Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-22-71 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 22, 1971 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 22nd day of November 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: 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 Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 197~ Moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Curtis, that the minutes of the, November 8th meeting be approved, as submitted. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 Chairman Larnard welcomed the high ~chool students ~ttend~hg ~he m6eti-- participating i~ the "Youth in Government" Day, and sitting in with the Commissioners at this meeting. The students introduced were Lori Lewi~ Kevin LaMonica and Curt Nichols. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS (From Nov. 8, 1971) UP-71-370 - Eddy Meredith - Request to develop a Professional Business Park consisting of four 2-story and one 3-story building on property zoned PC-BP (Planned Community - Business Park). Location: Site, consisting of approximately 8.9 acres, fronts approxi- mately 638 ft. on the south side of Seventeenth Street and approximately 608 ft. on the east side of Prospect Avenue. Mr. Fleagle explained this item was originally scheduled for public hearing at the November 8, 1971, meeting, however, as a result of recommendations made by the Development Preview Commission, plans were revised and resubmitted to that Body for their additional com- ments and recommendations, and the public hearing was continued to this time and place. The recommendations of the City Engineer are agreeable to the developer, and there is no point of conflict in that regard. The landscaping of the project will be subject to precise review by the Development Preview Commission in the layout of the parking lot and approval of the building plans. In the opinion of the Staff, there is adequate accommodations for parking and land- scaping in the area of the development. There are matters of judgment however, pertaining to the style and layout of the building, and this is the developer's prerogative. Staff takes no opposition to it, endorsing the plan,recommends that Use Permit UP-71-370 be approved as submitted, directing Staff to prepare a resolution for Commission adoption at its next meeting, taking into consideration those recom- mendations made by Staff, various departments and subject to the hearing this evening. Mr. F!eagle 'LSO advised the Commissioners that correspondence had .~een received in support of this use permit, some of which was re- ceived prior to the last Commission meeting, and others received since that time. Communications received in support of the project were from: · Ferne H. Elliott, 17761 Arbolada Way, Tustin Verne A. Rodgers, 17781 Arbolada Way, Tustin Charles Abrahams, 17801 Arbolada Way, Tustin Medical Laboratory Service, San Juan Capistrano Quentin Fleming, 3367 Whipple Court, Annandale, Va. · Mr. Fleming's letter expressed concern over the stages of deveiop- ment. Additional correspondence was received from Blaine and Gloria Arrington, and William W. Meade, adjoining property owners, re- questing that the trees located on the common boundary line be allowed to remain, offering them protection from noise and also afford them privacy. Public portion of the hearing was opened at 7:47 p;m. by Chairman Larnard. Mr. Harvey Bur~er,. 305 E. Main Street, Tustin, representing the developer, pointed out that at the time this project was originally presented to the Commission in the Prezone action, it was in gen- eral conformity with the plan as presented tonight, however, there were nine buildings proposed rather than the five buildings now being planned for the development. Mr. William W. Meade, 14101 Howland Way, Tustin, said he had dropped a letter at City Hall over the weekend, however, apparently it was not received, and he then proceeded to read his communication, voicing opposition to the removal of any trees on the common prop- ..erty, as they would serve as a buffer for noise, etc. and would ' ~creen the 2-and 3-story buildings from the residential area. Public portion of the hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m. by Mr.Larnard. In the discussion following among the Commissioners, Staff and the "applicant, concern was voiced over the parking and landscaping ratio of the entire project; whether the parking spaces exceeded that required of such a project; could it, or would it be feasible to decrease the parking stalls and increase the landscaped area,. and still stay within that required by the Ordinance. Staff related it was conceivable that the parking accommodations might be reduced from the 499 specified on the plans, but would not recommend going below 470 or 475 inasmuch as we are dealing with an unknown factor, not knowing exactly what businesses would be occupying the various buildings. By reducing it below that figure, you may be inviting problems in the future, when the entire project is completed. It was the feeling of the applicant that they were providing a larger area for landscaping in this development than any other now developed within the City, and with reference to the Development Preview Com- mission's suggestions and/or recommendations they felt further study would be required, and at this point only the schematic plans were beind considered, which they felt the Development Pre- view Commission approved of, in concept. Mr. Curtis. stated that inasmuch as the final landscaping and parking plans are subject to Development Preview Commission approval as well as final development plans, did not feel the Planning Commis- sion should dwell on these points as it was in the realm of the Development Preview Commission to approve such items, and moved that Use Permit UP-71-370 be approved subject to those requirements of the Fire, Building and Engineering Departments, and subject to final approval by the Development Preview Commission; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. PC 11/22/71 -2- Following the motion, Mr. Flea~le suggested that prior to t~.