Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-24-72 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 1972 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 24th day of January 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 Sharp. The Invocation was given by Commissioner Curtis. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Others Present: Larnard, Curtis, Sharp, Edelstein, Dukleth None R. Kenneth Fleagle, Assistant City Administrator - Community Development Director Pat Brown, Assistant Planning Director James G. Rourke, City Attorney Jean M. Smith, Planning Commission Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 10, 1972 Moved by Mr. Dukleth, seconded by Mr. Curtis, that the minutes of the 'January 10, 1972, 'meeting be approved as submitted. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SIGN ORDINANCE (Ordinance No. 438) Application of the Santa Ana-Orange-Tustin Board of Realtors to author- ize an increase in the size of real estate signs to allow a maximum of 18 sq. ft. of trim area and an increase in permitted height from 4 ft. to 8 ft. Mr. Fleagle presented a summation of the Staff Report to the Commission, stating that the applicant had prepared a presentation for the Commis- sioners substantiating and justifying their requested change in the Sign Ordinance. Staff would recommend that following the public hear- ing, the Planning Commission reco.mmend approval of this Sign Ordinance Amendment to the City Council, ahd direct Staff to prepare a Resolution for Planning Commission approval, incorporating their findings. Staff has no objections to the proposed amendment and has stipulated in their report the conditions they feel should be delineated in a Resolution, which includes those of the Building Official. The public portion of the hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Larnard. Mr. Donal~M. Bird, Chairman of the Sign Committee for the Santa Ana- Orange-Tustin Board of Realtors, presented a copy of their report, justifying an amendment to the Sign Ordinance, to each of the Commis- sioners and Staff. (Said report is made a part of these minutes by reference hereof). Mr. Bird then proceeded to discuss the report in detail, following which he presented slides of the older,stake type, real estate signs and the new style signs, with the ornamental trim. The public portion of the hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m. -1- A rather lengthy discussion followed among the Commissioners, bringing out many questions, such as: clearance from the bottom of the sign; overall height of the sign; aesthetic improvement of this type sign; liability of the city if the larger type sign is allowed; location of the s.igns on private property; prototype of each type sign to be spected and approved by the Building Official with payment of the prescribed sign fees. Mr. Curtis moved that Staff be directed to prepare a Resolution for the Commission's final approval at the February 14, 1972, meeting, recommending approval to the City Council for an amendment to the Sign Ordinance,limiting the overall height to 7 feet; that clearance be a minimum of 3 feet; ornamental bordering to be no greater than 18 sq. ft. per side; plus the other conditions as delineated in the Staff Report; seconded by Mr. Sharp. _ MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2 UP-72-375 - Walter J. Fredriksen - to authorize residential care for the active elderly usage. Location: 280-82-84 East Third Street and 320-22-24 South Preble Drive. Mr. Fleagle summarized the Staff Report covering this Use Permit, which ~equests permission for the use of two triplex structures (six total units) for residential care of the active elderly. This is an R-3 District which does permit rest homes subject to the granting of a use permit. Staff does not have any objection to this use or develop- ment and would recommend approval by the Planning Commission of UP- UP-72-378 by adoption of Resolution No. 1252. Public portion of the hearing was opened at 8:28 p.m. by Mr. Larnard. Mr. Walter J. Fredriksen, applicant and owner of the Hacienda Retire- ment Res'~dence, stated the usage requested is no different than it has been for the past several years, and if the Commissioners had any questions, he would be happy to answer them. Public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Edelstein stated that many of the Commissioners knew of this Re- tire~ent Residence and commended its fine operation. He moved for adoption of Resolution No.1252, approving subject Use Permit; seconded by Mr. Curtis. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 3 UP-~1-375 - Santiago Commercial Bank - to authorize permanent use of an advertising banner. Location: 105 E1 Camino Real Mr. Fleagle stated that this application had been received and duly -. advertised for a public hearing, requesting permission for permanent use of an advertising banner at the above location. The Sign Ordinance permits the use of banners or similar contrivances, subject to approval of the Building Official, with such usage limited to 30 days duration out of any quarter. As the applicant desired to use this banner for a longer period of time, this application was submitted. This procedure is permitted under' the Sign Ordinance, however, to Staff's knowledge, has never been exercised in the pas~, and Staff doe~ not see any jus- tifiable reason to grant the request, inasmuch as adequate permanent signing provisions are provided under the Sign Ordinance, and approval of such a request would establish an undesirable precedent with regards to banners, flags, etc. It would be Staff's recommendation that this Use Permit application be denied by adoption of Resolution No. 1253. A video-tape presentation was made to the Commission covering the banner in question. PC 1/24/72 -2- PUBLIC ;{EARING NO. 3 - Continued The public portion of the hearing was opened at 8:35 p.m. by Chairman Larnard. Jack J. Har~ey, President of Santiago Commercial Bank, stated that the Development Preview Commission had ~isaDproved this banner due to the ~ ~.~ felt aesunctically it detracted from the surroun~inq area, 'was not essential to the specific advertising format of the bank; and,it would establish an undesirable precedent. It was the feeling of the applicant that the First Street area did not offer much in the way of aesthetics; that sincD the banner had been displayed their business had indeed increased for "free checking accounts"; and, that under the circumstances that %his was only a "temporary" location with con- siderable handicaps, the banner was very much needed by them for ad- vertising purposes. They would like to continue the use of this bann, until July 1, 1972, only, when hopefully they will be located in their new building at Fashion Lane and First Street. In the meantime they are competing with "financial giants" in the banking business and feel this banner is essential. Public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:38 p.m. The Commissioners discussed the various aspects of this Use Permit re- quest, questioning the setting of a precedent if it was approved; the circumstances, which they felt were somewhat "special" in the case of the bank, in that it has contributed much to the improvement of the corner location and surrounding area; that the bank site is temporary until their new building is constructed; and, the requested use for the banner is not permanent, as such, but only until July 1, 1972. Mr. Edelstein moved that Use Permit 71-35 be approved; seconded'by Mr. Sharp. MOTION CARRIED: 4-1 AYES: Larnard, Sharp, Dukleth Edelstein NOES: Curtis Staff requested the Commission advise the exact basis of their findin¢ for granting approval of this Use Permit so a Resolution might be dra~ for the Commission's approval. Counsel and the Commissioners advised the usual findings would apply, such as it would not be detrimental to the surrounding area and uses; it was not a hardship case, as such, and that it should be specifically stated the temporary use of this banner is definitely connected with the temporary nature of the bank's site, and it's type of business. Emphasis should be placed on the fact the temporary or conditional use permit is based primarily on the "temporary use of the facility involved." PUBLIC HEARING NO. 4 PZr12-132 - George and Thelma Stolte - for prezoning from Orange County E-4 (10,0~0) Residential Estates District to the City of Tustin R-1 (Single-Family) District, subject to the annexa- tion to the City of Tustin. Location: Site is located on the north one-half of Lot 16 in Block B of the Chapman Tract, generally situated on the west side of Prospect Avenue, north of 17th Street and south of Laurie Lane, consisting of approximately five acres. ~r. Fleagle explained that subject property is presently used as an orange grove with an older single-family residence, surrounded by a single-family subdivision in the County E-4 to the north; a single- family subdivision in the City of Tustin to the west; an orchard, day nursery, vacant parcel and E-4 subdivision (all in County) to the south; and, E-4 County subdivision and public school to the east. No specific plans have as yet been submitted for this development, however, the parcel would support approximately 20 R-1 home sites. The R-l.pre- zoning would be a logical eastward extension of existing R-1 developments PC 1/24/72 -3~ PUBLIC HEARING NO. 4 - Continued located within the City to the west, and it would be Staff's recom- mendation that this prezoning application be recommended for approval to.the City Council by adoption of Resolution No.1254, subject to annexation of said property to the City of Tustin. The public portion of the hearing was opened at 8:58 p.m. by Chairman Larnard. Mr. Jack McLean, Anaheim, the intended purchaser and developer