Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-28-72MINI~S OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN PLANNING COmmISSION DATE: TIME: PLACE: PRESENT: ABSENT: February 28, 1972 7:40 p.m. Council Chambers, 275 South "C" Street Curtis, Larnard, Sharp, Dukleth, Edelstein None INDEX ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MIhU3TES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 1972 PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED V-72-282 - Miles L. Beadle PUBLIC 1D~ARINGS - NEW - ZC-72-229 -P. C. Initiated UP-72-380- P. C. Initiated PZ-72-133- P. C. Initiated OLD BUSINESS - Parkway trees NEW BUSINESS - Pending Applications CORRESPONDENCE Formal Finding - Tire recapping facility ............ Orange County Flood Control District -- Bryan Avenue Storm Drain ................... STAFF CONCERNS .......................... COMMISSION CONCERNS ....................... AUDIENCE PARTICIPATIDN ....................... ADJOURNMENT .......................... Page 1 2 2-3 3 3-4 4 4 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 1972 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 28th day of February 1972, at the hour of 7:40 p.m., of said day in the Council Chambers, 275 South "C" Street, Tustin, California. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Dukleth. The Invocation was given by Commissioner Larnard. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Others Present: Curtis, Sharp, Larnard, Dukleth, with Comm. Edelstein arriving at 8:10 p.m. None R. K. Fleagle, Asst. CA - Community Development Director Pat Brown, Asst. Planning Director James G. Rourke, City Attorney Jean M. Smith, Planning Commission Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULARMEETING OF FEBRUARY 14~ 1972. Mr. Sharp moved~ seconded by Mr. Larnard, that the minutes of the February 14, 1972 meeting be approved as submitted. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 CONTINUED - PUBLIC HEARINGS V-72-282 - Miles L. Beadle - Request for a lot split to reduce from 7200 sq. ft. minimum lot size to create 5000 sq.ft, building suites for single-family dwellings. ' Location: 335-45-55 West Second Street. Mr. Fleagle stated this Variance had.been heard as a public hearing before the Commis- sion on January 24, 1972. Testimony was received by the applicant in support of his request for a lot reduction; no other communication or testimony was received objecting to this lot ~plit. After considerable discussion by the Commissioners, it was moved to continue the matter for 30 days and in the interim conduct a workshop session, and Staff would notify all interested and concerned parties. Two workshops were held with the Commissioners, Staff and interested property owners. Mr. Curtis explained that the public portion of the hearing had been closed at the previous meeting; however, inasmuch as all parties concerned were present, if the Commissioners desired any additional information, they might direct questions to them. In the discussion that followed among the Commissioners, the following points were brought out: the questionable applicability of a Variance proceeding in this instance; what the general feeling is for development of this area in the next 4-5 years and how the new City Park will affect the area; that it did not appear there was a definite hardship in this instance to grant said variance. Mr. Larnard moved that Variance V-72-282 be denied; seconded by Mr. Sharp. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 For the benefit of the applicant Mr. F~a~ advised him he may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council, by filing with the City Clerk within five days, accompanied by the filing fee. -1- PUBLIC HEARING NO. l ZC-72-229 - Planning Commission ?nitrated - request to rezone from the .R ban Residential) District to the P & I (Public & Institutional) District.- ~ubur- Location: Site is generally located at the westerly corner of the intersection of Red Hill and Sycamore Avenues, fronting approx. 1270 ft. on the northwest side of Red }Till and 1180 ft. on the southwest side of Sycamore. A summation of the staff report was given by Mr. Fleagle, pointing out that the northern~nd western portions of subject property are presently being developed as a combined elementary-intermediate school site ~y the Tustin Elementary School District. The southeasterly portion of the property adjacent to the Orange County Flood Control District Channel is proposed to be developed by the City of Tusttn as a fire station site and utility and maintenance yard. Ail uses would be subject tc a Use Permit and to conditions and stipulations of the Planning Commission as a condition of the use permit. Public portion of the hearing was opened at 7:56 p.m. by Chairman Curtis~ seeing and hearing no one to speak for or against the issue, the public portion was closed at 7:57 p.m. for discussion among the Commissioners. Mr. Larnard stated he concurred with staff's recommendations and would move that Zone Change ZC-72-229 be recommended for approval to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 1258; seconded by Mr. Dukleth. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2 UP~72r380 - Planning Commission Initiated - to permit a City of Tustin Fire Station with allied facilities. Location: Red Hill Avenue, adjacent to and northeasterly of the Orange County Flood Control Channel, southwesterly of Sycamore Avenue. Mr. Fleasle, in summarizing the Staff Report, stated that plans submitted by the Fire Department indicate the utilization of a single-story, modular siructure for combination fire equipment and living unit purposes. Fire truck access w~uld be provided by means of two access drives to a proposed interior street separating City property from the school site to the north. Arterial access would be pri- marily to Red Hill Avenue from this street, although secondary access is available to Sycamore Street to the north. Adequate parking would also be provided. The development plans have been thoroughly reviewed by the Development Preview Commission and the City Staff and all are in concurrence with the submitted plans. This fire station is needed to provide time saving fire protection service for this part of the City, for the adjoining;residential and industrial areas to the south. Equipment has been purchased and the station will become operational upon approval of the Use Permit and necessary construction. The Commissioners questioned Staff as to the reason for a "temporary" structure being used rather than permanent, and whether it could be salvaged. Staff advised it was simply a question of lack of money to construct a permanent building; until there are sufficient funds either by taxes or bond issue, the temporary structure, which can be salvaged, will have to suffice. However, the only thing being con- sidered in this Use Permit is the request to permit a fire station on the subject site. Public portion of the hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Curtis; seeing and hearing no one to speak for or against the issue, the hearing was closed at .8:06 p.m. Mr. Sharp remarked that he assumed this had been duly advertised as a public hearing in the newspaper and that the property owners had been notified, those living in the area, to which Staff replied in the affirmative, and added that a letter had been directed to the President of the Tustin Meadows Homeowners Association, requesting that he bring this to the attention of the residents, and further added that the President, Mr. Saltarelli, was in the audience if ~he Commission desired to question him. Mr. Donald Saltarelli~ 14702 Danberry Circle, Tustin Meadows, stated he had re- ceived the letter from Mr. Fleagle advising him of this hearing and they were quite pleased with tile plans for the new fire station and additional protection for their area. They, too, would prefer a permanent structure, but realizing that funds were not available at this time, would be happy with the temporary atructure. He further added the Tustin Meadows Homeowners Assoc. would be willing to support any actions they could to bring about a permanent structure for the fire station. The Commissioners discussed the matter of future annexations to the City and the possibility of stipulating that services such as fire and police protection be dedicated prior to annexation. Mr. Larnard moved that Use Permit UP-72-380 be granted by adoption of Resolution No. 1257; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 3 PZ-72-I33 - Planning Commission Initiated - request for prezoning from County E-4 (Small Estates) to City of Tustin R-1 (Single-family residential), subject to annexation to the City of Tustin. Location: Approximately 2.54 acres of land, with frontage of approximately 340 ft. on the west side of Prospect Avenue, and located about 660 ft. north of the center line of 17th Street. Mr. Fleasl~ presented a summary of the staff report, stating the property is presently developed as an orang~ grove and an abandoned single-family residence, with surrounding land uses being County E-4 subdivision, City of Tustin R-1 sub- division further west, day nursery to the south in County, a public school site in County to the east. No specific plans of development have been submitted; how- ever, approximately ten R-1 homesites can be developed on the site, which would represent a negligible increase of three dwelling units over the County's present zoning. Staff feels the request is a logical one considering the surrounding land uses and prior to any development a subdivision map will have to be submitted and approved. Staff would recommend approval of this prezone to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 1259, all subject to the annexation to the City of Tustin. Public portion of