~.2ng a vote on the motion, that certain findings and specifics sheu~d be spelled out in the resolution approving this Use Permit ome of the conditions enumerated by him were the installation u~ fire hyd- rants; dedication and improvements of right-of-way; lighting disC trict annexation; drainage facilities and plans; location of util- ities; construction of perimeter walls and height of said walls, and when they should be constructed. It was Staff's feeling that many of these items were in the purview of the Planning Commis- siond to be spelled out in the Resolution rather than requiring a variance for exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance at some later date. Mr. Sharp replied that by taking all these items and delineating them in the Resolution, it would be his feeling the Planning Com- mission would be more ~,r less designing the project. He reiterated his concern for the ra~io of paved area to the landscaped area for the total project and felt with more thought, this might be balanced' out better. Additionally, he felt strongly that the elevations as presented for these buildings, were not compatible with the area, which is generally residential in nature; they were not complimen- tary to the surrounding area; somewhat institutional in design and no where near residential in character, as they might be to comPleme the area. Staff advised that this is a "PC" zone which takes precedence over the Zoning Ordinance and if you spell out those areas of exception then the developer is given flexibility to develop in accordance with the submitted plans and conditions. If these items are not spelled out in a Resolution, stating approval of the Use Permit with the conditions of approval enumerated, the developer is forced to apply for a variance with a public hearing for any exception to the general provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Sharp inquired if the motion was such that the Staff was to prepare a Resolution which the Commission will review and act upon at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. (See Mr. Curtis' motion on Page 2). Mr. Curtis stated he would be willing to add to his motion, if acceptable to the second, that the paving and landscaping ratio should be balanced out. There was some discussion regarding the role of the Development Pre- view Commission if this Use Permit was approved tonight, as regards to building plans, when they would be approved, when a building per- mit could be obtained, what steps would be taken by the Development Preview Commission and their actions as far as development of this project. Mr. Curtis asked Mr. Burger regarding the width of the windows as shown in the elevations, and he was advised approximately 3'6". Mr. Bur~er further stated that what they were asking, was for approval of their plot plans and elevations, as a general concept of develop- ment; not asking for specific approval on landscaping and parking plans. He then added, that if the Planning Commission did not see fit to approve the elevations as submitted with their proposal, there would be no further action taken, as they have spent considerable money and time developing these plans and this is what they propose to build on the site. He added he cannot conceive of anyone buildin~ oa Business Park to be in line with the surrounding residential area, and it was not their intent to mislead the Commission into thinking they would redesign the building; this was their concept for the development. Mr. Sharp repea~ed it was still his feeling the design of the facili~ was not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood; that this facility would be setting the tone for the balance of commercial developments on Seventeenth Street, setting the architectural theme for the street, and at this point, he would be inclined to disapprove this Use Permit. He cited as an example, Irvine Boulevard in the Cit.' as being an asset to the area, in the way it has developed. Mr. Curtis amended his motion to read, that he would require the Staff prepare a Resolution, and resolve that before final action is taken on this Use Permit, to make sure all the various depart- ments' requirements are delineated, and subject to final approval by the Development Preview Commission of all development plans; 'agreed to by his second, Mr. Edelstein. Mr. Sharp inquired if the elevations as shown tonight were a part of the application that is being acted on; the reply was in the affirmative. MOTION VOTED ON: AYES: Curtis, Larnard NOES: Sharp, Edelstein, Dukleth MOTION.DEFEATED: 3-2 Mr. Larnard advised he would entertain another motion, to which there was no response. Mr. Fleagle declared that if the only question to be settled was that of the elevations, it would be Staff's recommendation that you approve Use Permit UP-71-370, directing staff to prepare a Resolu- tion for adoption and provide an opportunity for the applicant to make a presentation on more precise elevations, for approval. If you approve the Use Permit requiring submission of precise elevation plans for approval, as a condition of the Use Permit, then you will be in a position to get a better comprehension of exactly what the developer has in mind for this project, and possible to incorporate some of your ideas and designs suggested here tonight. A lengthy discussion followed among the Commissioners regarding the applicant's willingness to consent to any modification of the ele- vations as presented with the application and what the Development Preview Commission's reaction was to these elevations. Mr. Brown advised that the Development Preview Commission did not, as a Body, "object to the architecture; one member did voice a rather strong statement regarding the style, along the point brought up by Mr. Sharp, in that the style was too formal and did not blend in with the surroundings. Their indication, on the whole, was they.