Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-13-71 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1971 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 13th day of December at the hour of 7:30 p.m. of said day in the Council Chambers, 275 South "C" Street, Tustin, Calif. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Dukleth. The Invocation was given by Commissioner Curtis. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Others Present: Larnard, Curtis, Edelstein, Sharp, Dukleth None James G. Rourke, City Attorney R. Kenneth Fleagle, Assistant City Administrator - Community Development Director Pat Brown, Assistant Planning Director Jean M. Smith, Planning Commission Recording Sect'y. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEt.~BER 22, 1971 Moved by Mr. Share, seconded bv Mr. Curtis, that the minutes of the November 22, 1971, meeting be approved, as submitted. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 UP-71-372 - Franargofin - Request to permit the establishment and operation of a recreational baseball batting facility. Location: Site fronts approximately 98 ft. on the southwest side of Laguna Road, approximately 575 ft. southeasterly of the centerline of Newport Avenue. Mr. Fleagle presented the summation of the Staff Report to the Com- mission, stating that subject property was presently zoned C-l, and the surrounding land uses included the Santa Ana Freeway to the southwest; a self-service car wash and go-cart facilities to the northwest; a restaurant, apartment, single family dwelling and the Tustin High School to the northeast; and a child care nursery adja- cent to the southeast. The plans submitted by the applicant show that there would be ten batting cages with ten automatic pitching machines, with the cages to be located along the northwesterly side of the parcel. Eight on-site parking spaces are also shown on the plans. Inasmuch as such a recreational facility is unique to Tustin, staff visited a similar operation located in Anaheim, that has been in existence some 10 or 11 years, and photographs were taken of the facility, which were submitted to the Commission for viewing. Such an operation will require many 35 to 40 ft. high telephone poles located throughout the area to support the extensive netting and fencing, plus a 6 ft. high chainlink fence would enclose the facility. Taking all factors into consideration, parking problems, safety, 'lighting (direction and intensity), and aesthetic desirability of such a land use, Staff would recommend the Planning Commission deny UP-71-372, by adoption of Resolution No. 1248. The Development Preview Commission at their December 8, 1971, meeting gave preliminary review to the plan as submitted, and although, in their opinion, there would probably be a user demand for such a facility, they felt the site would be inappropriate due to thc in- adequacy of parkinq accommodations and tile difficulty in screening the area (poles, ne~ting, cages, liqhts) for aesthetic compatibility. PC ~. 2/] 3/71 Larnard. Mr. George Arvros, 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, requested that the public portion of this hearing be delayed until the applicant, Mr. Hall, arrived, as apparently he had been delayed. Mr. Dukleth moved that the public portion of the hearing be delayed as requested; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. Chairman Larnard then called for the next item of business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2 UP-71-374 - Consolidated Reproductions - Request to authorize the construction of an office building and blueprint facility on a commercially zoned lot interconnected with a rear portion zoned R-3, to be used for on-site parking. Location: Site fronts approximately 119 ft. on the southeasterly side of First Street, and approximately 193 ft. on the southeast side of Pacific Street. A synopsis of the Staff Report was given by Mr. Fleagle, stating the applicant proposed to remove the existing residential structure from the property and to construct a 2-story 8700 sq.ft, multi-purpose building, with the lower story to be utilized by a local blueprinting firm and the upper story for office purposes. Adequate parking is to be provided, and there will be a single "entrance only" curb cut on the easterly portion of the property on First Street, with a two-way curb cut on Pacific Street. At the preliminary review of this pro- ject by the Development Preview Commission, it was their feeling this represented an excellent concept and would be a decided improvement to the area. Staff agreed the proposed development is appropriate for the site, compatible.with the surrounding properties, and in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance for this area. In addition, the ultimate half-width dimension of First Street.is 50 ft., since it is classified as a primary arterial street, with existing half-width being 40 ft. Upon dedication of the necessary right-of-way, the depth of this particular lot will be 183 ft. In '~/~i~ particular instance the Commission will have to determine that there was no intent in the wording of the Ordinance for other than C-1 zoning on First Street frontage, and the Use Permit procedure is appropriate for on-site parking on the rear portion of the parcel, which is zoned R-3, as delineated in Resolution No. 1247. Staff would recommend the Planning Commission approve UP-71-374 by adoption of Resolution No. 1247. The public portion of the hearing was opened at 7:41 p.m. by Chairman Larnard; seeing and hearing no one to speak for or against the issue, the public portion was closed at 7:42 p.m. In the brief discussion following, the Commissioners agreed this proposed project would be a definite asset, an enhancement, have an upgrading effect on the area, and was in keeping