Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-09-70MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 19 70 CALL TO ~UDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES P tLIC HEARINGS The meeting was called to order by Chairman Webster at 7:30 P.M. Led by Commissioner Larnard. Present: Commissioners: Webster, Halus, Curtis, Mahoney, Larnard, Edelsteino Absent: Commissioner: Ludwig Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney R. Kenneth Fleagle, Ass't City Admin. - Community Development Director Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary Chairman Webster presented the out going Chairman, Mr. Halus, ~ith an engraved' gavel as a token of appreciation ahd remembrance of his term as Chairman. It was moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, that the minutes of January 26, 1970, be approved as corrected. ZC-69-201 - ANDREWS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ON BEHALF OF FIRST WESTERN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (Continued from 1726/70) For rezoning of an 11.12 acre parcel from the E-4 (Estate Residential) District to the following; Professional District along the north side of Irvine Blvd. for a depth of 199.64 ft. b. R-2 District on the northerly 300 ft. Location: Site fronts approximately 970 ft. on the north s~de of Irvine Boulevard, approximately 500 ft. on the east side of North "B" Street and approximately 500 ft. on the west side of Prospect Avenue. ' The staff reported that a workshop session was held on Februa~, 3, 1970, with the property owners, Development Preview Committee and members of the staff and Mr. Jay Andrews in attendance. Several alternatives were discussed and problems such as traffic, buffer zones, compatibility, impact on value and other such items of concern were reviewed. (A copy of the report is on file in the Planning Department.) Correspondence was received from Mr. King, 17671 Westbury Lane, opposing subject application. The staff recommended that the application be approved or 'denied as submitted to the Planning Commission January 26, 1970, in order to give the applicant immediate guidance for the development of the property. Chairman Webster reopened the public, portion of the hearing ~t 7:36 £'.M. PC Minutes - 2/9/70 Mr. llenry Col)b, 17732 Wcstbury Lane, nearby property owner, stated that as a result of the workshop meeting, Mr. Andrews was given an opportunity to re-study his proposal and re- modify his plans. Since there have been no changes to the plans, he opposed the application as submitted. There being no further comments from the audience, chairman Webster declared the public portion of the hearing (:]osed at 7:45 P.M. Mr. Ilal~s s~;~ted that this is a difficult parcel of property to determine appropriate use. It is unrealistic for the entire parcel to be developed as E-4. The best interest of the City would be for the frontage to develop as Professional buildings. The use of the remainder of the property is a matter of concern. :,~. Jay A. Andrews, ap~.i, ic;,~, 6550 Caballero Blvd. Buena Park, stated that he feit they sl~ould proceed with their original request because the adjacent neighbors did not appear to be interested in discussing specific desiqn characteristics. He stated that the R-2 buffer behind a Pr District was the appro- priate approach. He concurred with a previous statement that a better design could be achieved to make a more compatible existence, although they had nothing to submit at this time. Mr. Andrews asked for a decision on the application as sub- ~it~e~. Mr. Halus suggested rezoning the front portion Pr and leaving the balance as E-4 or a zone that is more restrictive than R-2. Chairman Webster did not feel that this would be a solution to the Developer and was hesitant in this type of action. Mr. Edelstein stated that he felt it would be a difficult de- cision to make without knowing what design factors were in- volved regarding each situation. He felt that this was a major concern that should be considered. Mr. Andrews asked if it is possible to amend the application to an R-2-PC with necessary restrictions imposed by the Plan- ning Co~mission at this time. Mr. Rourke stated that it would require the issuance of a Use Pe'rmit to approve the specific plan of development. The staff explained that a Planned Community requires the sub- mission of building plans and is specific as to density and design layout, lot sizes, etc. It was felt that Mr. Andrews is