Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-20-80 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular Meeting October 20, 1980 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, October 20, 1980, in the Council Chambers of the Tustin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Saltarelli at 3:04 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Sharp and the invocation was given by Mr. Hoesterey. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Saltarelli; Agency members: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, and Kennedy (3:10 p.m.) Absent: None Also present: Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Director Dan Blankenship, City Administrator Bob Lavoie, Deputy City Attorney Midge Mehl, Recording Secretry MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held October 6, 1980 were held for approval until the next regular meeting as the Agency did not receive them in time for perusal. PUBLIC HEARINGS Use Permit 80-19 Applicant: Location: Request: Petyo & Associates 1370 San Juan Authorization to construct a 9-unit condominium project on R-3 property. Mr. Brotemarkle said this application was submitted on behalf of Robert White for the development of a 9-unit residential condominium project at the site of an old single-family residence. He said staff had reviewed the proposal, and with the conditions as outlined in Resolution No. 1921 would recommend approval of Use Permit 80-19. Mr. Hoesterey asked what was in the surrounding area. Mr. Brotemarkle said to the south and to the west is the school field and to the east is other R-3 property and immediately adjacent, on the north side, is both a mixture of low density single-family and other R-3 properties. Chairman Saltarelli declared the pubic hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition to Use Permit 80-19. Hearing no response he closed the public hearing and asked if there were any further questions from the Agency. Mr. Brotemarkle explained that the applicant was unable to attend the meeting due to a long-standing doctor's appointment, but that he had concurred with all the conditions outlined in the Resolution. MOTION by Sharp, SECONDED by Edgar, to approve Use Permit 8-19 by the adoption of resolution No. 1921 and with the stipulation that the roofs shall be of fire retardant material. AYES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, and Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Kennedy Planning Agency Minutes October 20, 1980 page 2. Pre-zone 80-1 Applicant: Location: Request: Initiated by City Council Easterly of existing city boundary to the proposed Myford Road/Weir Canyon Road, northerly of Moulton Parkway to the ultimate city limits. Pre-zone vacant property from Orange County and City of Irvine to the City of Tustin's Planned Community Resi- dential, Planned Community Commercial, and Planned Com- munity Industrial. Mr. Brotemarkle said this request was the implementation of General Plan Amendment 80-1 which was considered at the Agency's last regular meeting. He said the proposal would be that 494.06 acres north of the freeway between the existing city boundaries on the west, future alignment of Myford Road on the east, and the sphere of influence in the city of Orange on the north be zoned PC-Residential. The Reso- lution would embody the overall restriction of a maximum of four units per gross acre and on hillside areas a maximum density of two units per acre. On the south side of the freeway in the area bounded by Michelle, the Schick Moving & Storage property to the west, Myford to the east, and freeway to the north, is proposed 11.33 acres of PC-Com- mercial and the remaining property in that exchange piece with the City of Irvine would be 83.67 acres of PC-Industrial. PC, as staff indicated in the previous staff report, is part of the General Plan Amendment and is in reality a zoning district that recognizes the need for further and more advanced planning mechanisms for a piece of prop- erty. PC, in and of itself, does not accomplish any development, but requires of a developer the submittal of a specific plan and develop- ment program, the filing of a use permit for a specific project or the utilization of an existing zoning. Therefore, the applicant will automatically have to return for future public hearings with regard to specific development proposals. Mr. Sharp asked when this property would come of the agricultural preserve. Mr. Brotemarkle said the first property would be the one immediately adjacent to the freeway, approximately 200 acres, and it would come out in 1984. No other properties are scheduled to come out of the preserve status until 1986. Mr. Sharp said even though we are taking a pre-zone action at this time, likely we would not see any development in that area until that time, is that correct? Mr. Brotemarkle said there are penalties and it would have to be the judgment of the owner as to whether those