Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-09-85 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COI~ISSIOM REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 9, 1985 CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY SESSION Present: Well, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy, White Ed Knight, Jeff Davis, Irvtne Company representatives, public Ed Knight made an oral presentation with questions and answers following. session adjourned at 6:20 p.m. 7:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL: The study Present: Well, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy, White Staff: Ed Knight, Jeff Davis, Laura Pickup, Donna Orr, Suzanne Atkins, All Bell and Mark Brodeur from The Planning Center. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting November 25, 1985. Puckett moved, White seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-6 Applicant: Action: Presentation: Motion carried 5-0. Initiated by the Planning Commission Recommend to the City Council to amend the City of Tustin Code as it relates to the Professional Office and Industrial Districts to allow school and instructional uses subject to conditional use permits. Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Puckett moved, White seconded to approve Resolution No. 2283 recommending to the City Council adoption of ZOA 85-6. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner White questioned the parking standards and the allottment for parents visiting the school or dropping off students. Jeff Davis explained that all other similar type schools are parked the same way as recommended. Chair Wetl opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak, she closed the hearing at 7:36 p.m. Minutes December 9, 1985 page two PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) 3. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-7 Applicant: Action: Presentation: Initiated by the City Council Recommend to the City Council to amend the City of Tustin Code as it relates to office parking standards in all applicable zones. Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Chair Wetl opened the hearing at 7:43 p.m. Seeing no one to speak she closed the hearing at 7:43 p.m. Commissioner White requested Jeff Davis summarize Table I of his staff report dated December 9, 1985 and what changes were made. Commissioner Baker questioned the affect on Carver Development. Jeff Davis responded there would be no affect because the Carver project was previously approved. Puckett moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2284 recommending to the City Council approval of ~OA 85-7. Motion carried 5-0. 4. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-8 Applicant: Action: Initiated by the Planning Commission Recommend to the City Council to amend the City Code prohibiting the construction and/or operation of toxic waste transfer stations within the city. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Chair Wetl opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak she closed the hearing at 7:45 p.m. Chair Wetl added her support to this amendment. She commented that Tusttn is very small and has homes and schools close to industrial areas. Toxic materials represent too much of a threat to the health, safety and welfare of our community. Puckett moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution 2285 recommending to the City Council approval of ZOA 85-8. Motion carried 5-0. 5. USE PERMIT 85-28 Applicant: Location: Request: George Hlllyard on behalf of Mobil Oil Corporation 17241 Irvine Blvd. To convert an existing 167 square foot sales area to a mini-market. Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner Chair Wetl opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Commission discussion ensued as follows: Minutes December 9, 1985 page three Commissioner Baker questioned the necessity for a IO' dedication. Laura Ptckup responded that the requirement ts part of the clty's master plan of arterial highways. Commissioner White questioned the outcome of the preservation of development standards for the dedication of arterial highways. Ed Knight responded there has been no decision to date. The following people from the audience spoke: George Htllyard representing Mobil Oil Corporation clarified they are not interested in selling alcoholic beverages. He did request relief from the 10' dedication requirement. He explained they don't own the property and so they don't have the right to dedicate the 10'. The outside pump island is 23' from the street; if the 10' were dedicated they would lose the use of that island. Seeing no one further wishing speak, Chair Wetl closed the hearing at 7:55 p.m. Chair Wetl asked the applicant how close his business is to the 55 freeway. He responded his station is located on the corner of the Irvine Blvd. on-ramp. Chair Well clarified the chances of widening Irvine Blvd. in that area are very slim due to the extensive bridge work that would be involved. Laura Pickup explained the City Council could waive the 10' dedication if they felt it appropriate. Mr. Hillyard could appeal the Planning Commission's decision thereby bringing it before the Council. Commissioner White agreed with staff's recommendation and felt this was a matter for the City Council to decide. Commissioner McCarthy recommended this go to the City Council. Puckett moved, White seconded to approve UP 85-28 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2287 which includes the 10' dedication requirement. Motion carried 5-0. 6. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-9 Applicant: Action: Initiated by the City Attorney Recommend to the City Council to amend the City Code to require a Conditional Use Permit for Fortune Telling businesses. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner Chair Wetl opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak, she closed the hearing at 8:05 p.m. Commissioner Puckett commented he did not like the idea of passing an ordinance permitting fortune telling in Tusttn. Commissioner White questioned if a Conditional Use Permit would be required. Jeff Davis responded affirmatively. Minutes December 9, 1985 page four Chair Weil commented that she contacted the Police Department for their views on this ordinance. The Police Department stated there are many legitimate fortune telling businesses, but they will observe the situation and take appropriate action. Baker moved, McCarthy seconded to adopt Resolution 2286 recommending approval of ZOA 85-9 to the City Council . Motion carried 4-1, Puckett opposed. 7. FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN Applicant: Action: Initiated by the City Council Recommend to the City Council adoption of the First Street Specific Plan. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner A1 Bell, associate with The Planning Center, highlighted the exhibits presented. The basis of the plan is to preserve what is good, to improve what needs improvement and to stimulate economic growth. 1) The decision to change remains with the property owner; the decision for the quality of the plan is with the city. Quality is defined by projects that are consistent with the uses specified in the regulations of the plan; projects that conform with the development standards will be projects that utilize the design guidelines. 2) Physical determinants: parcel size; current use relationship to other parcels; potential for the expansion of the use; access opportunities and limitations; feasibility of achieving adequate parking on the site or adjacent; location preferences; arterial and freeway exposure. Overall conclusion: There is significant interest in the future development and getting the greater use out of the area while preserving friendly atmosphere. The primary uses recommended contain requirements and incentives. Incentives: lot consolidation, mixed use, consolidation for parking; responding to use objectives or eliminating constraints. Mixed use incentives require that the first floor remain commercial where the second floor is office. Design guidelines (requirements): intend to convey the physical character expected in the First Street corridor. The plan attempts to expand the existing quality of the area. The following people from the audience spoke: Patrick Ryan, 17892 Irvine Blvd., questioned if this is leading to formulating a guideline for the improvement of First Street. He further was concerned with a strip center where one suite changed uses; what would happen to the other 3 businesses. H. Victor Eastman, 661W. First, protested parking lot design: Tusttn has the worst parking design especially with planters. Suggested no tree wells, walkways without trees and rear parking lots with landscaping. Harry Gates, 450 W. First, believed the new changes more restrictive than originally approved on his project: 15' setback. He expressed concern with the increasing traffic hazards caused by landscaping left turn lanes (Page IV-31). Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chair Well closed the hearing at 9:30 p.m. Minutes December 9, 1985 page fi ve Further Commission ensued with questions and answer of staff and the representatives from the Planning Center. Topics included, parking, primary and secondary uses on parcels, pedestrian area guidelines and restrictions, and impacts on existing uses. Following is a summary of recommended amendments to the First Street Specific Plan: Page III-22, amend #2 Administrative Review as follows: ADD design guidelines. . . Any project having development plans approved by building permit issuance or land use permit prior to the adoption of this specific plan shall remain approved without amendment. Any Primary Use project proposed in the specific plan area shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission as an information item. Page III-11, amend b. on top of page as follows: and replace with 2 story, 28 feet. DELETE 3 story, 38 feet 3. Page III-11, amend d. DELETE reference to 3rd story - 32 feet. Page IV-11, Materials Palette, ADD "pale pastel colors" to the 3rd column for walls color. e Page IV-19, ADD a design guideline for signs which states, "all buildings using rear parking lots shall clearly identify their businesses with rear wall signage. All structures shall exhibit clear address information on the front facade. (Recommended guideline: Minimum address number size shall be 6" for a 1 story building and 10" for a 2 story building.) For night identification the numbers shall be internally or externally lighted. Otherwise all signing shall comply with the Tusttn Sign Code. e Page IV-28, on bus stops ADD that clear plexiglass may be added to the walls in order to block winds. 7. Page IV-4 DELETE the right column guideline and replace with the following: Utilize the front setback area in one of the following manners. The front setback may either be entirely landscaped (in conformance with the landscape guidelines) or made into a pedestrian plaza, utilizing interlocking pavers as a base material, pedestrian level lighting and a minimum of 15% landscaped area. Page III-3, number 2, ADD to the end of the sentence, "this shall not preclude pedestrian arcades or awnings from encroaching into the front yard setback area." e Page III-2, ADD triple asterisks after Planning units numbered 2-1, 2-5, 2-6 and add a note at bottom of page which states, "***these properties shall receive design review by Planning Commission regardless of Primary Use or Secondary Use. The area shall exhibit a strong pedestrian emphasis. 11. Page IV-15. ADD a design guideline for parking which states, "the parking area should be designed in a manner which links the building to street sidewalk system as an extension of the pedestrian environment. This can be accomplished by using design features such as walkways with enhanced paving, trellis structures, and/or landscaping treatment. Mi nutes December 9, 1985 page si x 11. Page II-9 ADD a number 8 to read as follows: 8. Incentives for Plan Administration Issue: What city assistance can be provided to encourage expedtant implementation of this Plan. GOALS: To encourage rapid rehabilitation of non-conforming structures and uses. OBJECTIVES: 8.1 Rehabilitation of facades {including signage) of existing structures to comply with design guidelines of this plan. 8.2 Improve vehicular inter-site circulation. 8.3 Maximization of pedestrian movement and access. POLICY: 1. To make available to property owners, where possible, funding from the redevelopment agency or other appropriate sources for rehabilitation. McCarthy moved, White seconded to recommend to the City Council adoption of the First Street Specific Plan by the adoption of Resolution No. 2288 with the amendments discussed during the course of the public hearing and outlined above. Motion carried 5-0. AIX~INISTRATIVE MATTERS Old Business None. New Business None. STAFF CONCERNS 8. Oral Report on Council actions of December 2, 1985. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Mi nutes December 9, 1985 page 7 COIINISSION CONCERNS McCarthy questioned the status of Bryan Avenue striping study to designate four lanes and left turns between Browning and Newport Avenue. Baker requested the status of the culvert on Bryan (East Tustin). Puckett wondered if there are any fortune telling businesses presently in Tusttn. AD~OURIINENT McCarthy moved, Baker seconded to adjourn at 10:25 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on December 23, 1985 for a study session on East Tustin Specific Plan. The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will follow. Motion carried 5-0. .~~OR~, Recor~ding Se~cretary KATH~' ~EIL~ Chairman