Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-09-75 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION June 9, 1975 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the ninth day of June, 1975, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. of said day, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, Centennial at Main, Tustin, California. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: McHarris, Dukleth, Hill, Kennedy, Schier Absent: Commissioners: None Others Present: R. Kenneth Fleagle, Assistant City Administrator- Community Development Director Bruce Lenorovitz, Assistant Planning Director James Rourke, City Attorney Marge Will, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Schier. INVOCATION was led by Commissioner Hill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Hill, seconded by Dukleth, that the minutes of May 27, 1975 be approved. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING Use Permit 75-13 - SanMar Management Co. - to permit the development and operation of a baseball batting range and tennis practice alley Moved by Dukleth, seconded by Kennedy to continue this item to the June 23, 1975 meeting at the request of the applicant. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 Use Permit 75-14 - Application of Lyle Anderson, Jr. to permit the use of premises at 145 West First Street for an auto parts store Mr. Lenorovitz presented the staff report pertaining to a use permit to authorize utilization of a new structure for an auto parts store. The building was constructed to appropriate commercial standards, with adequate setbacks, areas for landscaping, etc. Access for customer parking in front of the building is from First Street, and delivery vehicles and trash pickups are from the rear alley. Landscaping plans were circulated to the various departments for review and after examination a redesign of the landscaping will be required. There will be no storage or outside work areas - all uses will be confined to the interior of the building. Opened public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Tony Forster, lessee, hardily recommended to the Commissioners that they approve the application for the requested use of this building. In reply to a question from the Commission regarding a block wall, Mr. Fleagle. replied that this property is separated from the adjoining property by an alley, and for this reason there are no requirements upon the developer to separate his property by a wall from the adjoining residential property. Mr. Fleagle stated that before taking action on this issue the City Attorney requests that this matter be continued on the basis this is a site of a former automobile parts store in which the owner said that he could not re- establish his business on the site, and was paid a relocation amount for vacating the premises. The City Attorney would like to discuss this with the attorney of the property owner to determine the ramifications so that no one's rights are jeopardized. PC Minutes 6/9/75 Page 2 _Toqy Forster again stated he was the applicant and the user and his position is to get into the business as quickly as possible - hopefully next week, and the attorneys discussion has no bearing on him. At the request of Commissioner Kennedy, Mr. Rourke, City Attorney explained that when First Street was widened a portion of this property was taken. At that time a business had been operating on the property by Mr. Lyle Anderson which is the same type of business that the applicant is proposing to operate. It was rep- resented by Mr. Anderson to the city that it would not be possible for him to conduct that kind of business on that property, and that a building could not be constructed which would have enough space and parking left on the property. Based upon those representations a determination was made by the City Council that this was true and substantial monies were paid to Mr. Anderson on the premise or the fact that he could not conduct the kind of business on that property which this applicant is proposing to conduct. "I can see the city going one way or the other, but it is apparently being asked to go two differ- ent ways - having once decided that the property cannot be used for that kind of a business, and now being asked to determine that it can be used for this kind of a business. Before the city goes any further with this matter, we should look into it and see what the facts are and if Mr. Anderson's attorney is aware of this application to make sure we have touched all bases." L~le Anderson, Jr. owner of building, stated the business he had was quite different from what the applicant is proposing. "I had approximately $40,000 inventory and a machine shop in a 4800 sq. ft. building and when the city told me I could only have 2400 sq. ft. advised them that I could not accommodate my stock in that size building. Mr. Forster has a large parts store in Santa Ana and will only have about $2,000 in stock in his satellite store in Tustin to prevent his trucks from running back to Santa Ana for parts. His machine shop is in his Santa Ana store. I could have cut my stock in half and gone into a shopping center somewhere with a 1200 sq. ft. building but that is not what I had and I wanted to keep my original stock and shop layout." Closed public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Moved by Dukleth, seconded by Kennedy to continue the matter to June 23, 1975 in order to have a legal interpretation from the City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 3. Seismic Safety Element of the Tustin General Plan Mr. Lenorovitz explained that since the last review of the Commission, chapters have been added dealing with risk analysis and ground conditions, and additional information satisfying the requirements of the State Planning and Zoning Act. We have submitted this draft element to other City Departments and received no adverse comments or requests for additional information. Opened and closed public hearing at 8:10 p.m. The Commission agreed that it was a good report and useful to the building industry in the future and that we have gone as far as need be here in Tustin. They agreed it was a new thing for staff to get into and they should be com- plimented on an excellent job they did in putting it together. Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hill to adopt Resolution No. 1452 recommending approval of the Seismic Safety Element to the City Council. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC CONCERNS Patricia Sutcliff, Tustin said she would like to see a Ursula Kennedy nameplate. We have been waiting for 1½ months now and still no sign. Staff informed her that it has been on order. OLD BUSINESS 1. Parcel Map 75-76 - Irvine Industrial Complex Mr. Fleagle said that the Irvine Industrial Complex has made application of a tentative parcel map to create 9 parcels on approximately 27 acres within PC Minutes 6/9/75 Page 3 Tract 8763, bounded by Myford Road and the AT&SF Railroad. The subject pro- perty is, within the Marine Corps avigational easement and was not divided into industrial lots as a part of Tract 8763. The proposal is to now create nine parcels; however, there is no indication of development proposed in the immediate future. As brought out in the previous meeting, a portion of parcel 2, that was not a part of the parcel map, had been deeded from the Industrial Complex to the Irvine Company on Sept. 27, 1974, and subsequently to the U.S. Department of Navy, without city knowledge. We were advised by the City Attorney that sale of the property is exempt from the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act, but there are still some questions related to the process and procedures and responsibilities of the city. Moved by Dukleth, second~d..by Schier to adopt Resolution No. 1448 with the ~tipulatfon that the City Attorney proceed with any required action related to the transfer of title by deed of record. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 NEW BUSINESS 1. Final Tract 8490 - K&W Development Korporation Mr. Flea~le said Final Tract Map 8490 has been submitted by K&W Development Korporatlon on behalf of Pacesetter Homes, Inc. for approval of the final map of the 41 lot residential subdivision in the R-1 District pursuant to EIR 74-2 as amended and Tentative Tract Map 8490. There were conditions related to the approval of the tentative tract as approved by the City Council: (1) The requirement of permanent maintenance of the emergency access road in which the City Council of Orange did grant approval of the access; (2) requirement of the County of Orange for approval of the street work - Orange County Planning Commission held a public hearing and did approve the necessary right-of-way for access to the tract subject to their conditions; (3) requirement of approval of,State Division of Highway for drainage into State right-of-way facilities, slope easements, boundary walls and landscaping permit - the State Dept. of Transportation has responded verbally to the grant- ing of this permit and it is due any day. This will be received prior to sub- mission to the City Council so that condition has been satisfied including provision of putting the boundary wall on the property line as well as the slope easement on the state right-of-way. The mitigating measures were the sound attenuation requirements for the double glass as approved in the EIR as modified by the City Council, and the requirements to the City Engineer as related to the trees and improvements. Subdivision bonds and agreements will be approved prior to City Council consideration and the requirements of the City Engineer will be implemented in conformance with ~he.tentative map. The addendum indicates that there are 3 lots within the tract, A, B, and C, which were proposed as dedication in fee to the City of Tustin with.maintenance by a Homeowner's Association. On preliminary review it appears to be more economical for the developer and in the best interest of all parties con- cerned, that in lieu of an assessment district a maintenance agreement be set up with a Homeowner's Association to maintain the 3 lots plus a portion of one which is not within the tract. This would eliminate the necessity of a main- tenance district running into 2 cities and the county. The developer has not responded until he has an opportunity to fully evaluate the benefits of this proposal which will be determined prior to consideration by the City Council. In response to the Commission's question as to whether the Homeowner's Association would be mandatory, Mr. Fleagle replied affirmative and that there are a lot of benefits derived from a Homeowner's Association especially where they are so remote from any other portion of the city. Commissioner Hill stated that the Commissioners recommended limiting the construction of homes on the freeway side to single-story residences. The City Council reviewed our determination and changed our decision to.allow 2-story homes, but I still feel this is not a satisfactory development for the City of Tustin as these homes are too close to the freeway. Therefore, I cannot go along with approval of this subdivision map in that the site is not physically suitable for the types of homes as we see reflected on this map. Commissioner Schier said that the City Council has made its wishes known in the way of 2-story and single-story homes and that the developer has met the requirements so he feels inclined to go along with their wishes. PC Minutes 6/9/75 Page 4 Commissioner McHarris stated he too felt this was a poor residential development but that the developer has met and complied with all technical recommendations imposed upon him, therefore, I will support the approval of the Final Tract Map. Commissioner Kennedy stated I judge any city harshly that puts residences with yards on the freeway so will not support the approval of the Final Tract Map. Moved by Schier, seconded by Dukleth to approve Resolution No. 1451 approving ~inal Tract M'~p 8490, pursuant and subject to the terms and conditions of City Council Resolution No. 74-78, pending the decision whether the mainten- ance of Lots A, B, and C would be supported by a Homeowner's Association or by assessment district to be determined by the developer and the planning staff. Mr. Fleagl.e stated staff is agreeable to either alternative, as is the developer. W~ever is in the best interest of the future residents as well as the City of Tustin. If it is resolved before going to City Council that it is best to have the Ilomeowner's Association take care of the maintenance, then the map will be amended