Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-24-72MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: October 24, 1972 TIME: '7:30 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers, 275 South "C" Street PRESENT: Curtis, Sharp, Dukleth, Edelstein ABSENT: Larnard INDEX PAGE ROLL CALL .................................................. 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 9, 1972 ............................ 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ~tem Specific Plan - Bicycle Trails and Ways ................ New Item ZC-72-234 - Planning Commission Initiated .............. 1 OLD BUSINESS - none NEW BUSINESS City of Orange General Plan ............................ 2-3 Final Tract Map No. 7954 ............................... 3-4 Pending Items .......................................... 4 CORRESPONDENCE - none STAFF CONCERNS ............................................. 4 COMMISSION CONCERNS Development Procedures - other cities .................. 4-5 Conference on Environmental Impact Statements .......... 5 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - none ADJOURNMENT ................................................ 5 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 1972 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 24th day of October, 1972, at the hour of 7:30 p.mo of said day in the Council Chambers, 275 South "C" Street, Tustin, California. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sharp. The Invocation was given by Commissioner Edelstein. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Others Present: Curtis, Sharp, Dulketh, Edelstein. Larnard James G. Rourke, City Attorney R. Kenneth Fleagle, Assistant City Administrator - Community Development Director Pat Brown, Assistant Planning Director Mary Ann Chamberlain, Planning Commission Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 9, 1972 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Item 1. Specific Plan - Bicycle Trails and Ways Mr. Fleagle recommended that a further four weeks continuance of this item be considered by the Planning Commission so that a more accurate and comprehensive compilation of information can be presented. Commissioner Sharp moved that this item be continued to the November 27th meeting; seconded by Commissioner Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 New Item ZC-72-234 - Planning Commission Initiated - a zone change from a C-1 and R-3 District to the Public and Institutional District for the property known as the Civic Center site. Location: Subject property is located at the northwesterly inter- section of Main Street and Centennial Way, with frontage of approximately 424' on Main Street and 679' along Cen- tennial Way. As a result of the successful passage of the recent civic center bond issue by the citizens of Tusti~ it is proposed that the site in question be developed as a civic center for the city. Mr. Fleagle advised that when precise plans are available, a Use Permit will be applied for. Chairman Curtis opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:45 p.m., and seeing or hearing no one for or against the issue, closed the publ portion of the hearing at 7:46 p.m. Commissioner Sharp inquired ~bout the moving of the maintenance depart- ment from their present location to their new location. M_r. Fle~gle stated that this action has not yet been determined. Commissioner Shar~ moved for approval of ZC-72-234 by adoption of Resolu- tion No. 1295; seconded by Commissioner Dukleth. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PC Minutes ].0/24/72 Page two OLD BUSINESS - none NEW BUSINESS 1. City o'f Orange General Plan Mr. Brown reviewed the Orange General Plan and reported on the following: 1. Boundaries There is apparently no conflict with our northernmost boundar- ies which consist of Fairhaven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Instead of following Foothill Boulevard in a general south- easterly direction towards Peters Canyon Road as our Sphere of Influence indicates, they have projected their boundary line almost due eastward from the vicinity of Newport Avenue which creates a pie-shaped "no-mads land" in the vicinity south of Peters Canyon Reservoir. 2. Circulation A) No eastward projection of the Garden Grove Freeway is indicated, easterly of the Newport Freeway. B) Both Hewes Avenue and Prospect Avenue have been upgraded from the County Master Arterial Plan from a secondary to primary status. The projection of the streets south- ward of Fairhaven Avenue in these primary categories is shown on their General Plan. c) Peters Canyon Road is shown as a primary, which may or may not be in conflict with the County Arterial Plan. 3. Recreation Element They show the abandoned Southern Pacific Railroad line as being a recreation path and greenbelt; however, they do not indicate what kind of path, although their bicycle plan does show this feature as being a part of that system. 