Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-08-71 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF TIIE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING CO~DIISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1971 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 8th day of November at the hour of 7:30 p.m. of said day in the Council Chambers, 725 South "C" Street, Tustin, Calif. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Conunissioner Sharp. The Invocation was given by Commissioner Edelstein. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Others Present: Larnard, Curtis, Sharp, Edelstein, 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 Comm. Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 1971 Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Sharp, that the Minutes of the October 26th meeting be approved, as submitted. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS U~-71-268 - Sh~ll Oil Company - Request to permit the remodeling of an existing service station. Location: Site fronts approximately 108 ft. on the southeast side of Newport Avenue and approximately 150 ft. on the north- east side of Bryan Avenue. Mr. Flea~le advised that subject hearing was continued from the last ~eeting in order that the Chairman might communicate with the appli- cant, Shell Oil Company, who had requested their application be with- drawn, inasmuch as t~ ,y did not feel it was prudent to increase their investment at this location because of the proposed street widening. A communication was directed to the applicant from the Chairman re- questing reconsideration of their request for withdrawal in the in- terest of civic pride, and that there were no immediate plans for the widening of Bryan Avenue. It would be for the pleasure of the Commis- sion whether or not the Use Permit should be approved at this time. It would be to the advantage of the Shell Oil Company to receive the Use Permit, whereby they could initiate the improvements anytime during the next 12 months without the necessity of further hearing. Staff has discussed the matter with the Shell Oil Company, and they have indicated no intent in proceeding with the remodeling of the site at this time. However, Mr. Massee, Real Estate Representative from Shell, has indicated that there would be no objection to the approval of the Use Permit. Staff recommends approval of the Use Permit in that the a~plicant has no objection to the action. The Commission was advised by Staff that a representative from'Shell Oil Company was in the audience, if they wished to question him regarding the desires of the applicant in this matter. The public portion of the hearing was re-opened at 7:45 p.m. by Mr. Larnard; seeing and hearing no one to speak, the public portion was closed at 7:46 p.m. ~ the ensuing discussion the Commissioners determined it would be to-E he City's advantage to grant this use permit application, inas- much as it was their feeling the applicant should be encouraged to proceed with this proposed remodeling as it would provide an enhance- ment to the site itself and the surrounding area. Therefore, if the applicant should change his mind regarding the remodeling of the station within the year's period, it could be accomplished without 'the applicant filing for another use permit and having a public hearing. In response to the Commission's inquiry, Mr. C. M. Massee, Real Estate Representative, from Shell Oil Company, indicated they would have no objection to the Commission approving this Use Permit, even though they had requested its withdrawal. Mr. Curtis moved that approval of Use Permit UP-71-368 be granted, instructing Staff to prepare a Resolution incorporating the findings of the Commission; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 UP-71-371 - O.V. Dart - Request to permit the use of property at 395 West First Street as a service station. Location: Site is located at the northeasterly corner of First Street and "A" Street, with frontages of approximately 120 ft. on First Street and approximately 90 ft. on "A" Street. Mr. Fleagle presented a summation of the Staff Report, advising that this site has been utilized as a service station for several years, being ia existence prior to the applicable zoning ordinance, and. prior to the requirement for a use permit. However, recently an unauthorized conjunctive business was being conducted on the site, and as a direct result, with the lease terminating, a new lessee will occupy and operate the station. In an effort to eliminate future problems of a similar nature, Staff advised the owner, that with a change in lessees, if a Use Permit Application was filed, control could be exercised by the City on the use of the station. A recom- mendation of the City Engineer for a condition of approval of this Use Permit is the dedication of the necessary additional 10 ft. of right-of-way on First Street, and a standard corner cut off at the intersection of First and "A" Streets, with the understanding that all improvements (curbs, gutters, etc.) would be made at public expense, at such time as required. Mr. Arthur Nisson, attorney for the property owner, Mr. Dart, stated the conditions the City would impose, i.e., the station be operated in accordance with Service Station Policy (as contained in Resolution No. 1015) could be imposed as a condition of the lease without the necessity of a Use Permit. Before recommending further action by the Commission, Staff suggested the public portion of the hearing be opened to receive the testimony of the property owner and/or his attorney, and it was further pointed out