Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-24-76MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION May 24, 1976 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the twenty-fourth day of May, 1976, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., of said day in the Council Chambers, City IIall, Centennial Way at Main, Tustin, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Robbins. INVOCATION was given by Commissioner McHarris. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Hill, McHarris, Robbins Commissioner Lathrop arrived at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Glenn arrived at 8:00 p.m. Absent: Commissioners: None Others Present: R. Kenneth Fleagle, Assistant City Administrator, Community Development Director Scott Nichols, City Attorney's office Mary Ann Chamberlain, Planning Commission Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by McHarris, seconded by Robbins that the Minutes of the May 10, 1976 meeting be approved a~ amended. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0 (Commissioners Glenn and Lathrop absent) PUBLIC HEARINGS Use Permit 76-12 - Insta-Gas, Inc. to authorize the operation of a service an~ tune-up station on a presently abandoned ser- vice station site located on the westerly side of Newport Ave., northerly of Irvine Boulevard. (Commissioner Lathrop arrived at 7:40 p.m.) After a summary of the staff report by Dr. Fleagle, the public hearing was opened at 7:42 p.m. Mr. James Crowl of Insta-Gas, Inc., stated that he had received staff's recommendations and had questions regarding the curbs, side- walks, streetlights, etc. Dr. Fleagle suggested that the hearing be continued until the next regular meeting to give the applicant a chance to discuss the above matters with the City Engineer. It was moved by Lathrop, seconded by McHarris to continue Use Permit 76-12 as an open public hea~ing Until the next regular meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 (Commissioner Glenn absent) Parkland Dedication Ordinance No. 635 - Amend the existing ordinance (No. 635) to include section 6 (a), Section 8 (d) and add Section 8 (f). Dr. Fleagle presented the staff report and informed the Commission that the first change is a technical change to bring our standards up from 2% acres per 1,000 population to 4 acres per 1,000 which is a fairly uniform standard among the adjacent cities. The second and third changes are amenities to meet specific recreation and Dark needs of future residents. PC Minutes 5-24-76, Page 2 The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Seeing and hearing no one it was moved by McHarris, and seconded by Lathrop to close the public hearing at 7:51 p.m. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 (Commissioner Glenn absent) After some discussion among the Commissioners, it was moved by McHarris, seconded by Lathrop that Resolution No. 1516 be adopted which recommends to the City Council the following amendments to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance No. 635: 1. Section 6a w Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre Persons Per Dwelling Unit Park Land Acres Per Dwelling Unit up to 6.5 3.75 .015 6.6 to 15.5 3.20 .0128 15.6 to 25.5 2.10 .0084 25.6 and up 1.90 .0076 Section 8, paragraph (d) to be amended to include, following the word access - "including provisions for bicyclists." The following paragraph would be added to Section 8. for Private (Parks and Recreation) Open Space: Credit "(f) That the area for which credit is granted shall be a minimum of two acres and provide at least five of the local park basic elements listed below or a combination of such and other recreational improvements that will meet the specific recreation-park needs of the future residents of the project: 1. Children's play apparatus area 2. Landscape park-hike and quiet area 3. Family picnic area 4. Game court area (basketball, volleyball, tennis) (9.600 sq. ft. minimum) 5. Turf playfield (180' x 240' minimum) 6. Swimming pool (30' x 60' minimum pool size) 7. Recreation center building (1,200 sa. ft. minimum) 8. Jogging (par) course or a suitable pathway for jogging Areas less than 2.0 acres may receive some credit on a pro- rated basis, provided at least four of the above elements are included. (Commissioner Glenn arrived at 8:00 p.m.) MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 OLD BUSINESS 1. Use Permit 76-10 - Manny's Restaurant located at 17231 17th St. Moved by Robbins, seconded by Lathrop to approve Use Permit 76-10 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1514. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 2. Annexation No. 96 - 17th Street - Laurinda Way Moved by McHarris, seconded by Lathrop to recommend approval of Annexation No. 96 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1515. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PC Minutes 5-24-76, Page 3 NEW BUSINESS Tentative Tract 9387 - Village Homes, Creation of a six lot subdivision consisting of four lots for immediate single family residential construction. Location: The northwesterly corner of Yorba Street and Laurie Lane. Commissioner McHarris questioned 2 b, o, and p of Resolution No. 1512. Dr. Fleagle responded in reference to 2 (b) that a corner cut off has to be provided for proper sight visibility. In reference to 2 (o), Dr. Fleagle explained that all the existing curb cuts would have to be closed and lots one and two would gain access from Laurie Lane. In reference to 2 (p) for perimeter walls, Dr. Fleagle stated that lots one and three would be authorized a 5' side yard setback for the Laurie Lane side yards and lots five and six would have the authority to fence the orchard side not closer than 5' to the pro- perty line. Chairman Hill stated that he felt uneasy about some matters of this tract and felt the Commission should adjourn to a work shop session for this tract. The Commission adjourned to a workshop session at 8:10 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 8:25 p.m. Moved by McHarris, seconded by Lathrop to recommend approval of Tentative Tract No. 9387 to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 1512. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 Orange County General Plan Amendment, Land Use Element 76-1 and Circulation Element 76-1. Circulation Element 76-1 Dr. Flea~le informed the Commission that the Council had met earlier today and instructed staff to represent the City at the County Planning Commission meeting and all other meetings pertaining to the SEOCCS study with the following position: The City of Tustin is unalterably opposed to the upgrading or use of Irvine Blvd. as a major arterial for anything other than locally generated traffic. In this regard, the City will take all steps necessary to prevent the use of Irvine Blvd. as a major arterial highway. The staff is instructed to develop courses of action that prohibit the use of Irvine Blvd. in the aforesaid manner. The City of Tustin is in favor of a transportation corridor in the northern part of the County. The imminent growth under any of the alternatives cited in the SEOCCS study necessitates the construction of a northern County transpor- tation corridor. A depicted location of the foothill corri- dor is not essential to the actual implementation of this corridor except that such a corridor should be installed no further south than that depicted location, and effort should be made to relocate that further northerly so as to mitigate the impact on any of the communities and existing residential uses. PC Minutes 5-24-76, Page 4 The City does not recognize any alternative submitted in the SEOCCS study as being acceptable and is opposed to the implementation of any portions of the changes recommended by the SEOCCS study until such time as the NEOCCS study is completed and appropriate coordination between the necessary transportation corridors has been achieved. After some discussion among the Commission regarding the four alter- natives for the Circulation study, it was moved by Lathrop, seconded by Robbins that the Commission is gravely concerned about the circu- lation problems in Orange County and concur with the City Council on their findings. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 Land Use Amendment 76-1 (Item 3) Broadmoor Property consideration of a change in land use from (4.2) Quasi-Public Facility to (1.42) High Density Residential for a parcel in unincorporated County island located on Main St. as it adjoins the City of Tustin at the intersection of the Santa Ana and Newport Freeways consisting of 7.4 acres. Dr. Fleagle presented background and stated that the owner in escrow has petitioned the Local Agency Formation Commission for annexation to the City of Tustin. The Commission took no action on this item. b. (Item 8) Panorama Heights Location - Panorama /{eights hill area in North Tustin foothills adjacent to the City of Orange. Dr. Fleagle presented background and recommendation of Orange County Planning Staff for relocation of the existing land use element desig- nation of medium density residential and other open space. The Commission took no action on this item. c. (Item 9) Red Hill Item 9 pertains to the Red Hill area in the North Tustin area bounded on the southwest by La Colina Avenue, on the southeast by Browning Avenue, and north by Sky Line Drive. This area is proposed for development and has an existing land use desig- nation of low density residential with zoning at 125-E4-20,000. The Planning Department of the County of Orange has recommended that the existing land use element designation of low density residential at 1 dwelling unit per acre be retained for the subject property and that such time as development is proposed for the area, that the development plans retain the natural rock out croppings by minimizing grading and land form alter- ations. Dr. Fleagle presented the staff report and stated that staff concurs with the Orange County Environmental Management Agency that the Red Hill should be identified as a historical sight and the hill be re- tained in private ownership. After some discussion among the Commission, it was moved by McHarris, seconded by Lathrop, that the Red Hill does have a significant histor- ical relationship to the Tustin Area, and that correspondence be di- rected to the Orange County Environmental Management Agency recom- mending that the designation of low density residential be retained for the area and the development plans retain the natural rock out croppings by minimizing grading and land form alterations. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PC Minutes 5-24-76, Page 5 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mr. James Kierstyn, 17411 Irvine Boulevard (regarding NEOCCS and SEOCCS) suggested that they try to fih~'a feasible solution where the Foothill corridor could be placed as not to disrupt the many fine homes in the Tustin area. Mr. Kierstyn and the Commission also discussed the possibility of scheduling a workshop with repre- sentatives of the Foothill Communities Association in an effort to find a solution to the transportation need that will mitigate the impact on both communities. CORRESPONDENCE - None STAFF CONCERNS - None COMMISSION CONCERNS 1. Si~n Code The Commission discussed Commissioner Robbins' memo regarding the sign code and further revisions. The City Attorney's office was directed to research the matter of how much control can be used on signs on the public right-of-way. This matter was deferred pending further information from the City Attorney's office. 2. Bike Paths After some discussion regarding Bicycle Paths and licensing of bicycles, it was moved by Hill, seconded by Glenn to appoint Commissioner Lathrop as the representative from the Planning Com- mission to the "Bicycle Trails Committee". 3. Community Building Commissioner Glenn suggested that the Parks and Recreation Department be notified of official City meetings on Monday evenings and not schedule events in the Community building which would conflict with the City Meetings. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Lathro~, seconded by Hill that the meeting be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. to the next regular meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 CHAIRMAN¢OF THE PLANNING ~OMMISS~ON