~ccepted the'concep~ as presented and'felt it would fit in with the co~unity~ Mr. Larnard stated it was the option of the Planning Commission to act on the Use Permit and impose any conditions they deemed neces- sary, such as submitting or preparing a different presentation on the elevation for Commission approval. At this point Mr. Sharp asked to hear a gentleman in the audience who indicated a willingness to speak. Manual DeLeon, 17811 Arbolada Way, Tustin thanked the Commission for allowing him to speak, and voiced strenuous objections to the Com- mission approving this Use Permit with the proposed elevations. He commended the Planning Commission on their previous action on this property on the prezoning application, and heartily endorsed Mr. Sharp's opinions regarding the incompatibility of the proposed structures for the area. Mr. Curtis stated he felt Staff's suggestion for giving the appli- cant an opportunity to make another presentation at the next meeting was well taken, and moved that the Commission approve UP-71-370 subject to the provisions discussed, i.e., recommendations of the Building, Fire and Engineering Departments, final approval by the Development Preview Commission on all development plans, and a Resolution to be prepared by Staff for presentation at the next Planning Commission meeting on December 13, 1971 for approval, along with the applicant's presentation of elevations for the Commission's approval; seconded by Mr. Larnard. Mr. Sharp asked for clarification on the point, that if by consenting to this motion, the Commission is not approving the elevations sub- mitted at this meeting, and acceptance of the concept as presented PC 11/22/71 -4- does not indicate acceptance of the elevations as now presented, but they will be subject to review and final determination at the next meeting. Mr. Curtis replied that it should be quite clear to the developer that he should reconsider the elevations presented tonight, and return at the next meeting with the plan, he feels is the best he can offer to the Commission in line with the comments and thoughts presented tonight. MOTION VOTED ON: MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 OLD BUSINESS Mr. Fleagle presented Resolution No. 1244 granting a Conditi6nal Use Permit UP-71-368 on application of Shell Oil Company, which the Com- mission had directed Staff to prepare at the November 8, 1971, meeting. He recommended that further reading of said resolution be waived, and motion be made to adopt the resolution. Mr. Curtis moved f~r adoption; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 Mr. Flea~le also presented Resolution No. 1243 granting Use Permit UP-71-369 on application of Mrs. Maurice Enderle, with request that further reading of the resolution be waived, and a motion made to adopt same. Mr. Larnard questioned Staff regarding the appeal being made by the City Council on this Use Permit, and asked for the City Attorney's advice as to what effect, if any, it would have on their adoption 9f _~ this resolution. Counsel replied it would be appropriate for the Commission to formalize their action of the November 8, 1971, meeting by adopting said Resolution. Mr. Sharp moved for adoption of Resolution No. 1243; seconded by Mr. Dukleth. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 Staff advised the Commission that a letter had been sent to Mr. Walter Wands, dated November 18, 1971, with reference to the prob- lems experienced by some abutting homeowners to the Andrews Con- struction development at Prospect Avenue and Miller Drive. A copy of the letter was given to all Commissioners, which explained to Mr. Wands that all city requirements had been satisfied by the developer, with the exception of certain tree plantings, and this was now under consideration by the Development Preview Commission. NEW BUSINESS PENDING APPLICATIONS (December 13, 1971, meeting) UP-71-372 - Franarqofin - permit to construct and operate a recreational baseball batting facility. Location: Laguna Road south of Orange intersection (next to freeway and the existing Go-cart track.) UP-71-373 - Western Mortgage Co. (R. T. French) - permit to construct a commercial development under Planned Community concept. Location: Southeast corner of Yorba and 17th Street (east of corner of Yorba. PC 11/22/71 -5- CORRESPONDENCE ~unty Case UP-3219 - to permit establishment of non-commercial kennel for maximum of 10 dogs in 100-E4 "Small Estates" District. Location: Northeast side of La Colina Drive, approximately 140 ft. southeast of REd Hill Avenue, in northeast Tustin area. Mr. Brown advised the Commission a communication had been received from the County regarding this application for establishment of a non-commercial kennel consisting of three runs and shelters to raise '~pugs", a small size dog, for their own pleasure and possible showing. Following a brief discussion by the Commissioners, Mr. Sharp moved that a communication be directed to the Orange County Planning De- partment, referring them to the City of Tustin's standards, as they might apply to an application of this nature; Tustin's ordinance allowing a maximum of three full grown dogs; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 STAFF CONCERNS. Mr. Fleagle deferred to Mr. Larnard to discuss their trip to the I'rvine "Roundtree" development in San Jose; however, in reply, Mr. Larnard stated he had not had sufficient time to collect .his thoughts and summarize them for a presentation at this time. COMMISSION CONCERNS At this time Mr. Larnard extended an opportunity to the students participating in the meeting tonight, to express their sentiments, __.. if the~ so desired. All three students commented on their interest in the proceedings that took place, and felt it had been a very worthwhile experience. Mr. Curtis did bring to the students' atten- tion also, that a Town Hall meeting will be held on Monday, November 29£ 1971, in the Council Chambers, for purposes o.f discussing the ~'o~o§ed irvi~e-~nex~tion'and de~elopm_nt. He thought the students might also find it to be an interesting and informative meeting. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None ADJOURNMENT Mr. Shard moved for adjournment at 9:50 p.m., seconded by Mr. Edelstein. PLA~ COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY