Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-12-75 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION May 12, 1975 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the twelfth 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, 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 Dukleth. INVOCATION was led by Commissioner IIill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Schier, seconded by Kennedy, that the minutes of April 28, 1975 be approved. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC IIEARING To reclassify properties from the C-1 and C-2 District to the Classification of "CG" (Commercial, General) District, subject to a Use Permit for Development %explained that a public hearing for the proposed zone change een advertised with notice of hearing being provided by letter to all property owners of record. The proposal creates a "Commercial, General" District, establishes a precise land use classification for each parcel westerly of Prospect Avenue, and requires the submission of an application for a Use Permit in conjunction with any proposed development. Flexibility in height limitations are incorporated into the resolution for any property removed from a single-family residential district. The proposed ordinance accommodates all of the known concerns related to the previously considered overlay zone. The intent of the proposal is to authorize commercial uses on the frontage of First Street properties including the depth of existing lots and to remove the non-conforming status of many of the structures and uses now there, and to establish criteria and review process for any new proposals. Opened and closed public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Moved by Dukleth, seconded by Kennedy to adopt Resolution No. 1441 as drafted. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 OLD BUSINESS 1. Authority for Change of Use Heritage House Mr. Fleagle reported that since the last meeting of April 28, 1975, staff has conducted daily parking counts during noon hour, the Building Official ~as requested to determine the dates of permits for installation of dishwashing equipment, and the City Attorney was requested to furnish information on the applicability of the State requirements for handicapped facilities. The property was not designed for restaurant operations, conversion to the property was made without benefit of permit, and the property was poorly designed for its existing use. If there is a hardship, it is a self-made hardship without benefit of permits or sanction of the city. It is for PC Minutes 5/12/75 Page 2 the Planning Commission to determine whether or not the existing use is appropriate and authorized for restaurant use. David Baade, attorney for Amalgamated Restaurant, stated that in talking to the manager he understood they used only paper and plastic plates and did not use a dishwasher in that sense -- only utensils and serving dishes are washed in the dishwasher. The people who are using Zink and Carter parking lots are usually the ones who are at the take-out counter. The problem will not be solved by closing down the dining room. The problem can be lessened by use of signs and altered configuration in parking in front of the building as suggested by staff. We would certainly be willing to alter spaces in front of the building, and reserve the right to present additional testimony after adjoining property owners have appeared. Mr. Fleagle replied that the plates are plastic and require washing, and that the dishwasher does require a permit. Commissioner McHarris inquired if the deli had changed any in character since the original opening of the establishment. John Schmitz, Vice President, Amalgamated Restaurant said he checked with the ~h~f who has been there for 4 years and that Heritage House has the same type of operations for 4 years and that people were going upstairs for sit-down eating at that time. Mr. Baade said it was their understanding that when the building was constructed t--he authorization was for the catering kitchen and carry-out deli -- the dining upstairs came in at a later date. Commissioner Schier asked whether alterations have been made on the ground floor for the physically handicapped. Mr. Baade replied the only alteration he was aware of at the moment is that the cash register area has been moved from one side to the center of the ground floor. William Zink, owner of Tustin Office Building, told the Planning Commission ~e brought with him the approved plans by the City. The structure was started in February 1969 and completed in spring of that same year. The building was designed by Design Inc., and Mr. J. P. Anderson was the Civil Engineer (89U2). The original plans called for 29 spaces and Reiss Bros. used the building as a first class liquor store, with catering service in the rear of the building. When the Tustin Office Building was completed parking became a problem and Mr. Zink, at the urgency of the owner, Mr. Tubbs, leased 5 parking spaces to Heritage House for a period of one year to help get their liquor store and catering service going (1973). Five or six tables were added in the balcony to try to make business more successful. Mr. Zink purchased the Tustin Office Building in April 1973. That summer Heritage IIouse removed walls upstairs and converted office space to restaurant use, and it was at that time that his tenants could not find parking spaces. On June 10, 1974, Mr. Zink wrote a letter to the owner of Heritage House requesting a meeting in which they could discuss the parking situation and never received an answer, nor was any attempt made to solve the problem by the manager of Heritage House. When Mr. Zink wrote the letter there were 56 chairs in the upstairs restaurant--as of this date there are 26 chairs and an employee of Heritage House has been directing traffic to keep cars out of the adjoining parking lots. Mr. Zink said that the Heritage House had made alterations to the building without permit and they have operated without city license for 2 years. The take-out counter could be a workable attraction but the sit-down restaurant will always be a problem in that building. Mr. Flea~le wanted to know for the record the date that the present owner acquired the property? Mr. Baade replied his clients acquired the business on October 3, 1973. Harry Carter, 171 N. Tustin Avenue, said Mr. Zink covered everything very