with the title page deleting the dedication in fee to the city. Commissioner McHarris asked for a roll call vote: Ayes: Dukleth. Noes: Hill, Kennedy. MOTION CARRIED: 3-2 Schier, McHarris, AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None PUBLIC CONCERN Bill Moses, The Tustin News asked what was actually voted on with the 3-2 decision. Commissioner McHarris explained the vote was for approval of the final tract map which shows Lots A, B, and C, and how they would be maintained was to be resolved by either a Homeowner's Association or an assessment district, as either one is acceptable to the developer and the city. Moses added would one recommendation go to the Council, and that s~aff willmake the decision not the Commission. Commissioner McHarris replied affirmative. Mr. Fleagle said to clarify the question for the press that staff and the developer will make the recommendation to the City Council as to how they wish to see the 3 lots maintained and the City Council will then make the determination. CORRESPONDENCE 1. Park & Ride Facility - Myford Road Mr. Flea~le .explained that the Planning Department of the City of Irvine notified the City of Tustin that a proposed park and ride facility will be located in the agricultural district at Michelle Drive, just off Myford Road. As per their request a response has been submitted by June 6 w. ith staff's comments and fur- nished for Commission information. Anl7 additiona~l s~ges.~ion~s ~e~mmissi~n might have will be transmitted to the City of Irvine Planning Commission. Commissioner Hill stated that this was a big step forward and will certainly ser~e our new industrial area. In response to where other Park and Ride Facilities are located, Mr. Fleagle replied there was one at the Riverside and Newport Freeways, and one is being planned in the City of Irvine. The Commission by consensus endorsed the staff response. STAFF CONCERNS 1. Request for Proposal - Town Center Study Mr. Fleagle said this request has been submitted to 45 firms that are in the business of designing and developing projects. Interviews have been scheduled as there is considerable interest in this proposal. According to the time table, it is hoped to award the contract by August 4, with a preliminary program proposal by September 5, and a plan and proposed submitted for public hearing by Jan. 15, 1976. He told the Commission they would be involved in both phases of the develop- ment ~ plans and proposals. PC Minutes 6/9/75 Page 5 Commissioner Hill stated that in addition to the subject work to be done with city owned properties bounded by 2nd and 3rd Streets and E1 Camino Real, he would like to see it spelled out to the firms who are making the proposals that we are very concerned with compatibility of this area with old Tustin - Main Street - and would like to see the tone and preservation of our historic values be retained in these future developments. Commissioner McHarris said he would like to see staff prepare an addendum with guidelines stating the basic work to be done. Mr. Flea~le_ said that the purpose of the City Council meeting with the con- sultant will be to spell out in the contract precisely what they want in design, and that preservation of the character that is already there is a vital element of the contract. If the Council doesn't like what they see, they will advise the consultant at that time. Each consultant who has an interest will be contacting the city, looking at the map of the area and adaptating a project. One unique element of this proposal is that the con- tractor will furnish the city with a letter of intent by one or more responsible developers who can proceed with imp,]ementation of the proposal as presented. Bill Moses asked if the city will be condemning local property so some urban redevelopment may proceed because we have a proposal. Mr. Fleagle replied that he doubted whether the Planning Commission or the City Council would endorse a redevelopment program under the State Urban Renewal Act. It is assumed that when the City Council awards a contract to a consultant that there will be some guidelines they will furnish as to how they wish to proceed, and how they would propose doing it. The Council will let them know the kind of development and limitations they have. The final plans will be approved by the Council and several public hearings will be held on the plan before any final decisions are made by the Council. The intent will be to preserve the character of the community. Mr. Lenorovitz showed the Commissioners a sample of the roof material that has been submitted for the mansard of the 7-11 Store at the corner of Pacific and First Street. The dark brown aluminium "cedar shakes" present a nice clean effect and has a 20-year guarantee. The Commissioners voiced no objection. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Hill stated that in their meeting with the City Engineer some possible additions or changes in freeway exists were discussed at length. The City Engineer thought it might be acceptabl~ to have an off-ramp on the Santa Ana Freeway at Newport to direct a flow of traffic to potential development between Newport and E1 Camino Real. This could be done by closing the stub end of E1 Camino Real and use it as the off-ramp exit, and come off with high speed traffic and flow right onto E1 Camino Real without a stop light. Priorities on where Jamboree traffic might flow some day across the Marine Base and justification to continue Valencia right to the Marine Gate across Jamboree were also discussed. Mr. Fleagl? told the Commission that a map will be available to them for their workshop meeting after the regular meeting on June 23. Commissioner Schier said'he was concerned about the patches of weeds along the 4th Street turnoff onto the Newport Freeway. He wondered if anyone knew the schedule of the State or whoever is responsible for the landscaping. IIe would like to get the area improved either with ice plant or other means of landscaping as it detracts from the city. Mr. Lenorovitz replied he would check into the matter. Moved by Schier, seconded by Hill to ~journl:~9~50 p.m. /to the next ~egular meet~-ng. MOTION CARRIED:~-~"~~/~~ l ~" 7" - , ,/~), ~~AN-~F' THE PL~N~ING COMMISSION · - . '/ / ,/ .i L REC~RDI~ SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING~COMMISSION