devalution; row housing; the type of people that would occupy these homes; future changes that might be requested by the applicant; and similar concerns. There is some concern over the house itself, some preferring that it be demolished; others wanting it renovated, but not wanting any more units; some want a restriction to fewer units than permitted and others are concerned that it might be, in the future, developed to commercial. He said there were a few residents who had viewed the plans and stated that it was not what they originally thought it would be and there- fore had no objections to the proposal. He said the staff had also received some protests via the mail. Mr. Brotemarkle said due to some confusion among the residents, as to the spe- cific proposal, staff would recommend a possible continuance of Zone Change 80-3 and Variance 80-17 for further dissemination of information through a two-week deliberation period. Chairman Saltarelli asked why these units were called condominiums when obvi- ously they are single-family detached homes? Mr. Brotemarkle said these are single-family detached homes which are in a condominium mode; each individual home owner would have ownership over his in- dividual unit and also have an undivided one-eighth interest in the entire property, but it would be what is called a single-family one lot subdivision. Planning Agency Minutes - November 3, 1980 page 3. The majority of condominiums that we deal with are conversions of an existing apartment complex, but that is not to say that condominiums cannot be utilized for single family as they have in other areas of the county. Chairman Saltarelli said that rumor has it that a different proposal was ori- ginally submitted that was more in keeping with what presently exists and that staff turned it down. Is there any truth in that? Mr. Brotemarkle said the original proposal by the applicant was for attached dwelling units on the subject site and staff rejected that one in favor of single-family detached units. Chairman Saltarelli asked if the reason this didn't meet the R-1 code is be- cause of the community facilities that are within the tract. Mr. Brotemarkle said no, it was because the entire lot is 158 square feet short of the eight times 7200. Either through the loss of the curve radius when the street was improved, or whatever, the lot comes up 158 square feet short of being permitted for eight units on the property. Chairman Saltarelli asked ii they had that 158 square feet in there, would it in fact meet the existing code? Mr. Brotemarkle said yes, that was correct. Chairman Saltarelli asked if the pool was not there, would they meet the code? Mr. Brotemarkle said no; they would still be short the 158 square feet; that is the overall dimension of the property. Mr. Edgar asked the approximate land committed to each individual parcel. Mr. Brotemarkle said there really is none as it is a one-lot subdivision. you took a general dimension aroumd one of the units, it would be approxi- mately 75 x 57 on each unit, not including driveways, common open areas or parking. If Mrs. Kennedy stated that whenever the Agency had a request that was the least bit controversial they usually scheduled it for their evening agenda. She asked why this matter had not been scheduled for this evening's meeting? She thought it would be appropriate to consider this matter at an Agency meeting this evening. She said they could hear and take comments from those citizens present at this time, but perhaps there were some who were at work now and could not be in attendance, but would be in attendance mt the evening meet- ing. She said she was surprised that staff did not arrange this for an even- ing meeting. Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition to Zone Change 80-3 and Variance 80-17. Speaking in favor: Joseph J. Nardulli, 14372 South Yorba Richard Hull, 15935 Amber Valley, Whittier Planning Agency Minutes - November 3, 1980 page 4. Speaking in opposition: Lynda Kay Sneathen, 14381 Mimosa Lane James F. Farnsworth, 17331 Norwood Park Place Ed Amormino, 17381 Norwood Park Place Stanley J. Gusky, 17391 Norwood Park Place William R. Lucas, 14382 Acacia Drive Obie T. Moore, 14371 Acacia Drive Ray Salinas, 14231 Mimosa Lane It appeared that the comsensus of those speaking in opposition were concerned that this proposal departed greatly from R-1 zoning; the character and design of the development was inconsistent with the design and character of the sur- rounding neighborhood which consisted of single-family residential lots of 7200 square feet or more, each home fronting on a public maintained street with sidewalks; each home having ample front and back yards for play areas and has aprons in front of their garages for parking. By contrast, it was felt that this proposed development provided for individual lots of less than 7200 square feet; they front onto a 25 foot wide private drive, without sidewalks; they have inadequate front and back yards for play areas; and they had no aprons in front of the garages. It was also pointed out by the opposition that the Tustin General Plan in des- cribing single-family residences said "the intent is to identify the tra- ditional residential subdivision with detached, owner-occupied units, each on their own parcel of land." The proposed development would provide for com- munity ownership of the land and it was felt this was a major change for the neighborhood. The opposition did not feel that the CC&Rs, limiting the use of the garages to vehicle storage, could be properly policed and that there would be a problem with the parking. It was requested by those in opposition that both Zone Change 80-3 and Vari- ance 80-17 be denied, and that any future development of this property be done in strict conformance with R-1 single-family residence standards. Mr. Joseph Nardulli, property owner, stated that the density was not in excess of that permitted for R-I; it was {n keeping with the General Plan desig- nation, had more open play and recreation area than provided by eight single family lots, would meet or exceed all R-1 setback standards, and that private driveway accesses are found on R-! lots in the area serving rear yard garages. Mr. Richard Hull, architect, stated the units were designed in excess of R-1 standards and the only variance relief sought was to allow the units to be constructed at R-1 side yard setbacks. He pointed out that up to six addit- ional parking spaces could be provided and still comply with the 50% open space standards. The primary reason for this request was to allow retention of the existing home which could not be accomplished under traditional sub- division practices and still yield the number of units permitted. The homes would be single-family detached units and the configuration is comparable to what could be accomplished under traditional subdivision patterns. Chairman Saltarelll declared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. MOTION by Mrs. Kennedy to continue the public hearing for one month from this date and that the project be restudied by the developer, members of the R-! community, and that it be brought back to the Agency at that time. The motion died for lack of a second. Planning Agency Minutes - November 3, 1980 page 5. MOTION by Edgar, SECONDED by Kennedy, to continue the public hearing until the meeting to be held at 7 p.m. this evening. Chairman Saltarelli said it was his opinion that since the Council has this same project scheduled on their agenda for this evening, he felt that as the Planning Agency they should take some action upon this matter now. VOTE ON THE MOTION TO CONTINUE: AYES: Edgar and Kennedy NOES: Hoestery, Sharp, and Saltarelli Mr. Hoesterey said it would seem to him very improper to rezone that property to anything other than R-I, therefore, he would make a MOTION to deny Zone Change 80-3 and Variance 80-17, SECONDED by Kennedy. AYES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, Kennedy, and Saltarelli NOES: None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Tentative Tract Map No. 11266 Applicant: Joseph Nardulli Location: Southeasterly corner of Norwood Park Place and Yorba Street Request: Subdivision (one lot) for condominium purposes for eight single-family homes. Chairman Saltarelli said since this had to do with the previous case which was just denied, it therefore would be deleted from the agenda. PUBLIC CONCERNS None STAFF CONCERNS None AGENCY CONCERNS None Mr. Brotemarkle said just for information only, he would like to advise the Agency that the Parking Study on residential parking standards is still in progress and it is hoped the staff can return this to the Agency at their next meeting. Planning Agency Minutes - November 3, 1980 page 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Agency, Chairman Saltarelli declared the meeting adjourned at 4:09 p.m., to meet again for a regular meeting to be held November 17. 1980. M.I. Mehl Transcribing Secretary Chairman