HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 4263RESOLUTION NO. 4263
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL DENY ZONE CHANGE 2014 -001, SUBDIVISION
2013 -01 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17665, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 2013 -01, AND DESIGN REVIEW 2013 -002, A
REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM MULTIPLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R3) 2700 TO R3 2650 AND TO
DEVELOP SIX (6) DETACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
UNITS AT 1381 -1391 SAN JUAN STREET.
The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows:
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application has been submitted by Alfonso Maciel, for the
development of six (6) detached residential condominium units on an
approximately 1/3 acre site at 1381 -1391 San Juan Street.
B. That the development application includes the following requests:
1. Zone Change 2014 -001 to change the zoning from R3 2700 to R3 2650
to reduce the minimum lot area per family unit from 2,700 square feet to
2,650 square feet to allow the development of six (6) residential
condominium units.
2. Subdivision 2013 -01 for Tentative Tract Map 17665 to subdivide an
approximately 1/3 acre site consisting of one (1) numbered lot and one
(1) lettered lot for the development of six (6) single family detached
condominium units.
3. Conditional Use Permit 2013 -01 for the development of condominium
units in the R3 Zoning District, pursuant to the criteria of the Planned
Development (PD) District.
4. Design Review 2013 -002 for the design and site layout of six (6) single
family detached condominium units and related improvements.
C. That the site is zoned Multiple Family Residential (R3) 2700 and has a
High Density Residential General Plan land use designation. In addition,
the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub -
element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be
consistent with the Air Quality Sub - element.
D. That Tustin City Code Section 9295 specifies any amendment to the
zoning of a property may be initiated and adopted as other ordinances are
amended or adopted.
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 4263
Page 2
E. That Tustin City Code Section 9323b2 requires a tentative tract map be
prepared for subdivisions creating five (5) or more condominiums as
defined in Section 4125 of the California Civil Code.
F. That Tustin City Code Section 9226b5 requires the approval of a conditional
use permit for the development of condominium units in the R3 Zoning
District, when developed pursuant to the criteria of the Planned
Development (PD) District.
G. That Tustin City Code Section 9272 requires applicants to obtain Design
Review approval prior to the issuance of building permits for all new
structures.
H. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for Zone Change
2014 -001, Subdivision 2013 -01 for Tentative Tract Map 17665,
Conditional Use Permit 2013 -01, and Design Review 2013 -02 on August
12, 2014, by the Planning Commission.
That the proposed change in zoning from R3 2700 to R3 2650 would be
classified as spot zoning. As articulated in court decisions, spot zoning is
a term used to describe the discriminatory zoning of a small parcel that is
surrounded by land within a different zone and is contrary to orderly
development and sound land use planning principles.
J. That the court of appeal determined in Foothill Communities Coalition v.
County of Orange that spot zoning can be justified where a "substantial
public need exists" or if it is in the public interest. The proposed zone
change is not justified because it does not appear to support a substantial
public need or interest in that the housing units to be built would be
offered for sale at market rate and would not accommodate low and very-
low income individuals or special needs groups. The proposed zone
change would primarily benefit the property owner by granting the
property owner privileges which are not granted or extended to other
landowners in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. In addition, the
proposed Zone Change is a piecemeal approach lacking of overall zoning
or a plan for the area.
K. That if the project site were considerably larger (i.e. the properties fronting
San Juan Street between Utt Drive and Green Valley Drive and /or the
entire block of properties were included and fully evaluated and analyzed)
in the requested ZC, the issue of spot zoning would not be a factor in the
decision - making process for the project. Such an analysis has not been
provided with the submitted application.
L. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use
will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health,
safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 4263
Page 3
in the neighborhood of such proposed use, and be injurious or detrimental to
the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property,
or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin in that:
1. That the proposed development does not provide all of the units with
driveways to accommodate additional parking that are typically
associated with single family dwellings, by subdividing the property in
a manner which does not create individual lots. As individual
driveways are proposed in only two (2) of the dwelling units within the
development, a lack of adequate guest parking is anticipated for the
project (only three guest spaces are proposed). This issue will
become exacerbated if the HOA does not adequately enforce garage
parking.
2. The lack of adequate on -site parking may impact the streets in the
vicinity of the project site and result in residents and guests parking
their vehicles on the rear driveway where parking is not allowed and
blocking access for emergency vehicles.
3. Tustin City Code Section 9224g6 allows private ground level open
space in condominium developments to be credited toward the
minimum open space requirement, which is 400 square feet of open
space recreation area within a common designated recreation area.
However, the proposed development provides all of the required
open space for the condominium development within private yard
areas, and does not provide any common recreation area. Providing
a recreation area with amenities often mitigates the impacts of higher
density development and improves livability.
M. That pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9272, the location, size,
architectural features and general appearance of the proposed
development will impair the orderly and harmonious development of the
area, the present or future development therein, the occupancy thereof, or
the community as a whole, in that the six (6) proposed residences are three
stories and thirty -five (35) feet in height, which is significantly taller than, not
in scale with, insensitive to, incompatible with, and greater in bulk than the
existing residences directly adjacent to, and within the immediate vicinity of,
the project site, which also creates intrusive visual impacts on adjacent
homes in the neighborhood.
N. That multi -story residential developments can be designed to be more
compatible with adjacent single story residences by considering the
pattern and rhythm of the streetscape and by providing adequate
setbacks, significant architectural articulation and step- downs, dormers,
basements, sloping roof planes, and other features that reduce the bulk of
taller buildings, soften the transition between the adjacent properties, and
achieve compatibility with smaller buildings. However, these features are
not proposed, and approving a project of a height and design that is not
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 4263
Page 4
compatible with adjacent development could set an undesirable precedent
and result in a proliferation of incompatible in -fill development.
O. That it is often challenging for small homeowners associations to provide
for the long term maintenance of the common areas and to fund significant
capital expenses, such as driveways, perimeter fencing /wall, utilities
(water, sewer, etc.), often resulting in the need for code enforcement
involvement and supplemental assessments in HOA dues. In addition, the
six (6) owners may be unable to carry out the responsibilities of the HOA,
including parking enforcement, maintenance, and architectural review.
P. As proposed, Tentative Tract Map 17665 is not consistent with the existing
R3 2700 zoning of the property, and may not be approved unless the City
Council approves Zone Change 2014 -001.
Q. That this project is exempt pursuant to Section 15270 (Projects which are
disapproved) of the California Environmental Quality Act.
II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council deny Zone
Change 2014 -001, Subdivision 2013 -01 for Tentative Tract Map 17665,
Conditional Use Permit 2013 -01 and Design Review 2013 -002, a request to
change the zoning and develop six (6) detached residential condominium units on
an approximately 1/3 acre site at 1381 -1391 San Juan Street.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a
regular meeting on the 12th day of August, 2014.
�
JE F .TH PSON
Chairperson
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 4263
Page 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning
Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4263 was
duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held
on the 12th day of August, 2014, by the following vote:
PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: Kozak, Lumbard, smith, Thompson (4)
PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: Altowaiji (1)
PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED:
PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT:
- S7-- >�,
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary