Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-06-80 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular Meeting October 6, 1980 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, October 6, 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 3:04 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Hoestery and the invocation was given by Mr. Edgar. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Saltarelli; Agency members: Hoestery, 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 (3:50 p.m.) Midge Mehl, Recording Secretary MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held September 15, 1980 were approved as written, with the waiving of reading same. PUBLIC HEARINGS Variance 80-16 Applicant: Laurelwood Homeowner's Association on behalf of Mike Gyure Location: 2152 Sweetbriar Road Request: Authorization to vary with the five foot (5') setback for pools and spas. Mr. Brotemarkle said the Laurelwood Subdivision was developed under a zero lot line concept, however, the actual property line is five feet from the building line with that area being an irrevocable five foot easement for use by the ad- jacent property. City Code requires a minimum five foot setback from property line for a pool or spa. The reason is to provide adequate walk area and pro- tection from failure due to a fence foundation on the property line. However, there is no fence on the property line as there is a permanent five foot ease- ment beyond the property line. The CC&Rs of Laurelwood would permit the con- struction up to that property line of such items as a pool or a spa. The variance, therefore, has merit due to the shape of the property being af- fected by this easement. If it were approved, it would be recommended that staff be directed to amend the Walnut Village West Precise Plan or Ordinance No. 528 to allow all such patio home owners the right to construct pools up to the easement/property line. Mr. Saltarelli asked if this was for the patio home area alone and not the townhouse area. Mr. Brotemarkle said that was correct. • o Planning Agency Minutes October 6, 1980 page 2. Mr. Saltarelli said a spa blower jet does make some noise and the other wall being the wall of the neighbor, there would be some noise. He asked if staff had any concern about that. Mr. Brotemarkle said other items could be constructed within that same area, such as air-conditioning and a spa would not be noisier than some other facil- ity already permitted. He said there are already a number of spas in the area which technically are illegal. Mrs. Kennedy asked if there was any other way to accomplish this without a variance. Also, in this particular case, do we not have to show a hardship? Mr. Brotemarkle said a hardship could be shown based on the shape of the prop- erty being adversely affected by the easement. This problem would have been eliminated if in truth they had built zero sideyard homes, but instead they affected the shape and the size of the adjacent properties with easements ad- jacent to the wall of the structure. Staff would therefore recommend adopting an amendment to Ordinance No. 528. Mrs. Kennedy asked if the amendment were to be adopted, then a variance would not be required in the future? Mr. Brotemarkle said no. Mrs. Kennedy asked if this variance request could be continued until such time as the code was corrected. Mr. Brotemarkle said he felt that Mr. Gyure had waited quite a lengthy period of time to seek this; it had been discussed at the Homeowner's Association and this is the appropriate vehicle to get it before the Agency for action. The ultimate solution, 'however, is an amendment to Ordinance No. 528. Mr. Hoesterey asked if the ordinance was amended, would there be a limit to the size of a pool or spa that you could put in so you wouldn't block the fence? Mr. Brotemarkle said in many cases some of these are not below grade facil- ities. Some are slightly below grade. In the case of a major water body that somebody would want to put in there, it would have to be properly engineered and presented to the Building Division for review on that issue. Mr. Hoesterey asked if it would be possible to limit in the amendment the size of the facility that could go in there instead of having a pool that would fill the whole area? Mr. Brotemarkle said if the Agency so wished. Mr. Saltarelli said his main concern was the noise. He said in some of the plans a bedroom would be right next to a spa, and he thought the noise could be heard inside that bedroom. Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition to Variance 80-16. Mr. Ronald H. White, 14431 Raintree Road, speaking in favor, stated he was a former member of the Board of Directors for Laurelwood and had worked on simi- lar projects. He said he would like to talk about variances of this type and the specific portion of the staff report where staff had requested direction to receive a blanket variance on this. He said there are problems associated with this type of improvement. One is noise and the other is drainage. He presented some exhibits to the Agency. Ae stated that even thfluab ~-- s=aes yards appear to be a full yard, they are actually inches away from the ® p Planning Agency Minutes October 6, 1980 page 3. bedrooms and sleeping areas. Ae said when you are asleep and a mechanical equipment is running next door or there is any loud noise, this close to a bedroom, this is a real problem. Re said he didn't believe that noise ordi- ~.~ nances addressed situations like that. Also, it has been mentioned by staff that they thought the construction of spas in the sideyard was an oversight of the developer. That's not true. At the time we were dealing with issues like that we deemed that a ten foot sideyard was not large enough to contain that noise. The CbRs, Article 7, Section 4, that reflects that concern. They had prohibited air-conditioning units in that area as a noise source without the adjacent property owner's approval, if that air-conditioning unit is installed after the home is sold and developed. Pool equipment is that type of a noise source. He gave an example of what happened to him when his neighbor put in a patio slab and after the Building Division had inspected it, the neighbor de- cided he didn't want the patio slab a foot above the original grade and brought in dirt and filled in the drainage Swale. Drainage now runs under the footings of his house, up into the garage and out the garage door. That's the type of thing that can happen if improvements are permitted in that five foot setback area. Re had two recommendations: First, the variance be approved and second, to get at the drainage and the noise issue require the consent of the adjacent property owner. Mr. Joe Ramblett, speaking in opposition, said he had only found out about this request a few days ago and many of his neighbors were not aware of this variance request. He said he, too, had had the same problems that Mr. White spoke about. His home has an atrium and his neighbor chose to put in a patio slab which was higher than the atrium drainage and in addition he blocked that off with a planter. Re said he now has a spa every time it rains. Re said these things should not be taken too lightly when you talk about changing the rules. There being no one else who wished to speak in favor or opposition, Chairman Saltareli declared the public hearing closed and asked if the Agency had any questions. Mr. Saltarelli said he was opposed to changing the ordinance for the reasons as stated by both Mr. White and Mr. Ramblett. Re said he was acquainted with an elderly lady who lives at Cherrywood and Snowberry and she has the same problem as the gentleman with the atrium type home; her next door neighbor put in a patio and planter and cemented in the drain so every time it rains her atrium fills up. Re said we should be satisfied that in this particular re- quest there will be no noise or drainage problem, but he felt that the Agency should not change the ordinance. Mrs. Rennedy said although staff had recommended approval, after hearing the testimony she didn't feel that all the concerns had been met. She would like to have this matter continued and to have all surrounding property owners notified. Mr. Brotemarkle said that all property owners within a 300' radius of the sub- ject property had been notified of this public hearing today. Re said the Romeowners Association's CC~Rs would permit this; the staff does not take building permit requests unless they have been approved by Laurelwood Rome- owners Association. It was our interpretation that these items could still be handled under those CCbR provisions similar to those affecting air-condition- ~ ing and other items that are in the CC6Rs. On the issue of the property owners who fill in and affect drainage, very often these activities occur after the building inspector has finaled off a particular structure, and usually comes as an inspiration after all the inspections are completed and the City is then unaware of activities going an. Mrs. Rennedy said many times you didn't know about the noise concern until it was there. Planning Agency Minutes October 6, 1980 page 4 Mr. Brotemarkle said it was his understanding that with the air-conditioning already established under the CC&Rs as being subject to approval by the Associaton and consent of the adjacent property owner, and they require the proper installation of acoustical materials to keep the sound within the con- fine of the property, that spas would be in the same category. Mr. Sharp said he assumed that one must submit plans for a building permit to do something like this and the design standards should call for all mechanical equipment set five feet off the building line like it does for air-con- ditioning and pool equipment. The plans would have to ensure the City that drainage was not impaired and that the integrity of drainage running down the property line would be preserved so the property would drain properly. He understood it was against the state law to cause run-off to go onto someone else's property and that person could sue if that happened. To have the spa encroach on the property line closer than five feet could be considered like any other landscaping feature that comes right up to the property line. The noisy part of the system would be five feet back. He was not sure this really required a variance if the noisy equipment were back five feet from the building line. Mr. Saltarelli said the request is to consider the location of the lot line. He could see granting approval of the request for lot line, but not for noise and drainage. The problem in this case is that legally the lot line is being used as an easement for whatever purposes, so we're really granting a variance relative to the lot line. Mr. Brotemarkle said technically the pool would be ten feet from any structure under the current code, because we require five foot setback from any property line. Mr. Hoesterey asked if a resident in the patio home to the left of the subject property put a spa in the atrium to within 3 inches of the lot line on the other side, what would happen to the drainage. Mr. Saltarelli said the drawing was incorrect to the extent that there is a wall along the atrium and the lot line is five feet into the area used exclus- ively by the center house. There followed a discussion regarding the lot line, the easement, noise, and the drainage concern. Mr. Brotemarkle said that if the Agency felt that there needed to be more work on a possible amendment to Ordinance No. 528, the staff could submit it to the Laurelwood Homeowner's Association for consideration and recommendation to Agency. MOTION by Edgar, SECONDED by Hoesterey, to approve Variance 80-16 with the clear statement that there has to be adequate CC&R coverage for noise and there has to be a careful addressing of the drainage prior to issuance of a permit. Mr. Hoesterey said apparently there were some of these spas already con- structed in Laurelwood and he wondered if staff had received any complaints regarding these. Mr. Brotemarkle said not that he was aware of. Mr. Saltarelli said he was concerned that each time a plan was submitted