the property will remain in a non-conforming status, should this use permit not be applied. The public portion of the hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. by Mr. Larnard. C. Arthur Nissen, Attorney for the applicant, Mr. O. V. Dart, stated it did not appear that a Use ~ermit would be needed for the use of this property as a service station. The prospective tenant is willing to have written into the lease, the Service Station Policy guide, PC 11/8/71 -2- however, as the property is of a minimum size, the owner is willing to agree to any dedication at this time, and re~.,' "' s the Use Permit application be withdrawn. The public portion of the hearing was closed at 7:53 p.m. by Mr. Larnard. In the discussion following, among the Com~missioners, it was brought out the advantages to the City and to the applicant, if this service station was operated under a Use Permit were: 1) it would bring a non-conforming structure and use into conformance; 2) it would sim- plify the policing procedure and avoid future difficulties such as recently encountered with the present tenant. Counsel was questione3 as to the Commission's standpoint in view of the request for with- drawal. The City Attorney suggested that the application be withdra. at the request of the applicant and proceedings terminated. Mr. Sharp moved that Use Permit application UP-71-371 be withdrawn; seconded by Mr. Curtis. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2 UP-71-370 - Eddy Meredith - Request to develop a Professional Busines~ Park, consisting of four 2-story and one 3-story buildin~s, on property zoned PC-BP (Planned Connnunity - Business Park). Location: Site, consisting of approximately 8.9 acres, fronts ap- proximately 638 ft. on the south side of Seventeenth Street and approximately 608 ft. on the east side of Prospect Avenue. Chairman Larnard stated a request for a continuance had been receiver from the applicant on this hearing, and inasmuch as the Commission d~ not have any plans for the proposed project or recommendations from some of the City departments, would entertain a motion to continue this matter to the November 22, 1971 meeting. Mr. Shard moved that the public hearing on UP-71-371 be continued until the November 22, 1971 meeting; seconded by Mr. Dukleth. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 Mr. Flea~le mentioned, for the record, that a letter had been re- ceived from Quentin W. Fleming, 3367 Whipple Court, Annandale, Virginia (he is an adjoining property owner); and another letter was received from Msdical Laboratory Services, owner of 2.7 acres of land at the northwest corner of Seventeenth Street and Prospect Avenue, voicing their approval of the proposed project of Mr. Meredith, and urged the Commission to approve same. Staff advised these letters would be maintained in the Use Permit file. PUBLIC HEARING NO. 3 UP-71-369 - Mrs. Maurice Enderle - Request to develop a 134-unit con- dominium, single-family, planned unit development on property zoned P-C, R-3 (Planned Community - Multiple Family). Location: Site, consisting of approximately 9.8 acres, front.s ap- proximately 324 ft. on the east side of Yorba Street, extends eastward approximately 1161 ft. and is located approximately 737 ft. southerly of the center line of Seventeenth Street. PC 11/8/71 -3- Mr.' Fleagle ~e[~lared that due notice had been given that a Use Per- mit application UP-71-369 had been filed and a public hearing to be held at this time. The Commission will recall that this proDerty was subject of a zone change, and a condition of that zone change was a requirement for a coordinating circulation system tying all prol~erties into a Master Plan concept for both the commercial and residential portions. This Use Permit application pertains only to that residential portion proposing a condominium development with a density factor of 13.6 dwelling units per acre (Vs. an authorized of 21 units/acre); with 2-1/3 parking spaces per unit. The other condition specified by the Commission and Council, as part of the zone change, are that no two story units would be located closer than 100 ft. to the southerly boundary of this property, adjacent to Enderle Gardens. The applicant has complied with the conditions imposed by the Council and Commission, including a Master Plan to be submitted for an interior public street system. Staff and the Devel- opment Preview Commission endorse the proposal as submitted, as being an appropriate design and the street system as being appropriate, but would recommend the Commission garner some assurance from the developer that the property will be developed with a circulation system in ac- cordance with the submitted plans. Prior to the opening of the public hearing Mr. Curtis questioned Staff regarding the Jones property, as to whether this was a part of the overall plan. Staff advised that the Jones property was Unclassified (without a zoning classification on it) and technically was not a part of this action. The public portion of the hearing was opened at 8:12 p.m. by Mr. Larnard. Mr. Jim Gianulius, representing Hester Development Co., gave a brief synopsis of the past history on this property and the attempts made to develop same. It was his feeling they have come up with a workable proposal that will enhance the area, be compatible, be acceptable to the Enderle Gardens ttomeowners Association, and has a much lower density than the previous submission. Mr. Emil Benes, representing the architect, Morris & Lohrbach, to- gether with Mr. Gianulius, made a presentation of various aspects of the proposed development on the projector, illustrating the pro- posed condominium units, elevations, plot plans, landscaping, fence arrangements, etc. The Commissioners questioned Messrs. Gianulius and Benes at length bringing up facets of the proposed development, such as the street circulation system being integrated with the development of the entire area in question; whether the Master Plan, by reference, had been agreed to by all property owners involved; whether an architect had been engaged for the entire commercial/residential development; what assurance there would be, that after the condominium development was constructed, that the commercial portion would be developed; dedication of necessary right-of-ways for the street circulation system for the overall proposed commercial/residential development; what effect this development might have on the school district in the area? In reply to the questions posed by the Commissioners, the applicants advised they were presenting a Master Plan, for reference purposes only, showing a proposed street circulation plan that could be workable when the commercial portion was developed; the owner has indicated a willingness to dedicate the necessary right-of-way for the circulation system, but inasmuch as a precise alignment has not been present¢ [, cannot give a definite commitment; no architect has been contracted to do the entire development; the elementary school district was contacted and advised of the proposed development, however, no word has been received from them as to its effect on the schools involved; informa- tion has been received that the Doty-Vandenberg properties are now entered in option to Western Mortgage Company and the City should be contacted soon regarding the next stage of construction. PC 11/8/71 -4- Mr. Ron Fairb~:irn, 850 E. Chad;man, Oran(!e, also spoke on b~: of the applicant, advising lie had been in contact with the Tust.. ;. Elementary School District and was awaiting further word fro'., them. Mr. Don Thamer, 1666 North Main Street, Santa Ana, Attorney, repre- senting Dan Jones, questioned the Con~ission and Staff regarding his clienk's property, and how it would be affected by this project; how it was tied in, if at all, to Mr. Jones' property; the proposed circulation plan; and requested the hearing be continued in order to give his client additional time to investigate the plans for the entire development. Staff and the Commission advised Mr. Thamer that the plans being considered by the Co~mission at this time did not include Mr. Jones' property. Originally when Mr. French had the option on the entire 43. acres, Mr. Jones' property was included; however, his property has been excluded inasmuch as it does not now have a zoning classi- fication and is a separate entity. Mrs. Harry Wagner, 17331 Jacaranda, Tustin, California Gen. Raipn R. Yeaman, President of Enderle Gardens Prop.Owners Assoc. Mr. Harry Wagner, 17331 Jacaranda, Tustin, California Mr. Shapero, 14222 Mimosa, Tustin, California The above-listed people spoke in favor of the proposed development of the 134-unit condominium; however, did voice concern over some other points, such as, density ratio; the over-abundance of apartments in the city limits; the maintenance and care of the common property and southerly boundary wall and the 10 ft. setback from the wall borderinr Enderle Gardens; development plans for the residence at 14192 South Yorba Street and what street improvements are to be made. General Yeaman also submitted a letter to the Planning Commission from the Enderle Gardens Property Owners Assoc. reviewing the past actions and their objections to the previous proposals submitted on this property. The letter stated the present plans seemed to meet all those recommendatiens of Enderle Gardens in connection with the wall, the 10 ft. separation filled with proper landscaping, the one story houses within 100 - 150 ft. of the Gardens, closed garages and aesthetic value equal to the community at large. Therefore, they did not object to the present plans and renderings as long as the city sees to it they are complied with by the concerned parties. Mr. A1 Enderle, 3662 Carmel, Santa Ana stated he appreciated the.con- cern expressed regarding the residence at 14192 S. Yorba, and wished to say his mother will be residing there and it will be her home; all improvements will be made on Yerba at the same time as those made for the condominium development. He reiterated his request for approval of this proposal so that an initial development may be started on this area, to be followed by development on the commercial properties to the north. The public portion of the hearing was closed at 9:18 p.m. by Mr. Larnard. Mr. Curtis moved, seconded by Mr. Sharp, for purposes of discussion, that UP-71-369 be approved subject to the conditions of ZC-70-220; the recommended conditions of Staff; and in accordance with the plans submitted and as modified by the applicant; subject to the further condition that a Specific Plan be submitted for a circulation system that would be advertised as a public hearing and adopted by Council ~rdinance. In the discussion following, the Commissioners talked of the dedica- tion of the right-of-way, and it was pointed out by Counsel that the dedication and alignment of the collector street would be a condition of the Use Permit subject to submittal of a Specific Plan~ Such a plan would have to be approved prior to the start of development of the condominium complex. Mr. Curtis' motion was voted on: AYES: Larnard, Curtis Mr. Sharp moved that the hearing be continued until additional in- formation is available, giving more consideration to an overall Master