of the property, stated it was his intent to build $40-45,000 homes on sub- ject property, which he feels will be an asset to the area. Presently he is building homes in Anaheim, and has built many tracts throughout the County. ~ Mr. Bob Pearsall, agent, representing the owner and builder, stated he has known-Mr. McLean for any years and would vouch for the quality homes he has built in the past. Public portion of the hearing was closed at 9:00 p.m. After a few brief comments, Mr. Sharp moved for adoption of Resolution No. 1254, recommending approval to the City Council of PZ-72-132, subject to annexation to the City of Tustin; seconded by Mr. Curtis. Mr. Curtis mentioned it was worthy to note this will not only provide ~or continued development of the area in residential properties but eliminates any of the potential problems we might have with a buffering zone that we have encountered in other areas close to 17th Street. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 5 V-72-282 - Miles L. Beadle - request for a lot split to reduce from 7200 sq. ft. the minimum lot size to create 5000 sq. ft. building sites for single-family dwellings. · Location: 335-45-55 West Second Street Mr. Flea~le advised the applicant proposed to create three 5,000 sq.ft. iots on two existing lots, and to erect three factory built modular homes on same. The applicant is basing his request on the fact there are several existing 5000 sq. ft. lots in the general area, and there is a common concern over the older section of the community to prevent further blight and deterioration of structures. When a situation such as this occurs, the alternatives for new construction and upgrading are limited. Federal Urban Renewal programs have a tendency to cause more problems than they solve. The informed developer is unlikely to construct high price dwelling units in an area of lower values. The most successful results have been achieved when properties have been consolidated and a bonus incentive is granted in density to authorize the demolition of older single-family structures to be replaced by multi-family units. The Cof~mission will recall this was the objective of the proposed "floating zone" to create a residential planned ~evelop- ment district, which was rejected by the City Council as an overall concept. Another alternative consists of required property maintenance regulations to assure that structures are kept in a satisfactory state of repair and appearance, as well as mandating public improvements. The present proposal is for the purpose of reducing the lot size and enable new construction at a lower cost of development than would be in the case of a new subdivision. The Commission may wish to consider an ultimate development plan for the town center area and table this proposed lot split variance until such time as a determination has been made as to the best approach to maintain the property values and quality of development within the area. Staff advised no com~unicat~cn~ h.~v~ been received from adjoining property owners objecting to this lot split, since the hearing notices were sent out. PC Mins 1/24/72 -4- }'UBLIC I{EARING NO. 5 Continued It is recommended the Commission hear the testimony and evidence presented at this hearing and direct the Staff to prepare a resolu- tion for adoption at the next regu'lar meeting, reciting the findings of the Commission. A video-tape of the area in question, including the surrounding area, was presented to the Commissioners. The public portion of the hearing was opened at 9:10 p.m. by Mr. Larnard. Miles Beadle, the applicant, advised the Commission that he had made a survey of the adjoining neighbors as well as others in the immediate area. A favorable response was received from all contacted, and in addition, a letter addressed to the Planning Commission was pre- sented, signed by six neighbors, again approving of the proposed development of the property under discussion. The public portion of the hearing was closed at 9:15 p.m. Mr. Curtis voiced concern over establishing a trend in the area by developing on substandard sized lots, when you consider the desires of the City, the homeowners and the business and professional people, for the development of the town center area. He did not dispute that this development would be an improvement over what was already there, but did hope that perhaps something better might be developed. Mr. Dukleth inquired as to the square footage of living area in the proposed dwellings, to which the appli ant advised between 1300 and 1500 sq. ft. excluding the garage area. Mr. Beadle added it would not be feasible or practical to put larger, more expensive homes on the lots, as they would be very much out of place. Mr. Curtis moved that Staff be directed to prepare'a Resolution for presentation to the Commission, denying Variance V-72-282; seconded b_y Mr. Edelstein. MOTION DEFEATED: 3-2 AYES: Curtis, Edelstein NOES: Larnard, Dukleth, Sharp The Commissioners then discussed at length the various facets of the possible ramifications and consequences if subject variance was granted, and dwelt on the proposed future development of the downtown - town center area, as to the desires of the City, the property owners and the businessmen. The general feeling appeared to be that before a definite decision could be made on this issue, something positive must be resolved concerning the future plans for the area, and Staff was asked if a Workshop session might be arranged with all interested parties. In reply, Staff stated a Workshop session could be scheduled if the Commission so desired. Mr. Sharp stated he felt more exposure should be given to the public on this Variance and that a Workshop session could accomplish that. He moved that this Variance be tabled until such time as a Workshop session could be scheduled, and the appropriate matters presented for discussion; motion seconded by Mr. Dukleth. Mr. Curtis questioned whether a specifi~ time limit should be set for the.tabling of the Variance, and Counsel replied there was not a time limitation.~n a Variance application, to which Staff suggested a 30-day continuance of the matter. Mr. Sharp amended his motion to a continuance on V-72-282 to the February 28, 1972 meeting; which was agreeable to his second. MOTION VOTED ON: ~-1 AYES: Larnard, Sharp, Edelstein, Dukleth NOES: Curtis PC Mins 1/24/72 -5- OLD BUSINESS ~lannin~ Commission Annual Report Mr~ Flea, lc reported that all Commissioners had been given a copy of The 'Planning Commission Annual Report for 1971, and it had previously been presented to the City Councilmen. Mr. Larnard stated he felt that Staff should be commended for the preparation of this very fine report. NEW BUSINESS Tentative Tract Map 7721 - International Rectifier Corp. Location: Bell/Red Hill/Valencia Avenues Mr. Fleagle advised that this property was the subject of a recent ~cific'Master Plan of Development as approved by Ordinance No. 533, and as a requisite of that Ordinance it necessitates the submission and approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map, in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act, for sale or lease of the property. The City Engineer has recommended approval of this Tentative Tract Map subject to the twelve conditions delineated in his report. Mr. Jack Hall, Engineer, spoke on behalf of the applicant, specifically requesting consideration be given for some relief on Condition Nos. 3 and 7, which are as follows: Dedication of streets within the tract as shown on the Tentative Tract Map together with the 28' easement for vehicular access from Lot 2 to the cul-de-sac street except that the cul-de-sac shall have a 58' radius for' truck usage. Installation of drainage facilities at the southerly end of International Street together with a connector pipe to carry runoff water to the existing open ditch south of of the southerly curb of Bell Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A discussion followed among the Commissioners, Staff and Mr. Hall, after which Mr. Sharp moved that Tentative Tract Map 7721 be approved, subject to the resolving of Conditions 3 and 7, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer by the applicant; ~econded by Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PENDING APPLICATIONS - (For 2/14/72 Planning Commission meeting) UP-72-377 - Jones/Doty-Vandenberg/Enderle et al - to permit the development of a shopping center. Location: South side of 17th Street, east from Yorba Street to Prospect Avenue. CORRESPONDENCE County Case - Use Permit 3235 - to permit construction of a non-com- mercial kennel in the rear of a lot containing an existing single-family dwelling. Location: At the most southwesterly corner of Loma Verde Lane and Foothill Lane in the Lemon Heights Area. Mr. Fleaqle summarized the Staff'Report, advising the Commission since the area is quite remote from the city boundaries, with no apparent local objections to the proposed use, it is recommended the Commission direct a report to the Orange County Planning Commission, stating "no objections" to the use permit. PC Mins 1/24/72 -6- Mr. Sharp moved that such a communication be directed to the Orange County Planning Co~i~ion; seconded by Mr. Curtis. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 9range County Flood Control District - Environmental Impact State- m~t - Tuft!~/~'~ .... ~ ~'~'~ Drain The Commissioners were advised by Staff, that in line with the Public Resources Code of the State, all local government agencies shall ~ake an environmental impact report on any project they intend to carry out which may have a significant effect on the environment and also submit it to the local planning agency; then advise if it is in con- formance with the City's adopted general plan. It would be Staff's recommendation the Commission direct staff to prepare a communication to the Orange County Flood Control District, stating there is no adverse environmental impact, and it is not in conflict with Tustin's adopted General Plan. Mr. Edelstein so moved for Staff to direct a reply to the Orange County Flood Control District; seconde~ by Mr. Sharp. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 County Case - ZC-71-85 - request for zone change from County of Orange R4 (SR) "Suburban Residential (Sign Restriction}" Dis- trict to the CC (SR) "Commercial Community (Sign Restric- tions)'' District. Location: Property is located on the westerly corner of the Santa Ana Freeway off-ramp and Newport Aven~e, in the south Tustin area. Mr_.F~eag~e stated notice of this hearing was received this date, and a reply was requested by the Orange County Planning Department by February 2, 1972. The proposed zone change would authorize freeway advertising to be placed on residential properties. Staff would recommend a communication be directed to the Orange County Planning Department strongly objecting to any signs being placed in residential areas, and that the signing in said area should be in line with that of .the City of Tustin's Sign Ordinance. Mr. Sharp moved that such a communication be sent to the Orange County Planning Department; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 It was brought to the attention of the Commission that a communica- tion from the County Planning Department to the City Council had requested a council statement relative to the establishment of a "scenic corridor" for the Santa Ana Freeway in the Tustin Area. STAFF CONCERNS 1) Tustin Census Stud~ Mr. Fleagle advised the Commission that the Tustin Census Study report based on the 1970 Federal Census and updated for 1971 had been com- pleted by Staff and would be revised each succeeding year. Copies are available if the Commissioners desire to review the report. 2) City of Santa Ana Prezone Amendment 696 - from County R-4 to the City of Santa Ana R-4 - north side of Main Street, west of the Newport Freeway. Mr. Fleagle voiced concern to the Commission on this proposed prezone change by the City of Santa Ana, as the County R-4 would permit approxi- mately twelve dwelling units per acre (3,000 sq.ft, of land area per unit), as compared to the City of Santa Ana's R-4 which will almost double that number (1500 sq.ft, of land per unit). Additionally, the property in question lies within the jurisdiction of the Tustin School PC Mins 1/24/72 -7- PC Mins 1/24/72 Districts; all street frontages are within the City of Tustin; school children would be required to cross major traffic arteries plus walking under a freeway where no sidewalks are provided, Plus the fact the southeastern half of this property lies within an area which the State Dept. of Highways has indicated might be needed for planned modification of the freeway interchange at some future date, so it would be financially unrealistic to develop the property with this proposed use as it could result in possible exorbitant future cost to the State. The Commissioners were also advised by Staff, that Mr.•Brown, Asst. Planning Director, had left our meeting earlier in order that he might attend the Santa Ana Planning Commission meeting, which was hearing this case tonight, in order that Mr. Brown might reaffirm our position in this proposed prezoning. Mr. Dukleth made a motion, stating the Planning Commission concurred ws.th Staff s position in this matter; seconded by Mr. Curtis. ,MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 COMMISSION CONCERNS 1) Annual Meeting - Election of Chairman and Chairman Pro Tem Chairman Larnard opened the nominations for Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1972. Mr. Edelstein stated he would like to nominate Mr. Larnard to continue on as Chairman, if it was in order.• Mr. Larnard replied that accord- ing to the By-laws a Chairman not not succeed himself. Mr. Edelstein then moved to nominate Mr. Curtis for Chairman; seconded y Mr. Sharp. Mr. Sharp moved t e nominations be closed; seconded by Mr. Dukleth. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 (Mr. Curtis abstaining) Nominations were opened for Chairman Pro Tem. Mr. Curtis nominated Mr. Shar seconded b Mr. Edelstein. Mr. Curtis moved, secon e y Mr. E elstein, at nominations be closed. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 (Mr. Sharp abstaining). 2) Institute of Plannin Commissioners - San Jose - on February 23-2 -25, 1972. Mr. Larnard stated he would have time available to attend this meeting. Mr. Curtis moved,.seconded b Mr. Edelstein, sion request of the City Counci to sen r. sentative to attend the Institute of Planning MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None ADJOURNMENT that the Planning Commis- Larnard as their repre- Commissioners. Mr. Larnard moved for adjournment at 10:45 p.m., seconded by Mr. E e stein.