Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-28-71 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF TIIE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1971 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was '.,held on the 28th day of June 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 given by Commissioner Edelstein. The Invocation'was given by Co~missioner Mahoney. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Larnard, Curtis, Edelstein, Mahoney (Mr. Sharp arrived shortly after approval of minutes) None Others Present: James G. Rourke, City.Attorney (arrived at approximately 9:00 p.m0 from a City Council Workshop meeting) Pat Brown, Ass't. Planning Director Jean M. Smith, Planning Commission Recording Sect'y. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 14, 1971 Moved by Mr. M~honey, seconded by Mr. Curtis, that the minutes of the June 14, 1971, meeting be approved, as submitted. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED, PZ-71-127 - P.lanning Commission Initiated - request for prezone change from the Orange County P-A (Professional Admin- istrative) District to the 35 City of Tustin Pr (Professional) District. Location:. Site fronts approximately 100 feet on the southeast side of Red Hill Avenue and approximately 140 feet on the northeast side of Mitchell Avenue. Mr. Brown presented the Staff Report, stating that subject hearing had been continued from the June 14, 1971, meeting inasmuch as there were problems relative to the actual owner of the property, his desires as to prezon~ng 'and annexation action, and also engi- neering problems connected with the property. During the interim period it has developed that the property is now in escrow; indica- tions are that the engineering problems can be solved; and, Mr. Ford, the seller of the property, states he has no objection to the pre- zoning action or any subsequent annexation, and the buyer, Mr. Kvidt indicates he too, is in agreement with these actions. In view of the potential resolvement of the problem areas, it is recommended t'he Planning Commission recommend approval of prezoning subject pro- perty to the City Council by. adoption of Resolution No. 1219. Mr. Larnard opened the publid portion of the hearing at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Reuben Kvidt, broker for Westland Realty, who is purchasing the property, stated it was their intention to remodel this property for a real estate office, solve the sewer and drainage problems, make im- provements on the property itself, provide parking area and landscape the grounds. ~ -1- PC 6/28/71 I~C 6/28/71 can Adams, 18] E1 Camino Rea], Tustin, stated she has no objec- ].ion to the subject pro}~erty going in as "C-l". She remarked that .she did not want her property, adjoining Dr. Koentopp's land, to be zoned C-1. She has nothing against subject rezoning itself. Public portion of the hearing was closed by Mr. ~arnard at 8:38 p.m. Mr. Curtis stated this property had been rezoned by the County to the same zoning being requested by this prezone action; and Mr. Mahone¥ remarked that the prezone action being taken is for "Pr" rather than "C-i" as mentioned by Mrs. Adams. There was some dis- cussion as to the development of the property, if and when it is annexed to the City, and what control the City might have over i development. Mr. Brown state~ that if the renovation took place after annexation, the C'ity would have full control over these ma~ Mr. Sharp made a motion that the Commission recommend approval of this prezoning to the City Council, by adoption of Resolution 1219; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 PZ-71-129 - Planning Commision Initiated on behalf of Orange Coast Construction Co., 2909 Halladay, Santa Ana, California. Request to prezone from the County R-4 (Suburban Resi- dential) District to the City of Tustin PC R-3 2,000 (Planned Community, Multiple-Family, 2000 square feet of land area per unit) District. Location: Site fronts approximately 340 feet on the northeast side of San Juan Street, is approximately 330 feet northwest of the center line of Utt Street and is ap- proximately 2.34 acres in area. A resume of the Staff Report was given by Mr. Brown stating that the applicant has submitted concept plans for the development of this property, indicating a 50 unit multiple-family complex with a density o~ a~proximately 21 units per acre -- 2047 square feet of land area per unit. Ten three bedroom units and 40 two bedroom units are proposed, with a parking ratio of two spaces per unit, with all dwelling units to be two stories in height. The Tustin Area General Plan indicates this immediate~.area as in a transition zone between high density (12 units to the acre) and medium density (4 units to the acre). This project was reviewed by the Develop- ment Preview Commission at their May 16th and 23rd meetings, with the consensus of opinion being it w~s compatible to the surrounding area as designed. This proposal is substantially in line with the City Council's desires in recent months relative to multiple-family developments (a maximum density of approximately 20 dwelling units to an acre and a 2 to 1 parking ratio); however, the indications of the Council and Planning Commission through their past actions have been that higher density apartment developments in the area north- east of the Santa Ana Freeway and southeast of Newport Avenue are not the most desirable type of land development, and in fact, have raised strong objections to such developments to the Orange County Planning Co~mission and Board of Supervisors for similar cases within the County. .St~ff has not made a recommendation in this matter, feeling that th~ Commission will have to consider the desirability of this 50% density increase request in light of the factors presented and any ramifications this density might produce in the surrounding area. Mr. Larnard opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:50 p.m.. PC 6/28/71 - 2 - I'C 6/28/71 Mr. Bob llall, 17452 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, representing the builder and the landowners, the Means Family, said the site has m~y problems which they are trying to resolve. The developer is very conscious of these and is attempting to present a develop- men~ attractive to the ~i~y..a.~.-3~.~he surrounding area and residents. Und~'r the R-4 zoning which this property is now zoned,. 34 units would be allowed; and if 3-bedroom units were constructed, this would allow 102 bedrooms.. Orange Coast Construction is proposing 110 bedrooms, but do not feel this is actually adding more people, so to speak, only 16 more kitchens. We do feel that under COunty zoning they are much less r~strictive than City of Tustin, and we are presenting a much better controlled development under Tustin's PC R-3 zone, with more consideration for the aesthetic values and for the surrounding area and residents. The people listed below, as part of a group of approximately 30 people from the adjacent subdivision, spoke against this prezoning action; their main objections being the higher density, the car- ports being next to the property lines, the two story construction, traffic congestion, and the fact that in 1968 the Tustin Planning Commission recommended denial to the Orange County Planning Com- mission for a Variance filed with that Body requesting permission to reduce the living area to 2,571 square feet per unit from 3,000 Square feet per unit for a condiminium development just southeast of subject property. (A copy of the Agenda and letter from the Tustin Planning Commission on this matter was presented to Chairman Larnard). Mr. Nelson Baker, 1252 Andrews Street Mr. Stanford Burrows, 1322 Andrews Street Dr. Robert Collier, 13621 Charloma Drive Mr. Guy .Kimberly, 1272 Andrews Street Mr. Ed Collen, 1342 Andrews Street Mr. Bill Sweetman, 1282 Andrews Street Mr. William F. Reed, 160 Centennial Way, Tustin, architect for the applicant stated they had given careful consideration to the resi- dential property to the north, maintaining an 8 feet high wall to the rear of the carports, and the people in that area will not see any carports, per se, only the block wall. They have allowed 53 ft. from the nearest main building to the rear property line, and also on the property line they intend to plant large enough trees for a buffer zone, and all ground units have a patio area of approxi- mately 300 square feet. The parking areas are broken up, divided between the east, north and west property lines, and the drive is shaded with shrubbery on each side. They feel that for this parti- cular site this is a very good solution with the adjacent property owners in mind. The public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:17 p.m. by Mr. Larnard. A brief discussion followed among the Commissioners reflecting on the County z~ning requirements, specifically with regard to two- story structures. Mr. Brown indicated subject property could be developed under County standards with two-story or 35 ft. high buildings, and much closer to the rear property line than shown on these plans. A member of the audience, in opposition, indicated the Counfy required a variance for a two story in a nearby development. Also mentioned was the Park Land Dedication Ordinance, and Staff advised that inasmuch as this has not been passed by the City Council as yet and will not go before the Council until August; whereas, this prezone action will come before the Council in July, so if approved, the applicant would be exempt from the provisions of the Park Land Dedicatio.n Ordinance. Mr. Edelstein stated that,because extraordinary circumstances were not presented, he did not .feel an increase in density for this particular area should be 'allowed, and moved that application PZ-71-129 for prezone be denied; seconded by Mr. Curtis. 'MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PC 6/28/71 - 3 - Mr. Brown :.~tatcd for the benefit of the audience and applicant, -this prczone action will automatically go before the City Council; the Planning Commission in such action is only a recommending body rather than a final legislating body, and this will be on the Council Agenda for July 19, 1971. OLD BUSINESS V-71-279 -- Sol Zwirn, 17361 Laurie Lane, Tustin Location: Site fronts approximately 120 feet on the north side of First Street and approximately 118 feet on the east side of "B" Street. Mr. Brown reviewed the Staff Report on this Variance, which the Commission granted at their last meeting by adoption of Resolutio: No. 1221, wherein they denied the request for a five feet structu. _. setback, but conditionally granted the variance for only 23 on-site parking spaces, in lieu of 36 as required by Code. A condition of the parking variance was that the Staff and City Attorney would attempt to resolve with the applicant any possible future off-site parking problems which might be created by this deficiency. If the matter could not be satisfactorily resolved, subject Variance was to be returned to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. In- asmuch as the applicant was not agreeable to signing an Agreement, as suggested by the City Attorney, to the effect if a parking de- ficiency arose, he would lease or purchase off-site parking within 300 feet of the site, the matter has been returned to the Commission. A lengthy and extensive discussion followed among the Commissioners, Staff, City Attorney and the applicant. The major points discussed were the possible formation of a parking assessment district for the First Street area, (which the applicant stated he is more than willing to join); the possibility of requiring a cash deposit from the applicant to be held by the City for a specific period of time in the event a parking assessment district is formed; the posting of a bond; and, the parking requirements of a Pr (Professional) District Vs. C-1 (Commercial) District. Mr. Edelstein moved that Resolution 1221 be amended by adding th' condition t~at~Mr. Zwirn be required to sign an agreement to joi~ a parking asseUsment district, when such a district is formed; seconded by Mr. Sharp. Further discussion ensued over the methods of assessing for the parking distri6t and solving the poter~aial parking problems for this location. Mr. Edelstein then withdrew his motion, which was agreeable to his second. A motion was then made by Mr. Mahoney. to continue this matter until the next Planning Commission meeting on July 12, 1971, to allow the City Attorney time to research the matter further; seconded by Mr. Shar~. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 CORr~ESPONDENCE Orange County Case ZC-71-38 - Zone Change request from County R-4 -- ~7~0U0~ P~--(3,000) "Suburban Residential - Planned Development" District to the R-2 (1500) "Group Dwellings District. Lo~ation: Site is located on southeasterly side of Newport Ay.. about 200 feet northeasterly of Wass Street, in the northeast Tustin Area. Mr. Brown gave a synopsis of the Staff Report, relating the existing zoning would permit multiple-family development, requiring either 7000 square feet of land area per dwelling unit or 3000 square feet per unit, if under a Planned Development concept. The present request is to permit multiple-family development with only 1500 ° PC 6/28/71 CORRESPONDENCE (Cont'd,) ~'. .,'~.~.~'... square feet of land area per'unit, or twice the density permitted under.the most liberal provision of the present zoping. Staff is concerned about the increased number of requests for increased density in areas covered by the Tustin Area General Plan, and also has concern for the added traffic this will present on Newport Avenue. It is Staff's.reconuBendation that a communication be ad- dressed to the Orange County Planning Commission recommending'dis- approval of this zone change, After some discussion Mr. Edelstein moved that Staff prepare an appropriate letter to the Orange County Planning Commission requesting they recommend disapproval of this request to the Board of Supervisors; seconded by Mr. Mahoney. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Brown made the statement there were no pending applications for public hearings at the next Planning Commission meeting on July 12, 1971. He inquired if the Commissioners had anything they would like to discuss at that meeting, ~o which Mr. Curtis replied it might be well to have a work shop session discussing the First Street analysis, also the Commercial Planned Development, with specific interest being on the parking districts. Mr. Brown advised that the Orange Coqnty Airport Land Use Commission will have a public hearing on Thursday, July 1st at 7:00 p.m. in the Planning Commission Chambers. Essentially,this Commission was formed the early part of 1971 under the Public Utilities Code, State of California. Their function is to serve a dual purpose: to help alleviate aircraft pollution, and to protect airfields. Under their charter they are required to develop a comprehensive land use plan, and all cities in Orange County were requested to supply them with land use plans or a General Plan. Mayor Coco and Mr. Brown will attend this meeting to. express the concerns of the City over the "sphere of influence" of the Airport Land Use Commission and their administrative procedures. COMMISSION CONCERNS Mr. Brown explained the two t~ailers on Irvine Boulevard are there on a temporary basis and should be removed within a week or ten days. Also, with regard to precise plans for Sixth Street extension, it is the City Engineer's opinion that any revision or adoption of pre- cise plans for Sixth Street should be closely coordinated with the E1 Camino Real Development and should work toward providing maximum land use benefit in implementing this development plan. It is his feeling it is somewhat premature to move ahead at this time on precise plans for Sixth Street. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None, ADJOURNMENT Mr. Mahone¥ moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. ~ CI{A%RMAN OF~.TiIE--P~I~NIN~ COMMISSION~ PL~I/ING COMMISSION RECORDING* SECRETARY ; PC 6/28/71 -'.'5 -