Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-26-71 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COmmISSION OCTOBER 26, 1971 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 26th day of October 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 Sharp. The Invocation was given by Commissioner Dukleth. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Others Present: Curtis, Sharp, Dukleth Larnard, Edelstein James G. Rourke, City Attorney R. Kenneth Fleagle, Ass't. CA - Community Development Director Pat Brown, Ass't. Planning Director Jean M. Smith, Planning Comm. Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 1971 Moved by Mr. SharD, seconded by Mr. Dukleth that the minutes of the October llth meeting be approved as submitted. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 UP-71-368 - Shell 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 northeast side of Bryan Avenue. Mr. Flea~le advised the Commission that Shell Oil Company had sub- mitted an application for a Use Permit to remodel their existing service station located at Newport and Bryan Avenues. The Develop- ment Preview Commission, in giving preliminary review to this matter, felt such renovation was extremely desirable and that the City could possibly work with the applicant to provide the required amenities on a time limitation basis. During initial discussions with the applicant, they were advised the City was very desirous of such renovation, as it would enhance the site and the sur- rounding area. However, two factors involved were of concern to the City, one being the development of the station commensurate with the service station policy guide, and the other being the dedication of Bryan Avenue to its ultimate width (50 ft. half-width). The widening of Bryan Avenue does become of increasing significance as a traffic artery with the proposed City of Irvine's long range development plan, and the development of the triangle at Newport, Main and Bryan. At this time the City does not have plans for widening Bryan, but we do have a Master Plan of Arterial Highways which does show the ultimate width of Bryan Avenue. A letter was received this date from the applicant, which in essence requests withdrawal of their application for a Use Permit, as "it is now our understanding that the City of Tustin has plans for widening Bryan Street across property occupied by the Shell Service Station. This widening of the street would seriously afl t the operation of the service station; consequently, we no l~..~r feel it is prudent to increase our investment in this location because of the proposed street widening." PC 10/26/71 Mr. Flea~ll_q additionally advised that the applicant's info,. '.',[:ion was erroneous as we do not have any immediate plans for thc %~id- ening of Bryan; we are requesting the dedication of the ulti- mate right-of-way and the street would eventua].ly be widened at the City's expense. It would be Staff's recommendation that the application not be withdrawn at this time, and the hearing be con- tinued to the next Planning Commission meeting. In the .interim have the Chairman direct a letter to Shell Oil Company, encouraging them to continue with their plans for remodeling this station, as a matter of civic pride and responsibility, and that the station be modernized and made compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, dedicating the right-of-way on Bryan, and at such time as the street is widened, it will be done at City expense. The public portion of the hearing was opened at 7:47 p.m.; seeing and hearing no one to speak for or against the issue, Chairman Pro Tem Curtis closed the public portion at 7:48 p.m. A discussion followed among the Commissioners regarding the pro- posed widening or extension of Bryan Avenue, following which Mr. Sharp moved that this public hearing be continued until the next regularly scheduled meeting, and that correspondence be directed to the applicant by the Chairman, reflecting the feelings as outlined by Staff; seconded by Mr. Dukleth. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0 NEW BUSINESS 1) Master Tree Plan - Amendment Mr. Fleagle related to the Commissioners that the Parks & Recrea- tion Commission had recommended a revision of the Master List of Street Trees, as proposed by the Public Works Superintendent. Said list has been reviewed by the Development Preview Commission and approved as modified. It is Staff's recommendation the Plan- ning Commission, by motion, authorize the publication of a Notice of Public Hearing for the purpose of amending Section 23-9, of Ordinance No. 283. Mr. Sharp moved that the Planning Commission, by motion, authorize the publication of Notice of Public Hearing for November 8, 1971, for the purpose of amending Section 23-9, Ordinance No. 283; seconded by Mr. Dukleth. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0 2) Rest Homes - Interoretation of Resolution No. 1030 A brief summation of the Staff Report was given by Mr. Fleagle, stating that the Planning Commission on December 9, 1968 approved Resolution No. 1030, which authorized the establishment of a 100- bed rest home to be located at 1051 Bryan Avenue. Tustin Manor is now applying to the State for authority to operate an "Inter- mediate Care Facility". A rest home is licensed by the State Department of Social Welfare, whereas an Intermediate Care Facility is licensed by the State Fepartment of Public Health. And, the Public Health Department requires a certificate of zoning compliance from the City prior to the issuance of a license. There is only a minor technical difference between a rest home and an intermediate care facility; that being, an inter- mediate care facility requires a registered nurse be on duty full time. It is recommended the Planning Commission, by Minute Order, declare the terminology of Paragraph 2, Resolution No. 1030, adopted on December 9, 1968, which states "a conditional use permit is hereby granted to permit a 100-bed rest home on the subject property ........ "is hereby interpreted to include an Intermediate Care Facility, as defined by Section 382, Article 1, Title 17, Part I, Chapter 1, Subchapter 3, Group 3, of the California Administrative Code. In a brief d]~cussion among the Commissioners, it was brought out that by changing the classification of this rest home, it would in no way affect the State Hospital Planning Act, insofar as possible development of a hospital within the community, since · an Intermediate Care Facility is not categorized as a hospital. Mr..Sharp moved a Minute Order be adopted, declaring the termi- nology of Paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 1030 adopted on December 9, 1968, be interpre%ed to read as stated by Staff; seconded by Mr. Dukleth. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0 PENDING MATTERS (Public Hearings for November 8, 1971 meeting) 1) UP171-370 - Eddy Meredith - Application to develop a Profes- sional Business Park, consisting of four 2-story and one 3-story buildings on property zoned PC- BP (Planned Community - Business Park). Location: Site fronts approximately 638 feet on the south side of Seventeenth Street and approximately 608 feet on the east side of Prospect Avenue. 2) UP-71-369 - Mrs. Maurice Enderle - Application to develop a 134-unit condominium, single-family, planned unit development on property zoned P-C, R-3 (Planned Community - Multiple Family). Location: Site fronts approximately 324 feet on the east side of Yorba Street, extends eastward approximately 1161 feet and is located approximately 737 feet southerly of the centerline of Seventeenth Street. 3) Amendment to Section 23-9, Ordinance 283, as amended by Ordinance No. 295, to revise the Master Tree Plan List by additions and deletions of the authorized trees located on public right-of-way and specifi- cation of parkway width required for specific .................... species. 4) UP-71-371 -O. V. Dart - Application to permit the use of property as a service station. Lo~ation: Property is located at northeast corner of West First Street and "A" Street, known as 395 West First Street. CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Fleagle said that a letter directed to the attention of the Development Preview Commission (with copies to the Tustin News, Planning Commission and City Council), had been received this date from Mr. Walter J. Wands, 17692 Westbury Lane, Tustin, relative to the Tustin West single-family development by Jay Andrews. The points in question he brought up were that no trees were to be removed by the developer without approval from the City; construction of certain specified tract side and entrance walls; retention of eucalyptus trees, and grading not to deviate more than plus or minus one foot from the adjacent northern property. Staff pointed out there is a difference of opinion in some respects, and would suggest the Planning Commission either acknowl- edge the letter and continue the matter for further comments and review, or refer the matter to Staff to determine what action, if any, is necessary and appropriate to satisfactorily handle the situation. PC 10/26/71 -3- CORRT,. PO:.,)I.'?:C{'] (Cont d) Mr. Sil,7. r~ questioned Staff regarding the planting of replact.-.c:nt treos in the tract,, and°whether the dove]opor had lived up his commitments and/or promises. Inasmuch as the deve] has another tract coming u!.) for development, it is felt tha~ in some manner all reouirements, specifications, etc. for this new pro- ' ject should be specifically spelled out prior to the start of the project, thus eliminating any possible confusion or misunder- standing later on. Mr. Fleagle advised the ComMission that for the future tract developmen{, all the specifics should be covered in the Subdivision Map, which has to be submitted prior to development, and thus would assure that all requirements are enumerated. Mr. Sharp moved that the Co~mission acknowledge Mr. Wand's letter a' refer the matter to Staff for consideration, analysis and request that they work with the developer and the homeowners to amicably arrive at a solution. It is requested Staff report back to the Commission as to their actions and progress; seconded by Mr. Dukleth. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0 STAFF CONCERNS 1) BICYCLE PATH It was brought out by Mr. Fleagle that Staff had been directed to prepare a BicyclePath Plan witl~in the City in conjunction with the County's plan, when and if the County adopted such a plan. The County has adopted such a plan and has encouraged the cities to coordinate their plans with the County. Mr. Brown, of Staff, is working on a plan for Tustin and would welcome any sugggstions~ recommendations, etc. from the Commission that they might like to have included in the Bicycle Plan 'for the City o~ Tus~in. ' ....... A discussion among the Co~missioners reflected their thoughts of incorporating the City's park facilities, if possible, with the path; also provide for parking facilities for the bikes wherever possible; utilize any public or institutional buildings within the bicycle path and tie the path into any camp sites or public parks within the surrounding areas. 2) PROPOSED PREZONE AND ANNEXATION Mr. Fleagle advised he is discussing a possible prezone and annexation proceedings for the property north of Seventeenth Street at Prospect. One property owner has initiated the action for a prezone to R-l, bringing the property into the City, and he is gathering support of the surrounding property owners. It is requested of the Commission, that if such action does mate~ rialize, they authorize Staff to advertise for a public hearing on said prezoning action for subject property. Mr. Dukleth moved that such authority be granted to Staff; seconded by Mr. Sharp, with the comment that the Foothill Home- owners Association should be so advised of the pending action, if and when it materializes. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0 COMMISSION CONCERNS Mr. Sharp made reference to the upcoming public hearing on November 8, 1971 - UP-71-369, Mrs. Maurice Enderle/Hester Development, for the property south of Seventeenth Street, east of Yorba. He questioned the status of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance, with respect to this proposed development. Staff replied that the City Attorney had received a communication this date relative to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which in effect, upheld the California ~tate Supreme Court's decision on the Park Land Dedication Ordinance, in that it was a valid requirement imposed by cities. However, with respect to Tustin, it was the decision of the City Council not to adopt such an ordinance at the time of their public hearing, due to the limited amount of land within the City, and they did not feel it would be an equitable arrangement for the 'existing property owners. Mr. Curtis, in connection with the same upcoming public hearing, questioned Staff regarding a Master Plan for the total area. Staff stated a total development plan has been prepared, and that in effect, UP-71-369, will be an overlay for the residential portion of the total development. The initial proposal is one Staff can accept as workable, but it is desirable that all prop- perty owners involved concur with the Plan. Mr. Curtis ~uestioned Staff as to the parking of heavy equipment/ vehicles on private properties, especially on main thoroughfares. Staff advised that if the contractor has a state contract or a specific contract doing work in the immediate area, and has the consent of the property owner, and it is a "temporary" situation, it is permissible for the contractor to park his equipment on said property. However, if it is not a temporary situation, but one that continually happens on certain properties, a different situa- tion exists and would be investigate~. Mr. Flea~le expressed to the Commission his admiration and respect -for their decorum and superb handling of the rather difficult issues heard at the October 11, 1971, meeting. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None ADJOURNMENT Mr. Dukleth moved for adjournment at 8:25 p.m., seconded by Mr. ~harp. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0 PLA~NG COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY PC 10/26/71