penalties were enough to dissuade them from withdrawing early. Even though we say 1984, it's sort of almost around the corner when it comes to a large project, and this request, if approved, would allow both the staff and the company to start developer agreement negotiations, specific plans, precise plans for Myford Road and the scenic highway modifications and im- provements. We are looking at a long-range planning project. Mr. Hoesterey asked if that meant that the owner could go through the entire planning cycle and do everything except break ground and then on day one of 1984 could come in at that time? Mr. Brotemarkle said theorectically, yes, however, they would not be able to do anything until the property came out of preserve, but they could come in with their specific plans over the next couple of years and have it adopted, so if they had all the necessary approvals they could break ground the day it came out of the preserve. Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition to Pre-zone 80-l. There being no one to speak, Chairman Saltarelli closed the public hearing and asked the pleasure of the Agency. Planning Agency Minutes October 20, 1980 page 3. MOTION by Edgar, SECONDED by Sharp, to recommend to the City Council approval of Pre-zone 80-1 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1923. AYES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, Kennedy, and Saltarelli NOES: None NEW BUSINESS: Final Tract Map 11265 Applicant: Location: Request: Quist, on behalf of Venture 17762 17762 Irvine Boulevard Subdivision (one Lot) for condominium purposes. Mr. Brotemarkle said this is the implementation of Use Permit 80-18, previously approved by the Agency. MOTION by Edgar, SECONDED by Sharp, to recommend approval to the City Council of Final Tract Map 11265 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1920. AYES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, Kennedy, and Saltarelli NOES: None Tentative Tract Map No. 11282 Applicant: Location: Request: Petyo & Associates for Robert White 1370 San Juan Subdivison (one lot) for condominium purposes. Chairman Saltarelli said this concerned Use Permit 80-19 which the Agency approved at the beginning of the meeting. This, too, is the implementing Resolution. MOTION by Edgar, SECONDED by Sharp, to recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract No. 11282 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1922. Mrs. Kennedy said due to the fact that she arrived late for the meet- ing and had missed the public hearing on Use Permit 80-19, she would like a briefing of what had transpired. Chairman Saltarelli stated that no one appeared to speak either in favor or opposition to Use Permit 80-19; the Agency acted to approve staff's recorm~endation for approval, with the inclusion of a condition that the roofing should be made from a fire retardant substance. Mrs. Kennedy asked if there had been any discussion on parking or height. Chairman Saltarelli said there had been a discussion about the parking and it was decided that they met the code, and also that relative to the project they are coming in with 25% reduction on the density that would otherwise be permitted. Mrs. Kennedy asked if the height was a problem in that area. Mr. Brotemarkle said no; that it was within the parameters of the reg- ular R-3 zone. AYES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, Kennedy, and Saltarelli NOES: None Parking Study Chairman Saltarelli said this study was made by staff, at the request of Mr. Edgar, for multiple-family parking standards. Planning Agency Minutes October 20, 1980 page 4. Mr. Brotemarkle stated that the Agency had copies of this study and if there were any questions he would be pleased to answer them. There followed a discussion concerning the Parking Study and it was the consensus of the Agency that they would prefer a more in-depth parking study of the residential standards than that presented to them this date, and further time to review the report. Mr. Edgar suggested that perhaps the Police Department would be wil- ling to help with 'late night' counting of parking spaces at complexes that seem to not have a parking problem during the daytime hours. Mr. Brotemarkle said the staff would work on a more in-depth parking study and return it to the Agency at their next meeting. Chairman Saltarelli so ordered. PUBLIC CONCERNS None STAFF CONCERNS None AGENCY CONCERNS Mrs. Kennedy asked if the sign on the Tustin War Memorial Building had been removed. Mr. Blankenship said the owner of the building had been contacted; permission had been received, in writing, that we could remove the sign and it has been done. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Agency,Chairman Saltarelli declared the meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m., to meet again for a regular meeting to be held November 3, 1980. -Donald J. S/~e]li ' ' Chairman ~" M.I. Mehl Recording Secretary