with the intent and desire of the Commission and City Council for development of First Street. Mr. Sharp moved for adoption of Resolution No. 1247, approving UP-71-374; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 - Public portion was reconvened at 7:45 ~.m. Mr. George Arqyros spoke on behalf of the applicant, complimenting Staff for their excellent Staff Report. It was his opinion that this particular piece of property does present a problem, and it is a challenge, both by its location and size, and it was his feeling that PC 12/13/71 -2- with the help of the Comm~.ssion, the city staff, and al] i .... ~..d in the project, that ~t can be made into an aesthetic and w." project. It has been suggest¢~d that the telephone poles car. painted different colors, extensive landscaping used for ~,?ning purposes and other things can be accomplished to make it more There is a definite need and/or use for such a facility in this area, the nearest one being in the City of Anaheim, and it was hig feeling this was an ideal spot for such a facility. They have made tenta- tive arrangements with the Go-Kart Facility next door, which will alleviate any parking problems the facility might create; Chester Hall, 2111 Red Berry Road, Santa Ana stated he was the appli- cant, proposing to operate the baseball batting facility and would be available for any questions by the Commissioners. The public portion of the hearing was closed at 7:52 p.m. Mr. Sharp agreed with Mr. Argyros that this was a "problem site" and a very dffficult one to develop; expressed admiration for the many other developments in the City of Mr. Argyros, but did not agree ~hat a baseball batting facility would be the best project for the site in question. The Commissioners discussed the matter briefly, and Mr. Sharp moved that Resolution No.1248 be adopted, denying UP-71-372, based on the various reasons presented in the Staff Report and the photographs of the existing Anaheim facility; seconded by Mr. Curtis. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 3 UP-71-373 - Western Mortgage Corp. - Request to develop a shopping center ~n a Planned Community (Commercial) District, within the concept of a master plan of development,. indicating traffic circulation system, building locations, character of businesses to be located within the develop- ment and project design. Location: Site is generally located at the southeasterly intersec~ tion of 17th Street and Yorba Street, with certain excep- tions, and including an area on an alignment of some 260 feet easterly of Yorba North on the southerly side of 17th Street, for the prupose of road alignments. Mr. Fleagle related that the original plans submitted by the appli- cant has been reviewed by the Development Preview Commission, who expressed concern for the interior street design, specifications including right-of-way width, sidewalks, center islands, lighting, driveway locations, etc., and made recommendations to the applicant. The report submitted by Staff, as well as that of the City Engineer, is based on the applicant's original plans; however, revised plans incorporating many recommendations suggested to them, have been submitted by the applicant. Additional items of concern are peri- meter landscaping, elevations, 17th Street access points, circula- tion system for the bank drive-up window, total signing for the entire project, precise locations for buildings, design and traffic pattern for the proposed service station site easterly of the new alignment of Yorba. Within the concept as presented, it would be Staff's recommendation the proposal as submitted be approved as that of a "design concept" 'only, to authorize the preparation of working drawings and final plans, so the Development Preview Commission may review them in precise detail and approve same. Then they can be resubmitted to the Planning Commission, without a public hearing, for their con- currence and final approval. The attached Resolution No. 1246 has been prepared to cover this recommended action. The attention of the Commissioners was invited to several outstanding features of this "design concept", that are matters of concern, and will ~equire PC 12/13/71 -3- precise review and approval, for the applicant. Those items men- tioned were the entranceway at the westerly section of the parking lot into the complex, that is desiqnated as a "one-way" entrance only; construction of a major primary service road, directly oppo- site from Yorba; driveway located at the spot of the previously mentioned "primary service road", which does not specify ingress, egress, or two-way traffic; an additional service road which the Commission is asked not to consider, inasmuch as the development plans are not precise for that portion of the property. Insofar as Precise Development Plans,included on same are the ser- vice station located east of Yorba Street extended, interiorly oriented with access roads; the bank site with an entrance at 17th Street; driveways on the southerly perimeter (in conformance with the Development Preview Commission recommendation); specific build- ings are the service station, bank, row of buildings indicated as supermarket, drugstore, shops, Firestone store. Staff advised that the City Engineer had submitted an updated report, based on the revised, modified plans, a copy of which was given to each Commissioner. Prior to the opening of the public hearing, in answer to queries by the Commissioners, Staff stated the property was zoned PC-C, subject to a use permit; that the traffic circulation pattern as shown, in- corporates that as presented by Hester Development in the R-3 portion directly to the south of this proposed project; and all that was being considered for this application, was the extension of Yorba Street, south of 17th Street, and everything west