Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-12-72MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN PLANNING COmmISSION DATE: June 12, 1972 TIME: 7:35 PLACE: Council Chambers, 275 South "C" Street PRESENT: Curtis, Dukleth, Edelstein, Sharp ABSENT: Larnard INDEX ROLL CALL ......................................... OF REGULAR 22, 1972 ....................... Malo, Inc. - Dan Jones - Vandenberg (Kartopia) ........... (Shopping Center) ...... (Shopping Center) ..... APPROVAL OF MINUTES MEETING OF MAY PUBLIC HEARINGS UP-69- 332 - UP-72-379 UP-72- 379 Amendment to Section V, H. Offstreet Parking Attached Single-family Units, Appendix B, Ordinance No. 528 .......................... Housing Element to the Tustin Area General Plan Open Space - Conservation - Recreation Element to the Tustin Area General Plan ............ OLD BUSINESS Ayres Neighborhood Plan ...................... Tentative Tract Map No. 7813 (Alternate Plan B) Newport Shores Builders .................... Neighborhood Plan (South Coast Development Corp.) NEW BUSINESS Pending Applications ......................... CORRESPONDENCE Orange County Tentative Map of Tract 7873 .... L~ague of Cities Letter ...................... STAFF CONCERNS Tract Map No. 7420 ........................... COMMISSION CONCERNS - none AUDIENCE PA]~ICIPATIO~ - none ADJOURNMENT~ ...................................... PAGE 1 1 2-3 2-3 3-4 4 4 4-5 5-6 6-7' 7 7 7 8 8 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF TtIE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 1972 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning commission was held on the 12th day of June, 1972, 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 Edelstein. The Invocation was given by Commissioner Dukleth. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Others Present: Curtis, Dukleth, Edelstein and Sharp. 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 Kecording Secretary ' Commissioner Larnard was called out of town on business and ex- pressed ~is ~incere regrets in not being able to attend this meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 22, 1372 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1) Amendment to Use Permit 69-332 - Malo, Inc. (Kartopia) - to permit an amendment to Use Permit 69-332, to permit various types of electronic games in conjunction with a permitted Go-Cart facility. Location: Site fronts approximately 300' on southwest side of Laguna Road and is located approximately 230' southeasterly of the center line of Newport Ave. Mr. Fleagle summarized the Staff report and recommended that Resolution 1140, Use Permit 69-332, be amended to permit various' types of electronic games in conjunction with the permitted Go- Cart facility operation, by the adoption of Resolution 1267. The. comments of Police Chief Sissel were read into the record to the point that: 1. All State and City laws be followed. 2. All machines be licensed. Commissioner Sharp wanted to know if there were any gambling aspects connected with the machines. Mr. Fleagle stated that the Use Permit would be subject to revocation if gambling were .reported and the Resolution would require self policing. Public portion of hearing was opened at 7:40 by Chairman Curtis, seeing and hearing no one to speak for or against the issue, the public portion was closed at 7:41 for discussion among the Commissioners. Commissioner Sharp questioned Mr. Fleagle about the'closing time. Mr. FleaGle stated that the closing time permitted by Use Permit 69-332 i~ 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Sha£p moved that Resolution No. 1267 be adopted, ~en-di-ng Use Permit 69-332. Commissioner Ed~ein seconded that motion. MOTION CARRIE]): 4-0. Amendment to Use Permit 72-379. Location: Southwesterly corner of 17th Street and Prospect Avenue with a frontage of approximately 569' on the southerly side of 17th Street. Mr..Fleagle summarized the Staff report and recommended that the P~anning Commission either reject the proposal as submitted or continue the matter to the next regular meeting as an open hearing for the purpose of providing the applicant with an opportunity to revise the plans to incorporate those design features the Planning Commission deems essential for the project. The City Engineer has not had an opportunity to review the plans and requested that the public hearing be continued for two weeks to give him more time to better evaluate this proposal. Mr. Fleagle suggested that Public }{earing Items No. 2 & 3 be con- sidered together because of their inter-relationship. Commissioner Sharp moved to combine Items 2 & 3, Commissioner Ede]st~in seconded ~-~m~tion MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 Mr. Flea~le invited the Commissioner's attention to a letter received from Mr. A1 Enderle, this date, outlining the history of Use Permit 72-379, as related to his property. Public portion of hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. by Chairman Curtis. 1. Mr. Don Thamer, 1666 North Main Street, Santa Ana, CA, attorney for Mr. Dan Jones, wanted to clarify that Mr. Jones,s Use Permit application was separate from Mr. Vandenberg's Use Permit application. This had also been brought to the attention of the Development Preview Commission so they could also them as separate items. However, the original approved precise master plan conside~ them as one item, not separately. Mr. Thamer further discussed the building set-back on the rear property line, saying that it should not be more than 60', otherwise, it would take away too much parking area in the front that was needed. He also stated that the owner felt that a public road was not necessary along the rear property line. Commissioner Edelstein asked Staff if the parking was adequate. Mr. Fleagle stated that he had not reviewed the new plans and ~id not know if it met standards, since the revised plans are being presented for the first time at this meeting. 2. Mr. Bob French,4500 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, CA, commented that the only difference between the plans that had been reviewed by the Development Preview Commission, and the new plans this evening, was the building set-back on the rear property line therefore cutting down the amount of parking spaces. He also commented that the City Engineer thought that the road was not necessary but desirable. Mr. French further stated that when Western Mortgage dropped the options he was forced to drop the Enderle Property which is adjacent to the Vandenberg property on the West. ~ 3. Mr. A1 Enderle, 3662 Carmel, Irvine, gave a brief history of the o-~g~in'al precise master plan. His concern was the traffic flow and the rear road, since he has already donated three acres of land to have the road built. Mr. Ender]e wondered if his easements wou].d be returned to him if the master plot plan were not used. The public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:15. 2 Conunissioner Sharp questioned the location and use of the Flood Contr--6]l-'~-h-~l and the possibility of building on top of it versus covering it or remaining as an open channel. " Flea,lc_ stated that part of it is covered and may be construct. J upon. The developer intends to construct upon part of it and the re-~ maining part has to be covered or screened and landscaped. Commissioner S~ar~ stated that if the present plan of having the rear road end in a cul-de-sac, and Mr. Enderle wanted his dedicated land returned to him, then the City would be back to where it started 4 years ago, with no master plan. The Commissioners decided they do not want to make a hasty decision on this plan because they want a quality development, something worthwhile. Mr. Fleagle suggested that a workshop session be held to iron out all the problems, and get an understanding of what the City wants. The Commissioners then discussed the possible traffic problems that would result on 17th Street without a rear public road access. Mr. Edelstein moved, seconded by Mr. Sharp that a workshop session e~cheduled between now and the next Planning Commission meeting, with recommendations from Staff. Mr. French and Attorney Thamer felt that a workshop session would have no value since Mr. Jones does not want to dedicate one acre for the road. Attorney Rourke suggested that the Commission gather all 'the Staff recom~endations and continue the hearing before making a definite decision and sending it to the City Council. Mr. Fleagle stated that the benefit of continuing it would be for Staff's specific. proposals and justifications for any change that might be made in the master plan. The Staff can present reasons that would justify change, and reasons and data that would not justify change. If it were appealed to the City Council, the Staff would have the same obligations. The Commission does serve as the final authority on a Use Permit unless it is appealed to the City Council. I~ it 'is appealed to the City Council, they would need the benefit of the reasons and justifications for the denial by the Commission. By continuance it gives the Staff the opportunity to present to the Commission in Resolution form those reasons why the master plan should not be changed and by Resolution those elements which could be changed without injury to. the City. Commissioner Dukleth inquired about a traffic report from Staff concerning the traffic on 17th Street. Mr. Fleagle answered that this could be done within the next two weeks. Commissioner Edelstein moved a substitute motion to continue the open public hea~i~gs on amendment to Use Permit 72-379 to the next regular meeting of the Commission on June 26, 1972. Commissioner Sharp seconded that motion. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 4) Amendment to Section V, H. Offstreet Parking Attached Single- Family Units, Appendix "B", Ordinance No. 528. Mr. Fleagle summarized the Staff report and recommended that the guest parking space be reduced from one to ½ space for each unit to provide additional landscape area, by ~pproval of Resolution No. 1270. Due notice of a public hearing at this time and place had been given to the proposed amendment. There was some discussion of the size of the units and the effect of the parking on streets because of this Resolution. Mr. Fleagle pointed out to the Commissioners that this is a self-contained project served by private streets and the overflow guest parking would be on private streets within the project. This would not ! effect guest parking on public collector streets. The public portion of the hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m. by Chairman Curtis; seeing and hearing no one to speak for or against the issue, the public portion was closed at 8:56 p.m. Commissioner Edelstein moved that Resolution 1270 be adopted, seconded by Commissioner Dukleth. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 5) Housing Element to the Tustin Area General Plan. Mr. Flea~le summarized the report, advising that the adoption of a Housing Element is required by California State Law. This Element, has been forwarded to all adjacent cities, the County of Orange, and the Local Agency Formation Commission, according to the Government Code. Comments have not been received from any of these agencies. It is recommended that, if the Housing Element meets the context and intent of the Government Code, Resolution 1269'be adopted, recommending approval of the Housing Element to t-~City Council. Public portion of hearing was-opened at 8:57 p.m. by Chairman Curtis; seeing and hearing no one to speak for or against the ~ssue, the public portion was closed at 8:58 p.m. for discussion among the Commissioners. Commissioner Sharp moved to approve Resolution 1269, seconded by Commissioner Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 6) Open Space - Conservation - Recreation Element to the Tustin Area General Plan. Mr. Brown summarized the report stating that Staff had combined Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation because of the corre- lation between the subjects, and in conformance with a model plan propagated by the State of California. It is recommended that if the Planning Commission feels the Open Space - Conservation - Recreation Element as presented is a desirable and functional one, meeting the context and intent of the Government Code, Resolution No. ~268 be adopted, recommending approval to the City Council. Public portion of hearing was opened at 9:05 p.m. by Chairman Curtis; seeing and hearing no one to speak for or against the ~ssue, the public portion was closed at 9:06 p.m. for discussion among the Commission. Commissioner Edelstein moved that Resolution 1268 be adopted, seconded by Commissioner Sharp. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 OLD BUSINESS 1) Ayres Neighborhood Plan Location.: South of Walnut Avenue, north of mainline SFRR, bounded on the west by Venta Spur Line and on the east by the proposed alignment of Jamboree Road. Mr. F]eag]e summarized the report and reconm~ended that the Neigh- borhood Plan be approved and a Tentative Subdivision Map be con- sidered, based upon the a~proved concept:] of the neighborhood The following stipulations are recommended as conditions c~ approval of the neighborl~ood plan: 1. Jamboree Road shall be fenced off from being a pl~lic acCeSS way. 2. Slope areas of Jan%boree Road be planted with a ground cover, trees, and irrigat.~on system, maintained by the Irvine Company, until such time the roadway is dedicated and accepted. 3. Walnut Street, for the frontage of the development,, shall be improved to full street width in conjunction with tha development and occupancy of the first phased development with costs shared on an equal basis by adjoining projects. 