Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-27-75 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION May 27, 1975 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the twenty-seventh day of May, 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, Hall, 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 Kennedy. INVOCATION was led by Commissioner Schier. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Hill, seconded by Kennedy, that the minutes of May 12, 1975 be approved. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING Use Permit 75-1 - Application of First Christian Church of Tustin to permit the development of a church and allied classrooms in the Public & Institutional (P&I) District Mr. Lenorovitz stated that the applicants are proposing a four phase develop- ment on the property which is located on the south side of Irvine Blvd., 350 feet westerly of Red Hill Avenue, with the first phase being a church chapel. The parking also will be in phases. A Zone Change was approved in 1972 to reclassify the subject property from the R-1 (single-family) district to the P&I District. Adjacent property to the east where the professional office building is presently located was re-zoned to the PR District as part of the same action. A Use Permit was approved in October 1972 authorizing the development of a church and allied facilities but was not exercised and subsequently lapsed. Staff feels that the use of the property for developing a church is an appropriate and desirable one for the land in question and for the surrounding area. In preliminary reviewing of the site and elevation plans it was noted that further refinements of ~om~-desig~ items such as placement of curbing, landscaping across the complete property frontage, interrelation- ships of circulation between the adjacent properties, and the treatment of the elevations is needed. Also review and approval of the final comprehensive development plan by staff is necessary. Commission Schier questioned whether the applicants have reviewed the recommended changes prior to the meeting. Mr. Lenorovitz replied affirmative. They had some reservations about several items -- one being landscaping 10' depth along frontage of property to provide a visually attractive streetscape. They felt it would be somewhat difficult for them to do this at the present time and also questioned the need for the perimeter wall on the westerly and southerly side which was a condition of the previous zone change making it mandatory to install the wall. Commissioner Kennedy asked if there will be a school involved with the church. Commissioner Hill commented that some precise language be incorporated into the parking agreement so it will be upheld. Opened public hearing at 7:50 p.m. PC Minutes 5/27/75 Page 2 Don Dickerson, 1371 Garland Street commented that the wooden fences are falling down and that they need to be replaced with the wall which was part of the agreement in the previous zone change. Also he was concerned that the trash cans not be placed by the fence as most of the bedrooms are in the back of the house and would get the noise. Another item of concern was that the lights should not be directed toward the residential properties. If schools were planned, where would the play yards be located? Commissioner McHarris informed Mr. Dickerson that the preliminary sketch shows the future playground to the rear, and that with the previous zone change, the 6'8" wall could be installed on the residential property side, if the residents grant their permission. Robert Tischnor, 19021 Chadborn Lane, Santa Ana, stated that the church has been a taxpayer to the City of Tustin for the past several years. The church was formed in January 1967 with 25 members and since that time has moved five times and has grown to 200 members. Various designs have been submitted for the church over the past years and they now feel they have a design which will meet the standards of the City of Tustin and will be an asset to the community. There are no plans for an elementary school. The future phases will include a church day school--never an elementary school. The new minister of the First Christian Church added that we badly need a permanent home in which to worship and urged the Planning Commission to adopt the approving resolution. Robert IIall, 17671 Irvine Blvd., stated that he was commissioned by the Church. With the tight budget they are working with it was requested at this time for the first phase of the development which includes the construction of the chapel. They have already spent money to get the easement and frontage improvements and were hoping that they did not have to streetscape the front property at this time. We plan to do a nice job on the outside of the chapel, but the inside will be very plain which can be improved upon later. The second phase will be classrooms, and the third phase, will be additional Sunday school rooms, and finally the sanctuary will be built which will hold around 500. The wall will be costing about $7500 and hope that the Commission will reconsider the need to construct the wall now. We have submitted complete landscaping plans showing sprinkler, trees, but hope we can delay on the 10' frontage streetscape. The playyards will not be next to the adjoin- ing homes and the trash area is half way up the property and hidden behind planters from street view--closest home 175'. The lighting would be in the parking area around the entrance to the church, with low floodlights from the church chapel. We would like not to be required to light the remainder of the parking lot as most of our activity will be during the day. We plan to go back to Mr. Dolley, owner of the office building, to work out the parking agreement. Commissioner McHarris asked staff what is our legal situation regarding the permanent wall and is completion of the frontage part of this zone change? Mr. Fleagle replied that the wall requirement is mandatory as part of the previous zone change. Completion of street frontage is the requirement of development policies adopted by the City Council. Mr. Lenorovitz added that as a part of the approved conceptual plans with the first use permit, a minimum 10' of landscaping along the frontage was provided to insure an attractive streetscape similar in design and appearance to other buildings in the area. Also the parking agreement was part of the initial use permit. Mr. Fleagle said that in reference to the wall construction, the Commission owes in good faith to the residents of the adjoining property that the re- quirement of the wall construction be upheld. As far as placing trees in front of the wall, there is no objection if those trees are not planted now, if it would mean a hardship upon the church. The trees could wait unti~ the next phase of development. The most economical means of landscaping to meet the requirement for the property frontage would be berm with sprinklers, giving an aesthetic front and tieing the property into the church facility and identifying the vacant land next to them as part of the church grounds. Robert Hall stated they would agree to put up the wall now. PC Minutes 5/27/75 Page 3 Mr. Fleagle stated that in granting the use permit as submitted any future phase of development could be required to be submitted to the Commission for review and approval without the necessity for a public hearing. Closed public hearing at 8:50 p.m. Moved by McHarris, seconded by Kennedy to adopt Resolution No. 1445, as amended, adding the requirement for a 10' minimum landscaping area across the total front, with parking accommodations to be the minimum acceptable by design until phase two is developed as shown on our plot plan, and that any future phases be submitted to the Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 2. An amendment to Ordinance No. 614 (Sign, Code) Mr. Lenorovitz explained this request is to amend Article 8, Section 10(1) to permit one wall or one monument building identification sign (single face) not to exceed 12 square feet of sign face area, on each street frontage for a professional building located on a corner lot. All other provisions of the Professional District signing would remain the same. It is felt that with this amendment, adequate signing would be assured to those professional office buildings located on corner lots. Opened public hearing at 9:25 p.m. ~, owner of building at Red Hill & Irvine Blvd., asked the Commissioners to consider a double-face sign inasmuch as a single-face cannot be seen by the traffic flow or position of the sun until you are on top or past the sign, whereas the double-face sign can be positioned in such a way that the traffic can see the sign. Closed public hearing at 9:32 p.m. Commissioner McHarris stated a lot of thought went into the Sign Ordinance relative to difference between professional and commercial signing. Exposure for corner lots was an oversight and now we are trying to correct it, but that the single facing was thought out and he feels this provision should not be changed. Roved by Dukleth, seconded by Hill to adopt Resolution No. 1443 as drafted. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC CONCERNS - None OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS Mr. Fleagle_ told the Commission that Resolution No. 1446 recommending the Sycamore-Red Hill Annexation No. 85 to the City of Tustin to the City Council, scheduling of an election and an opportunity for the residents of the Red Hill- Sycamore annexation area to become a part of the City of Tustin, is for their approval. Commissioner Schier inquired as to the work improvement costs and what they included. Mr. Flea~le replied Sycamore would be programmed as an a~t~ri&l which would require widening of right-of-way, relocation of curbs and side- walks. Red Hill Avenue is mostly a matter of paving which has to be replaced. This area is a 10-acre isolated island surrounded by the city on all sides and will require an election which has been scheduled for the NOVEMBER ballot. Commissioner Schier stated he believes the city should distribute some ~'iterature to the tenants in the area telling them exactly what the issues are, the benefits they will be receiving, the city expenditures as well as their own additional expenditures in taxes, tie suggested a statement should be sent to the residents explaining both the advantages and disadvantages so they would have the facts before them and not be influenced by an outside source which has occurred in the past. Mr. Fleagle replied that a ballot argument is prepared at the direction of the City Council. This goes out before the election showing the extra services they will be getting versus PC Minutes 5/27/75 Page 4 their present services. This development does have a Homeowners Association which has been in touch with the City re the feasibility of this annexation. ~ommissioner Kennedy stated that maybe a new way should be suggested as a possible means to convince these people to come into the city. Commissioner McIIarris stated he felt the City should attend one of the Homeowners Associaticn's meetings to discuss the annexation stressing the additional benefits of police, fire, and city services. Commission Kennedy volunteered to do this. Moved by Schier, seconded.