of that, with the excep- tion of the service station east of said extension, and the driveway cut into the service station. Public portion of the hearing was opened at 8:10 p.m. by Mr. Larnard. Robert T. French, representing Western Mortgage CorD., 2700 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, remarked that Staff and the Engineering De- partment had been most cooperative and helpful, and it was his desire to work along with all departments so they might come up with a plan acceptable to all. However, there is one area that they cannot deviate and that is in the location of the stores for the major tenants in the complex. He further stated he would be happy to answer any questions from the Commissioners. Public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:16 p.m. Mr. Curtis inquired if the circulation system, as presented,will assure complete satisfaction of all the terms specified by the City Council when they granted the zoning action. Staff advised it would appear that the circulation pattern as pre- sented could accommodate and be compatible with the residential. development to the south, with the street shown along the southern perimeter,and the Yorba Street extension would be a major access point to the residential, on both the Enderle and Vanderberg proper- ties. As far as any of the residential properties to the south, the street system as shown within this plan (not considering the easterly street) would be adequate to satisfy those stipulated requirements. Mr. Sharp asked if Resolution No. 1246 basically approves the "design concept" presented, and leaves the details open for later decisions; also, helps define the boundaries of the application, considering some properties to the east, shown on the site plan, but not a part of the application, to which the answer was in the affirmative. He also inquired as to the pylon sign shown on the site plan on the far west side of the property across old Yorba Street, south. He was advised it was not a part of said application. Mr. Curtis moved that Resolution No. 1246 be adopted, approving UP-71-373; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PC 12/13/71' -4- OLD BUSINESS Use Permit UP-7]-370 - Eddy Mered~.th - Submission of Resolut'~.on No. 1245 for Plannlng Con, hi'sion approval. Mr. Fleagle advised that at their last meeting the Planning Commission did, in effect, approve subject Use Permit, for construction of a Professional Business Park on the south side of 17th Street and the east side of Prospect Avenue, withholding their approval of the ele- vations as presented to them, and requested that Staff prepare a Resolution for presentation to them for approval and adoption. A copy of a letter from the applicant, as well as a copy of Resolution' No. 1245 was given to each Co~missioner. The applicant has agreed to modify the exterior color and texture of the buildings to an earth- tone colored background with split-face block pilasters. A letter has also been received from a resident whose property abuts the pro- posed project, in which he requests the proposed location of the trash disposal for the complex be relocated away from the property line. It would be Staff's feeling that matter could be resolved with the De- velopment Preview Commission at a future meeting. There are two minor changes to be made in the Resolution, as follows: Paragraph 2 (b) ...... in conjunction with the first phase of construction for only those portions to the westerly side of the main 17th Street driveway and to the northerly side of the main Prospect Avenue driveway ...... Paragraph 2 (h) ...... with such wall and appropriate perimeter landscaping to be completed prior to occupancy of the first phase of construction on the site ....... Staff would suggest the Commission adopt Resolution No. 1245, with the above changes, approving Use Permit UP-71-370. A lengthy discussion followed among the Commissioners, which was concerned primarily with the proposed modifications to the eleva- tions as presented at the Nov. 22, 1971, meeting. Commissioners Sharp and Dukleth felt that considerably more effort might be put forth to make this proposed business park more compatible with the surrounding area and residences and the feeling was also expressed that this development might well be setting a precedent and archi- tectural style for all future businesses that might develop along 17th Street. Staff advised the Commission should give consideration at this time to what would be in the best interest of the City, as far as the development of the property. .Mr. Cprtis inquired if the City Attorney would advise the Commissioners to what extent they should get involved with "elevations" as a Plan- ning Commission, in terms of approving or disapproving this project. Counsel replied that the review and control of purely aesthetic aspects of a development, is at the very end of what the Planning Commission or any other part of the City, can control. You may exercise some reasonable control over aesthetics, but that would be the limit. As far as requesting an applicant to build so that it might be "more residential in nature", the property in question was zoned by the City Council for other than a residential use, and the Planning Commission should accept that as a fact, as a part of the framework within which they have to make their decision. This would appear to be extending the "aesthetics control" even further than what may be reasonable. After further discussion, Mr. Curtis moved for adoption of Resolution No. 1245, with the revisions as noted previously (Sect. 2-b and 2-h), with the change in the color and exterior of the buildings, as agreed to bv the applicant; subject to final approval by the Development Preview Commission, within the guidelines and intent of the Planned Community District regulations; seconded by Mr. Edelstein, for'purpos:. of discussion. PC 12/13/71 -5- Mr. ~'~har? reiterated his feelings and thoughts as to the incom- patibility of the architecture proposed, and his concern for the adjoining residential property owners. MOTION VOTED ON: CARRIED: 3-2 AYES: NOES: Larnard, Curtis, Edelstein Sharp, Dukleth NEW BUSINESS 1) Report to City Council on Irvine Prezone PZ-71-126 Mr. Fleagle reported to the Commission that the City Council approved subject prezone for the Irvine land, however, there is considerable change in the total development plans for that area from when it was considered by your Body. All areas with the exception of Area 4 have been designated as single-family residences at five units an acre, and the Roundtree development has been reduced to 10.5 units per acre. It ~;as accepted by the Council with the conditions as imposed by the Planning Commission, with the exception of those modifications as noted. However, there is one point of concern, that being when the Irvine Company resubmitted their plans to the Planning Commission for consideration, the Planning Commission stipulated that a commercial area be developed in either Area 1 or 4 (West of Jamboree). But, that which was approved by the Council indicates the commercial development is to be in Area 2 (East of Jamboree). In analyzing the proposed plans for this development, there are many factors pointing out that Area 2 is far from the best location for the commercial area, and it would be much more feasible, practical and certainly more accessible by the Roundtree development, if it was in Area 1 or 4, as suggested by your Body originally. Pursuant to Sec. 65504 of the Government Code, the Planning Commission is required to report to the City Council upon any change or modifica- tion of the proposal made by the Commission. It would be Staff's recommendation that the Commission, by motion, direct the Staff to report to the Council concurrence with their imposed modifications of PZ-71-126, but at the same time when Council adopts the approving Ordinance, require that the commercial area be located in Area 4 .~.o~ neighborhood shopping. Some discussion followed among the Commissioners regarding this pre- zone, and Mr. Sharp moved that Staff direct a reply to Council, voicing the thoughts expressed previously; seconded by Mr. Curtis. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 NEW BUSINESS - Pending Applida%ians ZC-71-228 - Dan Jones - Request for zone change of an approximate 6.6 acre parcel of land from the "U" (Unclassified) District to the P-C (Planned Community - Commercial) District. Location: Site is located at the southwesterly corner of 17th St. and Prospect Avenue, with approximately 554 ft. frontage on 17th Street and 516 ft. on Prospect Avenue. CORRESPONDENCE County Case - ZC-71-57 - Request to rezone from R1-18,000 "Single- family Residence" District to the RI-15,000 "Single- family Residence" District with alternate proposal from Ri-18,000 and Ri-10,000 to the R1-15,000 "Single- family Residence" District. Location: Certain properties located on Overhill Drive extending between Mira Vista and Sirrine Drive in the Cowan ~{eights Area. Mr. P"~n. advised the Commission that staff had discussed this pro- pos .'ith a member of the Orange County Planning Department, and it PC 12/13/71 -6- was indicated their f~elin-i was, th~s was not an inordin,~t-':" ',.lest, particularl,7~ the a]tern~]te, nro:;c~al, since ~)r~r¢)>:imately .]/~. ~'~. the property in that case was already zon¢.d R1-!0,000 and cons~.u...ntly, the rezoning request to R1-15,000 would be a close balance. It would be Staff's recommendation that the Commission, b~ minute order, direct Staff to forward a "no conunent" report on this matt6r to the Orange County Planning Commission. The Co~missioners discussed the matter, inquiring of Staff when the hearing would be held. (Staff advised December 14th). It was the consensus of opinion that a reply should be directed to the Orange County Planning Commission with a "no comment" report, however, elaborating on the fact sufficient time was not allowed to direct a communication to them from the Commission, and it would be app~ecia%.. if more time was given in the future. Mr. Curtis moved that Staff prepare such a communication to be sent to the Orange County Planning Commission; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 STAFF CONCERNS 5~r. Fleagle advised the Commission that the City Council had he~d a public hearing on the Revision to the Master Tree Plan for the City, and as a result, did delete two trees from the approved list of trees. No action is required by the Planning Commission. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mr. Walter O~, owner of property on the north side of 17th Street, across from the French development (UP-71-373), stated he is desirous of developing his property and asked the Commission's assistance, direction and for whatever help they might give him, as tc what would be.acceptable to the City for development on his.property, It .W~_. ~ suggested that Mr. Opp work with the City Staff and they would give him all assistance possible. COmmISSION CONCERNS Mr. Sharp inquired whether it would be appropriate to answer the letter directed to him from Mr. & Mrs. William Wo Meade with reference to the public hearing held on UP-71-370 (Eddy Meredith) on November 22, 1971. A short discussion followed among the Commissioners and Staff, and Mr. Sharp stated he would personally answer the ~ade'~ letter, and request the Staff to answer those portions of the letter on which he does not have the required information. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Edelstein moved for adjournment at 9:42 p.m.; seconded by Mr. Dukleth. ~ CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY