Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-11-71 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF TIIE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 11, 1971 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the llth 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: Larnard, Curtis, Sharp, Edelstein, Dukleth None James G. Rourke, City Attorney R. Kenneth Fl~agle, Asst. CA - Community Development Dir~ Pat Brown, Assistant Planning Director Jean M. Smith, Planning Commission Recording Sect'y. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING DF SEPTEMBER 27, 1971 Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that the minutes of the September 27th meeting be approved as submitted. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 CONTINUED - PUBLIC HEARINGS PZ-71-126 and an Amendment to the Tustin Area General Plan (Re-advertised from the June 14, 1971, meeting and continued from the September 27, 1971, meeting. Location: Subject properties are generally bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway to the northeast; Myford Road to the southeast; the Santa Fe Railroad Mainline and Moulton Parkway to the southwest; and the Santa Fe Railroad Venta spurline to the northwest. Mr. Fleaql~ advised that a public hearing was advertised and held on this matter at the last Planning Commission meeting requesting a prezone from the Orange County A-1 (Agricultural) and A-4 (Agricul- tural Residential) Districts to the City of Tustin PC (Planned Com- munity-Residential) District. As a result of questions raised at that meeting relative to school development, as well as concerns of the City Council, the hearing was continued to tonight's meeting. In the interim there have been meetings with the Irvine Company people, a City Council Committee, and Staff, and consideration given to the economic feasibility of the conjunctive annexation and ultimate development standards for the property. Suggestions and amendments were presented to the Irvine Company and the proposal has been resubmitted to you with revised text, for consideration. It is now feasible, on the basis of economic studies and the design pat- terns and plans of the Irvine Company, for the area to be annexed to the City and developed as a model neighborhood within the City of Tustin. The major factors of concern have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Council Committee and City Staff. Also, in dis- cussion with the Irvine Company, mention was made of providing school sites, traffic circulation, and commercial sites. Staff suggested for school sites within the area, the possibility of construction and leaseback might be considered by the school district with the Irvine Company; however, this is a matter outside the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. The 24 acre site bounded by Walnut and Myford Road is designated as "unclassified" to provide the potential of a regional shopping center. Staff has submitted a Resolution for your approval, which states and recites the facts presented; and it would be Staff's recom- mendation the Commission approve the plan as submitted, for the prezone change, and the matter be recommended for City Council approval. The public portion of the hearing was opened at 8:38 p.m. by Chairman Larnard. Mr. Jim Taylor, Director of General Planning Administration for the Irvine Company, reiterated they had met with Staff on this matter, and that basically their goal in presenting this revised plan, was to settle the overriding issue regarding the annexation, and the question of land use. The amended plan is in conformance with the Irvine General Plan developed in 1970 and submitted to the City of Tustin.- There have been changes, basically covering a change in the location of the commercial area, and a change from a residential classification to a "U"(unclassified) area. He enumerated the major concerns expressed and felt they could be met and resolved, and in- asmuch as the "P-C" zoning provides a guideline for development and is subject to Planning Commission approval of precise plans, your Body will maintain control over the development of the area. He presented exhibits of similar developments by the Irvine Company showing complete development, including landscaping, traffic flow, locations of tracts, etc., which your Staff has referred to as a "neighborhood plan". Regarding the provision for elementary school sites and financing, it had been thought there was complete under- standing with the Tustin Elementary School District. He stated the Irvine Company is willing to go on record that they will, by any means it possibly can, within the limits of the law the schools must operate under, and within reasonable economic limitations, assist the schools in every way possible to provide facilities until such time as they have the adequate funds to build a full time facility. This would include taking a note for property, assist in hiring architects and providing temporary facilities. Bob Bartholomew, representing the Tustin Union Hiqh School District. Board of Trustees, stated they had not been contacted regarding this matter, as to how they will handle the thousands of high school · _ ~u~ents that will be coming out of that area.. He said.they.were grossly underhoused now for students. If unification of the school districts does pass, it will only present more problems for the Tustin Union High School District. It was his feeling if this mat- ter was approved, that help should be forthcoming from the Planning Commission to assist in the passing of the upcoming bond issue in 1972. Barbara Benson, Member of Tustin Elem. School District Board Sterling Shaerae, Tustin D. J. Saltarelli, Tustin Meadows Mr. Herrerra, Tustin Paul Snow, 430 W. Main St., Tustin Ken Watts, Tustin The above-named people spoke either in opposition to the issue, or stated their grave concern over the problem of financing of the schools, sufficient number of elementary and high schools; why the need for annexation of this property; how much help will be provided by the Irvine Company and in what form and manner; just what the cost will be to the City of Tustin for providing services for the area; and what advantages there will be for the City. Public portion of the hearing was closed by Mr. Larnard at 8:25 Mr. Fleaqle brought to the attention of the Commission and the audi- ence that this proposed prezoning was published originally in the Tustin News on April 29, 1971 for a public hearing on May 10, 1971; it was continued to the May 24, 1971 and then to the June 14, 197] Planning Commission meeting at which time it was removed from the agenda until such time as the problem of the location of school sites could be determined, due to the air station flight paths over the area. Notices were sent to all interested partie~ in con- junction with the scheduled hearing. pc 10/ll/71 - 2 - The Commissioners discussed the matter bringing up the mat~ · tax revenues or burdens, what alternatives there might be if t~e area was not prezoned and annexed, what might be done to coc~-din~te the housing development concurrently with school development, the control of the develQpment by the Planning Commission and the Devel- opment Preview Co~mission. Various points were brought out, such as the area will be developed regardless of whether in the City or County, and Tustin would bear the burden more so, if the area was developed under County standards, and as the 'area is within the Tustin Sphere of Influence, it would be advantageous to annex the property. In the immediate future it will not cost the City money from an economic analysis, and in the long range it has the potentia of reducing the tax rate by spreading the bonded indebtedness over a greater number. Mr. Curtis moved for approval of Resolution No. 1240, seconded by Mr Edelstein, recommending City Council approval of Irvine Prezone 71-2 in accordance with plans and text as submitted with an amendment in- dicating a neighborhood commercial area (No. 7) to be located west of Jamboree in either Areas 1 or 6. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 -NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 V-71-281 - Marvin Lee - Request to permit an architectural feature (a canopy) to extend more than the permitted distance into a required front setback area. Locaticn: Site fronts approximately 207 ft. on the north side of First Street and approximately 183 ft. on the west side of Tustin Avenue. Mr. Fleag.~e presented a summation of the Staff Report, stating the applicant plans to construct a Honda Sales and Service facility at this location, with prior removal of the existing service station structures. More than sufficient parking will be provided with adequate vehicular site clearance on both streets. With reference to the proposed canopy, it will extend approximately 5 ft. more than that allowed by Code; however, if located east of the Newport Freeway on First Street, it would be permitted by right. Staff feels the use as proposed would be both complimentary and compatible with the surrounding land uses and commensurate with the City's general feeling that First Street should be developed with heavier commercial uses. It would be Staff's recommendation that Variance V-71-281 be approved by adoption of Resolution No. 1236. Public portion of the hearing was opened by Mr. Larnard at 8:47 p.m., seeing and hearing no one to speak for/against the issue, it was closed at 8:48 p.m. The Commissioners questioned the underground tanks at the present site, which have been removed, the signing proposed, and whether the canopy would be obstructing, in any manner, to traffic. ,Mr. Edelstei~ moved that Resolution No. 1236 be adopted, approving V-71-281; ~econded by Mr. Sharp. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2 PZ-71-128 - First Western Bank and Trust Company - Request for pre- zoning from County E~4 (Residential Estate) District to the City of Tustin PC (Planned Community-Single-family Residential) District, in order to develop a 29-1ot single-family subdivision. Location: Subject property is located on the east side of Prospect Avenue, approximately 182 ft. south of Theodora Drive. ~r. Brown summarized the Staff Report givinq the background on sub- ject prezone, which was initially heard by the Planning Commission at their June 14, 1971, meeting, when they recommended the City Council approve the prezone, subject to all lots conforming to the minimum R-1 District standards. However, the applicant withdrew his application prior to it coming before the City Council, since he felt he could not accept the conditions as imposed for the development of that area. The applicant had also submitted Jn appli- cation for a zone change to the County, again which he withdrew prior to any action by the Orange County Planning Commission. The present request indicates there will now be only 29 lots created on the property, with only five not meeting the R-1 minimum develop- ment standards. This request represents a decided improvement com- pared to the original 35-1ot subdivision proposed, and the applicant has indicated he will work with the Development Preview Commission and Orange County Flood Control District on the design of the bridge across the flood control channel and will also provide emer- gency access to Prospect Avenue. Staff is also recommending this emergency access be incorporated with some type of pedestrian access. It would be the recommendation of Staff, the Commission approve PZ- 71-128 by adoption of Resolution No. 1235, recommending approval to the City Council, subject to the submission and approval of a sub- division map to show no less than 24 of the 29 lots to be in con- for~ance with the minimum lot area and width standards of the R-1 District, with precise plans of development for the individual lots to be submitted to the Development Preview Commission for review and approval. The public portion of the hearing was opened at 8:58 p.m. by Chairman Larnard. John Mandrell, R. M. Galloway & Assoc., Costa Mesa, representing the applicant briefly explained the circumstances surrounding the back- ground of this prezone. He stated the applicant is a~reeab!e to the conditions of the PC (Planned Community - Single-family Residential) District and to the pedestrian access onto Prospect. He did request a review of possibly modifying the parkways in the tract, to consider the location of the sidewalks next to the curb. Mr. Bill Erickson and Mrs. Judy Sutl~ff frc.~. Tustin, Spoke objecting to this prezoning, stating their feelings were the same as when the matter was heard in June. They brought out the matter of traffic conjestion at the Columbus Tustin School at the present time and felt this subdivision would add to the problem. The lot size, lack of green space, too many roof tops were also voiced as objections. Staff was questioned as to the process followed for annexation, to which Staff explained the proceedings to be followed. Mr. Fleagle advised that a phone call had been received from a ~inston E. Jewson, residinq at 17662 Sherbrook Drive, Tustin~ who objected strenuously to prezoning action; his feelings being it should be developed as a green area, or if houses are to be built, no more than 20 lots, supporting the County E-4 zoning. Staff advised that the City has indebted itself to providing a park near that area, which is a liability to the city taxpayers; there is no financial way the City could include this area for additional park development. Public portion of the hearing was closed at 9:10 p.m. by Mr. Larnard. Mr. Curtis declared he did not have any change of feelings on this matter since it was heard in June, and would recommend approval to the City Council of subject prezone by adoption of Resolution No.1235; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CA~RY~9: 5-0 PC [1/71 -4- PUBI,IC IIEARI,"IG I';IO. 3 ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 157, as amended - Amendment to Section q.ll (C Ordinance No. 353, relative to dual wall requirements. Mr. Brown advised that the Commission at their September 13, 1971, meeting considered this matter with reference to eliminating the dual wall requirement on property lines between industrial, commerc. or professional districts, and'residential properties. It was set for a public hearing this evening, and it is Staff's opinion the recommended amendment as presented is valid, desirable and provides an equitable solution to this situation whenever it might arise. Staff would suggest the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Zoning Ordinance No. 157, as amended, be amended by the adoption of the attached Resolution No. 1237. Mr. Larnard opened the public portSon of the hearing at 9:15 p.m., seeing and hearing no one to speak for/against the issue, the public portion was closed at 9:16 p.m. Mr. EdelsteSn moved for adoption of Resolution No. 1237, recommending approval to the City Council; seconded by Mr. Shar~. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 4 PZ-71-131 - Planning Commission initiated - request to prezone sub- ject property from the County of Orange R-1 (Single- family Residential) District 'to the City of Tustin Pr Professional District, to permit development of a medical/dental building. Location: Property fronts approximately 297 ft. on the northwest side of Red Hill Avenue and approximately. 300 ft. on the northeast side of Irvine Boulevard. A summation of the Staff Report was presented by Mr. Flea~le, and i~ was brought to the attention of the Commission that the developers. of this parcel have indicated their desire to annex the property to the City of Tustin, if the prezoning is granted. Plans were sub- mitted this date showing the proposed building, which meets all the provisions of the Code in relation to Pr zoning. This particular parcel is a "problem" site, undesirable for single- family residences, and the question to be resolved would be a deter- mination of the best and least offensive use of the property. The same site has previously been considered and denied for commercial use and it is felt that medical/professional office facilities gen- erally make excellent neighbors, due to their operational hours. Also, there are other professional and commercial uses located a few hundred feet northwesterly of subject site on both sides of Irvine Boulevard, and it would also follow in line with developing Irvine Boulevard as a professional office district. Based on the factors delineated above, it is suggested the Planning Commission recommend approval of subject prezoning PZ-71-131 to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 1238, subject to approval of precise plans by the Development Preview Commission. Public portion of the hearing was opened at 9:22 p.m. by Mr.Larnard. -E. J. Moore,.Orange, California, representing the developers stated he had talked with the adjacent property owners, and had obtained signed statements from 8 out of the 11 (the other three being rental properties) and they have no objection to this proposed medical/ dental building being erected. Mr. Arth:ur Turner, representing the owner, said it was felt.this wou2 be a good use for the property and it was their desire to build it under the City of Tustin requirements rather than County. No one spoke in opposition to the issue. A brief discussion followed among the Commissioners, speculating as to what effect this prezoning may have on the development of the southwest corner of Irvine and Red }{ill. Staff advised they were aware of the desires af the Commission and it was apparent the Com- mission did not desire any commercial development in that area, and more than likely it would be R-1 or Institutional Use. The Com- missioners expressed concern over the proposed building, in that it was their feeling it did not blend in well with the residential area surrounding it; they felt perhaps less glass and more'wood panels, etc. would reflect a more harmonious decor with the residences. Mr. Edelstein moved for adoption of Resolution No. 1238 recommending approval to the City Council of PZ-71-131; seconded by Mr. Sharp, who expressed concern, that inasmuch as this would not come before the Planning Commission again, but before the Development Preview Commission, his feeling was the proposed plan lacks the "architectural flavor" one should try to attain for that site and would wish his thoughts put in the record for the attention of the Development Preview Commission; the maker of the motion agreed to this suggestion. The motion was amended to read, agreed to by the second, "adoption of Resolution No. 1238, with the following amendment: Item 2 - b) to read: That any structures erected on this property shall not exceed one story or eighteen feet in height. Add: c ) That the architectural style of the building shall be such as determined by the Develop- ment Preview Commission to be in harmony with the residential development." MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 5 Specifi..c Plan No. 3 (Master Plan) - International Rectifier Corp. (Industrial Park) ,t~oation: Subject property is located on the westerly side of Red .Hill Avenue bounded by Valencia Avenue to the north, Bell Avenue to the south, and portion of the Santa Fe Railroad spur line to the northwest. Mr. Fleagle advised this public hearing is being held for the adoption of Specific Plan No. 3 covering this property consisting of 34 acres. It was initiated by the Planning Commission and is an outgrowth of PM-71-47 and PM-71-49, and under provisions of the State Planning and Zoning Law, allows the Planning Commission to prepare and recommend for adoption to the City Council, such a Specific Plan. Subject master plan covering said property provides for 15 industrial sites. By adoption of this plan by the City Council it becomes an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and permits the sale of the lots by numbered lots within the Tract; provides for review and design of the streets; it is in a "PC" zone and provides advantages to the City in the fact the development is predetermined as to the lot and layout of the 34 acre parcel. It is Staff's recommendation the Specific Plan be recom- mended to the City Council for approval, incorporating the recommenda- tions of the City Engineer. Public portion of the hearing was opened at 9:38 p.m. by Mr. Larnard; seeing and hearing no one to speak for or against, the hearing was closed at 9:39 p.m. Mr. Curtis stated this has been a subject of discussion on various occasions in the past, and inasmuch as this is a requirement placed on International Rectifier, would move for adoption of Resolution No. 1239, incorporating the recommendations of theCity Engineer, recom- mending approval to the City Council, of Specific Plan No. 3; seconded ~y Mr. Sharp. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PC 10/11/71 -6- OLD I~USI NI]$S 1) Re..a. 1 Esta.te Si.~ns The Commission will recall, Mr. Brown stated, at their September 13, 1971, meeting, discussions were held among the Commissioners, Staff and members of the real estate industry relative to the use of new style real estate signs being placed on private property, wh~ signs exceed the code requirements of height and area. At that time the Commission was advised by Staff of the four possible alternatives relative to any decision on this matter, however, concern was express. over the many ramifications that might arise; the potential preceder that could be set; and, the apparent lack of a majority consensus relative to this matter within the real estate industry itself. In order that the realty board might give the mm. tter further study and consideration, meet with city Staff and be made aware that consider- able justi, fication would have to be forthcoming, the Commission mov+.. the matter be continued to a subsequent meeting. Staff has met with representatives of the Santa Ana-Orange-Tustin Realty Board, explaining the objectives and reasons behind the adoption of the City's sign ordinance. Essentially, their requested parameters are basically the same as presented at the. September 13, 1971, Planning Commission meetinq;i.e., height limitation of 8 ft. overall, actual sign space no more than 6 sq. ft. display area per face and the use of moderate decorative trim around the face of the sign. It is Staff's feeling the new style signs cannot be interpreted in any other manner than that they violate the Sign Ordinance. On the other hand it is felt the modifications requested are not exces- sive in nature, and aesthetically they are an improvement over the old type sign. It would be Staff's recommendation if the real estate industry wishes to continue to utilize this new signing, they initiat~ a proper amendment request with the Planning Commission so that it might be set for public hearing. It is also felt a time limitation should be set for the sub~nission of such a request with a provision if said request is not received by that date, Staff will take im- mediate action to insure all real estate signs throughout the City are in conformance with the Sign Ordinance. A lengthy discussion followed among the Commissioners, the major item of concern being that there seemed to be a lack of justifica- tion for this request. It was their feeling that any change in the Sign Ordinance should have considerable justification to back it up, as it is not in line with the general trend followed by Tustin with respect to signing. Mr. Sharp moved to have Staff direct a letter to the Board of Realtors (Santa Ana-Orange-Tustin) informing them of the Commission's decision, that a request to change the Sign Ordinance should be initiated by them, and this should be forthcoming no later than two months; if not received by that time, then immediate steps will be taken to enforce the Sign Ordinance, with respect to the new type signs that are in violation of the ordinance; seconded by Mr. Dukleth. Further discussion ensued among the Commissioners, bringing out the point that they have not heard from any realtors who favor the old style signs; the only testimony received has been from those favorir~= the newer style sign. ABOVE MOTION VOTED ON: CARRIED - 5-0 2) RESOLUTION NO. 1241 - Recommending against an amendment to Sectic; 11.34 of Ordinance No. 157 (The Zoning Ordi- nance, as amended) requiring garages for multi-family developments. Mr. Fleagle stated this resolution was presented to the Commissioner for their approval, as a result of the public hearing conducted at the September 13 and 27, 1971, meetings of the Planning Commission, and a motion made by the Commission, for denial of such an amendment. Mr. Sharp moved for adoption of Resolution No. 1241; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. 1) TENTATIVE TP~CT MAP 7420 - East side of Prospect Avenue, approxi- mately 182 ft. south of Theodora Drive. Mr. Brown stated the Eommission had considered earlier tonight the prezoning on this same property covered by Tract Map 7420 for 29 lots. The City Engineer's report requests approval, subject to 15 recom- mendations, as conditions of approval. No regommendation was made by the City Engineer as regards to the row of eucalyptus trees along the north line of the tract. Mr. Edelstein moved for approval of Tentative Tract No. 7420; seconded by Mr. Dukleth. A discussion followed among the Commissioners regarding the eucalyptus trees and the tract engineer's request that the curb and sidewalk be connected; i.e., eliminating the parkway area. Inasmuch as this is a controversial point covering the sidewalk area, Staff suggested the Commission approve Tentative Tract Map 7420 as submitted, and it could be referred to the Development Preview Commission for their · recommendations pertaining to the design of public improvements. The recommendations of the Development Preview Commission could be forwarded to the developer. The final tract map could be submitted indicating the preferred alternative for parkway design. In this way it would not delay action on this Tentative Tract Map. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PENDING MATTERS · UP-71-368 - Shell Oil Company - Request to permit remodelling of existing service station. Location: Corner of Newport and Bryan Avenues CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Brown advised the Commissioners they were given copies of a letter from Archaeological Research, Inc. and Staff's reply to same. The major concern of the society is the preservation of archaeological ............ ----si-tes"~nd resources'. Staff will cooperate in any way possible. STAFF CONCERNS Summary of Development Preview Commission actions for the period January thru September 1971 was given to the Commissioners. Mr. Flea~le advised the Commission we are faced with the responsibility of establishing a bicycle path route for the City of Tustin, which end we are working towards at this time. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Edelstein expressed concern pertaining to the availability of Fire Department personnel and equipment. It was the consensus of the Commission that the subject matter was outside of the purview of the Commission unless directed by the City Council to make a study and report. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mr. Charleton, 460 West 2nd Street, Tustin, inquired of Staff as to the building being put up on the property at the corner of 2nd and Pacific; they had received no notice of it, and it appeared to be some type of a mobile home. Staff advised this was a result of the State of California forcing upon cities, the requirement to acceut buildings on which they have placed their State Seal. Some buildings are the mobile home type, and another type, such as this, is the modular home. The City is pre-empted by the State in approval of these buildings and the City is powerless to do anything about it. PC 10/11/71 -8- Mr. Paul Snow, Tustin, offered his comments to the Commission on the prezoning action taken on PZ-71-128 as well as the PZ-71-126, as to the negative financial factors in the approval of subdivisions and annexations. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Edelstein moved for adjournment at 10:55 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN PLA~NG COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY PC 10/11/71 -9-