Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC Minutes 4-28-03MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- 7:00 P.M. ITEM #1 7:05 p.m. Given Jennings absent Staff present None Approved Continued to May 12, 2003, Planning Commission meeting 7:06 p.m. Reekstin Nielsen APRIL 28, 2003 CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Doug Holland, Assistant City Attorney Scott Reekstin, Senior Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR . APPROVAL OF MINUTES- APRIL 14, 2003, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. It was moved by Amante, seconded by Menard, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING 2. CODE AMENDMENT 03-003 (SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS) TO IMPOSE STANDARDS ON SECOND UNITS. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and continue the public hearing for Code Amendment 03-003 to the May 12, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. The Public Hearing opened. Presented the staff report; and, requested that the item be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting to allow for additional public hearing noticing. Asked if a second unit could be added vertically. Minutes- Planning Commission 4-28-03 - Page I Reekstin Nielsen Reekstin Pontious Director Holland Director Menard Reekstin Menard Reekstin Menard Reekstin Responded that a second unit could be added as a second floor or two-story addition attached to the back of a single- or two- story structure. Asked for the meaning of 9271 bb, referred to in the staff report. Stated 9271bb is a section regarding widths of driveways and prevents the paving over entire front yards. Asked if there is an appeal provision when an applicant receives an unsatisfactory ministerial review. Answered in the affirmative. Added there is a general appeal section provided under the Zoning Ordinance; the problem is that if a denial is appealed, there would be a much tougher standard in regard to whether or not that appeal could be granted; in this case, it would be the abuse of discretion standard; as long as the Director had correctly applied the limited criteria, there would not be a basis for the appeal; also, if someone came in with an application for something that deviated from one of the standards, such as two covered parking spaces, the applicant would need a variance. Added that a variance would place such an application within the discretionary review category. Asked if all the existing zoning designations would remain the same. Answered in the affirmative. Asked what the maximum lot coverage for the second unit is based upon; for example, does 30 percent of the rear yard and 30 percent of the side yard mean the entire lot. Stated the 30 percent is based upon the area from the rear of the existing structure to the back property line, to ensure that some rear yard is maintained; added it can be confusing because there are also percentages of total lot area for total coverage of structures and separate standards for coverage in the rear yard only; the side yard was included to allow for generous side yards such as those in pie-shaped lots; the goal is for some side yard and some rear yard to be maintained as open. Asked how this affects the Overlay District in Old Town. Stated it will still apply to lots in Old Town. Minutes - Planning Commission 4-28-03- Page 2 Menard Reekstin Pontious Director Amante Holland Amante Holland Amante Reekstin Amante Reekstin Asked if an R-1 lot in Old Town with a duplex behind or garage apartments that are not in conformance now and were built before the zoning map was laid out would be impacted by this change. Stated that this situation is addressed by the definition of second residential unit which is: "A building or portion thereof designed for residential occupancy on a lot developed with a legal conforming [emphasis added] single-family dwelling." Suggested that those lots not presently in conformance would be required to make changes to be in compliance. Indicated such sites could be brought into conformity if they met the standards. Asked the Assistant City Attorney to explain the change from owner occupancy requirements to non-owner occupancy and why that applies in the conditions being considered. Distributed a copy of Assembly Bill 1866, which is incorporated herein by reference, and provided the associated background. Suggested the standards were appropriate. Responded in the affirmative; and, added there are approximately 100 lots that would be allowed to take advantage of this ministerial approach to the ordinance. Asked for clarification regarding the 10 percent of total lot width for the side yard setback for attached as opposed to detached second units, suggesting there is the ability to pick the more stringent of those to assure enough setback. Stated that is the case with the existing standards, but the proposed ordinance would not do it that way and would make it more standardized. Asked when the primary dwelling is set farther back on the lot and the proposal is to build a second unit close to the street, what standards would apply and what happens with entrances on the existing rear parcel. Indicated a development standard that provides: "When the primary single-family dwelling would conform to the development standards normally applicable to second residential units and the second residential unit is built between the primary single-family dwelling and the front property line, the second residential unit shall be subject to the development Minutes - Planning Commission 4-28-03 - Page 3 standards normally applicable to the primary single-family dwelling." Therefore, the roles are switched and the primary dwelling at the rear would have to have the garage setback and have an entrance that would not be visible; at some point, no one would know which dwelling came first. Amante Asked if that would still go through the ministerial process, per the new code amendment. Staff Replied in the affirmative. Holland Referred to a Commissioner's mention of a "second lot"; staff is not advocating, supporting, or recommending a "second lot" which would allow for any subdivision; the proposal is for one lot on which two units would be located. Pontious Asked what area of Tustin, other than Old Town, would be included within the 100 lots referred to. Reekstin Referred to the neighborhoods zoned E-4 (Estate Residential) and perhaps some lots throughout the City that are pie-shaped on a cul-de-sac that could be R-l; staff did not measure all the lots, but some might qualify. Holland Stated that if the City is successful in consolidating some of its boundaries, there are also lots in the unincorporated County area to which this ordinance could apply. Director Suggested there could be a side benefit to this code amendment; the recent Housing Element Update did not allow second units to qualify as affordable housing; in the next Update these units will be countable. Menard Suggested that when occupants come in to put a second unit on a lot, they should be forewarned that a second unit changes the ability to obtain a home equity loan; most banks and financial institutions will base a loan on 100 percent of the value of the home; whenever there are dual units on a single lot, that figure is reduced to 75 percent. Amante Asked if there is a risk that at some point the Legislature will state the standards being set by code amendment mean there can be no discretion at some future point to revisit the standards and say they are not functioning well and need to be changed. Holland Remarked that the creativity of the State regarding legislation provides no guarantees as to what might happen; at least this legislation recognizes that local agencies have a degree of local control in dealing with local land use issues; if a problem is Minutes - Planning Commission 4-28-03 - Page 4 Amante Nielsen Director Nielsen Director Pontious Brett Floyd, 12433 Sebastian Place Pontious Mr. Floyd Director perceived with these units, we have the ability to come back, address it, and make appropriate changes in order to deal with those problems and issues under the current set of laws. Stated that the amendment seems balanced and accounts for parking impacts and traffic and maintains the kind of quality regarding the appearance of the community that the City seeks; his concern is that Sacramento has a tendency not to care about issues that may be important locally; Old Town will be the most impacted by this amendment, and the City should be allowed to do its own planning. Asked if there will be a financial impact to the City as a result of this amendment. Answered that individuals who come through will need to pay the appropriate plancheck fees and associated costs; if individuals improve their lots, they will pay property taxes based on the associated property values; there can be a potential increase for services; as densities go up, services go up; it is not anticipated there will be rush of these requests; people in single-family districts want to maintain the single-family nature of the districts; there may be people who take advantage of the second units, however, their intended use, as Mr. Holland suggested, would be for elderly parents, not as rental units for income; they can be used for that, however, and if areas become overly dense, the City will have to respond accordingly. Asked if parking monitoring will take place in these areas that have an abundance of second units to indicate how circulation is being influenced in those neighborhoods. Answered in the affirmative. Invited the public to the lectern. Asked if the amendment applies only to owner occupied units in applying for a second unit, or would a non-owner occupied single- family residence apply. Suggested he was asking if both units could be rentals. Answered in the affirmative; and, asked if an owner does not occupy the primary residence, can that owner apply for a second unit. Stated that an owner of a piece of property can request a second unit whether or not that owner lives on the property. Minutes - Planning Commission 4-28-03 - Page 5 None Director reported Menard Staff Nielsen Director Menard Amante It was moved by Amante, seconded by Nielsen, to continue this item to the May 12, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS , REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE APRIL 21, 2003, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. The City Council conducted a Public Hearing regarding the use of the Community Development Block Grant funds for Fiscal Year 2003-04; staff will be preparing the One-Year Action Plan and submitting it to HUD in early May. Staff presented the Katherine Spur report to the City Council; the Council provided minor direction regarding alternatives; after more research, the matter will be brought before the Planning Commission. Reported that the Arco station at the corner of Red Hill and San Juan is being demolished; staff has received no development plans for that site. Asked if the station is part of the shopping center. Responded the station is on a separate lot. COMMISSION CONCERNS Asked the status of the plans for the project at the former Ralphs shopping center at Red Hill and Walnut. Indicated she met with the owners about two and one-half months ago and was told the new Korean market with an internal food court, a bank, and other internal services should be operational by mid-summer; several internal improvements were necessary. None Indicated the Easter Egg Hunt was enjoyable and well-attended. Thanked Brett Floyd for bringing his Segway to the meeting for the Commission and staff to enjoy. Reminded everyone to attend the Chili Cook-Off on June 1't Minutes - Planning Commission 4-28-03 - Page 6 Stated he attended a recent meeting of the Orange County Transportation Authority; and, voiced his concern regarding the OCTA's proposal to expedite the construction of CenterLine at a cost of $1.2 billion. Pontious None 7:47 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Monday, May 12, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes - Planning Commission 4-28-03 - Page 7