Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-10-72MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: April 10, 1972 TIME: 7:30 PM PLACE: Council Chambers, 275 South "C" Street PRESENT: Curtis, Larnard, Sharp, Dukleth, Edelstein ABSENT: None INDEX PAGE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETINGS OF MARCH 13 and 27, 1972 ........... PUBLIC HEARINGS UP-72-383 - Mobil Oil Co .................... UP-72-384 - Mobil Oil Co .................... OLD BUSINESS - none NEW BUSINESS PM-72-54 - Alpine Development Co ........... CORRESPONDENCE Orange County proposed 4th Amendment to the Tustin Area General Plan - ~ side Newport/ SW of Santa Ana Freeway ..................... STAFF CONCERNS 1) Quarterly Development Preview Commis- sion Report ............................. 2) Workshop for Housing Element Study ...... COMMISSION CONCERNS ............................ ADJOURNMENT .................................... 1 1-2 1-2 2-3 3 3 3-4 4 4 M]'"~'"~"'] OF A P. EGU~.AR MEETING OF T~E CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING CO~tMISSION APRIL 10, 1972 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 10th day of April, 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 Larnard. The Invocation was given by Commissioner ~delstein. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Others Present: Curtis, Sharp, Larnard, Dukleth and Edelstein. None. James G. Rourke, City Attorney R. Kenneth Fleagle, Assistant City Administrator - Community Development Director Pat Brown, Assistant Planning Director Nancy Lawton, Planning Commission Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF ~RCH 13, 1972 AND ~RCH 27, 1972 (~ith one correction) PUBLIC HEARING NOS. 1 AND 2 It was moved by Co~missioner Larnard and seconded by Commissioner Edel- stein that Public Hearings No. 1 and 2 be heard and approved simultan- eously. UP-72-383 - Mobil Oil Co. - to permit renovation of existing service and stations. UP-72-384 ~ Location: First site located at the northwest corner of First Street and Prospect Avenue; second site is located at the easterly corner of the intersection of Old Irvine Boulevard with Newport Avenue. A summation of the Staff Reports was given by Mr. Fleaqle, advising that the applicants are proposing to renovate the main s~rvice station structures, with some modification to the pump island areas. Said renovation would consist primarily of the use of brick veneer materials on the sides of the main structures. The Zoning Ordinance (#157) re- quires that all service stations operations be approved by Use Permit through the Planning Commission and these stations are in a legal non- conforming status at present time, since they existed prior to the provision of the Ordinance. The present application, however, will serve the dual purpose of permitting these stations' renovations, if approved, and establish them in a conforming status. These items were presented to the Development Preview Commission, at their March 29, 1972 meeting, for preliminary review prior to the Planning Commission meeting, and they made several recommendations. Th~ applicant is aware that one of the conditions of any approval of this request would be to conform to the requirements of Council Policy 30-1 (Service Station Minimum Site Development Guide), including such items as adequate parking spaces, landscaping, etc. There are also recommen- dations submitted by the Engineering, Fire and Building Departments. Applicant advised that the funds allocated by Mobil Oil Co. for this renovation were minimal, and intended basically to cover only the cost of material and labor involved in actual renovation itself. Their rep- resentative indicated to Staff that every attempt will be made to comply with other requirements where it is financially possible to do so. In Staff's opinion, this proposal is a worthy one and deserves positive consideration, since it would not only benefit the service station's business, but would provide upgrading for the community itself. Commissioner Edelstein questioned as to whether or not applicant would be able to conform with requirements with the minimal funds allocated. Mr. Fleagle stated that he did not see any reason why they could not. Chairman Curtis opened public portion of hearing at 7:40 P. M. Mr. Bill Potter, 11001 Valley Mall, E1 Monte, California, representative Of Mobil Oil Co., stated he did not feel as if there should be veneer on the rear of building at First and Prospect as there was an alley at the rear and the cost for this along would be $1400. He presented pictures showing this rear location and also a sample of the veneering to be used. He also felt that the underground line and street lighting was unnecessary and would like to "trade"; if he could save the cost of street lighting, they could comply with the other requirements. M~. Fleagle reiterated that he would like to see the street lighting and undergrounding, and that the veneering would be a matter for the Development Preview Commis- sion. As respects the Irvine Boulevard location, he feels they can go along with the necessary requirements. Public portion of the hearing was closed at 7:50 P. M. for discussion among the commissioners. Commissioner Sharp moved for approval of Resolution Nos. 1263 and 1264; se~6-nded by Commissioner Larnard, authorizing UP-72-383 and UP-72-384. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 NEW BUSINESS Parcel Map 72-54 - Alpine Development Company - to create four parcels · in order to facilitate development and sale of prop- erty. Location: Site is located on the south side of Irvine Boulevard, between "B" Street and Prosp~t Avenue. Mr. Flea$le summarized Staff Report by advising that this area is cur- rently recognized as one lot of approximately 119' X 1000' and have re- cently been rezoned Pr (Professional). Under this parcel map, it would be divided to create four parcels. Under Zone Change 71-225, this property was subject to a number of devel- opmental requirements. While it is not essential that all of the condi- tions be met with the development of any single parcel being created, it is essential that the overall development of the four parcels be properly coordinated to provide adequate access, a desirable circulation plan and sewer facilities to serve all parcels being created. The applicant should be made fully aware that the proposed design of center islands in Irvine Boulevard from "B" to Prospect Avenue will pre- vent left turn access into and out of driveways which are not properly located relative to median openings. In addition, it is highly probable that construction of traffic signals at the intersection of Irvine and "B". Street will be required within the next 2 to 4 years. With this in mind, all access possible from the entire site should be taken to either "B" Street or to Prospect Avenue rather than from Irvine Boulevard util- izing "B" or Prospect access all vehicles could enter Irvine Boulevard with the relative safety or a signalized intersection. Preliminary plans have been submitted to the Development Preview Commis- sion which would prevent any access to "B" Street from any of the four parcels which are shown on parcel map. It is suggested that the Commis- sion carefully consider the effects of such restriction of access to "B" Street and the increased traffic hazards due to the increased number of vehicles which will be exiting on Irvine Boulevard. Latest traffic count on this section of Irvine Boulevard indicates the ever increasing -2- usage has now reached nearly 17,000 vehicles per day between "B" and Prospect Avenues· it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a minute order al.~proving the parcel map subject to two conditions: Applicant shall work with the City Engineer to coordinate the construction of facilities, the dedication of right- of-way and the annexation of the property to Tustin Street Lighting District as ~ecessary for service of the parcel being developed and shall meet the developmental require- ments as specified in Ordinance. No..513 or shall satisfac- torily bond for said improvements in the order specified by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building per- mit for the specific site. Final approval by City Engineer and recordation of parcel map. Although recommendation #1 is not very specific, it is felt that the only other alternative would be to require the developer to meet all conditions of Ordinance No. 513 prior to any development of any parcels. It is felt that this would place an undue hardship on the developer and could result in sidewalk or other facilities which may have to be re- located at the time of development of the specific parcel. In addi- tion, there are numerous alternative methods of meeting the conditions of Ordinance No. 513 and it is felt that through working with the develop- er as various parcels develop, the costs of meeting these conditions can be minimized. The Planning Commission may also wish to go on record regarding any on-site development which would prevent access to "B" Street in order that the Development Preview Commission may be aware o'f ~heir thoughts on this matter. A slide was shown of the two buildings under consideration and a sketch was shown of the building to be located on parcel #1. Commissioner Larnard moved to adopt PM72-54, subject to conditions out- I~ne~[-by Staff; seconded by Commissioner Dukleth~ with no objection to plans as submitted by applicant. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Brown sun~arized a Staff Report from the Orange County Planning Com- mission dated February 29, 1972 as respects Change of Zone Case Nos. ZC71-88 (Hilda G. Creager) and ZC 72-9 (Orange County Planning Commission) and the Fourth ~mendment to the Tustin ARea General Plan. It is felt by Staff, that the proposed amendment realistically reflects the nature of existing development. Efforts and attempts to restrict the signing at this location in a format compatible with the City of Tustin Sign Ordinance is commendable. There is concern as shared by the Orange County Planning Commission that the parcel now being used for the growing of nursery stock will be subsequently used for a heavier commercial use with adverse effects as related to access and exposure. It is believed that such parcel could b~tter be utilized for multiple- family residential compatible with adjoining land uses. Chairman Curtis stated that it would appear to be in order to make some comments to the County on the above and it was moved to do so. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Fleagle reviewed the Summary of Development Preview Commission for the first quarter of 1972; then discussed the Housing Element Study and advised that a workshop would be conducted after the meeting to get some ideas and in-put from the Commissioners. Mr. Fleagle ~quested a minute order designating Nancy Lawton as record- ing secretary and Mary Ann Chamberlain as alternate effective March 27, • 1972. Commissioner Larnard moved this action; seconded by Commissioner Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Dukleth raised the question of the desirability of an amortization or non-conforming signs. Cit Attorne Rourke explained '~" that this had been a matter of consideration at t e time o the adop- tion of the ordinance and it was determined at that point in time not to be a desire of the community to include this provision. Commissioner Edelstein made inquiry as to the effective date of the new provision or real estate signs and requested continued enforce- ment of signs on vehicles. Commissioner Shar inquired as to the status of Meredith plans with the response eing ma a by Mr. Fleaqle that the plans are on file and may be viewed in office and construction will commence in the immediate future . ADJOURNMENT Commission Larnard moved for adjournment at 8:30; seconded by Co_ is- sioner Du eth and unanimously carried. f . J • IiAIRMAN OF PLANNING COMMISSION CANNING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY -~ • 0 -~{- •~