4. Landscaped ber_ms on the southerly perimeter of the tract shall be constructed as sound barriers, within the confines of private property limits, with deed restrictions' to assure the perpetuation of the sound barriers. There was discussion on these four stipulations and Mr. Mike Jager was called upon to give his views at this time. Mike Jager, Newport Shores Builders, stated that he did not want to be responsible for the stipulation of irrigation of the slope areas of Jamboree Road for ten or fifteen years. Also they are obligated to develop Walnut Street to the center line. Newport Shores Builders feel they should not be obligated to completely develop the street if the South Coast Development property were sold meanwhile, to someone else. Mr. Fleagle pointed out to the Commissioners that since there is only one owner involved, (The Irvine Company) the development of the street should be an internal arrangement with the Irvine Company between the two developers. The cost of the improvements should be shared so that it doesn't become a burden upon any one developer. After some discussion, it was agreed upon that No. 3'of the Recommendations should be changed to read: Walnut Street, for the frontage of the development, shall be improved to full street width prior to certificate of occupancy, for the first phased development with costs shared on an equal basis by adjoining pro- jects. There was discussion about the drainage for Jamboree Blvd. and Mr. Fleagle suggested that since Jamboree is technically outside of the tract but in the neighborhood, it would be appropriate to include it within the neighborhood plan. Therefore it would be condition No. 5: Drainage for Jamboree Boulevard shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. Chairman Curtis asked the other Commissioners if No. 2 of the recommendations was going to remain unchanged, since it was stated earlier in the discussion that Ayres did not want to get involved with installing an irrigation system on the slope areas of Jamboree Boulevard. After some discussion, the commission- ers agreed that No. 2 of the recommendations should remain as is, and the irrigation system should be installed. Commissioner Sharp moved that the Neighborhood Plan be approved with the Staff's recommendations, modifying No. 3 and adding No. 5. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 2) Tentative Tract~Map No. 7813 (Alternate Plan B) - Newport Shores Builders Mr. Fleagle summarized the Staff report and made the following suggestion that somewhere in the recommendations there should be an offering of the dedication of Jamboree Boulevard, by the Irvine Company, at such time it is required for public purposes. Approval of Tentative Tract No. 7813 is recommended for approval by the City Engineer and Conununity Development Department subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedication of right-of-way including corner cutoffs for all interior streets to the right-of-way widths as shown on the tentative map with the exception that "E" Street between "A" Street and "B" Street be dedicated with a 60' right-of-way. 9_. Dedication of right-of-way for Walnut Avenue, as required by the City Engineer and offer of dedication of Jamboree Boulevard, by the Irvine Company, at such time as it is re- quired for public purposes. 3. Installation of full street improvements on all interior streets including curb and gutter, sidewalk, paving, driveway aprons, cross gutters and underground conduit street lighting including annexation of the entire tract to the Tustin Lighting District, all being constructed to the grades approved by and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Tangent curbs to have an absolute minimum grade of 0.40%. Curb radiuses cul-de-sac curbs 'and cross' gutters to have a minimum grade of 1.00%. "E" Street between "A" Street and "B" Street to be constructed to 40' curb to curb width centered within the right-of-way and loop collector streets to be constructed with a 40' curb to curb width with a 9' parkway on one side and an 11' parkway on the opposite side. 4. Construction of full street improvements on the south half of Walnut ·Avenue as required and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, with the balance of full street improvements to be constructed by others prior to certificate of occupancy. 5. Construction of underground storm drainage facilities and inlets as required and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to allow no more than 1000 lineal feet of over the surface drain age before being intercepted by a storm drain inlet. 6. Provide domestic water system and public sewers to serve all lots including any required off-site construction. 7. Installation of street trees on all frontages in accordance with the Master Street Tree Plan. 8. Installation of all utilities underground in all phases of the development. No overhead poles to be set within the p roper ty. Commissioner Edelstein moved that Tentative Tract No. 7813 be approved as outlined and amended by Staff. Co~missioner Sharp seconded this motion. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 OLD BUSINESS 3) Neighborhood Plan (South Coast Development Corporation) Location: 74 acre parcel north of Walnut, east of B~owning and south of the Santa Ana Freeway. Mr. Fleagle summarized the S'taff report and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a minute order substantially as follows: It is moved that the neighborhood plan for Roundtree Develop- ment as approved on March 27, 1972, is hereby revoked and in lieu thereof there is herewith approved a neighborhood plan as submitted by the South Coast Development Corporation dated May 15, 1972,. authorizing the preparation of a Tentative Tract Map for the area identified as Area ~4 of the Irvine Planned Community District, to be developed with 40 acres as detached single-family residential units at 6 units per acre and 30 acres as garden townhouses at 10 units per acre and 4 acres for private recreation and park area. Commissioner E~elst¢:in commented that he had two comments to make cc ~eruing the proposed single-family units. 1. The front set back of 6' is the same on every unit an(] some variation s],ou].d be accoimnodated. 2. All the garage:; are in the rear of the units therefore special design treatment is required for the rea' rvice roads. Mr. Ed Akins showed his slides of a comparable tract in Seal Beach. Commissioner Edelstein moved that the minute order, as outlined by the Staff, be approved. Com~missioner Dukleth seconded this motion. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 NEW BUSINESS (PENDING APPLICATIONS) 1) Application of Shell Oil Company for a Use Permit (UP-72-386), to permit the construction of a new service station facility to replace a nearby existing facility. Location is the easterly corner of the intersection of Newport Ave. and Main Street. 2) Application of William J. Doherty for a Use Permit (UP-72-387), to permit the operation of a health club in an existing shopping center. Location is the easterly corner of the intersection of Newport Avenue and Old Irvine Boulevard. 3) Applicaton of George Argyros for a Use Permit (UP-72-358), to permit the six month display of promotional banners and flags in the parkway area for the purpose of advertising vacancies at the Villa Viento Apartments. Site is located at 345 W First St. CORRESPONDENCE 1) Orange County Tentative Map of Tract 7873. Location: Subject property, consisting of approximately 4.6 acres, is located on the southeasterly side of Red Hill Avenue approximately 230' northeasterly of the centerline of San Juan Street. Mr. Brown summarized the Staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the Orange County Planning Commission, that the present request and future similar requests be approved only if the property to be converted from multiple- family to condominium status meets the necessary site development criteria of a planned unit development district. Commissioner Edelstein moved that Staff's recommendation be approved; seconded by Commissioner Sharp. · MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 2) League of Cities Letter: Consideration of Annual Conference Program. Mr. Fleagle referred to the correspondence from the League of California Cities that announced their Annual Conference on October 18-19, 1972. They request a response to the Berkeley Office advising what the Planning Commission considers their most import~ problems at this time. The Commissioners instructed the Staff to respond for the Commission on the following matters of concern: 1. An amondment to the annexation laws. 2. Impact of the new sub-division map act. 3. Return to the philosophy of state enabling acts for local planning rather than the mandatory requirements of State Planning Law. 4. An Amendment to the 1965 Act that puts definition and terms into that act. · -STAFF CCNCERNS ~ ..... . .... : · .. ! '". '.' I Tract Map No. 7420 - . Location: East side of Prospect Avenue, approximately 150' north of Beneta Way - Andrews Construction Company. Mr. Fleagle sun%~arized the report .of' Staff and reco~,~.ended that the Commission adopt by minute order a finding substantially as follows: Tract No. 7420 (Andrews Construction Company) located on the east side of Prospect Avenue, approximately 150' north of Beneta Way, has been approved by the Planning Com_~.ission and City Council of the City of Tustin. Primary access to %he tract is to be provided by a bridge across the Flood Control Channel as approved in design by the District and -the Development P'review Con%~ission. Said tract is in the '~-1 District; approved for single-family residential development; and in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan. No adverse environmental impact will result from the design of the sub-division or from the design and structure of the accessways. Commissioner Sharp moved that the Commission adopt the above m/nute order; seconded by Conunissioner Edelstein. ORDER CARRIED: 4-0 COMMISSION CONCERNS AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION ADJOUP~'MENT Commissioner Edelstein moved for adjournment at 10:40 p.m.; seconded by Corcn~issioner Dukleth; unanimously carried.