for one of these, that the drainage and noise factors are handled by the City to see that the concerns have been properly addressed. As long as the neighbors are aware of it and the Homeowner's Association approves it, he didn't see why the Agency shouldn't approve it. Planning Agency Minutes October 6, 1980 page 5. Mrs. Kennedy said she would offer a SUBSTITUTE MOTION, that no action be taken on this by the Agency until all these areas of concern have been covered. We have already heard testimony from a gentleman whose property was affected by a change in drainage; she was not sure that the CC&Rs had addressed these kinds of things and she would love to hear from the Association officially; and since the attorney was not present, she would like to know if the Agency would have any problems in the future on the easement. She felt that it would take two weeks to get that all cleared up. The motion died for lack of a second. Chairman Saltarelli asked for the vote on the main motion to approve Variance 80-16. AYES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, and Saltarelli NOES: Kennedy Mr. Saltarelli said relative to Ordinance No 528, he questioned if it was wise to make any changes to that ordinance. He felt anyone desiring permits for such improvements should be required to submit plans to the Association as re- quired by the CC&Rs, then it should be brought to the City for regular plan check approval to assure the drainage and noise concerns are taken care of. A Laurelwood resident, in the audience, complained about a drainage problem and said he had requested the City Engineer to inspect the drainage and/or grading problems, but was told they wouldn't get involved. It was pointed out that the City Engineer's office was not the appropriate department, but he should contact the Building Division of Community Development. Mr. Brotemarkle indicated such requests are routine; however, some may be civil matters rather than code matters if no structures or permits are in- volved. Mr. Brotemarkle said that without an amendment to Ordinance No. 528 the Com- munity Development Department could not approve such plans even if approved by the Association, without some action by the Planning Agency. Mrs. Kennedy asked if staff knew if the people in the adjoining home were away on vacation or something, and unaware of this request? She asked if the staff had heard from them at all. Mr. Brotemarkle said he had no idea and had received no communication from them. Mrs. Kennedy said she didn't feel that this request had been researched enough. Mr. Edgar said he believed the clarification would be that when the Planning Agency and the City Council authorized the Laurelwood development, then what is there was permanently fixed. At some future date, with some future de- velopment, there may be some similar kind of new arrangement and when the Agency addresses that, then that becomes permanent. General Plan Amendment 80-I Applicant: Initiated by the Cities of Tustin and Irvine Location: Area easterly of the present boundary of the city. Request: Amend the Land Use Element and Circulation of the Tustin Area General Plan. Mr. Brotemarkle said this General Plan amendment involves the final two phases of an annexation and reconsideration program commenced approximately two years ago by and between the Cities of Irvine and Tustin, and The Irvine Company. Planning Agency Minutes October 6, 1980 page 6. It involves a number of annexation actions and adjusting our Sphere of Influ- ence; this particular action {s acting on the General Plan amendment and will be followed by a pre-zoning for the particular property. The enviornmental considerations have been handled via EIR 78-3 on Annexation No. 117 which was immediately west of this location and also by certification of the EIR on GPA-7 for the City of Irvine. The first subject is the area north of the freeway, easterly of the existing city boundary, south of the Sphere of Influ- ence line of the city of Orange and westerly of the proposed alignment for Myford Road. The area is approximately 630 acres and proposed to be PC-Resi- dential. South of the freeway there is an approximate 95-acre parcel which is currently under the jurisdiction of the City of Irvine which would, by LAFCO action, be exchanged from the city of Irvine to the city of Tustin. It is proposed to continue the PC-Industrical for a major portion of the property and in addition {mmediately adjacent to the freeway, a PC-Commercial land use. The third property which is not a matter of concern of this General Plan amendment, is the area east of the Marine Corps Base Helicopter facility in Tustin of approximately 173 acres and is proposed to be exchanged from the city of Tustin to the city of Irvine, creating a very hard physical boundary between the cities involving the future alignment of the Myford Road arterial highway. The proposed land use designations are for PC Districts which recog- nizes the need for additional planning. There are three ways a PC property may be developed. It has applied to it the requirements of any one of the ex- isting zonings within the City Code. Second would be that the standards of development are set forth in an approved development plan and supplemental text materials, a lengthy and in-depth consideration from topography to actual layout of streets, etc. which must be adopted by the Planning Agency prior to any development taking place. Thirdly, would be application for a use permit for a specific development within a PC District. In and of itself the PD District does not lead directly to any development, but merely leads to ad- ditional planning considerations. Staff recommends approval of General Plan Amendment 80-1 and with conditions staff has recommended. Mr. Edgar asked if the land transfer that has happened recently between The Irvine Company and USMC leaves some parcels that will now be Industrial. Might not that also be included in the General Plan Amendment? Mr. Brotemarkle said at this particular point in time it was not a consider- ation. It would be a future action, but was not advertised as part of this General Plan Amendment since the exchange had not yet occurred. Mr. Hoesterey asked if the area immediately north of the Santa Ana Freeway, indicated for PC Residential, could only be used for residential and other buffer uses such as commercial could not be established for property abutting the freeway. Mr. Brotemarkle said it would not necessarily be prohibited, but what we are saying is that the predominant land use is going to be residential, however, associated commercial facilities may be included in this specific plan de- veloped for the area. There followed a discussion regarding the alignment of different streets and roads. Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition to General Plan Amendment 80-l. Mr. Todd Ferguson, 14782 Alder Lane, speaking in opposition, said he lived in the Pepper Tree development and had a concern about Jamboree Road and the advisability of including it as a major northerly arterial roadway from the extension of Edinger north. He said it now veers back into the proposed Myford extension and right now, as the traffic leaves the industrial complex and goes north to the Santa Ana Freeway, a big tie up is created along Red Hill Avenue, parts of Newport Avenue, and the present Myford Road is a traffic Planning Agency Minutes October 6, 1980 page 7. jam at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. With that road next to our tract and Laurelwood, noise would be a future problem. There should be some alternative considered in that Jamboree Road extension and he didn't think there would be that many people taking that route out of the area. Mr. Saltarelli said he didn't think Mr. Ferguson had been brought up to date on this matter. The primary reason for the desire to get the new Myford Road in, which would connect ultimately with Jamboree, south of the air station, is to alleviate two problems. The City of Irvine does not wish Harvard Avenue to become a six-lane thoroughfare and neither does the City of Tustin want to have a six-lane highway behind Laurelwood and Pepper Tree. By building this road and aligning the boundaries with that road, they would have accomplished mutual goals for both cities which would then enable us to drop the plans for any major arterial highway behind Pepper Tree south of Walnut. Ultimately, if a road is built behind Laurelwood just to Walnut Avenue it would be down-graded from a six-lane road to two lanes which would take a lot of the industrial traffic off Walnut Avenue which is more of a residential area. Mr. Edgar said we are also making a committment that there would be no interchange at Jamboree because it would not be feasible with CALTRANS to have two major interchanges less than one-half mile apart. So, by committing to Myford Road, what we have committed to, at the most, is a two-lane bridge for Jamboree over the freeway, but no access to it or from it, and only down to Walnut. It would be used only as a local road to relieve some of the congestion of local people going from here to there. Myford Road would be designed to accommodate heavier traffic. Chairman Saltarelli asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak and hearing no response he declared the public hearing closed and asked if the Agency had any questions. Mrs. Kennedy asked what the designtion "scenic highway" entailed. Mr. Saltarelli said it meant no billboards along there. Mr. Brotemarkle said that was one major item that would be in there. The General Plan Scenic Highway's element calls for a more extensive treatment of the roadway as far as its appearance. It calls for more in-depth consideration of the impact of that roadway on a particularly valuable scenic area. It may not be fully a 'scenic highway' in the truest sense, but it is looked upon by staff as needing at least the designation of scenic to assure that we do an adequate design and engineering study before the precise plan of alignment is adopted. Mrs. Kennedy asked why Jamboree is shown consistently as a major highway. Mr. Saltarelli said it meant primarily that it's giving the Marine Corps a choice. Would they rather have a road going through the center of the base or would they rather have one that impacts them much less. That's a good reason for it to be shown on there. Mr. Hoesterey said he thought what the Agency had to do is to make sure that the actions taken do not become so cast in concrete and that after the Marine Corps takes its action, the Myford/Weir Canyon route, we then take action to amend the plan to satisfy the wishes of the people of that area. MOTION by Edgar, SECONDED by Hoesterey, to approve General Plan Amendment No. 80-1 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1919. AYES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, Kennedy, and Saltarelli NOES: None Mrs. Kennedy requested the minutes to show all the Agency concerns. Planning Agency Minutes October 6, 1980 page 8. OLD BUSINESS Formal Finding for Employee Recreational Facilities (Res. No. 1914). Chairman Saltarelli said this was the implementing Resolution for employee recreational-cafeteria facilities within industrial or office complexes as it affects required parking. Mrs. Kennedy said she thought this resolution was more in keeping with what the Agency had in mind when the Agency originally approved the use of the rec- reational facilities at 14841Yorba Street. Mr. Brotemarkle said the conditions outlined in Resolution No. 1914 would authorize the use of such facilities only for the tenants and the employees working at that particular site and would not include friends, relatives, etc. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Hoesterey, to approve Resolution No. 1914. AYES: NOES: NEW BUSINESS None Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, Kennedy, and Saltarelli None PUBLIC CONCERNS None STAFF CONCERNS None AGENCY CONCERNS None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Agency, Chairman Saltarelli adjourned the meeting at 4:18 p.m., to meet again for a regular meeting to be held Ocober 20, 1980. M.I. Mehl Recording Secretary