Plan, including the precise alignment of the roadways and indicating pedestrian and vehicle traffic for the overall development; seconded by Mr. Dukleth. AYES: Sharp, Dukleth NOES: Larnard, Curtis, Edelstein MOTION DEFEATED: 3-2 Staff suggested that there have been some problems resolved this evening, and if the Commission is willing to accept the architectural style and layout of the R-3 property as submitted, this is a signifi- cant achievement, and by indication of acceptance, it permits the developer to proceed with further developments on the property. Correspondence has been received this evening stating the Vanderbilt/ Doty property, along with the Enderle PC-C2 has been entered in option with Western Mortgage Co. and they will soon be contacting the City about the next stage of construction. If it is the Commission's desire to approve the R-3 portion, subject to the necessary guarantees for the total circulation system, you are in a position to condition ap- proval upon the submission of further development plans from the developer of the C-2 property. The C-2 property also requires a Use Permit, but if the developer has design plans formulated in accordance with the circulation system shown on the referenced Master Plan shown tonight, and agrees to a Master Plan of circulation, then a second public hearing can be eliminated as far as circulation is concerned and a public hearing for the Use Permit would be required only for development of the commercial property. Mr.Fleagle suggested that a motion could be, approve plans as submitted for the R-3 development, subject to those conditions as stated by the Commission and Staff, directing Staff to prepare a resolution of ap- proval, conditioning it upon guaranteed satisfaction of the circulation system, which could be by Specific Plan or submission by the optionee of the adjoining commercial properties of a circulation plan and dedicatio~ Mr. Sharp raised the question, if there was any guarantee that any ~hing other than the condominium complex would be developed; what assurance is there that the commercial property to the north would be developed? Mr. Larnard stated that perhaps the motion suggested by Staff would suffice for the guarantee of further developments, and he requested Mr. Fleagle repeat his suggestions as to the submittal for a use per- ~nit that would provide for the precise alignment of street circulation without the necessity of a public hearing. Mr. Fl~agle's response was, that the first action would be to approve the architectural style and design as submitted, subject to those con- ditions the Commission has mentioned, and be further conditioned upon an agreement of the potential developer and landowners of the commercial properties, ta provide the circulation system, interconnecting and com- patible with the Master Plan as submitted. Such agreement can be either by Specific Plan, or by joint submission and dedication of the necessary right-of-way for approval by the Planning Commission. Mr. Sharp moved that the Commission adopt Staff's recommendation; seconded by Mr. Curtis. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 Mr. Larnard declared a brief recess at 10:00 p.m., meeting reconvening at 10:15 p.m. PC 11/8/71 -6- PC !'*. ~ ~ ]/8171 PUBLIC IlEARI~G NO. 4 Amendment to Section 23-9 - Ordinance No. 283, as amended by Ordinance No. 295. Street Tree Plan - additions and dcletions of the authorize. trees located on-public right-of-way and specificatic~~. of parkway width required for specific species. Mr. Fleaqle advised that this matter had been advertiscd for a pul: hearing at this time and place for the purpose of adopting an amer Master Street Tree Plan. No communications have been received and Staff has for your consideration Resolution No. 1242 covering ame~' list, to recommend approval to the City Council for adoption. Mr. Larnard opened the public portion of the hearing at 10:18 p.m. seeing and hearing no one to speak, the public portion was closed at 10:19 p.m. Mr. Shard moved that Resolution No. 1242 be adopted, recommending approval to the City Council; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS PARCEL ~P PM-71-51 - William Weinber~ Company Location: Southwest corner of Newport Avenue and First Street. Mr. Brown gave a summation of the City Engin.eer's Sta~ ~epor~ cove~ this Parcel Map, to create two'separate parcels' fo~ ~evelopment p~r.- poses· Parcel 1 is the proposed site for the Bank of AK~,erica devel- ment, proposed for the near future, while Parcel 2 has been discusz as a restaurant site, but no specific plans have been submitted· Current zoning on both parcels is C-2-P. This parcel map is a redi sion of Parcel Map 70-32 approved by your Commission on January 26, 1970. All street improvements have been installed on the First Street frontage. There is concern expressed by the City Engineer regarding left turn pockets for west bound traffic turning into the proposed site or left turns being made coming out of the site, and recommends the community driveway be restricted to right turn ingress and egress only. It is the City Engineer's recommendation that you adopt a Minute Order approving this Parcel Map subject to the following conditions: Upon development of the property, a "no left turn" sign be erected in the center median area to prevent westbound First Street traffic from blocking through traffic due to both lack of a turning bay and misalignment of the driveway and openings. Upon development of the property, a "right turn only" sig~. be erected at any drive approach constructed into Parcel . or 2; which, in the opinion of the City Engineer, constitu