Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-27-71 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1971 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 27th day of September 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 given by Commissioner Edelstein. The Invocation was given by Commissioner Curtis. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Others Present: Larnard, Curtis, Edelstein, Dukleth Sharp R. Kenneth Fleagle, Asst. CA - Comm. Development Director Pat Brown, Ass't. Planning Director Jean M. Smith, Planning Comm. Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1971 Moved by Mr. Curtis, that the minutes of the September 13, 1971 meeting be approved, as corrected; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Zonin9 Ordinance ~o. 157, as amended - Amendment to Section 11.34 - requirement that one garage shall be pr~vide¢ per unit in multiple-family developments. Mr. Brown advised that subject hearing was continued from the previous ~eeting' in light of the many ramifications associated with the proposal, and it was felt further study and consideration should be given the matter. In addition, Mr. Gared Smith had offered to give a presenta- tion of slides illustrating the use of Carports Vs. Garages. The City Council at their August 16, 1971 meeting, had directed the Planning Commission to initiate a public hearing for said amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No. 157. Staff has been in contact with Mr. Royce Coln, Area Manager of the Building Industry Association, as well as the various cities in Orange County, to whom questionnaires were sent, and six additional replies have been received since the last meeting. Three of those six cities indicated that garages were a requirement for multiple-family develop- ments, however, two out of the three indicated that either by the variance procedure or commission action, the garage requirement might be eliminated, if in the rear of the property or were not visible from public streets, then carports could be used. Staff would recommend that the Commission, after hearing any new evi- dence presented this evening, take the matter under consideration to determine the assets and liabilities of the suggested amendment from the viewpoint of aesthetics, economics, quality of development, fire and safety, use of structure, elimination of off-street parking, and the'impact upon future and existing developments. Findings could then be forwarded to the City Council by Resolution, with recommendations. The public portion of the hearing was re-opened by Mr. Larn~rd at 8:38 p.m. PC 9/27/71 Nit. Gared Smith, 2043 Westcliff, Newport Beach~ presented slides Illustrating the Carports Vs. Garages, as related to use and design. Many slides were shown of various apartment complexes, condominiums and smaller developments all located within Orange County. From the slides shown the following points were illustrated: 1) Where carports are provided, they are used to a greater degree than where garages are provided. 2) Where garages are provided, more than 50% are not used for parking of automobiles, but rather for storage of anything and everything. 3) Where garages are provided with lockable doors, it was apparent about 3 out of 5 doors were not closed or locked, and appeared to be in poor operating condition. 4) Where carports or open parking is provided, it was more fre- quently used than the garage accommodations on the same site. 5) With carports and open parking, landscaping and arrangements for parking made for a more aesthetic appearance. 6) With garages more trash, junk, etc. was apparent, creating unsanitary, unhealthy and fire hazardous conditions. 7) Lighting for carport and open parking areas is much better than in garage areas. ~r. Royce Coln, representing Building Industry Association, stated they approached the issue of carports Vs. garages from a different viewpoint, that of the property managers and tenants. From a survey conducted of property management associations, covering over 7,000 apartments in four counties, it was a unanimous feeling that carports were favored over closed garages. One main determining factor was from the stand- point of cleanliness, in that they were able to exercise control over carports, as they' were open and visible;able to be cleaned up by manage- ment whereas in closed garages no control was possible. With no control, much trash, junk, etc. is stored in garages, thus resulting in many small fires and sometimes a major fire. Public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:05 p.m. by Mr.Larnard. A lengthy discussion followed among the Commissioners and Staff, with the general feeling being that carports were favored over garages, concurring with the many advantages pointed out above. It was also brought out that our present ordinance does not require two parking spaces for each multiple-family unit, but the Council desire had been achieved by design review and zoning actions. One of the problems, however, to be solved is the elimination of the on-street parking. The Development Preview Commission has been instructed by the City Council to consider the accessibility and convenience of on-site parking in conjunction with the approval of development plans. The consensus of opinion was that if the carports or open parking was con- venient, people would use it; however, if on-street parking was more convenient, it would be used by choice, by most people. Convenience is the deciding factor, whether it be garages.