thoroughly, and that the only thing is that the change in uses has interfered with his business. When he applied for the building and business license nothing was said about convenience for next door parking. PC Minutes 5/12/75 Page 3 David Baade's rebuttal: Object strongest way possible to the classificat~n ~f Mis client being a lawbreaker and criminal. His client did not initiate the serving of the food in the upstairs area and did not make the alterations. When they acquired the business it was substantially in the same condition as it is today. The parking report indicates sufficient parking for all cus- tomers who want to use the facility. The facility is not a nuisance but an asset and with the safeguard restriction on the number of seats and parking signs, business could go on with no undue hardship. Commissioner Kennedy wanted to know why Heritage House was not more cooperative with Mr. Carter and Mr. Zink, and also the City of Tustin. did they become aware of the parking problem? When The President of Amalgamated Restaurant said he never saw the letter referred to by Mr. Zink, and that all of the owners (6) are in the building every day. They knew that there was a parking problem and told their employees not to park on the adjoining lots but to park elsewhere. Mrs. Harry Carter, 171 N. Tustin, felt with such an important emphasis being put on liquors and wines, Heritage House carry-out service should be de- emphasized. Carter Lighting gave up convenience parking in order to get their building permit, which creates a problem as at times they will have four cars involving around one sale, plus other customers as well. She said they moved to this prestigious area, and did not want to put up any additional "parking" signs. In response to Commissioner McHarris'question, Mr. Fleagle explained that the applicant has the right to ~e~ition to the City Council within 5 days if the Commission fails to continue the present use of the Heritage House. David Baade stated that the City of Tustin approved the first floor take-out service, liquor store with offices on the second floor. The Building Dept. inspected the structural stability of the second floor restaurant and Heritage House was not aware of any building violations. According to State Law we are not required to provide access to handicapped as stated in the City Attorney's letter. We would be willing to discuss the entire situation with Mr. Carter and Mr. Zink and see what we can reach as far as a compromise or solution to the problem. Ronald Schwartz, attorney and one of the owners, added we have attempted to run a Iow-key operation. We do not want to advertise the take-out service which will increase traffic. Run the business as we found it -- natural and within confines. We are amenable to work out a use that will be acceptable to the community resulting in benefits to the city as a whole. Moved by McHarris, seconded by D6kleth, to adopt Resolution No. 1440, alternative B as drafted, Which states that the sit-down restaurant operations will not be allowed nor permitted. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 Mr. Fleagle added that this action does not prevent the three owners to come to some agreement and make reapplication through proper channels, and that staff will be glad to review an integrated plan. 2. Resolution of Approval for Amendment to EIR 74-2 (Tract 8490). Moved by Schier, seconded by Hill, to adopt Resolution No. 1439 as drafted. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 3. Resolution of Aprpoval for Noise Element to the Tustin Area General Plan. Moved by McHarris, seconded by Dukleth, to adopt Resolution No. 1442 as drafted. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PC Minutes 5/12/75 Page 4 4. Newport Freeway Off-Ramp Mr._ Fleagle reported that the attached report and photographic overlay on the feasibility of a Newport Avenue off-ramp from the Santa Ana Freeway was requested by the Planning Commission. From the perspective of economic feasibility and benefit to be gained, it would appear that the proposed project would not warrant the expenditure, in relation to other alternatives. In addition, the off-ramp on Newport would probably require the loss of the Red Hill on-ramp, which is considered essential to accommodate existing traffic patterns. He added that staff concurs with the evaluation of the City Engineer and recom- ~ mends that all efforts of the city be directed toward the improvement of Jamboree Road. The Planning Commissioners agreed that they would like to reduce traffic on Red Hill and increase traffic on Newport Avenue and E1 Camino Real to get business improved in the downtown area. They asked if it might be possible to have an Ad Hoc Committee of Planning Commissioners, Traffic Commissioners and perhaps members of the Council in further pursuing the project in order to be able to approach the State Engineers with some alternatives. _Mr' Fleagle replied the first step would be for a circulation element study of the general plan. The Commission should request the City Engineer, in cooperation with the Community Development Department, to prepare a draft circulation element of the general plan establishing priorities as well as solutions to the inter- change system at Newport Avenue, which includes both Edinger and the Santa Ana Freeway. In preparing the draft, input would come from the City Engineer, Traffic Engineer and Traffic Commission. When a preliminary draft is prepared a workshop session could be held with all concerned parties to refine and in- corporate recommendations. A public hearing would be held for additional input. The Planning Commission by Minute Order requested the City Engineer and staff and the Traffic Commission to prepare a circulation element of the General Plan for Planning Commission consideration with emphasis being given to the study and feasibility of the Newp~r~ Avenue interchange with the Santa Ana Freeway being an item of priority. The Planning Commission is willing to serve on a Ad Hoc Committee in cooperation with the Traffic Commission. It is also requested this be done at the earliest feasible opportunity in order to have the review completed before final approval of the Newport Avenue Improvement Plans. NEW BUSINESS 1. Composite Plans for Tract 8031 Mr. Lenorovitz stated this is the fourth phase of the previously approved tentative Tract Map 7979, which is the townhomes portion of the Laurelwood develop- ment. Complete composite plans including landscape, irrigation and lighting plans have not been received at this time. However, composite plot plans were reviewed and items 1-9 that need to be included are shown on the draft report. Stan Williams, Raub-Bein-Frost Associates, stated they were in full agreement with all items except they would like more flexibility re concrete curbing. proposed perimeter or edging as approved by staff be made adjacent to all planters. The Planning Commission stated' that concrete curbing is to be installed adjacent to all driveways. Moved by Dukleth, seconded by Kennedy to approve by Minute Order the composite plans for Tract 8031 subject to the fncorporation of items 1 thru 9 listed in the report, and subject to the submittal for review and approval by staff of landscaping, irrigation and lighting plans. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None CORRESPONDENCE 1. Orange County Zone Change 75-2 - 17th Street between Prospect and Yorba Mr. Fleagle reported that Orange County has scheduled a public hearing for the purpose of considering zone change 75-2 changing the property located on 17th Street between Prospect and Yorba from R-1 to 100-E4, single family to small estates, with two alternatives. This property is owned by Mr. Vandenberg and proposal alternative A is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan and PC Minutes 5/12/75 Page 5 the Orange County General Plan. PR offices on 17th Street run from Laurinda Way over to existing commercial property. With alternative A the depth could run anywhere from 150 to 300'. Alternative B encompasses depth in PR zoning running all the way to adjacent single family residences to more than 600' in depth. Staff finds alternative B in violation of land use element of general plan and in violation of land use element of Orange County General Plan. A negative declaration of an EIR report was filed on this project which was initiated by the Orange County Planning Commission. Staff on its own initiative filed a protest both to the negative declaration and to the zone change alternatives. Alternative B would require an EIR due to the adverse impact upon adjoining residents without buffering land separation. The property at Prospect and 17th Street which is under one ownership would be placed within the PR district. Richard Samuelson, attorney and property owner on Malena Drive, told the Planning Commission that it was his understanding all proposed changes would adversely affect the area, and suggested the Planning Commission recommend a negative response to all provisions and changes that did not conform to the Tustin Area General Plan. Marguerite Gray, owner of lot #4 on Malena Drive has been in touch with the Orange County Planning Commission, and was informed that in the proposal 17th Street would be widened and her lot would be eliminated. larry Gutierrez, 13851 Malena Drive, stated that he wanted to go on record in support of Mr. Samuelson's recommendation to the Planning Commission. He was informed by Dave Maynard, County Planner III that the public hearing has been rescheduled for 1:30 p.m. on June 9. He also advised him that no plans have been submitted for this development, nor is any contractor involved. These proposed zone changes have been initiated by the Orange County Planning Commission, and he thought it would be well to have a representative from staff attend the public hearing. He was advised by Mr. Maynard that reports and an EIR will be available Friday afternoon before the Monday meeting. Commissioner McHarris added that he thought it would be well for staff to attend the meeting, as we do take issue with the zone change as this is an important piece of property for the city in that what happens there will affect circulation patterns. Mr. Flea~le said he would like to know the property owner's desire. Arthur Vandenberg, 12531 Del Rey Drive, Santa Ana (property owner) stated he had no position at this time. There is nothing he can do with the property - nobody wants to buy it - and trying to keep peace with neighbors is challeng- ing. He hopes the County or City will see fit to attempt to reconcile some- thing in the future so that the property can be used. Taxes are going up but nothing he can do. Moved by Schier, seconded by Kennedy by Minute Order that the Planning commission uphold the positionof staff in their letter of May 6, 1975 as corrected, and direct staff to represent the opinions of the Commission at the hearing on June 9. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 2. Orange County Zone Change 75-13 Mr. Fleagle explained this zone change proposal is to change the 40' setback required by R-4, or an alternative of lowering building height and reducing the setback line. The alternative proposal would limit the height limitation at 18' with 25' building line setback. Moved b~y McHarris, seconded by Hill to correspond with County notifying them of our preference for t~'e RS 10,000 18 foot height limitation with a 25 foot building setback line. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PC Minutes 5/12/75 Page 6 STAFF CONCERNS 1. Seismic Element of the Tustin Area General Plan Mr. Lenorovitz explained that pursuant to the State Planning & Zoning Law requires all cities to adopt seismic element to their general plan. Staff has relied on best available sources of publications in compiling the element. Orange County furnished a copy of their element from which we were able to incorporate technical information. Further refinements are needed and additional chapters are required including goals of policy and implementation. Technical changes of the preliminary draft will be necessary and any suggestions the Commission might have will be added and presented for further review. Commissioner Hill stated he would like to see the correlation between the Modified Mercali intensity scale and the Richter scale. Also he would like to see some comments on the application of the maximum probable earthquake distance in miles to Tustin Building Codes. The Planning Commission referred the Seismic Element back to staff for incorporation of additional information items, and their comments, and for resubmittal to them at their next meeting. COMMISSION CONCERNS - None Moved by IIill, seconded by Dukleth to adjourn at 11:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN PLANNIN~COMMI SSION RECORDING SECRETARY