a traffic hazard for vehicles leaving either parcel. Final approval by the City Engineer and recordation of the map. Staff requested Mr. Rourke advise the Commission regarding Conditi~ No. 1 and No. 2, as specified by the City Engineer. The City Attorney advised the conditions were somewhat unusual to t. specified on a Parcel Map, inasmuch as Condition No. 3 would suffi¢ as it calls for final approval by the City Engineer. Following a brief discussion among the Commissioner, Staff and Coun ~r. Sharp moved that a Minute Order be adopted, seconded })y Mr. Ed<' that Parcel Map PM-71-51, subject to final approval by the C.ity En5 neer and recordation of the map; and, that Condition Nos. 1 and 2, delineated by ~.e City Engineer be brought to the attention of the applicant and resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 CORRESPONDENCE 1) Request from Parks and Recreation Commission for an amendment to Ordinance No. 439 (Development Preview Commission). Mr. Fleagle related to the Commissioners that a communication had been received from Jack Harrison, Parks & Recreation Director, with ~ recom- mendation from the Parks & Recreation Commission that Ordinance No.439 be amended by means of a public hearing, amending Sec. 5.250 to include a statement to the effect that after recommendation by the Development Preview Commission, the Parks & Recreation Commission would be respon- sible for final approval of all public park and recreational facilities. Jack Harrison, Parks & Recreation Director, spoke on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Commission, reiterating their concern for the present procedure that must be followed, according to Ordinance No. 439. The report from the Parks & Recreation Commission reflects their feeling that they cannot carry out their role o~ spending park bond money in park development if they do not have final control for the approval of plans. They recognize the expertise of the Development Preview Commission and desire the procedure of review of all plans and recom- mendations by that body, but that the Parks & Recreation Commission would like to have the authority, in the event the requirements of the · Development Preview Commission are such that it cannot be afforded or defeats the purpose of the park function, to have the right of the final decision. Some concern has arisen over the first park site at First and "C" Streets due to implied conditions of the Development Preview Commission, which the Parks & Recreation Commission agreed to, rather than appeal. However, they are looking to the future park sites and feel the parks should be developed as part of a total plan. And, overall it must coordinate and the parks developed as specified under the Park Bond proposal with the monies allocated. It is their feelinq they know best how the monies should be spent in the total park system. It is not their intent to take any power away from the Planning Co~mis- sion or the Development Preview Commission but feel the Parks & Rec- reation Commission need the final authority in case there is a problem and eliminate appealing to the City Council, spending additional time and money. Mr. Sharp stated he felt there were some principles involved here we ought to explore. The first principle being, there is only one group of people in the City that makes all final decisions, and that is the City Council. The rest of us are advisory to the Council and there is no confusion on that issue; that is the way the system works, and there are several commissions involved. There's the Planning Commission, and I think we pretty much have a feeling for what our responsibilities are. There is a Parks & Recreation Commission, and lately there has been a Development Preview Commission. Specifically, with the issue involved here, it appears that the Parks & Recreation Commission would be charged with approval of development plans as they relate to the pro- gram f~r parks and recreation. And, if they have developed as a part of this whole parks program, an overall master plan for providing parks and recreation for the Tustin co~unity, then it would be their responsibility in reviewing plans which would produce the actual parks and recreational facilities that this city is going to enjoy. They should review them within the context of their overall master plan - their program plan. For an example, a plan would be based upon analysis and would indicate we need a certain number of park facilities (expressed in square feet or some other way) for the young people of Tustin; a certain amount of facilities for the athletic teams that this City seems to be interested in sponsoring, such as the Pop Warner type football, Little League, soccer league, girls' softball-- all of these put together, might be another element of the program plan. PC 11/8./71 -8- I)C Mins. ' "'il As we proceed to develop facilities which wouId provide for ti:,.::3(: ne~'," the Parks & Recr(~at.ion Commission should bc that group wb~ '-u reviews these plans, whether they be schematic or preliminary, to ,ac sure the program is being met. If the program plan specifically says, ,' within this City we ought to have 12 acres of facilities for adult type recreation, including lawn bow].inq and recreation buildinqs for crafts, etc., then, as the plans are developed, that Commission shoul~ review them to make certain the architect is actually producing the amount of square feet that the plan calls for to provide these facil- ities. That is what is meant b5' "program" review and approval; that appears to be definitely the Parks & Recreation Commission's charge by the Council. Mr. Larnard commented that this position is reinforced by the Staff Report,relating the role of the Commission to that of a developer in the function and major design of a project. Mr. Sharp continued with bis logic, that the Council has also delegate~ to another Commission, that being the Development Preview Commission, the job of recommending to Council, as regards to the design of the facility; i.e., the selection of plant material and the architecture of the structure. (Regarding the width of the sidewalks, in this spe- cific case, there is a question whether it be a design element or a program element). It appears that the Planning Commission, in respect for the Develop- ment Preview Co~mission function, has lately decided to stay out of the precise design of developments; design decisions are deferred to the Development Preview Commission. We don't spend our time any more talking about tile roofs, or whether the walls should be slump stone · or common block and that sort of thing. We focus our attention on trying to determine that developments within the City are within our long range development plans; our General Plan. That's our job, and when we have decided, let's say a 100-unit condominium-is withim'th~-- plan, and the density fits pretty well, the road circulation fits, and these kind of program matters, then the architectural design of that 100 units is pretty much given to the Development Preview Com- mission to recommend to the Council that the architecture and design is all right, and we follow or proceed by saying it meets the general plan. The program of this City is to develop itself. That principle carries over to the one we are discussing tonight. Within the program requirements for Parks and Recreation, that Com- mission should certainly approve, probably at the schematic level, whether or not the architect is designing a facility that meets all their requirements. If the Parks & Recreation Commission, in their program for let's say the park at First and "C" Streets, indicates that facility should include two regulation Little League hard ball diamonds and a recreational facility or storage facility, or gymnasium or whatever the facilities should be; parking for 24 cars, etc., that is the first thing the architect has to come up with - a plan to indi- cate he'~an g~t all those items on the land area. And, if he cannot, he has to settle that with the Parks & Recreation Commission, because it is their responsibility to monitor the program and to review it to the point where they are willing to recommend to Council that the architect has met the specified conditions. Once that is dcne, you continue with the development of the schematic plans; if structures are involved, the elevations are rendered; specifications of plant materials are submitted, etc., and it would appear that, 'in principle, that is how the responsibility breaks down. If we are talking about final decisions, we are only talking about one group - the City Council. Regardless of what is done in the City, the) are they are the men that are elected - the legislative body; the ones that put the budget together, execute the budget with the staff's help, but in principle, they are responsible for all decisions. This is all relayed to you to perhaps give a framework to the rest of this discussion, based upon these principles. PC 11/8/71 -9- The Commissioners, in discussion, concurred essentially with Mr. Sharp's comments, and reference was made to the Staff Report as to the responsibility of the Development Preview Commission. The con- sensus of feeling of the Commission at this point was that Ordinance No. 439 should not be changed or amended. Mr. Harrison's response was that it was the Parks. & Recreation Com- mission's feeling that they were not the developer; they felt the City is actually the one instigating the plans and the development. And, as a Parks & Recreation Commission, they had the responsibility of reviewing the program, to see that the Master Plan is kept in mind and followed through on each park site. They do not feel they are asking for an "exemption" as such, in approving their own plans; that i~ not their intent. They feel they are the review board now, for parks, to see that the parks are developed correctly. He further stated, the delineation of the various commissions and their roles, as given tonight was excellent. If the Commissions follow their roles, as they are set up, totally, the present system is quite workable. And, when these roles are followed, it should prove of ~alue to all Commissions, as at times there is confusion as to where responsibility begins or ends, and in this situation, there could be some overlap in the issue of the parks. The Parks & Recreation Commission feels uneasy about not having a final say, and having to spend monies out, that they feel responsible for. Mr. Larnard raised the question whether any formal action was neces- sary in this matter. It was a consenus that the minutes of this meeting be transmitted to the Parks & Recreation Commission in response to their letter, and it would be sufficient. CORRESPONDENCE 2) Youth Day in Government Mr. Flea~le told the Commission that at the next meeting, several young ~e6ple will be attending as part of the "Youth Day in Government", and ........ taking Dart in o'er meeting. The youths will also spend a day at City Hall on November 18, 1971. STAFF CONCERNS - None CO~'~IISSION CONCERNS - None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None ADJOURNMENT Mr. Edelstein moved for adjournment at 10:57 p.m. NNING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY Pc 11/8/71 -10-