~ carports or open parking, or on-street parking. The Commissioners generally agreed that it would be their desire to leave the Ordinance as it now stands, authorizing carports in multiple- family developments, which are subject to design review by the Develop- ment P~eview Commission. Mr. Curtis moved to instruct Staff to prepare a Resolution for the ap- proval of the Commission at their next meeting, to incorporate the ideas as presented, suggested and expressed to the Commission; with no change recommended in the present parking requirements for multi-family developments; seconded by Mr. Dukleth. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PC 9/27/71 -2- PC z .:/71 NEW PUBLIC ItEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 PZ-71-126 and AMENDMENT TO THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN (Re-advertised from the June 14, 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 main line and Moulton Parkway to the southwest; and the Santa Fe Railroad Venta Spurline to the northwest. Mr. Fleagle stated the application requested a change from the Orange County Agricultural - Agricultural Residential District to the City of Tustin Planned Community Residential District on the subject property. The proposal is planned to accommodate Low, Low Medium and Medium High Residential Developments, pursuant to the Planned Community District regulations. Staff has not presented any specific recommendations at this time, but the matter has been discussed with the Irvine Company and there will be additional discussions. It is requested the Commission review the development criteria and it would be Staff's recommendation the hearing be opened tonight to take public testimony, and by Minute Order continr the public hearing until the October 11, 1971, meeting of the Commissi¢ In the interim period, on the basis of information given at this meetin and the review of the documents, a workshop session be scheduled with t City Council prior to closing the public hearing and adoption of a Resolution. in addition, a communication has been received from the Marine Corps Air Station in Santa Ana, stating they have no objection to development of the area in Parcel No. 1, other than the prospective homeowners should be advised the area is subject to overflights of helicopters, both day and night, at altitudes ranging from 500 to 1,000 feet; along with attendant aircraft noise and vibration. It was the Marine Corps recommendation that homes or schools built in the parcel known as the Browning Air Corridor be sound attenuated to an acceptable noise level of below 80 PN decibels; also they would object to any development within that area which is the subject of the easement or flight over- path. However, no development is proposed in this area; it being sub- ject to a separate agreement between the Irvine Company and the Marine Corps. Correspondence was also received frDm the Bureau of School Planning, Department of Education, State of California, stating there appeared to be no objection from a safety viewpoint on any of the school sites, however, did recommend a sound study be made to determine the extent of sound suppressant materials necessary for the school buildings, and also that consideration be given to environmental aspects. Public portion of the hearing was opened at 8:35 p.m. by Mr. Larnard. Capt. Michael Glynn, Management Engineer of the Marine Corps Air Station stated he might be able to clear up a few of the technical questions. He reiterated the feelings stated in the MCAS letter previously read to the Commission. He also explained the various flight levels and pat- terns aircraft would be using when visibility was good and when it was poor. He also explained the noise factors involved with helicopter aircraft and the safety factors. He did state they are subject to receiving many complaints from the residents in the surrounding areas relative to the noise created by the helicopters. James Taylor, Director of General Planning for the Irvine Company said they had met with the City Staff on this matter and did concur with the recommendation this matter be continued, due to the magnitude of the situation involving a 500 acre annexation and the enormity Of the details. plans, etc. covering the entire matter. Irvine Company is still in the process of preparing a more precise plan in terms of schematic site design, and it was their feeling these would be extremely helpful to the Commission and City Council in their evaluation of this prezoning request. PC 9/27./7! -3- ~r. Gordon Cutler, Industrial Representative for Santa Fe Railroad stated it was the railroad's feeling the area between the freeway and their tracks should be retained for uses other than residential; which was their feel%ng about the Tustin Meadows area also. It was their hope the area would be developed with industrial uses, thus benefiting the City of Tustin, if annexed. He also cited the dangers to the resi- dents in the area with the tracks adjacent to the properties, and these main line tracks must be used by the railroad; they cannot be moved. In response to questions from Mr. Fleagle, Mr. Cutler said that he did not have a distance standard for a tolerance level of residential develop- ment from a railroad line, nor did he know of the final outcome of the Public Utility Commission hearing pertaining to the relocation of the spur track westerly of Tustin Meadows. Mr. Ed Sweeney, President and Don Saltarelli, Vice President of the Tustin Meadows Homeowners Association, stated they were interested in this planned development, however voiced concern over it being too close to the helicopter base and the railroad tracks, as they felt Tustin Meadows was also. Concern was expressed for the prospective schools to be built in the area, as to financing and construction of same; in that if the houses were built, the schools should be con- structed simultaneously and be ready for opening at the same time. Mr. Curtis moved that we continue this hearing into a workshop session with the City Council on October 4, 1971; continuing the hearing at the next Blanning Commission meeting on October 11, 1971; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 OLD BUSINESS Mr. Flea~le advised there was no old business on the agenda; however, did wish the Commission to be aware that a resolution of the oversized realty signs was pending; we have not as yet met with the realty asso- ciations, but have extended invitations to them of our willingness to meet with them. Hopefully we will meet with them in the coming week. It is anticipated that the item will be on the agenda for the next m~eting on October 11, 1971. NEW BUSINESS 1) PARCEL MAP PM-71-50 - Jay Andrews Location: North side of Irvine Boulevard, between Prospect and "B" Street. Mr. Brown stated this parcel was created when Tract 7332 was approved, and is zoned "Pr" Professional District. The proposal is to divide this large parcel into four separate parcels. All street improvements have been constructed or their completion is guaranteed by Tract 7332 bonding. It is recommended you adopt a Minute Order approving the parcel map subject to the following conditions: l) That the construction of any additional drive approaches into Irvine Boulevard be subject to the approval of the Development Preview Commission and the City.Engineer. 2) Final approval by the City Engineer and recordation of the map. The applicant is advised that it may not be possible to provide left turn access into all driveways when center islands are constructed on Irvine Boulevard. Als0, for the Commission's information, the Development Preview Com- mission has approved a tentative office building on Parcel 1 for Mr. Andrews; he is proposing to build a similar building on Parcel 2; also, the Development Preview Commission has approved a new office building on Parcel 3 for Mr. Robert Hall; and, we have no knowledge of plans for Paw-el 4 at this time. PC 9/27/71 -4- PC 9/2' Mr. Curtis moved a Minute Order be adopted approving Parcel :.~ap 71-50, subject to the conditions as recon~ended by the City Engineer; secondc: by...Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 2) PARCEL MAP PM-71-49 - International Rectifier Location: Red Hill/Valencia/Newport/Bell Avenue Mr. Fleagle declared that when the Planning Commission approved Parcel Map 71-47, it consisted of a 7 acre parcel dividing it into three lots and as a condition to providing access to Parcel No. 2, required sub- mission of a Master Plan of Development. In conjunction with that Parcel Map, the major Parcel 2, as shown on the Parcel Map, had a line extending easterly creating a separate parcel; so in effect, you had four parcels facing Red Hill Avenue. In order to alleviate that situa- tion, International Rectifier was requested to submit a new parcel map to eliminate the lot division, 'thereby having a total of three parcel~ extending between Valencia Avenue to the north and Bell Avenue to the south. It is the recommendation of the City Engineer this parcel map be appr¢ subject to final approval by the City Engineer and recordation of the map. Mr. Edelstein moved that a Minute Order be adopted approving Parcel Map PM 71-49; seconded by Mr. Dukleth. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PENDING MATTERS 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 157 - (Dual Walls) o Proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 157, as amended. Elimination of dual wall requirements on property lines, between commercial or professional districts and residential property. MASTER PLAN OF'DEVELOPMENT (Industrial) - International Rectifier Specific Plan No. 2 Location: Valencia, Red Hill and Bell Avenue and ATSF. 3) PZ-71-128 (Revised) TRACT MAP NO. 7420 - Jay Andrews Application of First Western Bank & Trust Co. to permit prezoning of subject property from the County E-4 "Residential Estate" Dis- trict to the City of Tustin PC "Planned Community - Single Family Residential" District, in order to develop a 29-1ot single family subdivision. Location: Site is located on the east side of Prospect Avenue, approximately 182 feet south of Theodora Drive. 4) V-71-281 - HONDA FACILITY (Canopy) - Marvin Lee 5) To permit an architectural feature (a canopy) to extend more than the permitted distance into a required front setback. Location: First Street and Tustin Avenue PZ-71-131 - Planning Commission initiated Application to prezone subject 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: Northwest side of Red Hill Avenue on the northeast side of Irvine Boulevard. Mr. Edelstein moved that Staff be instructed to advertise this prezoning for a public hearing at the October 11, 1971, meeting of . the Planning Commission; seconded by Mr. Dukleth. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 CORRESPONDENCE - None STAFF CONCERNS - None COMMISSION CONCERNS Mr. Edelstein inquired about the islands on Red Hill Avenue between Laguna Road and Irvine Boulevard; whether they were to be constructed on through to Walnut. He also asked whether Red Hill would be repaved and if the street striping on Red Hill would be refurbished. Staff advised that the islands would not be extended through to Walnut inasmuch as part of the street was in County area; the repaving and striping of Red Hill were also matters of County allocation of funds, since the area between Laguna Road and north of San Juan is in the county jurisdiction. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None ADJOURNMENT Mr. Edelstein moved that the meeting be adjourned to a workshop session with the City Council following their meeting on October 4, 1971. PLYING COMMISSION RECORDING SEC RETARY PC 9/27/71 -6-