Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-24-73 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION September 24, 1973 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the twenty-fourth day of September, 1973, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. of said day in the Council Chambers, 275 South "C" Street, Tustin, California. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Hare. The Invocation was given by Commissioner McHarris. ROLL CALL Present: Dombrow, Edgar, Hare, Larnard, McHarris Absent: None Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney; R. Kenneth Fleagle, Ass't. CA, Community Development Director; Bruce Lenorovitz, Assistant Planning Director; Jessica Carroll, Planning Commission Recording Secretary Chairman Larnard indicated the official seating of Commissioner Edgar as a member of the Planning Commission and extended the Commission's welcome. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Dombrow moved for a~proval of the minutes of the September 10, 1973 meeting; seconded by Commissioner Hare. Carried. Ayes: Dombrow, Hare, Larnard, McHarris. Noes: None. Abstain: Edgar. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Environmental Impact Report (Draft) - The Irvine Company Location: Bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway to the north- east, the future alignment of Myford Avenue to the southeast, the U. S. Marine Corps Air Station (H) to the southwest, and the future alignment o.f Jamboree Road to the northwest. Mr. Fleagle gave a snyopsis of the mitigating recommendations submitted by Owen Menard & Associates, consultants for the proposed Irvine Industrial Complex, with a recommendation that these matters be resolved prior to Commission's recommendation to the City Council for approval of zone change application (ZC 73-6). Mr. Fleagle noted that, as prescribed by State guidelines, all responses, comments and evaluations become a part of the EIR as adopted by the City Council. Commissioner Hare inquired if all questions could be satisfactorily resolved by the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Mr. Fleagle replied that salient questions have been asked of the EIR consultants and both they and The Irvine Company have been furnished with copies of all reports of concern and they are aware that Planning Commission requires responses to those questions posed. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect their response by October 8, 1973. PC Minutes September 24, 1973 Page 2 Chairman Larnard opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Raymond W. Kimmey, Irvine Industrial Complex, stated that questions raised by Planning Commission and staff will have their reply by the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting. There being no further comments, Chairman Larnard closed the public portion of the hearing at 7:47 p.m. Commissioner Dombrow questioned Mr. Lloyd Chandler, Southern California Edison Company as to how he reconciled the statement made in the letter of August 23, 1973 from Southern California Edison Company that they find no items that would adversely affect their operation or, from their standpoint, the environment, with a further statement saying that they are not accurately able to assess the demand for power. Mr. Lloyd Chandler replied that the first statement referred to the project, if built today. The later statement refers to the future, in that they have no way of knowing what will happen in ensuing years. They do, however, anticipate problems in serving their customers in 1974 - 1975. Most of their low sulfur comes from Indonesia at present and, future service will be dependent upon whether contracts can be successfully negotiated. APC rules will not allow burning of other than low sulfur oils. Moved by Commissioner Hare, seconded by Commissioner McHarris that the Irvine Company EIR Report and request for zone change (ZC 73-6) be continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 8, 1973. Commissioner Edgar stated there is a fundamental question of short and long-term analyses with regard to the intersection at Jamboree Road, a bridge or intersection at Browning, as well as what will be done at Myford Road. Also, if commitment is made to future loca- tion of Jamboree Road, what will happen to the Santa Ana Freeway? Mr. Fleagle replied that these points were not specifically addressed as a long range impact. There is a circulation element of the Irvine General Plan, moving Myford easterly of its present alignment. To have an intersection at both Myford, at its present location, and Jamboree would not be feasible. Therefore, it is proposed to move Myford easterly, with interchanges at Red Hill, Jamboree and on the new alignment at Myford Road, about one mile easterly of Jamboree Road. Commissioner Edgar noted that Walnut is indicated as a through street. Therefore, would traffic be attracted there, making it an arterial road, although it is not so designated? Mr. Fleagle replied that if there is a 100 foot right-of-way, it will soon pick up the capacity of an arterial. However, easterly, toward Irvine City, there will be other entrances into the tract from the My ford alignment. Commissioner Edgar stated he is still not convinced of the attractiveness of this proposal, and would like to see some type of direction as to terms of sales tax, property values and other considerations. Mr. Fleagle replied that this was a strong point made by staff in their Community Development Report when considering the adoption of the General Plan. Although there is no regional shopping center within the general area of Tustin, The Irvine Company is reluctant to locate one on this site. They do acknowledge there PC Minutes September 24, 1973 Page 3 may be room, but would like to open the door at another location but are hesitant to commit themselves as to location. The Irvine Company consultant indicated their evaluation was from an industrial development viewpoint and not as a regional shopping center. Mr. Flea~le stated it is his hope that responses from The Irvine Company requested by staff will indicate the feasibility of a regional shopping center location. Mr. Flea~le further clarified that a linear park is proposed midway between Walnut Avenue and the Santa Ana Freeway. The Irvine Company has stated proposed development is a unique concept in industrial parks, incorporating picnic area, regional park and recreational areas. Commissioner Edgar pointed out that instead of one broad park, designated park area should be scattered throughout the complex. Also, the linear park should be related to the group industrial complex. Motion to continue to October 8, 1973 carried unanimously. 2. ZC 73-6 A joint application of the City of Tustin Planning Commission and the Irvine Company for a zone change from Planned Community (Residential) to Planned Community (Industrial- Commercial). Location: Bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway to the north- east, the future alignment of Myford Avenue to the southeast, the U. S. Marine Corps Air Station (H) to the southwest, and the future alignment of Jamboree Road to the northwest. Mr. Fleagle reported on staff's considerations concerning this proposal to authorize an integrated Industrial-Commercial complex, subject to precise development standards, incorporating property annexed to the City of Tustin by Annexation 7lA on December 14, 1971. Mr. Flea~le then suggested that proposed zone change be continued to Planning Commission meeting scheduled for October 8, 1973, at which time The Irvine Company can respond to proposal and amended regulations can be presented. Commissioner Dombrow asked if Commission can adopt specific regulations as to who occupies the site, to which Mr. Flea~le replied that under Planned Community Districts, there are three alternatives. In this instance, there is a specific text and, in places not otherwise designated, this specific text applies. Chairman Larnard opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:07 p.m. Mr. Ra~mond W. Kimme¥ of the Irvine Industrial Complex stated he has not had an opportunity to evaluate staff's comments. There- fore, he would request a continuance of two weeks to evaluate these comments and recommendations. There being no further comments, Chairman Larnard closed the public portion of the hearing at 8:09 p.m. Further items of concern with regard to The Irvine Company's Planned Community District Regulations were: PC Minutes September 24, 19 73 Page 4 Section V. General Development Standards P. 5, Para. A. Item 1. Commissioner Dombrow commented that with staff's recommended change, there is still not an adequate definition. Therefore, there would be more and more truck traffic, rather than limited truck use. P. 5, Para. A. Item 2. Although structures may not cover more than 50% of net lot area, you can purchase an independent land site area and occupy as in any other joint area, while still being part of the Master Plan. Section VII. Conceptual Design Review P. 14, Para A. Item 7. To Commission concern, Mr. Flea~le replied that phased development protects the heavy development or adverse impact. When plan is submitted, there will be pro- vided a circulation system for that site so that use would not put a burden on residential streets, but would have major arterial access such as Myford Road or the Santa Ana Freeway. To Commissioner Dombrow's concern regarding truck and transportation terminals, with no guarantee that major arterial access will be used, and his concern toward integrity of neighborhood by the addition of heavy commercial classification, Mr. Flea~le replied this was not definitized and is part of the Report submitted by staff for clarification by The Irvine Company. Commissioner McHarris suggested it be defined by deleting truck terminal. To Commissioner Dombrow's question as to whether the City can set forth permitted uses under change of zoning, Mr. Rourke replied that the City retains the right to say what will be per- mitted within a planned community district. Section VI. Industrial/Commercial P. 11, Para. B. Item 1. 5). Commercial Sales/Warehousing To Commissioner Hare's question as to whether this includes heavy commercial, Mr. Flea~le replied that specific uses authorized are in the proposed Amendment. Since industries such as moving and storage companies fall within this particular category, per- mitted uses should be clarified for definitive Commission approval. Moved b~; Commissioner Dombrow, seconded by Commissioner Hare that ZC 73-6 be continued to the nex.t regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission on October 8, 1973. Carried unanimously. 3. UP 73-17 Lebanoff Development Corp. - for the purpose of authorizing construction of a 47 unit apartment complex within the Planned Community- Multiple Family (PC-R-3- 1750) District. Location: Site is located on the westerly side of Brown- ing Avenue, ± 250' south of Nisson Rd., Tustin Mr. Lenorovitz outlined the background on this request for a Use Permit, stat£ng the concerns which still prevail for Commission consideration and/or approval, as outlined in Staff's report to the Planning Commission. Chairman Larnard opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:30 p.m. Mr. William Reed, Architect stated he was present to answer any questions. PC Minutes September 24, 1973 Page 5 Mr. Lenorovitz noted that property to the south of the proposed development is zoned R4, which is developed in duplexes and triplexes. Mr. Will C. Duesler, 1971 Yolanda Way, Tustin, stated he owns a d~plex adjacent to proposed development whish is single story. He is concerned about the alleyway and trash facility to be located immediately behind his property, and that two-story apartments would block his view of Saddleback. It was noted by Mr. Lenorovitz that the two-story apartments would be located almost 100 feet from existing duplexes. Also, it was determined that duplex patios would abut the proposed development. Additionally, Mr. Duesler stated he was not aware that a 6'8" wall would be a requirement, which is higher than those normally erected between properties. To Commissioner Hare's query concerning number of duplexes, Mr. Duesler replied there are a total of nine, with five located on the proposed development side, thereby being directly affected by the development. Mr. Duesler inquired about traffic impact on Red Hill Avenue due to proposed development. Mr. Flea~le responded that if this proposed project would have less traffic and school impact than the duplex development presently creates. Mr. Duesler contended he would rather have single story than two-story development, but realizes the price of land would make this prohibitive. It is his belief that two-story apartments will adversely affect his own property value. Commissioner Hare questioned Mr. Duesler if he had discussed this with his neighbors to which Mr. Duesler replied that he had talked with one, who was not in attendance. There being no further comments, Chairman Larnard closed the public portion of the hearing at 8:45 p.m. Commissioner Dombrow noted the location of a trash receptacle adjacent to duplex, but separated by 6'8" wall, with landscaped area and completely screened from view. Since Mr. Duesler might object to this location, it was suggested that another location could be worked out with staff. Mr. Reed stated that the idea of having a trash receptacle in the present noted location would be for the convenience of apartment occupants who could pass the area enroute to their cars. However, Mr. Reed agreed that a relocation would be permissible. Commissioner Dombrow questioned Mr. Reed if he had had an oppor- tunity to review staff comments. Mr. Reed stated that he had, and that the presently existing block wall could be made higher by the addition of another block. Mr. Fleagle stated that, according to Ordinance 534, the Director of Community Development may waive or modify any wall requirements as specified...where there is a solid masonry wall existing immediately adjacent on the contiguous pro- perty, if concurrence of adjacent property owner can be obtained, when necessary, to modify an existing wall to meet the requirements of this Ordinance. Mr. Flea~le questioned Mr. Reed whether this development is intended to be a security facility with key access. Mr. Reed stated such security system is intended for main entrance and PC Minutes September 24, 1973 Page 6 entrance to the side. Also some consideration has been given to providing a gate. Guest parking area would not need a card nor key to enter. Guest parking will also alleviate use of the street as a parking area, since 21 spaces are indicated, which will be more than adequate. Commissioner Hare questioned that with security gates, how do emergency vehicles enter the area? Mr. Fleagle replied that such vehicles carry bolt cutters and are also furnished keys or cards. Commissioner McHarris noted that proposed development complies with zoning requirements and contains much esthetic value. If Applicant will relocate offending trash location, it will be an attractive addition to the community. Moved by Commissioner Hare, seconded by Commissioner Edgar, that Resolution No. 1366 be passed and adopted. The Community Development Department was directed to make adjust- ments necessary regarding location of trash receptacle. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 1366 carried unanimously. PUBLIC CONCERNS - None OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS Rayell Company - Approval of plot, parking lot and landscaping plans. Location: Del Amo Avenue near Valencia Avenue Moved by Commissioner McHarris, seconded by Commissioner Dombrow, that Resolution No. 1368 be passed an~ adopted. Carried unanimously. Formal Finding 73-3 - To waive underground requirements of Ordinance No. 455 (Virginia Stevens) Mr. Fleagle stated that Ordinance No. 455 provides for undergrounding of services, except when Commission finds service can go overhead without violating the intent of the Ordinance. Service was in- stalled without benefit of a permit from the Building Department. Chairman Larnard requested staff recommendation as far as under- grounding, specifically related to this property. Mr. Fleagl~ stated it was improbable than an underground district would be formed in the immediate future that would include this specific property. Property owner has stated that when district forms, there would be no objection to undergrounding at that time. Chairman Larnard asked if there was any type of agreement to consider. Mr. Fleagle replied that an appropriate statement should be prepared that Applicant waive all protests to under- grounding. Moved by Commissioner Dombrow, seconded by Commissioner Edgar that a variance (Formal Finding 73-3) be granted to Virginia Stevens, provided she waive all protest to under~roundin~ of her service in the future. Carried unanimously. PC Minutes September 24, 1973 Page 7 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None CORRESPONDENCE Environmental Impact Report for County Use Permit 3440 - Lemon Heights Mutual Water Company - to permit construction of water reservoir and pump station. Location: Tustin northeast unincorporated area. Mr. Lenorovitz reviewed the background for Commission members and stated that the Orange County Planning Department will be consider- ing the staff concerns outlined in letter to the Orange County Planning Department dated September 20, 1973. Additionally, staff may relate to County by phone any further comments or concerns of the Commission. Mr. Lenorovitz stated that, according to plot, height would vary to 22 foot grade and staff has suggested it be depressed lower. Commissioner Dombrow stated his exception to the tone of the draft EIR concerning alternatives to the proposed project, Item A, which was tantamount to coercion. Mr. Flea~le reflected the same concern for Items B and C, noting that none of the reasons given are a justification for a non- conforming use. Further, with regard to their statement of a limited budget, this is an inappropriate justification for expand- ing a nonconforming use. Therefore, Items B and C do not provide any justification for action of an agency to violate public laws. Moved by Commissioner Hare, seconded by Commissioner Dombrow, that staff be directed to indicate to the Orange County Planning Depart- ment by'telephone Commissions' objection to Page 10, Items A, B, and C, of the EIR Report. Carried unanimously. Orange County Conditional Permit (CP-1470) - to authorize construction of a 77 unit Planned Condominium Development. Location: Southeast side of Newport Avenue and the northeast side of La Colina, just east of the intersection of these two streets. Mr. Lenorovitz outlined the comments contained in staff's report to the Planning Commission concerning this proposed development, as well as the draft letter prepared for the Chairman's signature, expressing these concerns to the Orange County Planning Commission, who will hear this case on October 8, 1973. Commissioner Dombrow expressed his concern of a development of a fairly large apartment complex in a residential district, stating that while the project is beautiful, it is not compatible with surrounding neighborhood, nor does it conform to our General Plan. Commissioner Hare concurred with this statement. Moved by Commissioner Dombrow, seconded by Commissioner McHarris, that letter for Chairman's 'signature be prepared to in'dicate Tustin City's development standards and that, due to loca'tion, the proposed development falls within our Sphere of Influence and does not conform to Tustin's General Plan nor to the surrounding n~ighborhood. PC Minutes September 24, ].973 Page 8 Commissioner McHarris questioned if the County can impose con- flicting use to our General Plan. Mr. Fleagle replied there was a procedure where zoning changes could not be granted in violation of a General Plan, but that General Plans are subject to various interpretations, and the County is not bound by the City of Tustin's interpretation. Motion carried unanimously. 3. 1983-Land Use Element, Orange County General Plan Since a representative of the Orange County Land Use Element will be present at the next Planning Commission meeting, it was moved by Commissioner Dombrow, seconded by Commissioner McHarris, t-~ Land Use Element - Orange County General Plan be continued to October 8, 1973. Carried unanimously. STAFF CONCERNS Pending Items Variance for electric sign in the R-4 District submitted by Tustin Convalescent Hospital Mr. Fleagle stated that it is the Tustin Convalescent Hospital's desire to obtain a variance for an electric sign to extend approxi- mately 12 feet upward for visibility from First Street. This will be a public hearing item. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner ~dg~r expressed his pleasure of being a member of the Planning Commission. He stated the necessity to distill all material and available data, particularly in capital improvements of the City for more necessary visibility. For example, arterial roads. First Street now under development, what are the next roadways of an arterial nature to be developed? Commissioner also cited parksites and renovation of sewer system. It s desire that workshops be planned with participation from Planning Commission and Parks & Recreation, taking existing material and projecting what Tustin will be like next year or a generation from now. Mr. Fleagle stated Commissioner Edgar was referring to TNT Com- mission which recommended a public works program which included as priorities the development of First Street and the new City Hall which is presently under way. At the present time, the City Engineer is working on a capital improvement program which will indicate the public needs requirements. Under procedure of State Planning Law, this will be reviewed by the Planning Commission for comment and/or adoption and forwarded to City Council. Chairman Larnard noted that the Planning Commission will be in- volved in work shop sessions. Mr. Fleagle commented that the starting point is the basic work document which the City Engineer is now compiling. Commissioner Edgar thinks there must be immediate positive stand on the part of the City to accelerate the incorporation of County islands to the City. Chairman Larnard stated there is State legislation now under way concerning County islands, to which Mr. Fleagle replied that it had been tabled for another year. Mr. Fle~gle further explained that County residents have been very emphatic in their refusal to become a part of the City. PC Minutes September 24, 1973 Page 9 2. Election of Chairman Pro Tern Chairman Larnard stated that the office of Chairman Pro Tem being vacant, {he Bylaws of the Planning Commission state this office will be filled at the next regular meeting of the Planning Com- mission, said meeting now being held. Moved by Commissioner Dombrow, seconded by Commissioner Hare, that election of Chairman Pro Tem be continued until next regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for October 8, 1973. Approved unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner McHarris, seconded by Commissioner Dombrow, that meeting be adjourned at 10:10 p.m. to Monday, October 8, 1973, at 7:30 p.m. Carried unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN