Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-22-75 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION September 22, 1975 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the twenty-second day of September, 1975, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., of said day, in the Council Chambers, City IIall, Centennial at Main, Tustin, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Kennedy. INVOCATION was given by Commissioner Sucher. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: McHarris, Hill, Kennedy, Sucher, Shambeck Absent: Commissioners: None Others Present: R. Kenneth Fleagle, Assistant City Administrator- Community Development Director, Scott Nichols, City Attorney's Office Bruce Lenorovitz, Assistant Planning Director Moved by Shambeck, seconded b~ Sucher that the minutes of September 22, 1975, be approved. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS Use Permit 75-21 on application of the Gulf Oil Company a use permit to authorize the conversion of an existing service station to self-serve, located at 101 North Tustin Avenue. Mr. Lenorovitz presented the staff report and recommended approval of the Use Permit subject to the conditions of Resolution No. 1466 as drafted. The public hearing was opened by the Chairman at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Armando Morales, 2322 West Third Street, Los Angeles, spoke in favor of the application. The proposed signing for the site consists of one sign containing price information, station identification, and the description of the self-service operations. He requested approval of a sign 22 feet high, 6 foot by 12 foot. The sign proposed would have a blue border, white background and black letters. Mr. Morales further expressed preference for sheet metal rather than wood exterior finish. "Go-lo" is a subsidiary of the Gulf Oil Company. Mr. Wilfred Banikhin, 961 Lamark Lane, Anaheim, representing the Gulf Oil Company, stated that Gulf Oil does have some ground base signs, but they are only identification signs, and price signs are in addition to the ground base signs. The price signs are four by five feet in size if separate from the identification sign. A monument sign could be installed, but the company desires the most effective signing which would be, in their opinion, the pole sign. The lub- rication bays will be closed at the station and not rented for mechanic~ operations. The public hearing was closed by Chairman McHarris at 8:10 p.m. Commissioner Hill moved the approval of Resolution No. 1466 as drafted. And if other signing is necessary other than that which is authorized by code, it would be subject of a separate application. Seconded by Shambeck. PC Minutes 9/22/75 - Page 2 Chairman McHarris stated he would endorse a monument sign in preference to a pole sign for this particular site and moved an amendment to the motion to authorize a ground base sign in lieu of pqle sign, not to exceed 32 square feet ~nd-~ foo~' maxfmum heigh't. Sucher seconded. Ayes: Sucher, McIlarris. Noes: Amended motion failed to carry. }{ill, Kennedy, Shambeck. The vote on the motion to adopt Resolution No. 1466, as drafted: Ayes: Shambeck, tlill, Kennedy. Noes: McHarris, Sucher. Use Permit 75-21 was approved, subject to the following conditions: That final development plans be submitted for staff review and approval to include landscape, irrigation, and building elevation (including colors) plans. That a sign plan, pursuant to Ordinance No. 614 (The Sign Code) be submitted for staff review and approval, indicating a pole sign not exceeding 20 feet in height, 32 square feet of sign area per face, with the intensity of illumination not to exceed 425 M.A. The price sign shall be integrated within the sign. An attendant must be on duty at all times during operating hours to supervise dispensing operations. Compliance with City Council Resolution No. 1015 (Service Station Development Guide) to include, but not limited to, the maintenance and operation of the service station, and the sales and storage of materials and products. Environmental Impact Report 75-2 relating to the development of Lot 116 bf Tract 7'8~3 with single-family homes and additional park land. The staff report was presented by Mr. Fleagle with recommended conditions of approval specified in the draft resolution. A letter was also read from Lowry and Associates regarding water pressure problems. It was stated that in regards to the cost/revenue pro- jections included within the Environmental Impact Reports, the methodology to determine the impact of this development was incorrect; however the project is not of a size or scope to warrant any additional studies, and any additional study would produce little change in the overall figures. Commissioners Shambeck and Sucher stated that they would abstain from any consideration of the project for possible potential conflicts of interest. Todd Ferguson, president of the Peppertree Homeowners Association, ~pok--e to the Environmental Impact Report and stated that the sig- nificant issues raised in the report are adequately identified and reviewed. He favored certification of the Environmental Impact Report. The public hearing was closed at 8:40 p.m. by Chairman McHarris. Chairman McHarris stated that the impacts identified in the Environ- mental Impact Report are properly identified and analyzed, and recommended that the Environmental Impact Report be certified. Commissioner Kennedy moved and Commissioner Hill second that Resolution No. 1467 be' adhered. MOTION CARRIED: Aves: McHarris, Hill, Kennedy. Noes: 3-0 Abstained: Shambeck, Sucher. Absent: None. None. PC Minutes 9/22/75 - Page 3 Proposed amendment to Land Use and Open Space Elements of the Tustin area GeneraI Plan: a change in designation of Lot 116 of Tract 7813 from Public and Institutional land use to Planned Community-Residential. Mr. Fleagle gave the staff report and read a recently submitted letter of the Peppertree Homeowners Association which contained their recommendations. Recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission stated that additional land requirements of a parcel 350 by 340 feet should be required which would allow enough room to provide a multi-sports playfield and ball diamond. The staff recommendations and alternatives contained in the staff report were reviewed. Commissioners Shambeck and Sucher abstained on this matter to alleviate any possib~lit~e~ ~f potential conflicts of interest. Hardy Strozier, a representative of The Irvine Company, the applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Strozier stated that if the proposed amendment to the land use and open space plan were approved, that the request would be followed up with an application to build 44 single-family homes on this 8 acre parcel, and to provide an additional .8 acres of open space. The Irvine Company had initially proposed to provide an additional .4 acres but felt that that would not be enough to provide for practical development and orientation of the tennis courts and ball field for Magnolia Park. It was further stated that The Irvine Company would pay for two of the three tennis courts to be constructed, with the City paying for the third. The total amount of open space in the Peppertree devel- opment would be 4.09 acres which calculates out at a ratio of 3.29 acres per 1,000 residents in the Peppertree subdivision. This contrasts with 8 acres for 3,700 people, or 2.13 acres per 1,000 residents in Tustin Meadows. Magnolia Park, which had been improved at the cost of the developer of Peppertree, cost a total of $142,000. It was further stated that construction of anything less than 44 dwelling units would result in an unfeasible project. Tod~ F_erguson, president of the Peppertree IIomeowners Association, stated that they have discussed the project with the existing residents of the Peppertree subdivision and feel that they have the consensus of the people in the tract. He wanted the Commission to remember that Peppertree is a planned community, initially proposed with a park and a school. He also stated that all traffic would exit onto Alder Lane, increasing traffic along the existing street. Mr. Ferguson requested a careful consideration of the alternatives be given, recalling that the commitment to the people was for a school and a park, and this is what was represented to the home buyers of Peppertree. John Connoly, a Peppertree homeowner, commented that the Commission should keep the proposal in perspective, and that The Irvine Company can provide for adequate parks. It was his feeling that there needs to be a compromise between the 44 dwelling units proposed for construction by The Irvine Company and the 8 acres of open space initially proposed in the development. ~ Strozier again commented that the development must "pencil out" in regards to feasibility and the number of units permitted to be constructed there. Gina Matek, traffic commissioner, expressed her concern regarding the--Thorman school and stated that it is important to look at long range implications of no additional schools being constructed in the south Tustin area. Mr. Fleagle, Community Development Director, asked the homeowners association if they had a preference of open space and raw land as opposed to physical improvements of the existing park site. That is, whether they would prefer 5 acres of park land and open space with 1 acre of raw land, versus 4 acres of parks with physical improve- ments added. Mr. Ferguson responded that they would prefer the 4 acres with the improvements. Questions were posed related about membership in the Peppertree Homeowners Association. Mr. Ferguson commented that of the 215 homes existing in the tract, 110 are members of the association, and that the association is voluntary, not mandatory. PC Minutes 9/22/75 - Page 4 Cap Moody, from The Irvine Company's Residential Division, stated that so far $114,291 had been spent for the Magnolia Park. indicated that new homes, which would be able to be constructed by next May, might cost $5,000 more than the existing homes. Commissioner IIill moved, Commissioner Kennedy second, a motion to c--~--~ public hearing. ~ MOTION CARRIED: 3-0 Commissioners Shambeck, Sucher abstained. The public hearing was closed at 9:50 p.m. Commissioner McIIarris commented that the intensity of use is much more for active recreation facilities than for raw park land, i.e. that physical improvements to parks will intensify the use, as opposed to a park that is merely landscaped. Commissioner IIill commented that this problem was not caused by the Planning Commission, but there have been promises made on the part of the school district to homeowners regarding the construc- tion of a school injunction with a city park. However, at this point, one must examine the economics, the commitments, and possibilities as presented by The Irvine Company. He stated