~y Kennedy to adopt Resolution No. 1446. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 1. Parcel Map 75-75 Enderle Center located at 17th & Yorba Mr. Lenorovitz explained this parcel map includes the area encompassed by Use Permit 74-9 and EIR 74-3 authorizing the development of a commercial and professional complex to be known as the Enderle Center which is to be located in the vicinity of 17th & Yorba Streets. The 12.4 acres of land will be divided into 9 parcels. It is presently zoned R-3, C-2, P.C. and C-2, and will require zone changes to the PC(C) District as required by Use Permit 74-9. George Shambeck, tIall& Foreman, 2530 North Grand, SAnta Ana, stated the purpose of the map is to create legal parcels for financing and leasing. The only problem that has arisen is in regard to the condition requested by the City Engineer pertaining to typical street sections. The street sections shown are different than the typical city standards for street improvements. The street sections indicated on the parcel map are the same as the street sections shown on the site plan that was submitted with UP 74-9. Sidewalks are proposed only for the south side of Vandenberg Lane and the east side of Enderle Center Drive. Proposed sidewalks along Yorba Street are to be 7 and 5 feet wide instead of the normal 8 foot wide parkway. Mr. Lenorovitz said approval of the use permit for the general development plans and precise plans for each increment were to be reviewed in regard to building design, setbacks, and landscaped areas. Street requirements are the concern of the City Engineer. Therefore, an appropriate condition would be that all on and off site improvements be constructed in conformance with City of Tustin standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The City Engineer can work out various sidewalk arrangements which would accommodate the proposals, to include locating utilities (street lights, fire hydrants, etc.) behind the sidewalk. A1 Enderle asked the Planning Commission whether this wauld permit the City Engineer to eliminate a portion of the sidewalk as shown on the plans if to his satisfaction. The City Attorney replied affirmative. Mr. Flea~le explained that Mr. Shambeck was correct in his assumption that there was a previous discussion related to the sidewalks and the interior orientation of this development. For that reason it was determined on the preliminary plot plan review that no sidewalk would be required on the north side of Vandenberg Lane. Because there was no direct pedestrian access from that street, a sidewalk on the south side was more convenient for main- tenance. The same thing is true on Enderle Way as shown where the development on the westerly side has an interior orientation. The City Engineer has the discretion and authority based upon the Planning Commission's findings to approve the design of the public improvements. A1 Enderle, 3662 Carmel, Irvine stated he met with the City Engineer this morning and came to an agreement on these items. He has no objections to the zone change. In regard to dedication of street frontage on 17th Street adjacent to parcel one with widening to ultimate width, he would like this to be deleted from item 2b, as he presently has some leases which have not yet expired. He would like to go ahead with parcel 5 in phase 1, without these other items delaying the project. Moved b~ Schier, seconded b~ Dukleth, to adopt Resolution No. 1447 as modified. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PC Minutes 5/27/75 Page 5 Parcel Map 75-76 - Irvine Industrial Complex located between Moulton Parkway and Dow Avenue Mr. Lenorovitz explained this is a re-subdivision of Lots A & B of final tract 8763, and encompasses about 27 acres being subdivided into 9 parcels. Properties included within this parcel map are within the proposed avigational easement and lie within the flood prone areas of Peter Canyon Wash. Any building or improvements to be constructed within this area will be controlled by the standards and requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Included would be the requirement that the conditions of previous actions pertaining to those properties would be complied with, which include street frontage landscaping on any area abutting a dedicated street or roadway within the area designed "avigational easement" with landscaping to be installed at the time of development of any adjoining parcel. Commissioner McHarris questioned "not a part" parcel. Mike Babbitt, Irvine Industrial Complex, explained that "not a part" was a portion of a piece of property that IIC deeded over to the Navy as part of the ongoing agreement that had been taking place with the Navy. This pertains to all avigational easements within the Irvine Ranch. In order to keep the: agreement open, The Irvine Co. had to make a paper transfer about 7 or 8 months ago. This property and a small piece down near the E1 Toro Marine Air Station were designated as pieces of property that had the same value as an additional piece of property the Navy owned and due to be released to the Irvine Co. at some future date. In answer to Commissioner McHarris' question as to what happens to it, Mr. Babbitt replied nothing, just owned by the Navy in fee. Mr. Flea.~le stated this should be referred to the City Attorney for deter- mination of applicability with the Subdivision Map Act since under the terms of the Map Act it is unlawful for any persons to sell, offer for sale or cause to permit to be sold any portion of any subdivision or parcel of land in the city unless requirements of the ordinance have been met. This is the first time it has come to our attention that the title has been transferred or even obligated. Moved by Dukleth, seconded by Hill to continue this item in order for the ~ity Attorney to research and give an opinion. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 Tentative Tract 8760 - Northside of San Juan between Newport Avenue and Red Hill Avenue Mr. Fleagle told the Planning Commission this resolution recommends their approval of the tract map to the City Council. The subject property is in the R-4 district and is being developed with 25 apartment units in 7 structures No variance from the zoning ordinance is required and there is no discretion- ary action necessary by the Commission. The project was approved by Orange County for this division of the property into 7 building lots and the owner- developer was encouraged to annex the property to the City of Tustin which was accomplished on March 10, 1975. The subdivider is required to resubmit the tentative map to the City upon annexation inasmuch as the final map had not been approved by the County prior to. annexation. Preston James, 1281 San Juan, owner of parcel lot 2 asked the Planning CommiSsion to grant conditional approval subject to Council review of appro- priate easement to accomplish hookup of sewer facilities to his lot. He requests the following words be added "provide for sanitary sewage facilities via city sewer and the appropriate connection thereto to dwelling on parcel 2." Mr. Fle~gle replied that as a condition of approval of the tract map, the city guarantees a sewer connection to his residence. As far as the easement, this will have to be subject to the city engineer's approval. MR. James is guaranteed by the terms of this resolution that he will have sewer connections. A1 Sugarman, 1491 Baker Street, Costa Mesa, developer of property stated that it is their intention to run a sewer line to Mr. James' home and hook him up. It has a'lways been their intention to do this at their own expense. Moved by Dukleth, seconded by Schier, to adopt Resolution No. 1444 as modified approving tentative tract map 8760. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PC Minutes 5/27/75 Page 6 Moved by Hill, seconded by Dukleth, to adopt Resolution No. 1449 approving final tract map 8760 as modified. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None CORRESPONDENCE Orange County Use Permit 3655 located southwest corner of Fairhaven Av~enhe and Old Foothill Blvd. in the north Tustin area. Moved by McHarris, seconded by Schier to direct staff to acknowledge without action. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 Commissioner Hill stated that it was nice to receive a letter from Mr. Carter indicating his appreciation of the Planning Commission's findings of the last meeting. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Lenorovitz told the Commission that additional corrections and suggestions have been lhcorporated into the Seismic Safety Element since the Commission's initial review on May 12, 1975. These include a section on the Modified Mercalli and Richter Scales, additional paragraphs regarding seismic impacts on Tustin and a statement of goals. At this time we would like any additional comments or suggestions for incorporation so that a public hearing can be set for the next meeting. Commissioner Hill suggested a valuable addition would be the different categories of earthquake building requirements. Also contour zones, definition of zones, and structuring as it applies to Tustin would be helpful. Mr. Lenoro- vitz replied the Uniform Building Code has divided the country into 4 seismic zones, and California lies entirely within Zone 3. This is the most seismic prone zone, and thus is the most restrictive in regard to building construction requirements. Commissioner Hill inquired as to how seismic considerations are taken into account during building construction.'Staff replied building plans are structurally analyzed by a structural engineer applying the requirements of the UBC. Moved by Minute Order to direct staff to advertise for a public hearing for t~e next Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 CO~MISSION CONCERNS Commissioner MmHarrisinquired as to what can be done about the trucks parking on the former site of the packing houses on Newport Avenue, owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad. Mr. Fleagle responded that the railroad had posted no parking signs on the property, which are ignored. The Police Chief reported that he cannot site the trucks on private property. The railroad would have to initiate action against the trucks by ordering them to be towed away. Commissioner Hill stated he would like to see clearer reproductions of the miniature maps. Mr. Fleagle replied that in accordance with the new Sub- division Map Act the developer will be required to furnish a transparency which will enable a better reproduction. Moved by Kennedy, seconded b~ Dukleth, to adjourn at 11 p.m. to the next regular meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 × ..... ~  I~ CNgMMISSI~N CHAIRMAN PLANNING ~OMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY