Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-29-73-' ® 4 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: May 29, 1973 TIME: _ 7:30 p.m. . PLACE: Council Ch~-imbers, 275 South "C" Street PRESENT,: Dombrow, Hare, McHarris, Sharp ABSENT: Larnard INDEX ~_ .- . ' 1., .. i' PAGE ROLL CALL ................................................ 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES ...................................... 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS UP-73-8.- Robert Hall ................................ 1-2 UP-71-369 (reconsideration) - Hester Development ..... 2,•3,4,5 PUBLIC CONCERNS - none OLD BUSINESS - none NEW BUSINESS - none . AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - none CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Division of Highways ...................... 5 ' Letter from League of California Cities ..............~. 5 County Tentative Map of Tract 8295 .................... 5 STAFF CONCERNS - none COMMISSION CONCERNS ....................................... 6 ADJOURNMENT ............................................... 6 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF A CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 29, 1973 The regular meeting of {he City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 29th day of May, 1973, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., of said day in the Council Chambers, 275 South "C" Street, Tustin, California. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Hare. The Invocation was given by Commissioner McHarris. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Others Present: Dombrow, Hare, McHarris, Sharp Larnard James G. Rourke, City Attorney; R. Kenneth Fleagle, Ass't. City Administrator-Community Development Director; Bruce Lenorovitz, Ass't. Planning Director; Nancy Lawton, Planning Commission Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Hare moved for approval of the minutes of the May 14, 1973 meeting; seconded by Commissioner McHarris. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. UP-73-8 - Robert J. Hall (Modjeska Property) - to authorize the development of a private parking lot to serve the execu- tives of the adjoining professional office building. Location: 170 Mountain View Drive Mr. Lenorovitz summarized the staff report, advising that the proposed site is adjacent to the existing parking lot that serves the Modjeska Building to the north. The present land use consists of an old non- conforming, single-family home and garage apartment. To the west and south of the proposed lot exists older single-family homes. The purpose of this use permit is to authorize construction of a private parking lot consisting of 13 stalls, for use by the executives of the Modjeska Building, to be located within an R-1 District. This request was initiated because of the heavy use of the existing parking lot that serves the professional office building. The proposed lot will be on an assigned space basis by executives of the building, and would thus free spaces that can be used by the public and thereby eliminate much of the present onstreet parking in the area. The Development Preview Commission reviewed the proposal and recommended that a 6'8" board-on-board fence be erected instead of the suggested grapestake fence. They also recommended that if the permit was approved, that the plans again come before them for consideration of various de- tails. Staff further recommended that an' additional driveway be provided in addi. tion to the 12' one indicated on the plans. A 12' driveway is a minimum for a one-way entrance and without a means of exit, and thus would pre- sent a traffic problem. Also, the landscape planter be enlarged to where the car wheel stops are shown, which would allow for adequate plant ing and will provide room enough for a car overhang. Chairman Sharp opened the public portion of t]~e hearing at 7:30 p.m., and ~-ei'ng or hearing no one for or against the issue, closed the public por- tion at 7:39 p.m. PC Minutes 5/29/73 Page two C~-~ ....... .... ..~..~'~--~- ..... questioned as to whc~^-_.~_ the ~-~ci~cntc of tha area had been notified of this hearing, with Mr. Fleagle advising that all residents within a 300' radius had been notified. Commissioner Hare moved for approval of UP-73-8 by adoption of Resolu- tion No. 1342, with the inclusion of the second driveway, and recommend- ing that this lot be marked for private parking only; seconded by Commissioner Dombrow. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 2. UP-71-369 (reconsideration) - Hester Development Company - for the purpose of specifying the precise terms and conditions o~ development and any amendments necessary to the terms and conditions of the Use Permit. Location: Easterly side of Yorba Street, +737' southerly of the centerline of 17th Street, know~ as "Park Tustin". Mr. Fleagle stated that by direction of the City Council, the Commissi. 3n has been requested to determine precise development criteria as relat~ to this project. The subject use permit was approved on November 8, 1971, by adoption of Resolution No. 1243. Subsequent to the approval of this use permit, there have been several instances of differences of opinion between the developer, residents of the area, staff, City Council, and the Planning Commission as related to the precise terms and conditions of the approval of this project. The developer of this project has been requested by Staff to make the same presentation this date, as was given at the original hearing as to his proposal for development. Mr. Flea~le proceeded to read the conditions listed in Resolution No. ~2~3 and O~dinance ~.487 which are applicable to this project, and then stated the items of concern, which is basically the 10' setback in the southern perimeter. In this area fences have been constructed, roof eaves have been extended, patio slabs have been built, and air condi- tioners have been installed in this area. In the approval of the Ordim- ance and Use Permit, this area was to be a landscaped buffer area, to provide screening for adjacent residential developments. It is evident that the property owners are under the impressions that they have the .right to develop this area themselves. Mr. Flea_~le also stated that as a condition of the CC&R's, the rear yard area is a restricted common area, therefore, any improvements would be assumed by the association, rather than the separate property owner. Chairman Shar~ opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:02 p.m. Michael W. Immell, 12072 Marquee, Santa Ana, of Rutan & Tucker, represe~ lng Park Tustin, advised that he and his client wish to cooperate in every way possible as respects this hearing. He wished to know under what Ordinance this hearing had ~een called. Chairman Sharp advised that this hearing has been at the direction of the City CounCil. He asked Mr. Immell if he was prepared to make th~ same presentation as was presented at the original public hearing, w} Mr. Immell stating that it would be extremely difficult to duplicate the original he~]g, when it was more or less verbatum. However, he does have the plans and mylars with him, and will make the presenta- tion after his opening remarks. Ohairman Sharp questioned Mr. Rourke as to whether they should proceed, ~f Mr. Immell--is not prepared to make presentation as originally made. -2- PC Minutes 5/29/73 Page three Mr. Rourke responded that the City Council has asked that the situation ~e clarified; and the o~ly way to clarify this is to have a hearing in which the applicant, staff, and people have an opportunity to state what their positions are in the various matters. Possibly then the Commission can clarify these matters, and clarify the intention of the initial Use Permit, so as to remove all uncertainties. Mr. Immell asked Mr. Rourke if his statement was an outline of what the purpose of the hearing was, and if they could state that there are some ambiguitieS. Mr. Rourke responded in the affirmative to the first re- mark. He also stated that there is a difference of opinion between the Staff and client as to what the conditions are. He felt that Mr. Fleagle's letter of May 9th explains the situation. Mr. Fleagle read this letter for the benefit of the Commission and audi- ence. Commissioner McHarris asked Mr. Immell if he objected to the request That has been made of Hester Development, and also, if he was represent- ing the architect in this matter? Mr. Immell replied that speaking as counsel, the Planning Commission is infringing upon the legal rights of applicant, and that they do not have the jurisdiction to amend, modify, or in any way review the conditions of the Use Permit, and on that basis, their appearance has to be speci- fically conditioned upon the fact that they are not submitting to such jurisdiction. He also responded that he was not representing the archi- tect. Mr. Rourke advised the Commission to hear what the applicant and people Have to say, even thoqgh the architect is not present, and then decide whether to continue or not. Chairman Sharp questioned Mr. Immell as to the relationship between Park Tustin and Hester Development, and was advised that Hester Develop- ment is a limited partner in Park Tustin. Mr. Immell continued on with his presentation, after the "nonpleasantries a~re ~ver"i He stated that as far as the 10~ strip was concerned, he does not feel that they are submitting anything that was not previously approved under the Use Permit. As respects the fencing which had been questioned, on both of the plot plans originally shown, it was the de- velopers intention that fences be put in the side yards. ~r. ~!eagle asked Mr. Immell if these were common lot areas, and if there was an assessment charge against all of the property owners, and was advised "yes" to both questions. Commissioner McHarris questioned Mr. Immell as to whether or not the sales people are informing the buyers of the property being privately owned. Mr. Immell stated that they should not be as the unit itself is being sold in fee and the property owner is getting undivided interest in com- mon areas. Mr. Immell also stated that the Association has the right to go through the property owners dwelling and has the right to inspect the common areas. If any changes are to be made in these common areas, they must have the approval of the Association. At this time in the meeting, Mr. Gianulius of Park ~ustin (Hester), showed mylars of original plans. Mr. Immell pointed out that in these slides the fences a~'e shown, and therefore, it was their intent to put them in. Also, it was his understanding that if this was standard set- back imposed by the City, the fencing could be erected in the 10' setback. Even if the developer didn't put up the fencing now, the individual owner would want to put it up for security and privacy. He cannot find any cond~t~.o~ ~h~ states that this cannot be done. As respects the air- conditioners, again, if it were a standard setback area, they could be installed without any problems. He cannot understand why the air condi- tioners are being brought up at this time, as the permits were issued a long time ago, without any mention of a problem. As far as them being shown on elevations, he can't recall ever seeing air conditioners shown on plans. PC Minutes 5/29/73 Page four Mr. Immell again reiterated that they were here in the spirit of coop- ~ration and want to work with the City, neighbors, etc. There is no misrepresentation of any kind to his knowledge, as