the hearing was opened at 8:27 p.m. by Chairman Curtis. Mrs. Richard A. MacFarlane~ 13812 Laurtnda Way, said her concern was for th~ size of the lots to be developed on the land as it might well be her property could end up with four back yards bordering her one. She added it was not quite clear to her the difference between County E-4 and City of Tustin R-1 zoning and asked for additional information. The public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:32 p.m. by ~r. Curtis. Mr. Fleasle advised that a subdivision map would be filed, and at that time Mrs. MacFarlane might check at City Hall and find out the various lot sizes, frontages, widths, etc. and street alignment. R-1 lots in the City of Tustin may have a minimum frontage of 60 ft. but could be as wide at 100 ft. so it might well be there would be possibly three or maybe two backyards bordering hers. The Commissioners discussed possible street alignment, cul-de-sacs, etc., and made reference to the recent prezoning action on tile property to the north. Mr. Larnard noted that the prezoning would be in conformance with the density specified in the Tustin Area General Plan. Mr. Sharp moved that subject p~ezone PZ-72-133 be recommended for approval to the City Council, subject'to annexation to the City of Tustin, by adoption of Resolution No. 1259; seconded by Mr.Larnard. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0. OLD BUSIL~SS Parkway Trees The Commissioners were advised by Mr. Fleagle that at the last meeting they had inquired as to the procedure homeowners might follow for planting of parkway treest PC 2/28/72 -3- at which time Staff stated the cost was shared by the home owner and the City. It was requested that this fact might be publicized so more property owners might take advantage of it. Since this is a function of the Parks and Recr, n Com- mis sion it was brought to their attention; however, it was their sugg~..ion this not be publicized at this time due to the fact the funds for this project are depleted and will not be replenished until the 1972-73 budget is approved. When the City is again able to resume the tree planting program, the Parks and Recreation Commission will take steps to publicize it. NEW BUSINESS --Pending Applications Precise. Plans of Development - Roundtree Development · Mr. Fleazle advised that these precise plans have been reviewed by Staff and by the Development Preview Commission and will be coming before the Planning Com- mission at the March 13, 1972, meeting for their approval. The plans are avail- able at City Hall for inspection by the Commissioners prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. CORRESPONDENCE 1) Formal Finding - Proposed tire recapping facility at the southeast corner of E1 Camino Real and Third Street. In summation of the Staff Report, Mr. Brown stated the Young and Lane facility, operating solely for the sale of tires, installation of shock absorbers and fron~ end alignment has existed for some seven years, and they are now planning to vacate the premises in the near future. This present use is permitted by right in the C-2 District. However, Mrs. Gladys I. Carson, the owner of the property has received several offers from prospective lessees, most of them involving tire · recapping firm~. Some years ago a tire recapping business was operated at thi~ lodation by Mrs. Carson's husband, and technically was a legal, non-conforming use. Such a use could have continued indefinitely as long as no expansion or cessation of the use took place, however, the discontinuance of this use for some seven years, by all legal zoning interpretations effectively eliminates its immunity to existing zoning restrictions. In addition, the proposed use is not specifically permitted in the C-2 District. It would be Staff's request that the Planning Commission analyze the factors as presented and by Minute Order adopt a Formal Finding as to whether or not the proposed reactivation of a tire recap- ping business at this location would be permissible and desirable as r~lated to the surrounding area, the existing zoning and the City's and the Downtown Merchants' plans for redevelopment of the E1 Camino Real District. In the discussion that followed, Staff was asked how the determination was made as to tire recapping not being allowed in a C-2 District, to which Staff repl~d a check of many Orange County and Los Angeles County Ordinances revealed that tire recapping for the most part was allowed in manufacturing districts; some areas allow it in a C-3 District. Much discussion centered around the develop- ment of the downtown area, its long range plans, upgrading of the area, effect on surrounding businesses and reactions from downtown merchants. It appeared to be the consensus of opinion that in fairness to all in the E1 Camino downtown area, that more exposure should be given to this issue, and perhaps a workshop session