4. Residential Densities A) The area north of Fairhaven, between Hewes and slightly east of Newport Avenue, has been designated low density residential (5 d.u.'s per gross acre). Our General Plan indicated 2.5 dwelling units per gro~s acre. B) A much more dramatic residential increase is programmed along PeterS Canyon Road, near the Irvine Lake area and extending northward of Chapman Avenue. In this gen- eral area they are indicating medium density residential at 12 d.u.'s per gross acre. This is just north of the northern limits of our Conservation area with General Plan indications of 1.5 dwelling units per net acre. While it is in their Sphere of Influence, it could have many impacts on our Sphere and the surrounding Open Space and Conservation Elements, and the regional park system programmed by the County. It is recommended that a letter be forwarded to the City of Orange Plan- ning Commission with the Chairman's signature. Commissioner Sharp questioned Staff as to whether the City of Orange worked with the Countv and the City of Tustin to see whether it conformed had contacted the Count},. Tho City of Tustin has not had any input for this document. Mr. F].o~(~io explained that by law a city is required to consult with other jurisdictions. ]{owcver, the city has the right to determine its own use even if it does conflict with another city. There is no arbitrative judge in these' n:~tters. -2- PC Minutes 10/24/72 Page three ' ' i part SharF~ .... · r ......... Foothill ]{omeowners Association. Mr. Flea~31__qe stated that they identify themselves as the Tustin Foothill Holneowners' Association. Commissioner Sharp commented that he felt it is important that the T.F.H.A. know about the Orange General Plan hearings. Chairman Curtis added that the County Planning Department and the City of Irvine should receive a copy of the letter transmitted to the City of Orange, and thc Tustin Foothill Homeowners Association should be notified about the Orange General Plan. Commissioner Share moved to authorize the Chairman to sign and transmit a letter, as drafted, to the City of Orange, from the Tustin Planning Cormmission, stating Tustin's areas of concern; seconded by ~o~missioner Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 2. Final Tract Map No. 7954 Mr. Fleagle read the City Engineer's report to the Commission and stated that this report was submitted to the Department late this date and copies were furnished the Commission this evening. In addition, letters have been presented by the Irvine Company, assuming responsibility for certain improvements. Matters of concern from the City Engineer include size of lots, maintenance of parkways, and Sycamore Avenue grade cross- ing. The Commission should determine whether or not the Final Map is in sub- stantial conformance with the Tentative Tract Map and consistent with applicable general and specific plans, and make a recommendation of findings to the City Council. Chairman Curtis stated that since it had been submitted at such a late date, Staff did not have a chance to study it and offer recommendations on the compatibility of the Tentative Map to the Final Map, nor did the Commission have a previous opportunity to review it. Mr. Fleagle stated that although the City Engineer had reviewed it, the Community Development Department had only looked at it briefly. Commissioner Edel- stein requested that Mr. Jager comment on some of the areas of concern regarding the Final Tract Map. Mr. Jaqer commented that he had spoken with Mr. Fleagle on the minimum 55' frontage and desired to take 5' from some properties in order to make some lots 60' in order to construct homes with three car garages. If this does not meet with the Commission's approval, he is willing to change all the lots back to the 55' minimum frontage. This was the first item of concern in Mr. Myers' repcrt. The second item was that the Tentative Map indicated landscaped parkway areas along the south side of Walnut Avenue and the City Council had de- termined that the City would not perform the maintenance on them. The Ayres Company now intends to install full concrete parkways with only standard street trees for lapdscaping. Mr. Jager feels that either the City Council has the choice of accepting the concrete parkways or set them up as service areas, lie further stated that they did not set up a community homeowners association and do not intend to do so. That leaves no one to maintain the parkways. The Ayres Company has VA approval on this tract and if they now imple- mented a homeowners association, it would possibly take another year to get the VA approval. They are ready to start building as.soon as the Final Map is recorded. The third item was that the Public Uti]~i~ Commission staff had indicated they would recommend against an additional crossing of the railroad at Sycamore Avenue. Mr. ,~aqer stated hhat th2 tract only goes to the rail- road and the developer could not be hel~ to sign a Hold Harmless Agree- ment because they v;oul, d undoubtedly be ':inished :.;itt] the tract in a few _ . ~n(., C~ty of Tu.qtin would s~c~n '-ne aareement instead. However, if the City w,~nts accc'~,;.