The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02 TPM 94-149/VAR 94-11 2-6-95NO. 2 2-6-95 ~ATE' FEBRUARY 6, 1995 Inter-Com TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJEC~ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 94-149 AND APPEAL OF VARIANCE 94-011 (DONALD LEJEUNE) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: I , Certify the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for the project by adopting Resolution No. 95-01; . Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Variance 94-011 by adopting Resolution No. 95-10, as submitted or revised; and . Approve Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 by adopting Resolution No. 95-02, as submitted or revised. FISCAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts associated with this project, as this is an applicant initiated project. The applicant has paid application fees to recover the cost of processing this application. BACKGROUND On December 12, 1994, the Planning Commission considered a Variance and Tentative Parcel Map request to allow the subdivision of an existing developed residential parcel into two parcels. The Planning Commission approved Variance 94-011 by adopting Resolution No. 3314 to allow deviations from certain development standards identified below. , To reduce the minimum lot width from sixty (60) feet to 22 feet on Parcel 2; and City Council Report Appeal of Variance 94-011; and Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 February 6, 1995 Page 2 , To increase the maximum permitted height for an existing fence in the required front yard setback area of Parcel 2 from three (3) feet to 6'-8". The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 3315 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 94-149. A copy of the Planning Commission's Resolutions are included in Attachment A. On January 3, 1995, the City Council appealed the Planning Commission's action related to Variance 94-011. Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 was also continued to February 6, 1995 to allow for the public noticing of the Variance appeal so that both items could be considered together. The subject property is approximately 28,250 square feet (.65 acre) in size and is developed with one (1) single family residence and one (1) attached two-car garage which are situated .approximately 200 feet from the front property line on Main Street. The applicant is requesting authorization to subdivide the subject property into two parcels. Although no new construction or development is proposed for Parcels 1 or 2 at this time, the applicant has indicated his intention to place an historic residence on Parcel 1 at a future date. The applicant previously received City approvals to place an historic residence on the existing 28,250 square foot parcel under the provisions of City Code Section 9223(b) (3) which allows an accessory structure to be used as guest rooms with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Although the applicant would have the option to proceed with the project or utilize the conditional use permit process pursuant to City Code Section 9223(b) (1) which provides for second single family dwellings on R-1 lots of at least 12,000 square feet in size, a subdivision of the property is being requested in lieu of the conditional use permit process for financing reasons. According to the applicant, the parcelization is necessary in order to finance the construction of the future proposed dwelling on Parcel 1. A lien on the existing property is preventing the applicant from obtaining the financing, and this lien would be released from the portion of the property comprising Parcel 1. The value of the lien free property would enable the applicant to obtain the necessary financing for construction of the original requested historic structure. The applicant provided the City with City Council Report Appeal of Variance 94-011; and Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 February 6, 1995 Page 3 a letter (Attachment B) that briefly explains the reasons for the Tentative Parcel Map request. An additional letter from the applicant was subsequently received by the City on January 25, 1995 (Attachment C). The subject property, situated on the southerly side of Main Street between "B" Street and Pacific Street, is located in an urban setting and is zoned Single Family Residential. (R-l). Surrounding development to the north, south, east and west is also residential and consists of single family dwellings. The zoning designation for these properties is Single-Family Residential (R-I), and the properties in the vicinity are all within the Cultural Resource Overlay District. A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of the public hearing on this project was published in the Tustin News. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified of the hearing by mail and notices were posted on the site, at City Hall and the Police Department. The applicant was informed of the availability of a staff report for this item. DISCUSSION Parcel Map The applicant proposes to create two parcels so that the existing single family dwelling would be located on Parcel 2 and an additional dwelling could be constructed or placed on Parcel 1. Parcel 1 is proposed to be approximately 10,993 square feet in size, and Parcel 2 is proposed to be approximately 16,264 square feet in size. There is one (1) existing driveway off of Main Street which is proposed to provide access to the existing residence located on Parcel 2. An easement for access purposes is proposed ~.so that ~this driveway could also provide access to any future dwelling on Parcel 1. In the Single Family Residential (R-i) District with the Cultural Resource District Overlay, the minimum single family lot size allowed pursuant to City Code Section 9252(J) (2) is 10,000 square feet. The two (2) parcels created by the proposed subdivision would satisfy this criteria. The proposed orientation of the future dwelling on Parcel 1 would not be inconsistent with surrounding properties. Given the required front yard setbacks and sufficient lot sizes proposed, the City Council Report Appeal of Variance 94-011; and Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 February 6, 1995 Page 4 proposed subdivision would be considered appropriate and compatible with the neighborhood. A Condition of Approval was included in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3315 which requires that, in conjunction with any future design review submittal for any dwelling on Parcel 1, all setbacks shall be equal to or greater than those depicted on the tentative parcel map; and the design of the structure shall be historic in character and consistent with the design which was previously considered as part of Design Review 92-047. This condition is based in part on mitigation measures contained in the environmental documentation for this project. These measures were developed to ensure that approval of the subject project would not set a precedent for any type of development on newly created lots in the CitY's Cultural Resource District. The subject property is designated with a Low Density Residential Land Use Designation in the Tustin Area General Plan which would allow up to seven (7) dwelling units per acre. The proposed tentative parcel map would be consistent with the Land Use Designation in that Parcel 1 would have a gross density of 3.6 dwelling units per acre and Parcel 2 would have a gross density of 2.7 dwelling units per acre. Approval of the project would result in the potential for an increase in the density of development on the entire site from 1.5 dwelling units per acre to three (3) units per acre which remains consistent with the General Plan. In order for the City Council to approve a subdivision it must be determined that the proposal is in compliance with applicable zoning requirements. The variance for the lot width reduction is needed because Parcel 2 would contain a 22 foot wide portion which would accommodate the driveway access for both parcels. The remainder of the lot would be approximately 108 feet in width. The fence height increase is needed for the existing fencing, a portion of which encloses an existing swimming pool. The proposed subdivision of the property would place this fencing in the front yard setback area of Parcel 2, where fence height is otherwise restricted to a maximum height of three (3) feet. Approval of the subject Tentative Parcel Map would enable the applicant to request approval for the placement of an additional single family dwelling at the site without the need for Conditional Use Permit approval. Any future development would be evaluated through the City's design review process which considers height, bulk, and area of buildings; setbacks and site planning; City Council Report Appeal of Variance 94-011; and Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 February 6, 1995 Page 5 landscaping; parking; materials and colors, etc. Any new development would also be required to meet all applicable development standards established for the zoning district such as minimum setbacks, maximum height, maximum lot coverage, parking, etc. Variance Should the City Council move to uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve the subject Variance to allow the reduction in the minimum lot width and the increase in the maximum fence height in the front yard setback area, the City Council must make the following findings: . That any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated; and . That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of .the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. In considering the reduction of minimum lot width and the increase in fence height, the above findings can be justified. The granting of the Variance would not constitute a special privilege as all of the other properties on the same block bounded by Main, "B", Sixth and Pacific Streets are zoned for single family residences and twelve (12) of the lots have lot widths which are less than the required s~xty (60) feet. In addition, there are other residential parcels Within the Cultural Resource District which function as flag lots. The increase in the allowable fence height shall not constitute a grant of special privilege in that the fencing is existing and is setback approximately 150 feet from Main Street which is consistent with other fencing in the vicinity. There are special circumstances related to the site, particularly the size of the parcel which deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by neighboring properties. The subject property is wider and larger in area than most of the parcels in the area and has sufficient area to be divided into two (2) parcels which conform to the minimum lot size requirements specified in the City City Council Report Appeal of Variance 94-011; and Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 February 6, 1995 Page 6 Code. Due to the flag lot configuration and shape of Parcel 2, the parcels would be deprived of fencing that is necessary for security and safety reasons and is typical of fencing found on other properties in the area. Based on the City's definition of a front yard, the subject fencing would be located within the front yard setback area, but would primarily function as side yard fencing or as a swimming pool barrier. The Uniform Building Code requires that swimming pools be surrounded by a barrier of at least five (5) feet in height. PUBLIC CONCERNS Planninq Commission Public Hearing In response to the public noticing of this project prior to the December 12, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, staff was contacted by two individuals and received four (4) letters of opposition to the project. At the Planning Commission public hearing, five (5) individuals spoke in opposition to the project. The main points presented by those who spoke at the Planning Commission public hearing have been summarized below. Responses developed by staff follow each of the concerns. Concern: The proposed flag lot would be incompatible with the area as the block contains no flag lots and any flag lots in the area were established prior to the creation of the Cultural Resource District. Response: The proposed creation of a flag lot in the Cultural Resource District would not be incompatible with the District, nor negatively affect the properties within the District, as there are existing lots in the District which fuDction as flag lots which have not negatively impacted 'the District in any measurable way. These lots are scattered throughout the Cultural Resource District and contain two (2) or more dwelling units giving the appearance of a front lot with a rear flag lot. One example of this situation can be found at 140-150 South "B" Street. A second example is located at 210 South Pacific Street, where the rear structure contains the garage and additional living space. Each of the proposed parcels would exceed the minimum lot size for single family development in the District. Given the larger size and width of the subject property as compared to most other lots on the same block, the subject property is unique and well suited for division into two (2) lots. City Council Report Appeal of Variance 94-011; and Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 February 6, 1995 Page 7 Concern: A lot line is not necessary to construct a second dwelling unit ~n the property. Other lots on the block have second dwelling units that share the lot with the primary dwelling unit. Response: As explained in the Background section of this Report, the applicant previously received City approval to place a historic structure on the property, but is requesting a two (2) lot subdivision at this time. The applicant has chosen this process because there is no other mechanism available for financing the proposed improvements, given the current lien on the existing lot. Based on the analysis conducted by staff and the recommendation from the Planning Commission, there is no evidence that the addition of a lot line dividing the property will negatively affect the Cultural Resource District or be inconsistent with those parcels which contain two dwelling units. Concern: The Cultural Resource District needs to be protected from higher density and incompatible uses which are not in conformance with Code requirements such as minimum lot size and frontage. Response: The proposed subdivision would conform to all City Code requirements with the exception of lot width at street frontage and fence height in the front yard setback. The Planning Commission approved a Variance related to these two (2) standards. The portion of the lot under sixty (60) feet in width would not contain the dwelling unit and therefore would not give the appearance of increased density or decreased lot width. The increase in the allowable fence height applies to existing fencing which would technically fall within the front yard of the rear dwelling~'~t No new fencing is proposed. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning standards related to density and minimum lot size. Concern: The proposed subdivision would set a precedent for constructing additional dwelling units and subdividing lots in the Cultural Resources District. Response: The proposed project would not set a precedent for additional dwelling units and subdivisions as each project must be analyzed individually based on the specific circumstances which~apply in each case. The City Council Report Appeal of Variance 94-011; and Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 February 6, 1995 Page 8 applicant's request has no similarity at all to the 1986 multiple lot subdivision request on Sixth Street which precipitated creation of the Cultural Resources District. The Cultural Resource District does not prohibit the subdivision of property. The existing Tustin City Code also permits second dwelling units on all R-1 zoned properties of at least 12,000 square feet in size in the Cultural Resources District subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The General Plan and Zoning standards establish maximum densities and minimum lot sizes which have been satisfied in the case of the subject project. Concern: Property values would be negatively affected. Response: In considering a Variance or a Tentative Parcel Map, the Planning Commission would typically not make findings with respect to the project's affect on property values. The required findings are based on special circumstances; absence of special privileges; conformity with the General Plan, City Code and Subdivision Map Act; environmental impacts; and compatibility. No specific evidence was presented to indicate that the proposed subdivision would positively or negatively affect property values in the area. With the applicant's introduction of a historical structure, staff believes property values will be enhanced. Concern: There is no indication as to whether the future dwelling would consist of new construction or an existing house relocated to the property. Response: Condition of Approval 1.7 was imposed by the Planning Commission to reflect the intent that any structure that might be placed on Parcel 1 be of historic character and consistent~with the previously approved design. Although this Condition does not exactly specify a certain structure, any future dwelling on Parcel 1 would be evaluated through the Design Review and Certificate of Appropriate processes, which require that legal findings be made with respect to the proposed development by the Director of CommunitY Development. These findings would ensure that the structure is compatible with, appropriate for, and does not negatively affect the history of, the Cultural Resource District. No design review application has been submitted to date, as the applicant is awaiting a determination on the Tentative Parcel Map request. There is no requirement that the design review be approved prior to subdivision. City Council Report Appeal of Variance 94-011; and Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 February 6, 1995 Page 9 Prior to taking action on the subject Variance and Tentative Parcel Map, the Planning Commission considered the concerns summarized above that were raised during the public hearing. Following the public testimony, the Planning Commission took action to approve Variance 94-011 and recommended approval of Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 based on the required findings which are contained in the adopted Planning Commission Resolutions. City Council Public Hearing Prior to the January 3, 1995 City Council meeting, staff received copies'of two'(2) letters which were sent to the Council. One of the letters requested that the Council appeal Variance 94-011 and included a number of concerns regarding the project (Attachment D). The second letter was written by the applicant as a response to the first letter (Attachment E). At the City Council public hearing, two (2) individuals spoke in opposition to the project. One of these individuals also presented a petition to the Council. This petition contains the signatures of individuals who object to Parcel Map 94-149 and Variance 94-011 (Attachment F). The majority of the issues raised in the appeal request letter were previously discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on December 12, 1994, as discussed above in this report. The points presented to the City Council in the appeal request letter and at the City Council meeting on January 3, 1995 which have not been previously discussed have been summarized below. Responses developed by staff follow each of the concerns. Concern: Financial hardship and property owner rights were motivations for approving the project. State Law is clear that variances cannot be granted based on financial hardship,~ and.. variances are not rights or even privileges. ' ' Response: As indicated in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3314, approval of Variance 94-011 was based on the findings that the granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the area and that there are unusual or exceptional circumstances applicable to the property which deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the area. The Planning Commission did not adopt findings with respect to financial hardship or property owner rights. City Council Report Appeal of Variance 94-011; and Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 February 6, 1995 Page 10 Concern: A nonconforming use or standard that exists elsewhere should not be used as justification for approval of a Variance. Response: State Law specifies the required findings for a Variance. Furthermore, the proposed Variance request has been reviewed with the City Attorney's Office. It is appropriate to make findings with respect to the existing characteristics of other properties in the vicinity. The findings do not require that other properties in the area be conforming to the City Code with respect to use or development standards in order for the subject property to be compared with these other properties. Concern: Approval of the subject Variance would create the narrowest lot width on the block and all of Main Street. Response: The narrowest portion of the flag lot would not be developed with a dwelling. There would not be a visibly narrow lot or frontage along Main Street. Concern: There was a precedence established to deny the current proposal when a previous subdivision was denied by the City Council in the 1980's. Response: The previous City Council denial of a multiple lot subdivision on the same block is completely unrelated to this project and should not be considered. Therefore, precedence was not established. Concern: The City Code should be changed if it is inadequate under certain applications. Response: There is no need to consider code amendments at this time, as the applicant is pursuing a Variance and Tentative Parcel Map which are provided for by the City Code and State Law. Other property owners would have the ability to apply for these approvals as well. Concern: Variances should be based on topography, lot shape, and geological obstructions (boulders), but not on the size of a lot. City Council Report Appeal of Variance 94-011; and Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 February 6, 1995 Page 11 Response: As noted in State Law, the size of a property is one of the valid justifications for approval of a Variance. In approving Variance 94-011, the Planning Commission made the finding that the size of the subject property is a special circumstance in that the property is large enough to be subdivided and still meet the minimum lot size requirement. In addition, the width of the property was used as justification and width is one measurement of shape, which is a permissible Variance justification under State Law according to the City Attorney's Office. It should be noted that the intended use of the property is consistent with Zoning Code requirements, in that lots zoned R-1 and over 12,000 square feet in area would be eligible to receive Conditional Use Permit approval for a second dwelling. Therefore, the applicant's request would not be considered a use variance. Concern: Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness should have been required for the Tentative Parcel Map, as Ordinance 1001 states that a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be required prior to alteration of the exterior features of a building or site in the Cultural Resource District. Alteration of a site would include a lot line or the preservation of landscaping or statues. Response: City Code Section 9252(f) (1) (a) specifically states that "A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be required prior to alteration of the exterior features of a building or site within a designated Cultural Resource District, or alteration of a Designated Cultural Resource, or construction of improvements within a designated Cultural Resources District requiring a City building permit." Pursuant~. to City Code Section 9297 and Section 3 of Ordinance 1001, "alteration" means any exterior change or modification requiring a building permit of any designated Cultural Resource or of any property located within a Cultural Resource District. Therefore, approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness is only required prior to construction of a dwelling on the property. However, a Certificate of Appropriateness would not be required for the subdivision of property, which does not require a building permit, but is a land use decision under the purview of the Planning Commission and the City Council. City Council Report Appeal of Variance 94-011; and Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 February 6, 1995 Page 12 SUBDIVISION FINDINGS Under provisions of the State Subdivision Map Act, the City Council would not be able to deny the requested Parcel Map unless it makes the following specific findings: That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. That the site is not physically suited for the type of development. That the site is not physically suited for the proposed density of development. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmenta.1 damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems .-.. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Based on the information presented in this report, none of the conditions above would exist to justify denial of the proposed subdivision. City Council Report Appeal of Variance 94-011; and Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 February 6, 1995 Page 13 CONCLUSION With the Planning Commission's approval of Variance 94-011, the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code, the City's Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act. Based upon the information presented above and the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, it is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Variance 94-011 by adopting Resolution No. 95-10, and approve Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 by adopting Resolution No. 95-02, as submitted or revised. Scott Reekstin Assistant Planner ~hristine A. ~hir~j/eton Assistant City Manager SCR:br:/TPM 94-149 Attachments: Location Map Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 Initial Study Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3314 and 3315 Attachment B - Letter dated December 7, 1994 Attachment C - Letter dated January 25, 1995 Attachment D - Letter dated December 28, 1994 Attachment E - Letter dated December 31, 1994 Attachment F - Petition Resolution Nos. 95-01, 95-10, 95-02 LOCATiON MAP I ,'?~' I THIRD /~'l /t,'] ' 210J l, MAIN B. UTT SECOND ST SIXTH PARK II EAST __ NO SCALE / i ;. · I]] COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tuxtin, CA 92680 (714) 573-3105 INITIAL STUDY L BACKGROUND Name ofVroponent Address and Phone Number of Proponent _44-0 Date Check List Submitted .. Agency Requiting Check List Name of Proposal, if applicable 7"~ .'/~74~ ~~'/~/'z:t~ ~4--/~;~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: YES a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief featu?es?' d. The destruction, coveting or modification 'of any unique geoiogic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? MAYBE L_J NO g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emission or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of Objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperatures, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. W'fll the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh water? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount' of surface runoff?. c. Alterations to the'course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? go h. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Substantial' ~eduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ExPOsUre Of people or property to water related hazards such' as . flooding 'or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? YES MAYBE NO " 2 c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: ao Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? YES MAYBE NO Co Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area7 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate or use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? !0. Kisk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions7 b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or - growth rate of the human population of an area7 ~ z. Housing.' Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement7 b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. v~rfll the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? !.5. Energy. Will the proposal resul~ in: . . a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? YES MAYBE NO 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas.9 b. Communications systems7 c. Water7 d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Solid Waste. Will the proposal create additional solid waste requiring disposal by the City? 19. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 20. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 21. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: .-. a. The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Adverse physiCal or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. The potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? YES MAYBE NO YES MAYBE NO 22. Mandatow Findings of Significance. ao Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future). Co Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is'significant.) do Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SEE ATTACHMENT A 1¥. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a signifi~t effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Attachment A attached hereto have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date INITSTUD.PM 5 370ZA //' Z/' ~ ~' Signature · Name (Print) Title SECTION III - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION - The proposed project is a Tentative Parcel Map request to subdivide an existing 0.65 acre parcel into two (2) parcels. The subject property is located at 440 West Main Street within the Single-Family Residential (R-I) District and Cultural Resource Overlay District. A Variance is also being requested to reduce the minimum lot width on Parcel No. 2 from sixty (60) feet to 22 feet, and to increase the maximum fence height in the required front yard setback area of Parcel No. 2 from three (3) feet to 6'-8". This height increase is for existing fencing, a portion of which encloses an existing swimming pool. The proposed subdivision of the property would place this fencing in the front yard setback area of Parcel No. 2 which would require a variance. As proposed, the lot line would be placed such that parcel No. 2 would be configured as a flag lot with 22 feet of frontage on Main Street, while Parcel No. 1 would be roughly rectangular in shape with a lot width of approximately 87 feet. The gross building site area of Parcel No. 2 would be 16,264 square feet in size. Parcel No. 1,' which would be located directly on Main Street, would be 11,993 square feet in size. Each of these parcels would satisfy the minimum building site area requirement of 10,000 square feet for single family properties located in the Cultural Resource District. The property is presently developed with one (1) dwelling unit which is situated approximately 200 feet from the front property line on Main Street. Without the Parcel Map and Variance approval, the project site could potentially be developed with a total of two (2) dwelling units subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to City Code Section 9223(b) (1). This Code Section applies to second single-family dwellings on R-1 lots of at least 12,000 square feet in size. Approval of the requested Parcel Map and Variance would permit the development of a maximum of two (2) dwelling units on two separate parcels (one unit per parcel) without the need for Conditional Use Permit approval. For the purposes of this Initial Study, the impact categories below have been evaluated for the maximum potential of two (2) dwelling units. The project site is situated in an urban setting. Surrounding development to the north, south, east and west is also residential and consists of single-family dwellings. The zoning designation of these properties is single-Family Residential (R-i), and these properties are within the Cultural Resource Overlay District. · EARTH - A, C through G - "No", B - "Maybe" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in any disruption, displacement, compaction or overcovering of the soil. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does. not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7, 1994 Page 2 · · proposed tentative parcel map and variance, could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. This development would involve minimal grading to accommodate building footprints and drainage in accordance with the City's requirements. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department Submitted Application Mitigation/Monitoring: Appropriate soils reports and grading plans would be required as part of the City's plan check process prior to development of the site. All grading shall comply with applicable City standards and shall be reviewed by the City's Building Division and Public Works Department. Compliance shall be verified prior to certification of rough grading. AIR - A throuqh C - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance and any future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in any degradation of existing air quality based upon SCAQMD guidelines for preparation of EIRs. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. Sources: SCAQMD standards for preparing EIR docUments City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. WATER - A throuqh I - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in any additional change to absorptions-rates, water movement, flood waters, discharge into surface waters, flow of groundwater, quantity of ground water, or water consumption. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. This development would result in a minimal rise in the rate of surface runoff based upon the increase in density and paved area. It is not anticipated that future development will substantially contribute to water usage or drainage flow due to the limited size of the property. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7, 1994 Page 3 Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department City of Tustin Public Works Department Mitigation/Monitoring: Alterations to drainage would be subject to review and approval by the City's Building Division and Public Works Department. Compliance with all City requirements would be verified prior to certification of rough grading. · PLANT LIFE - A through D - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance and any future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in any significant changes to plant life. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Sources: 'Fie-ld Observations Submitted Application Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. · ANIMAL LIFE - A through D - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance and any future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in any additional change to animal life. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. The project site is free from any significant population of animals, fish or wildlife. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Application Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. · NOISE - A and B - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in degradation of existing noise standards. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. This development may result in short term noise impacts during the grading of the lot and construction of the dwelling units. Source: Tustin City Code Mitigation/Monitoring: Ail construction operations related to the future development of the property including engine warm Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7, 1994 Page 4 · · up shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall take place only during ~he hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired subject to application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. LIGHT AND GLARE - "Maybe" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in additional light and glare. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage· Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2). dwelling units. This development could produce some light and glare. Source: City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: Any future lighting associated with the development of the property shall be designed to avoid casting unnecessary glare onto adjacent residential properties. An exterior lighting plan shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to construction of any new dwelling units on the property. LAND USE - "Maybe" The proposal may result in an alteration to the existing land use of the subject property. The subject site is developed with one single family residence and one attached garage. At the present time, the applicant is not desirous of any alterations to the existing improvements on the subject property and is not proposing any new improvements or land uses at this time. However, the applicant has indicated to city staff the intention to add one (1) additional unit to the property in the near future for a total of one (1) unit on each proposed parcel. Any future development will be evaluated through the City's design review process which considers height, bulk, and area of buildings; setbacks and site planning; landscaping; parking; materials and colors, etc. This new development would be required to meet all applicable development standards established for the zoning district such as minimum setbacks, maximum height, maximum lot coverage, parking, etc. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7, 1994 Page 5 · Ail of the surrounding properties are developed with single family residences, and twelve (12) of the lots on the block bounded by Main, "B", Sixth and Pacific Streets have lot widths which are less than the required 60 feet. The project site' is currently designated on the Land Use Element map in the General Plan with a Low Density Residential land use designation. According to the City's Land Use. Element, this designation allows for single family development with a density between one (1) and seven (7) dwelling units per acre. This project proposes a tentative parcel map and variance to subdivided an existing parcel into two (2) parcels. The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would result .in. the potential for an increase in the existing density Of development on the subject site from 1.5 dwelling units per acre to three (3) units per acre. Surrounding properties to the north, south, east and west are also designated on the 'City's General Land Use Plan as Low Density Residential. The zoning designation of the subject property and adjacent properties in all directions is Single Family Residential (R-i) with a Cultural Resource District Overlay. In the Single Family Residential District with the Cultural Resource District Overlay, the minimum single family lot size is 10,000 square feet. The proposed subdivision would satisfy this criteria. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department City of Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring: Any future development shall comply with all applicable City Codes and adopted development standards. In conjunction with any future design review request for any structure on Parcel 1, all setbacks shall be equal to or greater than those depicted on the tentative parcel~map. NATURAL RESOURCES - A and B - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in any additional use of natural resources. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. This development would create an insignificant demand for natural resources. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7, 1994 Page 6 Source: City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. 10. RISK OF UPSET - A and B - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance and any future development based upon the proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in any additional risk of upset. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. Sources: City of Tustin Building Division Orange County Fire Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. 11. POPULATION - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance could result in an increase in density as discussed in Item No. 8 above. The site is presently developed with one residence and one garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. At maximum buildout, the additional development would not contribute to a significant increase in population. Sources: Submitted Application Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: In the event that the proposed tentative parcel map and variance are approved, any future construction plans for the site would need to be reviewed for conformance with the regulations adopted for the R-1 Zoning DistriCt and Cultural Resource District to ensure that the number 0f dwelling units permitted is not exceeded. 12. HOUSING - "Maybe" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in the addition or deletion of any housing. The site is presently developed with one residence and one garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of one (1) additional dwelling unit for a total of two (2) dwelling units. The addition of ownership units would contribute to "Increase the percentage of ownership housing to Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7, 1994 Page 7 ensure a reasonable balance of rental and owner-occupied housing-within the City." Source: Submitted Application Mitigation/Monitoring: In the event that the proposed tentative parcel map and variance are approved, any future construction plans for the site will be reviewed for conformance with the regulations adopted for the R-1 Zoning District and Cultural Resource District to ensure that the number of dwelling units permitted is not exceeded. 13. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION - A through F - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance and any future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in any significant impacts to the transportation and circulation system within the area. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. The existing public street system is adequate to serve any potential demand generated by any future development of two (2) dwelling units on the site, as Main Street has a future capacity for 33,800 vehicle trips per day, Level of Service rating "D". Current traffic counts for Main Street indicate 7,800 vehicle trips per day and this project could result in the addition of ten (10) additional trips per day, which has been determined by the Engineering Division to be insignificant. Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES - A through F - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance will not require additional public services. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. This new development would require minimal additional public services. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department City of Tustin Public Works Department City of Tustin Police Department Orange County Fire Department Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7, 1994 Page 8 Mitigation/Monitoring: The applicant shall be required to pay all applicable school district fees to Tustin Unified School District at the time of any new construction. 15. ENERGY - A and B - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not require any additional energy. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. This development would require a minimal increase in need for service due to the increase in residential units; however, these amounts would not be significant. source': city of Tustin Public Works Department Mitigation/Monitoring: Ail new construction shall comply with Title 24 regarding energy conservation. This shall be verified for compliance at Building Permit Plan Check. The applicant shall research the possibility of reduced energy lamps for all light fixtures. 16. UTILITIES - A throuqh F - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not require any additional utilities services. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. This development would require a minimal amount of utility services which are considered insignificant. Source: City of Tustin Public Works Department Mitigation/Monitoring: The applicant shall be encouraged to implement water saving and energy conservation devices and to provide for recycling of solid waste. 17. HUMAI~ HEALTH - A and B - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance and any future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not negatively affect human health due to the project scope. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7, 1994 Page 9 tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. Sources: City of Tustin Building Division Orange County Fire Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. 18. SOLID WASTE - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not create additional solid waste. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. This additional development, while not contributing individually, will generate additional waste for disposal by the City due to the increase in housing units contributing to cumulative impacts. Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department Submitted Application Mitigation/Monitoring: Future residents will be required to participate in the programs identified in the Source Reduction and Recycling Element related to the 25 and 50 percent diversion requirements as implemented by the City. 19. AESTKETICS - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not impact the aesthetics of the area. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. This development could impact the aesthetics of the area. Source: City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: Any new development would be subject to the City's Design Review process. In conjunction with any future design review request for any structure on Parcel 1, the design-of the structure shall be historic in character and consistent with the design which was previously considered as part of Design Review 92-047. 20. RECREATION - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not impact recreation needs of the area. The Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7, 1994 Page 10 site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units which would have an insignificant individual effect on the quality or quantity of existing recreational facilities. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Application Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. 21. QULTURAL RESOURCES - A through D - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance and any future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not affect the cultural resources of the area. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. The property is located within the Cultural Resource District, but is not individually listed in the City's Historical Survey given the age of the structure. Sources: Submitted Application Historical Survey Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. 22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - A throuqh D - "No" ae The proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the environment or habitat of significant animals or periods in California History as the subject site is a developed site. be The proposed project would not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. Ce The proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts. de The proposed project would not result in any adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly based upon the analysis conducted in the preparation of this Initial Study. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7, 1994 Page 11 Sources: Items 1 through 21 of this Initial Study Submitted Application M~tigation/Monitoring: None required. tpm94149.EN2 i NI VI,Il 7- ii, o ii;bi i, ATTACHMENT A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NOS. 3314 & 3315 RESOLUTION NO. 3314 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING VARIANCE 94-011 TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF PARCEL 2 OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 94-149 FROM SIXTY (60) FEET TO 22 FEET AND TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA OF PARCEL 2. OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 94-149 FROM THREE (3) FEET TO 6'-8" AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 440 WEST MAIN STREET, TUSTIN. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: ao That a proper application, Variance 94-011, has been filed by Mr. Donald A. LeJeune to reduce the minimum lot width of Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 from sixty (60) feet to 22 feet and to increase the maximum fence height in the required front yard setback area of Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 from three (3) feet to 6'-8" on the property located at 440 West Main Street, Tustin. Be That a public hearing was duly noticed, called and held by the Planning Commission on December 12, 1994. Ce The Planning Commission has reviewed the subject request for a variance to reduce the minimum lot width and increase the maximum fence height and has made the following findings: · Granting the variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the project is situated in that all of the other properties on the same block bounded by Main, "B", Sixth and Pacific Streets are zoned for single family residences and twelve (12) of the lots 'have lot widths which are less than the required sixty (60) feet. In addition, there are other residential parcels within the Cultural Resource District which function as flag lots. The increase in the allowable fence height shall not constitute a grant of special privilege in that the fencing is existing and is setback approximately 150 feet from Main Street which is consistent with other fencing in the vicinity. 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 Resolution No. 3314 Page 2 · There are unusual or exceptional circumstances applicable' to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the area, in that the subject property is wider and larger in area than most of the parcels in the area and has sufficient area to be divided into two (2) parcels which conform to the minimum lot size requirements specified in the City Code. Due to the flag lot configuration and shape of Parcel 2, the parcels would be deprived of fencing that is necessary for security and safety reasons and is typical of fencing found on other properties in the area. Based on the City's definition of a front yard, the subject fencing would be located within the front yard setback area, but would function as side yard fencing or as a swimming pool barrier. The Uniform Building Code requires that swimming pools be surrounded by a barrier of at least five (5) feet in height. De A Negative· Declaration has been prepared and certified for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Variance 94-011 to reduce the minimum lot width of Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 from sixty (60) feet to 22 feet and to increase the maximum fence height in the required front yard setback area of Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 94- 149 from three (3) feet to 6'-8" on the property located at 440 West Main Street, Tustin, subject to the conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A. Resolution No. 3314 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meetin~of th~ ~T~3~_ tin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day o~/~cemb~r -~1994. ~ A.L .... ~aker~i--T- Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, BARBARA REYES the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3314 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of December, 1994. · BARBARA REYES ~ Recording Secretary EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 3314 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VARIANCE 94-011 GENERAL (1) 1.1 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in the Exhibit shall be complied with prior to City Council approval of Final Parcel Map 94-149, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.2 Variance 94-011 approval is contingent upon City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 94-149. In the event that Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 is not approved by the City Council or approval for Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 expires, Variance 94- 011 approval shall become null and void. (1) 1.3 The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin for all claims and liabilities arising out of the City's approval of the entitlement process for this project. (1) 1.4 Approval of Variance 94-011 is contingent upon the applicant signing and returning an "Agreement to. Conditions Imposed" form, as established by the Director of Community Development. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION RESOLUTION NO. 3315 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 94-149 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: · . I · The Planning Commission finds and determines as follo · ae That Tentative Parcel Map No. 94-149 .was submitted to the Planning Commission by Mr. Donald A. LeJeune, for consideration. Be That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said map on December 12, 1994 by the Planning Commission. Ce A Negative Declaration has been prepared and certified for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. De That the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan, the Tustin Municipal Code and Subdivision Map Act. Ee That Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 would not have an impact on School District facilities. Fe That park land dedication in-lieu fees, pursuant to City Code Section 9370(d) (6), shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for any dwelling on Parcel 1. Ge That the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damaqe or substantially and avoidably injure fish or w~ldlife in their habitat. He That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements acquired by the public-at- large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. I · That the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 10 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 Resolution No. 3315 Page 2 II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to~ the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 94-149, subject to the conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of December, 1994. BARBARA REYES Secretary Chairperson STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, BARBARA REYES, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3315 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of December, 1994. Recording Secretary EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 3315 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 94-149 GENERAL (1) 1.1 Within 24 months from tentative map approval, the Subdivider shall file with appropriate agencies, a final map prepared in accordance with subdivision requirements of the Tustin Municipal Code, the State Subdivision Map Act, and applicable conditions contained herein unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 9361(d) of the Tustin Municipal Code. (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified,.the conditions contained in the Exhibit shall be complied with prior to approval of the Final Map, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.3 Prior to any sale of the individual parcels, the .. Subdivider shall record the Final Map in conformance with. appropriate tentative map. (1) 1.4 Prior to final map approval: A. Subdivider shall submit a current title report. Be Subdivider shall submit a duplicate mylar of the Final Map, or 8½ inch bY 11 inch transparency of each map sheet prior to final map approval and "as built" grading, landscape and improvement plans prior to certificate of acceptance. Co Subdivider shall conform to all applicable requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. (1) 1.5 The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin for all claims and liabilities arising out of the City's approval of the entitlement process for this project. · . ~ . mmmmmmmmmmmm SOURCE CODES mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION Exhibit A Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 Page 2 (1) 1.6 The applicant shall sign and return the "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form. *** 1.7 In conjunction with any future design review request for any structure on Parcel 1, all setbacks shall be equal to or greater than those depicted on the tentative parcel map; and the design of the structure shall be historic in character and consistent with the design which was previously approved by the City as Design Review 92-047. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (5) 2.1 Preparation and recordation of a final parcel map will be required. (5) 2.2 The Subdivider will be required to execute a monumentation agreement and bond to guarantee that all monuments will be set in the field per the final parcel map. (5) 2.3 In addition to the normal full size plan submittal process, all final development plans including, but not limited to: tract maps, parcel maps, right-of-way maps, record of survey, public works improvements, private infrastructure improvements, final grading plans, and site plans are also required to be submitted to the Public Works Department/Engineering Division in computer aided design and drafting (CADD) format. The acceptable formats shall be Intergraph DGN or Auto Cadd DWG file format, but in no case less than DXF file format. The City of Tustin CADD conventions shall be followed in preparing plans in CADD, and these guidelines are available from the Engineering Division. The CADDpfiles shall be submitted to the City at the time the plans are approved, and updated CADD files reflecting "as built" conditions shall be submitted once all construction has been completed. Exhibit A Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 Page 3 FEES (1) 3.~ Payment of all Final Map fees, in the amount of $1,110.00 (eleven hundred ten dollars) or as may be modified prior to submittal of the Final Map, shall be made to the Community Development Department upon submittal of the Final Map.." (1) 3.2 Prior to the issuance of building permits for any dwelling on Parcel. i, payment of park land dedication in- lieu fees, pursuant to City Code Section 9370(d) (6) shall be made to the Community Services Department. (1) 3~3 Prior to the issuance of building permits for any dwelling on Parcel 1, payment of any applicable School District f~es shall be made to the Tustin Unified School District. (1) 3.4 Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the County Clerk, in the amount of $25.00 (twenty-five dollars) to enable the City to file with the County Clerk, the appropriate environmental documentation pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. If within such forty eight (48) hour period, the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above noted check, the approval for the project granted herein shall be considered automatically null and void. In addition, should the Department of Fish and Game reject the Certificate of Fee Exemption filed with the Notice of Determination and require payment of fees, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department within forty eight (48) hours of notification, a cashier's 'check payable to the County Clerk in the amount of $850.00 (eight hundred fifty dollars) if an EIR was prepared or $1,250 (twelve hundred fifty dollars) if a Negative Declaration was prepared. If this fee is imposed, the subject project shall not be operative, vested or final unless and until the fee is paid. ATTACHMENT B CORRESPONDENCE DECEMBER 7, 1994 DONALD A. LEJEUNE 440 W. Main Street Tustin, CA, 92680 (800) t~i'/~ (Wa'l() FAX (714) 838-3{r~38 (714) 8:3~-~17 (Hc3n~) FAX (714) 838-1106 Attn: Scott · Tustin City Hall FAX # 673-3113 Dec. 7, 1994 Subject: Reason for Application of Lot Split: Our project ts a real estate venture and as such, should be financed with a real estate loan. We applied for a loan in Nov. of 1992 to construct the Queen Anne. We have a piece of comn~rclat prop_erty in Tustin that is funded under the SBA, 7a program. SBA a placed on any As with any loan, liens re residenfia/propprty owned by the borrower. As a result, the SBA has a secondary posltlon on our residential property at ~.0 W. Main. Recent losses 'in value of con'merclal properties due tO the economy has prompted the SBA, under the 7a program, to adopt regulations that will not permit a release and reconvey in escrow,.which is requir, ed for a loan. We have what is considered a mature loan (over 10 years) and have