that he felt the compromise could be made in regards to the proposal of the construction of 44 homes, tennis courts and a ball diamond. Commissioner McHarris indicated that economics is a prime consider- ation, and that with no school to be constructed, a trade-off is necessary to provide the maximum amount of open space. Commissioner Kennedy indicated that the proposed site for a school within '£he Peppertree subdivision was the most ideal site in the City of Tustin for a school. She felt it was the poorest oossible planning on the part of the school board in deleting the school, and that there is no good solution between the wants of the Peppertree Homeowners Association for 40 units and additional open space, and The Irvine Company for the construction of 44 units. Commissioner Ilill spoke against the alternative of leaving the schoo~ land fallow until a bond issue could possibly be voted upon by the voters to acquire the full amount of open space. IIe indicated the land should not be left fallow, that it must be developed. Commissioner McHarris questioned the staff as to whether an examina~i°n-'has been made of a different form of housing for Lot 116, such as patio homes or a cluster development. Mr. Fleagle indicated that staff has strong preference for cluster development to maintain a maximum amount of open space and that consideration had been given to the proposal, but was rejected because of the housing styles presently existing and the change in the land use pattern which would result. He further felt that it was a commitment to the residents of the tract that a single-family home configuration development would be constructed there. He further indicated that it would be preferable for Ayres to develop the tract because of a consistency in housing patterns and characteristics. Commissioner Sucher questioned staff as to whether consideration had been given to the formation of an assessment district to acquire the full amount of acreage for open space and park land. Mr. Fleagle responded that it was a possibility and explained the procedures of a petition by homeowners and a 51 percent majority vote in an election. Commissioner Hill reviewed and discussed the three alternatives being considered by the Commission. Mr. Fleagle indicated that a determination must be made on policy, and it is the position of the Commission to recommend to the Council what policy should be followed, with the Council making the ultimate decision. PC Minutes 9/22/75 - Page 5 Mr. Fleagle further reviewed the choices available, that Alternative-1 is 5 acres of open space and park land be required with an additional 1.7 acres to be improved at public expense at such time as public funds are available, with the second alternative being the development of 4 acres of park land and open space and dedication with the park land to be developed by the construction of three tennis courts on land in addition to that presently approved for park use. Two of the courts shall be fully improved at no expense to the City of Tustin. Chairman McHarris questioned as to whether the resolution should state fully their reasoning in regards to the most suitable choice. Mr. Fleagle responded that it would be most appropriate to put the reasoning and thoughts in to a letter of transmittal to the City Council along with the Planning Commission action and resolution. Commissioner Kennedy moved, Commissioner Hill second, that Resolution No.--I4~, incorporating Alternati~e-l'be submitted with a letter of transmittal to the City Council and with additional negotiations regarding the number of units to be constructed. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0. Commissioners Shambec~, Sucher abstained. OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS 1. Traffic Commission Report: Red Hill & Walnut Intersection. On the motion of Commis'sioner Hill, ~econd by Commissioner Sucher, and unanimously approved, the report bf the City Engineer was received and filed, indicating that the Traffic Commission would schedule the matter for their agenda on October 21, 1975. Circulation Element. By unanimous consent, a joint session of th~lanning Commission and Traffic Com- mission was scheduled for Tuesday, October 21, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room, to discuss the circulation element of the General Plan. Stater Brot~ers_Shoppin~ Center Traffic Problems. On the motion ~f Kenhedy, second by Sucher and unanimously carried, staff was directed to forward the recommended solutions to the traffic hazard at the northwesterly area of the Stater Brothers Shopping Center to the property owner for his action. STAFF CONCERNS Joint Council-Commission Workshop, September 29, 1975. The 'following items were suggested f~r the j0int Council- Commission workshop scheduled for September 29, 1975: a. Preservation of Historical Properties b. Scope of Downtown Development Program c. Status of Committees - Bike Path - Signs in Public Right-of-Way d. Preservation of Open Space in Planned Developments PC Meeting 9/22/75 - Page 6 COMMISSION CONCERNS League of California Cities Conference. Chairman McIIarris announced tha't he wou'l~ represent the Commission at the League of California Cities Conference in San Francisco on October 19-22, 1975. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Kennedy, second by Commissioner Hill, to adjourn at 11:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION R~ORDING SECRETARY