~'~ acres..; t]~e r.::~:i.]road at Sycamore, the Ayres -3- PC Minutes 10/24/72 Page four Company would pay for it. Mr. Jager commented that the City received a letter from the Irvine Company stating that the Irvine Company will dedicate the north half of Walnut Avenue and also will dedicate the Park. Mr. Jager will bond for the improvements in the park. Mr. Fleagle suggested that perhaps an Envirenmental Impact Statement was needed since financing was being provided by VA. Mr. Jager said he was informed by the VA that they were not needed on VA projects. Warren James of the Irvine Company stated that the Irvine Company would supply a copy of an Environmental Impact Statement if they were required by the Veterans Administration to prepare one. Chairman Curtis suggested that since there were no Staff recommendations, the Commission would not be able to establish that the Final Tract Map is in substantial conformance with the Tentative Tract Map. Commissioner Edelstein moved to continue the consideration of Final Tract Map 7954; seconded by Commissioner Sharp. The matter was discussed further among the Commissioners and it was de- cided that more information and recommendations were needed from Staff in order to perform their job correctly, and they were reluctant to make findings on the basis of unscheduled agenda presentations. The ~ity Engineer, Mr. Myers, summarized his report and stated he felt that everything was in conformance with the Tentative, although the three items discussed thus far were not resolved. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 Mr. Brown reviewed the pending items: 1. UP-72-396 - Clyde Stockdale - 14851 Yorba 2. PZ-72-137 - Roy E. Daly, Jr. - 1731 Mitchell 3. PZ-72-138 - Best Years, Inc. - 13061 Irvine CORRESPONDENCE - none STAFF CONCERNS Workshop - Land Use Element Chairman Curtis suggested that the Workshop be held after the adjourn- ment of the Regular Commission meeting. . COMMISSION CONCERNS 1. Development Procedures - other cities Mr. Brown gave a summary of his report of Development procedures of other ~~ in Orange County. Chairman Curtis suggested forwarding this report to the City Council along with a cover letter because he was interested in seeing this pro- ject through to an end result. Co~missioner Sha~ questioned Staff about the Interdepartmental Committee and wanted to know whcm they reported to. Mr. Fleagle said that the trend for most of the large cities in the area is to report to the Community Development Director. The Commissioners discussed the matter of taking the necessary steps to assure that the City is getting what they approved from the beginning of a construction job to its ultimate development. '~'hey fee~ ~na~ £ur~ner c~ntinui~y b~t~n d~t,~,t~ i~ ~,~£y b~ having ali. the departments report to one responsible person. -4- PC Minutes 10/24/72 Page five Commissioner Sharp moved to transmit this report with a cover letter fr' Li Ci i ' ' iL~' ................. izational changes and procedures. Commissioner Edolstein seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 2. Conference on Environmental Impact Statements A one-day Conference on Environmental Impact Statements will be held eT Friday, November 17, 1972 in Orange sponsored by the University of California Extension, Irvine. Commissioner SharE moved to request allocation of funds from City Council for two representatives from the Planning Commission to attend this EIS Conference. Seconded by Commissioner Dukleth. MOTION CARRIED. 4-0 Commissioner Dukleth expressed his concern of items appearing before the Co~nission that were not placed on the Agenda. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - none ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Edelstein moved for adjournment at 10:00 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Shar~; to discuss the Land Use Element of the General Plan, t-hen to a regular scheduled meeting on November 13, 1972. .... ~>< . ~ ~/' "[" ~fIAiRMAN-OF THE PLANNING C~MMISSION PLA~NI¢ING/~OM~ISSION R~CORDING SECRETARY -5-