never been late on a single payment. Our credit is excellent. We appealed this ruling by the SBA and were formally denied earlier this year. For us to finance the Queen Anne, our Tax Attorney, in dealing with our bank and the ~A, agreed to release the lien on a front portion of the lot with the stipulation we obtain a lot split. The new lot willbelien free and we hope to use that value to finance the construction of the Queen Anne. Please call me If you have any questions. Thank You, Don LeJeune ATTACHMENT C CORRESPONDENCE JANUARY 24, 1995 JOAN M. LEJEUNE 440 W. Main Street Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 838-2017 (714) 838-5433 Re: Approval of LeJeune Variance for Lot-Split for historic house This letter is to better inform you of some of the basic facts regarding the petition against (appeal of) our variance for a lot-split. Hopefully this will give you a better picture of our situation. First, Mr. Jeff Thompson and Mr. Bill Collins have stated that We "are going around the law" in our pursuit of the variance. We are not. They have deliberately misled the people in our community by telling them that a sub-division (lot-split) is illegal in the historic overlay district. This was quite evident from the testimony given at the Planning Commission Heating. If other residents of the historic overlay district have property that is large enough to be split into 2' lots, each of which must have at least 10,000 sq. fi., they, too, have just as much right to request a variance for a lot-split as residents from elsewhere in Tustin. The Planning Commission and the Community Development department both approved our request because it was reasonable and within the bounds of sound planning. · There have also been statements made that may lead the people of the community to believe that the variance will lower their property value. It will not. Mr. Thompson, who is the Chairman of the Historic Overlay Committee, stated at the January 3, 1995 meeting of the City Council that "the City failed to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness". As Chairman, he should know that a certificate is not issued for a lot-split. Also, as our lot is over 28,000 sq. fi., we have one of the few lots left in this area that could be split since the minimum lot size in the overlay district is 10,000 sq. ft., so the argument that this will set a precedent is not valid. Mr. Thompson has portrayed himself as the protector of the overlay district. Yet, in spite of all his rhetoric, he has personally helped his buddy Bill Collins systematically convert a classic Victorian house (designated in the Tustin Overlay District Inventory of Historic Houses as a Class B Victorian, known as the "Snow House"), into an also-ran combination Colonial/Victorian. Not only has Mr. Thompson ignored the fact that the drastic changes to the house have been done without the required, before-mentioned Certificate of Appropriateness, but he has helped his buddy Mr. Collins perform all these changes without City approvals, building permits or inspections. This is blatantly illegal. Mr. Thompson, as the leader of the Historic Overlay Committee, has sworn to preserve and protect our historic heritage and uphold the laws of the City. Apparently when it comes to his buddy, Bill Collins, Mr. Thompson has ignored his oath. In the past Bill Collins and I have had our differences. I am concerned that because of those differences Mr. Collins has persuaded his buddy Jeff Thompson to use his position in the City to help him out again. This time, though, it is not to look the other way, it is to lie, in order to discredit our project. Unlike Mr. Collins, I have done everything the City has asked of me. This lot-split request is not unusual. It has been done elsewhere in the city. The overlay district has nothing to do with it. I question Mr. Thompson's motives and ethics again, when just two weeks ago he offered my husband a "deal". If we moved the location of the little house over 20 feet more into the center of the lot (further away from Mr. Collins' house), Mr. Thompson would drop the opposition to the lot-split. Again, we have Mr. Thompson working for his buddy Bill Collins. Note: the current proposed location is set back 10 feet from the property line, over 35 feet from the nearest structure, and last year we planted fast-growing cypress trees as a screen. I am very disturbed that Mr. Thompson, as Chairman of the Historic Overlay District, has displayed such a blatant example of selective enforcement. This is a case of misuse of power.' He has' clearly violated the trust that the city placed in him. I thank you for listening. I do hope that you will weigh all the FACTS and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Yours truly, Joan LeJeune January 24, 1995 cc: Asst. City Manager Christine Shingleton Mayor Thomas Saltareili Mayor Pro Tern Jim Ports Council Member Jeffrey Thomas Council Member Mike Doyle Council Member Tracy Worley ATTACHMENT D CORRESPONDENCE DECEMBER 28, 1994 December 28, 1994 ' 415 W. 6th Street Tustin, California 92680 Mayor Saltarelli and City Council Members City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 -- I~ECEIYELD COMMUNITY Re: Variance 94-011 for a Subdivision at 445 W, Main Street; TPM 94-149 Dear Mayor Saltarelli and City Council Members: The purpose of this letter is to request your appeal and evaluation of the variance request that was approved by the Planning Commission on December 12, 1994 for the above referenced development. A variance was granted to allow a reduction in the required street frontage width, paving the way for a subdivision in Old Town. Based on the City Municipal code, this action is considered final unless the City Council or another party appeals this matter, providing an opportunity for the City Council to reconsider the issues at a future meeting. In general, 'we applaud the City's effort in encouraging development or redevelopment in Old Town that emphasizes our historic past. However, we must be careful not promote this cause with actions that also inflicts damage to the district, that is reminiscent of the poor standards of the past.. We believe that the actions regarding the referenced development compromise important development standards which border on granting special privileges to the property owner involved and sets the stage for continued sub-standardization reflective of the past. Our concerns are enumerated as follows: 1. Financial Hardship: The planning commission verbally stated various reasons for approving the variance. It was indicated that one of the motivations for approving the subdivision was that the property owner had a financial hardship. Supposedly, if the lot could be split, the historical home could be constructed. State law is clear that variances cannot be granted based on financial hardship, since this is a personal choice.. Otherwise this would be considered a special privilege granted to an individual. 2. Property Owner Rights: A second motivating reason stated, was that the property owner has "rights". We agree that we all have rights, but we do not have a right to break the law. Variances are not rights or even privileges. A property owner does not have a right to a variance. 3. Conditions of the Past: The City staff report referenced the justification of the variance based on other substandard widths that exist in the district. Although there are frontage widths that are less than the minimum width of sixty feet, one would also find that there are lots with one of the following: · substandard areas of less than 10,000 square feet Tustin City Council Old Town Variance Page 2 · lack of street frontage so they are land locked · homes that are serviced by septic tank · homes that are serviced by aerial utilities · structures that have improper setback distances · structures that exceed maximum height requirements The list goes on. We have standards because of the mistakes of the past. Therefore it is inaccurate to refer to a nonconforming "grandfathered" use and make it a standard for a proposed development. Otherwise, there would be no purpose in having codes in developed areas; the City could just reference other existing uses. 4..Lack of Flag Lots: Presently there are no flag lots on the block. There are no flag lots that have been created in Old Town since the Historic District was created. To create a flag lot is to create an inconsistent standard, even with our poor standards of the past. 5. Creation of the Narr0west Fron~ge Lot on the B10c?; The approval of this variance creates the narrowest frontage width lot on the block and all of Main Street. Without the variance, this could be considered a substandard to a substandard. 6. ,Inconsistency with Historical Preservation Standards~ Prior to the Old Town District, our neighborhood was allowed to have mixed uses of commercial, industrial, high density residential, and subdivisions of larger lots. This type of subdivision and development activity not only contributes to blight in our area, but has slowly eradicated the culture of "Old Town~. Although the proposed subdivision and variance is small, it is not in concurrence with preserving our historical heritage. 7. Contributes to Deterioration of Property Values: All other things being equal, smaller lots reduce property values. If this proposed project were approved it would lead to the ultimate degradation of our property values. 8..Violation, of Prior Precedence- In 1986 and 1987, Ainslie Development proposed to subdivide three, nearly 20,000 square foot lots on 6th Street for 8 and then 6 homes. After the planning~commission approved this development, the city council denied this in response to concerns from local residents. Although PM 94-149 is different in some aspects, it is common in regards to the need for a subdivision variance. We believe this prior decision establishes a common precedence to den)¢ the Current proposal for PM 94- 149. 9. No Need for a Lot Line to Construct a House; 100 Years of Proof' We are very much in favor of Mr. Le Juene's desire to reconstruct a historic home On his property. Tustin City Council Old Town Variance Page 3 However, he does not need a subdivision variance to obtain his goals. In fact, over the past 100 years, seven owners on our block have constructed second homes on their lots. This precedence should not change without a changing of the code. 10. If the Code is Bad. Change It: The purpose of the code is so that we can all abide by the same rules. If it is not adequate for certain area~, please change it, so that we all may have the same reference. Based on the above reasons of law, history, welfare and incompatibility the variance should be revoked. We would appreciate being contacted by you to understand your position on our request for reconsideration. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at (714) 544-3836. Sincerely, Jeff R. Thompson 11 Huston, City Manager ristine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager Don Le Juene, Applicant for Variance 94-011 filc:miac~subdiv.002 ATTACHMENT E CORRESPONDENCE DECEMBER 31, 1994 DONALD A. LEJEUNE 440 W. Main Street Tustin, CA. 92680 (800) 597-5227 (Work) FAX (714) 838-~ (714) 838-~17 (Home) FAX (714) 838-1106 December 31, 1994 Tyr Tom Saltarelli OF 'RJSTIN 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Re: Variance 94-011 for lot split at 440 W. Main Street Dear Mayor, At the re_q, uest of Jim Potts, I am offering a written response to the letter from the I nompson's regarding their negative position on my request for alot split. Background: In 1992 if Mr. Collins had not appealed my house move, the home wOuld' have been placed on the lot .and occupied in ea. rly 1993. Howeyer it was then necessary for me to 'take the house apart (piece by p_.i..ece_) and p. ut in tempo.rary storage. In 1992 the Planning Commission and ~i~y ~ouncll approved the project based on my CLIP application. As my letter to staff indicates, I have been unable to secure a 2nd on my property because of the SBA Ioan l have on some. comn~rcial property on Walnut Ave. My Tax Attorney advi..sed _J. oan and I that_ the only way the SBA would release the lien was to spli_t off a portion ol the prope_rty. After negotiation, the SBA and Liberty National Bank agreed to release and reconvey through escrow allowing us to finance the reconstruction project, specifically for the purpose of rebuilding the Queen Anne. Responding by point to the above referenced letter, I submit: 1) Financial Hardship: '1 dispute the Statement with regard to financial h.ards.hip. While it is true this is the only way I can rebuRd the home, it is .also the most logical and prudent way to proceed for my heirs. On larger lots, the excess property is of minimal value. By splitting the lot, the value is increased, thereby allowing financing. When you put it in perspective, a.ny variance, on any property, would probably be.finan.cially beneficial to the owner. Case in point is the property on Holt, where tl~e owner stood .before the City Council and stated that with the sub-division allowing 4 homes on .83 of an acre, would allow here to better secure her future. In that case, the City Council 'overturned the Planning Commission and allowed the project. 2) Property Owner Rights: I dispute this statement.. I am not breaking the aw as stated. Any property owner, anYwhere in the City has the right to ask for a variance to improve or develop the property in a reasonable way. Variance 94-011-D. LeJeune Page 2 3) Conditions of the past: This statement is abs.urd. All over the City of Tustin accommodations have been made to homeowners to facilitate additional dwellings etc. While on the Planning Commission, I can remember many situations where setbacks and other conditions were relieved for a homeowner to accomplish a goal through the Variance process. Lack of Flag Lots: I agree that their are no flag lots on the block as r4e)ferenced. I am not requesting a variance for a block, but of Tustin as a whole. 5) Creation of the narrowest Frontage Lot On the Block: Originally I thought the lot wasgoing' to be split in half, whereby I would only need a variance for 11 feet. The lot is 109 feet wide, and I needed another 11 feet to split the lot without a variance. ~ After discu~.~Sions with .Staff, the flag lot was preferred, since we then could, avoid a curb cut on Main street and because precedent has been established for flag type lots. Inconsistency with Historical Preservation Sta. ndards: I will .be r6e) buiiding an Historic House. This statement does not deserve a response. 7) Contributes to Deterioration of Property Values: Again, a ludicrous statement. Adding a rebuilt historical house will unquestionably add to the value of the neighborhood. An invisible lot line will not decrease the value of other properties. PeriOd. Allowing Roosters, which the Thompson and Collins families initiated, within 100 feet of a residence has had a far more negative consequence to property values. 8) Violation of Prior Precedence- The mention of the Ainslie Development pro~ect to my project is ridiculous, especially when it states "Although PM 94-- 149 is different in some aspects," I bEgto differ. I have enclosed a copy of the Ainslie project and you can seeth-at it included 8 hOmes, with a cul- da-sac etc. Opposition to the Ainslie project was extensive, with over 200 Old Towne residents attending the meetings in opposition. 9) No Need for a Lot Line to Construct a House: 100 Years of Proof: Again, I am applying for the variance from the City of Tustin, and not a single block in Tustin. 10) If the Code is Bad, Change It: I am not sure what this statement is trying to convey, What Code ? Conclusion: At the Planning Commission meeting, a property lot line chart was put on display by Mr. Thompson, in theory showing the 'open space' down the rear of the lots between 6th and Main. This specific area is filled with trees and other structures already, and the reduction of so called 'open space' is not applicable to my project. Variance 94-011 D. LeJeune Page 3 I am opposed to neighbors attempting to deprive proper development. Staff has applied the same standards to this lot .s~31it as were approved with the original CLIP. This variance is project specific and I will not be allowed, no.r., d,o. IMhave an.y. int.ent!on of, building a conternp, orary home on the lot. .44u w. ain is the only lot in Old. Town.e, and in the entire city of Tustin (that I could find) that has a front lawn that can erect a house. All of the other lots in Old Towne and the rest of the City can add only to the rear of the current dwelling.. By overturning the Plannin Commission decision, this could have a serious effect on any future lot ~iivision throughout the city. I am amazed at the opposition by the Thompson and Collins families, especially since denial would potentially preclude them from increasing the value of their own properties in the future. While lam sensitive to the ne!ghbors needs (I sent a letter to all the residents within the 300 feet area), and I personally spoke to 8 other neighbors who had que~ions as a result of my letter. After discussions, no opposition was expressed. In a meeting .with Mr. Thompson he suggested I bring this matter to the Cultural Overlay committee, of which he is chairman, for approval. As a member of the Planning Commission and strong supporter of the Cultural Overlay, I agreed with Dick Edgar that the Overlay Corrrnittee NOT make a_ny corraT~nt o.r decision with regard to land .use. It is the Planning Commission, with the City Council concurrence, that is responsible for land use decisions. This project is very important to our family and I ask your concurrence with Staff and the Planning Commission to approve my project. Please call me ifyou have any questions or comments. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss the project. Sincerely, Donald A. LeJeune cc: Jim Potts- Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Thomas Mike Doyle Tracy Worley Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENT F PETITION THE SIGNATURES BELOW REPRESENT OBJECTION TO PARCEL MAP 94-t49 AND VARIANCE 94-01 1 WHICH ALLOWS A SUBSTANDARD LOT WIDTH FOR A SUBDIVISION AT 440 W. MAIN STREET. WE BELIEVE THAT THE REASONS FOR THE VARIANCE (FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER RIGHTS, AND REFERENCE TO OTHER EXISTING sUBSTANDARDS) ARE HIGH LY OBJECTIONABLE. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE UNDERSIGNED ARE NOT NECESSARILY OBJECTION THE ADDITION OF THE SECOND DWELLING STRUCTURE PLANNED FOR THE PROPERTY. SEE ATTACHED MAP FOR REFERENCE AND DETAIL, SIGNATURE NAME ADDRESS THE SIGNATURES BELOW REPRESENT OBJECTION TO PARCEL MAP 94-149 AND VARIANCE 9Z~-011 WHIC~ ALLOWS A SUBSTANDARD LOT WIDTH FOR A SUBDIVISION AT Z[Z[O W. IV~AIN STREET. WE BELIEVE THAT THE REASONS FOR THE VARIANCE (FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER RIGHTS, AND REFERENCE TO OTHER EXISTING SUBSTANDARDS) ARE HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE UNDERSIGNED ARE NOT NECESSARILY OBJECTION THE ADDITION OF THE SECOND DWELLING STRUCTURE PLANNED FOR THE PROPERTY. SEE ATTACHED MAP FOR REFERENCE AND DETAIL, SIGNATURE · NAME ADDRESS. THE SIGNATURES BELOW REPRESENT OBJECTION TO PARCEL I~IAP 94-149 AND VARIANCE 94-01 t WHICH ALLOWS A SUBSTANDARD LOT WIDTH FOR A SUBDIVISION AT 440 W. MAIN STREET. WE BELIEVE THAT THE REASONS FOR THE VARIANCE (FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, PROPERT~ OWNER RIGHTS, AND REFERENCE TO OTHER EXISTING SUBSTANDARDS) ARE HIGH LY OBJECTIONABLE. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE UNDERSIGNED ARE NOT NECESSARILY OBJECTION THE ADDITION OF THE SECOND DWELLING STRUCTURE PLANNED FOR THE PROPERTY. SEE ATTACHED MAP FOR REFERENCE AND DETAIL. SIGNATURE NAME ADDRESS .., v-o' 13. - 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. · . $ TR~£ T 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 95-01 A RESOLUTION OF~THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 94-149 AND VARIANCE 94-011 INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: A® The request to approve Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 and Variance 94-011 are considered projects pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. Be A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review. Ce Whereby, the City Council of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration. De The City Council has evaluated the proposed final Negative Declaration and determined it to be adequate and complete. II. A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The City Council, having final approval authority over Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 and Variance 94-011, has received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration, prior to approving the proposed project, and found that it adequately discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project. The City Council has found that the project involves no potential for an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and makes a De Minimis Impact Finding related to AB3158, Chapter 1206, Statutes of 1990. On the basis of the initial study and comments received during the public review process, the City Council has found that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on it in this case because mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the project which mitigate any potential significant environmental effects to a point where clearly no significant effect would occur and are identified in Exhibit A to the Negative Declaration and Initial Study and are adopted as findings 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 95-01 Page 2 and conditions of Resolution Nos. 95-02 and 95-10, incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6th day of February, 1995. Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk THOMAS R. SALTARELLI MAYOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Councillor the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 95-01 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6th day of February, 1995, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 95-10 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF VARIANCE 94-011 TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF PARCEL 2 OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 94- 149 FROM SIXTY (60) FEET TO 22 FEET AND TO INCREASE THE MAXIMIIM FENCE HEIGHT IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA OF PARCEL 2 OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 94-149 FROM THREE (3) FEET TO 6'-8" AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 440 WEST MAIN STREET, TUSTIN. The City Council.of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City,Council finds and determines as follows: A, That a proper application, Variance 94-011, has been filed by Mr. Donald A. LeJeune to reduce the minimum lot Width of Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 from sixty (60) feet to 22 feet and to increase the maximum fence height in the required front yard setback area of Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 from three (3) feet to 6'-8" on the property located at 440 West Main Street, Tustin. B , That a public hearing was duly noticed, called and held for said application on December 12, 1994 by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved Variance 94-011 by the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3314. C , That the City Council appealed the Planning Commission's Action related to Variance 94-011 on January 3, 1995. D. That a public hearing to consider the appeal was duly called, noticed and held for said appeal on February 6, 1995 by the City Council. E · The City Council has reviewed the subject request for a variance to reduce the minimum lot width and increase the maximum fence height and has'made the following findings: , Granting the variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the project is situated in that all of the other properties on the same block bounded by Main, "B", Sixth and Pacific Streets are zoned for single family residences and twelve (12) of the lots have lot widths which are less than the 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 95-10 Page 2 required sixty (60) feet. In addition, there are other residential parcels within the Cultural Resource District which function as flag lots. The increase in the allowable fence height shall not constitute a grant of special privilege in that the fencing is existing and is setback approximately 150 feet from Main Street. · There are unusual or exceptional circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the area, in that the subject property is wider and larger in area than most of the parcels in the area and has sufficient area to be divided into two (2) parcels which conform to the minimum lot size requirements specified in the City Code. Due to the flag lot configuration and shape of Parcel 2, the parcels would be deprived of fenCing that is necessary for security and safety reasons and is typical of fencing found on other properties in the area. Based on the City's definition of a front yard, the subject fencing would be located within the front yard setback area, but would function as side yard fencing or as a swimming pool barrier. The Uniform Building Code requires that swimming pools be surrounded by a barrier of at least five (5) feet in height. D , A Negative Declaration has been prepared and certified for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. II. The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's approval of Variance 94-011 to reduce the minimum lot width of Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 from sixty (60) feet to 22 feet and to increase the maximum fence height in the required front yard setback area of Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 from three (3) feet to 6'-8" on the property located at 440 West Main Street, Tustin, subject to the conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A. 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 Resolution No. 95-10 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6th day of February, 1995. Mary E. Wynn, City~ Clerk THOMAS R. SALTARELLI MAYOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 95-10 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6th day of February, 1995, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 95-10 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VARIANCE 94-011 GENERAL (1) 1.1 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in the Exhibit shall be complied with prior to City Council approval of Final Parcel Map 94-149, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.2 In the event that Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 expires, Variance 94-011 approval shall become null and void. (1) 1.3 The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin for all claims and liabilities arising out of the City ' s approval of the entitlement process for .this project. (1) 1.4 Approval of Variance 94-011 is contingent upon the applicant signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form, as established by the Director of Community Development. · , mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION 1 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~5 ~6 RESOLUTION NO. 95-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 94-149 The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I · The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That Tentative Parcel Map No. 94-149 was submitted to the City Council by Mr. Donald A LeJeune for consideration. · , Be Ce That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said map on December 12, 1994 by the Planning Commission and on January 3, 1995 by the City Council. The City Council public hearing was ~continued to February 6, 1995. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and certified for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Do So F® G· That the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan, the Tustin Municipal Code and Subdivision Map Act. That Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 would not have an impact on School District facilities. That park land dedication in-lieu fees, pursuant to City Code Section 9370(d) (6), shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for any dwelling on Parcel 1. That the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat. He I · That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements acquired by the public-at- large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. That the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Resolution No. 95-02 Page 2 II. The City Council hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 94-149, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3315 incorporated herein by reference. ' PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6th day of February, 1995. Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk THOMAS R. SALTARELLI MAYOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 95-02 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6th day of February, 1995, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk • • • JOAN M. LEJEUNE RECEIVED 440 W. Main Street Tustin, CA 92680 1 JAN 2 6 1995 (714)838-2017 ADMINISTRATION William Huston January 24, 1995 City Manager CITY OF TUSTIN 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Subject: Property at 430 W. Main Street- Collins Residence Participation in project(s) by Mr. Jeff Thompson, Chairman of the Cultural Overlay Committee Dear Mr. Huston, Ever since Mr. and Mrs. Collins moved into their residence on Main Street in the late eighties, they have made many changes etc. to the entire property, without the benefit of Permits and/or Certificates of Appropriateness, as required by the Cultural Overlay. • By copy of this letter, I am requesting that the City take action against the following potential violations: 1) Re-roofing the Garage with a metal covering. 2) Adding three (3) small structures on the rear yard (with concrete foundations). 3) Adding Electricity service to the garage. 4) Adding a storage shed on the rear of the garage that is built on the property line, without the 5 feet setback as required on new construction. 5) Major changes to the rear of the main structure, 2nd floor. Removal of rear upper porch and stairway. Removal of windows, a door etc. 6) Re-roofing the rear of the 1st story structure. 7) Current construction project recently completed included the following renovations: a) New foundation, with heavy timbers added & extensive concrete work. Possibly the addition of a cellar. b) Substantial interior renovation, which included the removal of plaster • from the upstairs front rooms. A large fan was installed blowing dust particles • • • Refrence: Collins Property Page 2 across the front lawn. Did the Collins check for asbestos content? I am assuming new electrical work was also done with the replastering of the walls. c) Adding electric service to the front porch ceiling and the addition of exterior lights on each side of the porch. d) Most Important: A major renovation of the house itself without the benefit of a Certificate. 8) Since early summer, Mr. Collins has placed a yellow/green storage container in the driveway, clearly visible to the street. Does such a container require a Temporary Use Permit ? I feel that Mr. and Mrs. Collins have continually stuck their noses up at the City, the Cultural Overlay requirements and the citizens of Tustin. I ask that the City now take action against the above mentioned potential violations. In addition, the Chairman of the Cultural Overlay Committee, Mr. Jeff Thompson has been actively participating in the reconstruction project over the past 8 months with his buddy Mr. Collins. I specifically remember Mr. Thompson assisting with the removal of the porch roof. I'm sure Mr. Thompson was aware that no permits and/or certificates were obtained. I think this is a serious • misjudgment and dereliction of duty on the part of an appointed official who's specific purpose is to do everything possible to protect all aspects of the Cultural Overlay rules and regulations. This obligation should transcend friendship. erely, /� / Ci /loan M. LeJeune cc: Asst. City Manager Christine Shingleton Mayor Thomas Saltarelli Mayor Pro Tern Jim Potts Council Member Jeffrey Thomas Council Member Mike Doyle Council Member Tracy Worley 1111 • • JOAN M. LEJEUNE 440 W. Main Street • Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 838-2017 (714) 838-5433 Re: Approval of LeJeune Variance for Lot-Split for historic house This letter is to better inform you of some of the basic facts regarding the petition against(appeal of) our variance for a lot-split. Hopefully this will give you a better picture of our situation. First, Mr. Jeff Thompson and Mr. Bill Collins have stated that we "are going around the law" in our pursuit of the variance. We are not. They have deliberately misled the people in our community by telling them that a sub-division (lot-split) is illegal in the historic overlay district. This was quite evident from the testimony given at the Planning Commission Hearing. If other residents of the historic overlay district have property that is large enough to be split into 2 lots, each of which must have at least 10,000 sq. ft., they , too, have just as much right to request a variance for a lot-split as residents from elsewhere in Tustin. The Planning Commission and the Community Development department both approved our request because it was reasonable and within the bounds of sound planning. • There have also been statements made that may lead the people of the community to believe that the variance will lower their property value. It will not. Mr. Thompson, who is the Chairman of the Historic Overlay Committee, stated at the January 3, 1995 meeting of the City Council that"the City failed to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness". As Chairman, he should know that a certificate is not issued for a lot-split. Also, as our lot is over 28,000 sq. ft., we have one of the few lots left in this area that could be split since the minimum lot size in the overlay district is 10,000 sq. ft., so the argument that this will set a precedent is not valid. Mr. Thompson has portrayed himself as the protector of the overlay district. Yet, in spite of all his rhetoric, he has personally helped his buddy Bill Collins systematically convert a classic Victorian house (designated in the Tustin Overlay District Inventory of Historic Houses as a Class B Victorian, known as the "Snow House"), into an also-ran combination ColonialNictorian. Not only has Mr. Thompson ignored the fact that the drastic changes to the house have been done without the required, before-mentioned Certificate of Appropriateness, but he has helped his buddy Mr. Collins perform all these changes without City approvals, building permits or inspections. This is blatantly illegal. Mr. Thompson, as the leader of the Historic Overlay Committee, has sworn to preserve and protect our historic heritage and uphold the laws of the City. Apparently when it comes to his buddy, Bill Collins, Mr. Thompson has ignored his oath. • • In the past Bill Collins and I have had our differences. I am concerned that because of those differences Mr. Collins has persuaded his buddy Jeff Thompson to use his position in the City to help him out again. This time, though, it is not to look the other way, it is to lie, in order to discredit our project. Unlike Mr. Collins, I have done everything the City has asked of me. This lot-split request is not unusual. It has been done elsewhere in the city. The overlay district has nothing to do with it. I question Mr. Thompson's motives and ethics again, when just two weeks ago he offered my husband a"deal". If we moved the location of the little house over 20 feet more into the center of the lot (further away from Mr. Collins' house), Mr. Thompson would drop the opposition to the lot-split. Again, we have Mr. Thompson working for his buddy Bill Collins. Note: the current proposed location is set back 10 feet from the property line, over 35 feet from the nearest structure, and last year we planted fast-growing cypress trees as a screen. I am very disturbed that Mr. Thompson, as Chairman of the Historic Overlay District, has displayed such a blatant example of selective enforcement. This is a case of misuse of power. He has clearly violated the trust that the city placed in him. I thank you for listening. I do hope that you will weigh all the FACTS and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Yours truly, Joan LeJeune January 24, 1995 cc: Asst. City Manager Christine Shingleton Mayor Thomas Saltarelli Mayor Pro Tern Jim Potts Council Member Jeffrey Thomas Council Member Mike Doyle Council Member Tracy Worley •