looking for a guideline from the Commission, although at this point, he desired final action on the requested use. It was moved by Mr. Halus, seconded by Mr. Larnard, that App!i- ~-ation No. ZC-69-20'1, be qranted for the ch~'nqe from E-4 to Pr on the 1'9'9.64 it. along tl%e north sid~ of Irvine Blvd., and the applicatibn for t~ R-2 District on the northerly 300 ft. be Chairman Webster stated opposition to this a'ction. type of motion and Mr. Iialus stated that he wishes to identify for the developer, ~h6~e areas where the City feels strongly - it knows what it wants and how it wants to go, and also to give an indication of what is not acceptable. He felt that the Pr zone along the frontage is consistent with the City's desires and it also mad~ the appli~an~ ~Wmxe ~ha~.~he R-~ z~ne is not a~e~p~bte, PC ,%linutes - 2/9/70 Mr. I.arnard concurred with Mr. Ilalus, stating that if ]5-4 is not the solution for the balance of the property, other pro- posed plans should be submitted, tie did not feel that it was the responsibility of the Planning Commission to try to design criteria for this property during this evening's meeting. Mr. Mahoney expressed concern as to the partial zoning, leaving the remainder of the property undetermined. The above motion was voted by roll call. AYES: LARNARD, HALUS ............ NOES: CURTIS, MAHONEY, WEBSTER, EDELSTEIN ABSEKT: LUDWIG MOTION DENIED 4-2 It was moved by Mr. Hales, seconded b¥..~r. Larnard, that Resolution No. 1146 be adopted, recommending to the City Council, denial of Application No. ZC-69-201 for the fol- lowing reasons: The proposed R-2 density is not compatible with the contiguous E-4 density to the north. e As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing, January 26, and the hearing of February 9, 1970, are included by reference and made a part of the motion. The above motion was voted by roll call. AYES: LARNARD, HALUS, CURTIS, EDELSTEIN, MAHONEY NOES: WEBSTER ABSENT: LUDWIG MOTION CARRIED 5-1 Minority Opinion - Chairman Webster stated that he would submit a minority report in support of his "No" vote. (Report, Attachment A attached.) 2. V-70-266 - CARTER SIGN COMPANY - Directional Sign To permit the installation of one (1) single faced 10' X 10' subdivision directional sign. Location: Northeast corner of Red Hill and Walnut, 60 ft. east of the centerline of Red Hill and 42 ft. north of the centerline of Walnut on R-3 zoned, property. The staff reported that the applicant requests the directional sign on a major thoroughfare for the purpose of directing pro- spective buyers to his development. Conditional approval was recommended. Chairman Webster opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:20 P.M. Mr. Darrel IIoover, 1797 West Glen Oaks, Anaheim, Parkridge Homes representative, stated that they wish to place this sign at the site to advertise the subdivision project that is located 2000 ft. southeasterly. There botng no further commonts from the audience, Chairman Webster declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:25 P.M. PC'Minutes - 2/9/70 VI. OLD BUSI>'-~SS VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. CORRES- PONDENCE IX. OTHER BUSINESS It was moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Larnard, that Resolution No. l148"be adopted, approvinq Appl'ication No. VJ70J2~, subject to ~he following conditions: Compliance with the provision of Section 2, Ordin~nce No. 438 including approval by the City Engineer, and posting of a bond. Review and approval by the Development Pre- view Committee with specific authorization to modify the requested area of the sign and precise location on subject property. 'MOTION 'CARRIED 6-0. NONE NONE COUNTY CASE UV-6388 - WILLIAM LYON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY To permit the construction of a 64-unit two-story apartment complex on 2% acres in the R1 Single Family Residence District. Location: Most southerly corner of Newport Avenue and La Colina Drive in the north Tustin area. The staff presented the staff report stating that the proposed development is considered incompatible with existing land uses and the General Plan for the area, recommending opposition of subject application. After a brief discussion among the commissioners, It was moved by Mr. Halus, seconded b~ Mr. Mahoney, that a letter be sent to the County strongly o~osin~ subject request for {He following reasons: The proposed use variance would grant a special privilege to the applicant inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated, and would be in conflict with Section 65906 of the State Planning and Zoning Law. No extenuating circumstances are presented for the use of this property that would prohibit develop- ment in accordance with the General Plan for the area and consistent with the development of surrounding properties. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Mr. Halus further suggested that the County be made aware of a strong disapproval of the Use Variance for subject application and further that it be strongly emphasized that the proposed use lacks compatibility with the General Plan. 1. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PLANNING CONGRESS MEETING Date - February 12, 1970 Place - T~ Systems, Inc. Subject - "The Systems Approach to Planning" COmmi~sion~= Mahon~y m~&~ed :ha: he would ~e a=~endtng t~h ~abb~e meeting. PC Minutes - 2/9/70 X® ADJOURNMENT It wa:3 moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Edelstein that the meetil~3 be adjourned. CARRIED. There being no further business before the Commission, Chairman Webster declared the meeting closed at 8:35 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/.70 -5- ATTACIIME,'IT "A" MI NOR I qA' REPORT COM, blISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 1970 ANDREWS DEVELOPMENT CO. TIlE OPPOSING VOTE.. WAS OCCASIONED BY INCLUSION IN THE MOTION OF %'lie Plfl{ASE, "R-2 DENSITY IS NOT ACCEPTABI~". IT IS THE MINORITY OPINION THAT TI{E DEVE. LOI~IF. NT OF E-& OR Il-! PROPERTIES I~:.F'-DIATELY ABUTTING A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, ASSUMING ~{AT EOTH ARE BUILT IN A CON',~NTIONAL MANNER, WOUI/) CAUSE TIle OW}~ERS OF TIlE DETACHED HOMES PROBLEMS SIMILAR TO THOSE EXPERIENCED BY THE R-! HO,ME. OWNERS AT TIlE REAR OF THE EXISTING PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ON WEST IRVINE NEAR YORBA. IT CAN BE S}{0%~; TIbiT NO NEW E-4 PROPERTY HAS BEEN DEVELOPED I}fMEDIATELY ABUTTING COI{.tERCIAL OR PROFESSIONAL IN THIS AREA. TIlE HO,~OWNEP. S POSITION SEEMS TO BE Ti{AT ANY DEVELOFMENT CONTIGUOUS TO THEIR I'RACT BOUNDARY, OTHER THAN E-4, WOULD DEVALUE THEIR PROPERTIES. IT CAN BE SHOWN FROM ACTUAL SALES INFORMATION I1~AT A GREAT DEAL OF R-1 PROPER'lIES TO TIlE WEST AND NORTH OF T[L%T PARTICUL;d{ TRACT IN FACT SELL FOR PRICES GENERALLY HIGHER THAN THEIR E-4 PROPERTIES. IT IS THE MINORITY OPINION TI{AT A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THE DENSITY OF WHICH IS VERY MUCH AN OPEN QUESTION, COULD BE DESIGNED AND BUILT IN THE 300' STRIP BETWEEN THE PROPOSED PROFESSIONAL ZONE AND THE EXISTING E-4 ZONE Ti{AT WOULD CREATE, AN EVEN GREATER BUFFER FOR THE E-4 RESIDENTS TIULN A NEW TWO STORY E-4 DEVELOPMENT. FOR AN EXAMPLE, A DEVETDPMENT WITH THE APPROXIMATE DENSITY OF R-2 BUT WIT[lOUT DEDICATED STREET ACCESS WOULD FREE APPROXIMATELY 1.3 ACRES OF GROIF.~'D TIiAT COU.~D BE USE~AS A GREEN BELT BUFFER ALONG THE. NORTIIERLY PROPERTY LiNE IN ADDITION TO NORMAL OPEN SPACE TIIAT COULD ALSO BE ORIENTED IN TI!AT DIRECTION. ANOTiIER PLUS WOULD BE THE REDUCTION OF LAND TURN'ED ?0 PUBLIC USE AND TI{EREBY REMOVED FROM THE TAX ROLES A~D ALSO NOT REQUIRING A FLTi'['I~R EXPANSION OF SERVICE BY TIlE CITY. (STREET SWEEPING FOR EXAMPLE) ALI. ,OF l~.rE ABOVE IS INi'ENDED TO SHOW Ti{AT THIS PARCEL REQUIRES MORE THAN A TYPICAL DEVEI.OP,~,/ENT Ah'D DESIC, N. WE IIAVE, BY OUR ORDINANCES, FORCED A GREAT DEAL OF DEVELOP?~.-..NT TO CONFORM TO STAND~dlDS THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR A GREAT MANY YEAI~S. SOME OF THESE STANDARDS ARE OUTMODED PRODUCE LESS Ti{AN DESIREABLE RESULTS. OUR CLqlRENT ORDINANCES SET MINIMUMS AND SEEM TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO MEET TIlE MINIMI3M. ! WE HAVE ONE ZONE THAT COUID BE USED TO BREAKAWAY FROM TI[IS STEREOTYPEING ~%¥D 'fHAT IS 'file PC ZONE. l~ HAVE PROBLEMS WITH OUR EXISTING PC ZONE HOWEVER. IT IS SO VAGUE TIIAT NO DEVELOPER WILL AITEMPT USING IT EXCEPT IN CASES OF IL\~IER MINOR DEVIATIONS. IT IS THE ,"~.INORITY VIEW TI[AT TiIIS AS WELL AS OTIIE...R PROPERTIES SHOULD BE VIE%.~D BY 111E Ci'I%' ALONG I~E LI~'ES SET FORT[; BY MI1. IIALL IN TIIE. MINU~ES OF TIIE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT i~{';VIEW CO,~4MI'UfE, E WORKSIiOP. UE SIIOUID PI~d~ AND NO?ONLY REACT. WE SI!OUID IIAVE A VIIZW TOWARD INOVATION IN TiIE FIELD OF PROPER'IT DEVELOPMENT NOT ALWAYS FALL BACK ON SOLUTIONS THAT ARE~ IN MANY CASES, FIFTY YEARS OLD. IN MANY CASES TODAY, TIIE OLD ANSWERS ARE NOT %'lie BEST ANSWERS.