these developers take great pride in their reputation, and he feels that in no way have they violated the conditions of the Use Permit. Mrs. Edward Belford, resident in Park Tustin, wanted to know in what Ordinances does it show that you cannot have air conditioners or garden dividers in the patios. Mr. Fleagle responded that in general terms of the Zoning Ordinance, ~n air conditioning unit is not prohibited within a rear setback area; however, a Planned Community District as this is, has more restrictions and there are only those rights as have been granted. It is different from the R-l, etc. In answer to a question from Commissioner Har~;-Mrs. Belford advised that she was informed that they would have air conditioning units when they purchased the property. Chairman SharE questioned Mrs. Belford as to whether or not she had the impression when she purchased the property that the fences and patios would be theirs, and was advised that this was true. Mr. Edward Belford, husband of the above, stated that he was one of the parties directly involved, as he lives on the southern exposure. His feelings were that the developer has attempted to comply with al.1 wishes and that they have satisfied their moral obligations to the people of Enderle Gardens. He felt that the regulations regarding setbacks should hold true for Enderle Gardens, as hold true for Park Tustin. He state~] that one of the new homes just built in Enderle Gardens seems to have only a 5' setback, in lieu of 10', and thought that this should be checked out. Mr. Norman Wilson, also of Park Tustin, agreed with Mr. Belford's on the project. Clyde Davis, Park Tust~n, was interested in learning if they owned the land or not, as he was told at the purchase time that he owned all of the land. He was informed of this by the sales people, and also the escrow office. Another lady, (unidentified), advised that she was informed of this sama information, and after looking at her deed, learned different. She also stated that she questioned several of the sales people about the size of her garage as she did not,ink her car would fit it, and they said it definitely would. However, her car does not fit the garage, and at the present time, her garage has a rug in it. Mr. Immell continued his presentation, advising the following: The original architect is no longer with Morris & Lohrbach, and the record should speak for itself. As respects making a further presentation, he thought that they have tried to point out the specific thinking of the developer in their original submission. He has heard general statements that the developer is not complying with certain conditions, but would like to know specifically what conditions are being violated. Mr. Fleagle outlined the specifics of his letters to Mr. Gianulius of October 16, 1972 and April 23, 1973 which cite the items of concern. Mr. Immell asked if there was a tape from the previous hearing that cou~ ~e heard, in lieu of delaying the hearing, and was advised by Mr. Fleagl~ that the tapes are kept for only 6 months, and therefore, it w~s not available for presentation. -4- PC Minutes 5/29/73 Page five Chairman Sharp commented that he was concerned that the presentation tonight was not as requested, and as the City Council has requested the Commission's action, he'felt this matter should be continued. Commissioner Dombrow moved for continuance of this item as an open pub- ~ic hearing to the June 11, 1973 meeting; seconded by Commissioner McHarris. Commissioner Hare was reluctant to go along with this action in that he felt it was the intent of the previous Commission not to preclude fences,' air conditioners, etc. Mr. Immell advised the Commission that the developer 'and his represen- tative would not be available on June llth, and possibly the Commission could continue this item to June 25th. The Commission was not in favor of continuing this any longer than June llth. MOTION CARRIED: Ayes - Dombrow, McHarris Sharp Abstained - Hare Commissioner Dombrow wished to know if another notice could be sent to the property owners, notifying them of the continuance. Mr. Fleagle stated that no further public notice would be given, but he would make sure that the proper Associations were notified, and any other interested parties. PUBLIC CONCERNS - none OLD BUSINESS - none NEW BUSINESS - none AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - none CORRESPONDENCE 1. Letter from Division of Highways regarding sale of property along Newport Freeway, between Santa Clara and Fairhaven (east side). Mr. Flea~le advised that there is no public purpose required by the City for this p~operty. Commissioner McHarris moved to direct Staff to notify the Division of .Highways of the above; seconded by Commissioner Hare. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 Letter from League of California Cities regarding the Annual Con- ference Commissioner Hare moved to have the Conference present a Resolution init- iating a request-to define the terms of the 1965 Planning and Zoning Act; seconded by Commissioner Dombrow. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 3. County 'Tentative Map of Tract 8295 Mr. Fleagle presented a copy of this map to the Commission for their information and comment. STAFF CONCERNS - none -5- PC Minutes 5/29/73 Page six C05tMI SS ION CONCERNS Commissioner McHarris wished to know the status of the amendmen~ to the Sign Ordinance, and was advised by Mr. Fleagle that a draft is now being considered by the City Council Sign Committee. ADJOURNMENT " Commissioner Hare moved for adjournment at 10:40 p.m., to the next regular meeting of June 11, 1973; seconded by Commissioner Dombrow. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANN~N'G C~MMISSION ~LA~ING ~OMMISSION RE~ORDING SECRETARY