might be held with all interested parties prior to any final decision being made on the matter. Mrs. Carson was asked by Mr. Larnard if it would present any serious problem if a delay of two weeks was necessary before any final decision was made. The ap- plicant replied there would not be any serious problems, however, before any lease can be consummated she has to have a decision from the Planning Commission. Also, in reply to questions as to possible remodeling, etc. of the present build- ing, she stated probably painting of the building would be the extent of the remodeling. She also added that previously when it had operated as a tire recap- ping facility there had never been any complaints from surrounding businesses. Mr. Larnard stated he would be in favor of holding a workshop session to be con- ducted as the first item on the agenda for the ~rch 13, 1972, meeting, and Staff would send out the necessary communications to the various businesses, as well as to the Downtown Merchants' Assoc., Chamber of Commerce, etc., and he so move~ this workshop session be held; seconded by Mr. Sharp. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 t~ ?range gouuty Flood Control District....~ette.r = re conformity of proposed Bryan Avenue Storm Drain with the adopted City of Tustin General Plan. Mr'. Fleasle advised the Commission that under the Government Code of the State of California, it is necessary that the Planning Commission advise the local agency (Orange County Flood Control District) prior to any construction and joint financ.- ing of this Storm Drain, that it is in conformance with the City's adopted General Plan. They have requested a determination from your Body as to whether it is in conformance as noted. Proposed storm drain is in conformance with Tustin's General Plan and it is requested a Minute Order be adopted, to advise the Orange County Flood Control District accordingly. Mr. Edelstein so moved; seconded by Mr. Larnard. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Fleasle informed the Commission that in conformance with the new State adopted Law, AB-1303, the State of California, Office of Intergovernmental Management, State Clearing House, does provide environmental control impact statements on subdivision maps submitted, at the request of the Planning Com- mission. This is strictly an advisory and voluntary action on the part of cities, but should hopefully be informative and be of benefit to us. However, never having requested the service, we do not know. Would request the Commission's pleasure as to whether or not we should submit either the upcoming Ayers or the Roundtree subdivision maps to determine what value, if any, could be derived from this service. There was much discussion among the Commissioners as to what repercussions might result; if it would be wise to get "involved so to speak with another government agency; if we would be under any obligation by requesting such a service; and, just how detailed or informative the report might be. Mr. Sharp moved that the Roundtree subdivision map be submitted by Staff to the State, as specified in State Law AB-1305, so we might find out exactly what can be accomplished or derived from this service; seconded by Mr. Dukleth. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0. C~RMISSION CONCERNS Mr. Curtis remarked that Mr. Shirp was the only Commissioner tentatively scheduled to attend the session being conducted on the "Energy Crisis", however, unfor- tunately now Mr. Sharp is unable to attend. If no one is going from Council either, would it be possible for a staff member to attend, to which Mr. Fleasle stated it could be arranged if so requested. Mr. Sharp requested that a staff member attend, and also obtain a copy of the proceedings for the Commissioners. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION A member of the audience, Mr. Meek, stated that rather than going to the State for the various reports previeusly discussed (environmental reports, seismographic, etc. under the new State Law AB-1303) on new subdivision maps, that there is a very fine office of the U. S. Dept. of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, located on Newport Avenue in Tustin, that can furnish all types of reports on soils and conservation, plus aerial maps of the entire area. Mr. Bruce Snyder, Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber had a Committee session that morning concerning the ~owntgwn area. Apparently what they consider the down- town area, and what the City considers, are somewhat different. However, the Chamber is working on the entire area encouraging busfnesses to move into the area. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Larnard moved for adjournment at 9:30 p.m., seconded by Mr. Sharp. C~[AIRMAN OF THE PLANNING CO:.~iSSION ,,(", o.., ;,r'., /' _ / )- , ~ ~ , ~, , ~, PLANNING CO~IISSION RI~CORDi[.~C SlfiCRI.iTARY