Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-24-71MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 24, 1971 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 24th day of May at t~e 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 Mahoney. The Invocation was given by Commissioner Edelstein. ROLL CALL: Present: Larnard, Curtis, Edelstein, Mahoney, Sharp Absent: None Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney 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 MAY 10, 1971 Move~ by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Sharp, that the minutes of the May 10, 1971 meeting be approved,as submitted, MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED PZ-71-126 General Plan Amendment No. 1 - Motion of the Planning Commission, on initiation by -the Irvine Company Location: Area bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway to the north- east; Myford Road to the southeast; the Santa Fe Railroad mainline and Moulton Parkway to the south- west; and the Santa Fe Railroad spurline to the northwest. Mr. Flea~le advised the Commission that the Irvine Company has experienced recent complications in ~egard to the development of subject property as related to school sites and aircraft flight paths, and Staff would recommend that the hearing again be con- tinued until the next Commission meeting on June 14, 1971. It was moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that the hearing be continued until June 14, 1971. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC IIEARINGS - NEW PUBLIC IIEARINC NO. 1 AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 157, AS AMENDED, relative to "Day Nurseries", "Nursery Schools", and "Day Care Homes - Children". PC 5/24/71 Mr. Brown ~res~,nted summation of Staff Report covering sug- gested am~,ndm~nts on the three; categories in question. As a result of Staff's investiqation; the testimony presented at the last Commission meetinq by the Orange County W¢;lfare Dept. and the Tustin Day Care Families Assoc.; and the desire to bring Tustin's ordinance in line with State and County regula- tions, it is Staff's recommendation that the Commission recom- mend approval to the City Council of the amendments to Zoning Ordinance No. 157, as amended, and Ordinance No. 372, by adoption of Resolution No. 1216. Mr. Larnard opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:40 p.m.; seeing and hearing no one to speak for or against the issue, the public portion was closed.~t 7:41 p.m. Mr. Curtis stated that since these amendments to the Zoning Ordi- nance wo~%~ put our ordinance in conformance with State guide lines; the people would not have dual standards to conform to, in terms of City, County and State; he moved to recommend approval to the City Council of the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance No. 157, as amended, and Ordinance No. 372, Section 11.131 and 11.331, by adoption of Resolution No. 1216, seconded bi Mr. Edelstein; amendments to read as follows: Ordinance No. 372, Section 11.131, be amended as follows: "Day Nursery" - a place, institutional in nature, where seven (7) or more children are left for day time c~re. Ordinance No. 372, Section 11.331, be amended as follows: "Nursery School" - a public or private agency, institutional in nature, engaged in educational activity with six (6) or more prec. s~ool children. Ordinance No. 157, be amended by the addition of the fol- lowing Definition to Section 11: Section 11.1311 - "Day Care Homes - Children" - family dwelling unit, non-institutional in character, properly licensed by the Orange County Welfare Department, which provides day care only, with or without compensation for: a) Not more than five (5) children including the family day care mother's own children, when the age range is infancy through 6; and, b) Not more than six (6) children when the age range is 3 to 16, including the day care mother's own children. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2 UP-71-362 - Hester Development Co. on behalf of Harriett O. Location: Enderle. Authority to permit a 198-unit apartment complex, 1 and 2-story, under the provisions of the PC-R-3 District and Zone Change ZC-70-220. Site fronts approximately 324 ft. on the east side of Yorba Street, extends eastward approximately 1161 ft., consists of approximately 9.83 acres and is located approximately 737 ft. south of the- center line of Seventeenth Street. PC 5/24/71 -2- l'C 5124171 Mr. F]~'aqle reviewed the Staff Rel)ort stating that duc notice had been qiven for this public hearinq for a Use Permit, noting that subject property had been rezoned from tile R-1 (Single Family Residential) District to PC-R-3 (Planned Community - Multi~le Family Residential) District by the City Council in FebrUary 1971. At the time this property was rezoned t~ere were two conjunctive zoning actions: PC-Commercial rezoning for property fronting on the east side of Yorba, north of sub- ject property, and PC prezoning on property, then located within the County, on the south side of Seventeenth Street and lying northeasterly of subject property. At the time the Council initially approved rezoning action, in addition to several development conditions, it was.stipulated Council wished to receive total development plans for the entire properties (43 acres), including a street system to serve the entire project to provide emergency'vehicle access. Inasmuch as this proposal does not fall within the City Council's concept of a coordinated development plan (no master plan having been submitted with this proposal) and coordination and approv,~l of a street system to serve the entire project to provide emer- gency vehicle access for the total area, which was the basis and findings justifying the zone change on the property, it is Staff's recommendation that the Commission take either of the followinq actions: 1) Table Use Permit application UP-71-362, until such time as a master plan is presented and approved for coordinated development of the total area, or 2) If the applicant so desires, deny the application by adoption of Resolution No. 1217, to per- mit direct appeal to the City Council for its determination. Mr. Fleagle also read, for the record, a letter delivered this evening from Mr. Ralph R. Yeaman, President of the Enderle Gardens Property Owners Association, to the Planning Commission. In es- sence, it recommended the Commission adhere to the master plan for this area; that they do not object to single-story garden type apartments being built to the north of the Gardens; and that they concur with the Staff Report this application should be tabled or denied, for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the zone change. Mr. Larnard opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Jim Gianulias, 1133 Ebb Tide Road, Corona del Mar, California, representing Hester Development Co. spoke on their behalf, stating he believed their project to be a well-designed, well-conceived project which would be an asset to the City, and that hopefully it would be the first phase of a large project, in regards to the 43 acres, which are to be developed. He also commented in regard to the extension or realignment of Yorba Street, and brought out the fact that a precise plan or master plan concept for the total development of this acreage is lacking. Mr. Emil Benes of Morris, Lohrbach Assoc., Inc., Architects, at 18121 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, Calif., project architect for the development, exhibited p~ans and elevations of the proposed apartment complex, showing the perimeter circulation plan of traffic, plus the landscaping, garage layouts, structures for the one and two-story apartments. }Ie stated the intent was to have a minimum number of windows facing the property on the south and the residents to the north. He ~lso added there is nothing in their development plan that would preclude good development of the adjoining properties, and that this project can stand on its own. ..M__rm_Ral?h R. Yeaman, 14242 A~acia Drive, Tustin, California~ President of Enderle Gardens*Property Owners Assoc., in essence, stated the Association was in favor of developing this property, however, was not in favor of.their perimeter traffic circula- tion and carports,inasmuch as there would be continual running of engines and possibly motorcycles, in close proximity to their PC 5/24/71 -3- homes, f~lus they stronqly objected to two story apartments on the southerly border of the })roperty. In his opinion the pro- posed plan did not meet the spirit intended by the Council when they approved a coordinated development for this 43 acre parcel, in total. Their willingness to work and cooperate~ with the developer was also expressed. He requested that the Commission den~ approval of the Use Permit, as presented. Mr. A1 Enderle, 367 S. Pine Street, Orange, California, repre- senting the owner of the property, Harriett O. Enderle. He expressed the feeling, that in absence of a master plan at this time, any plan they might come.up with would not insure either of the other owners of anythiJg. He stated that it was his feeling they have a right to.develop their property, and that is all they are asking, as they have been attempting to do something with this parcel for many years. The public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:27 p.m. by Mr. Larnard. The Commissioners then discussed at great lengths the matter be- fore them,bringinq up the alignment of Yorba Street, circula- tion plans for the proposed project, the prezone and rezoning actions on the property previously, the possible rezoning of the property back to its original zone, and the lack of a master plan concept for the total project of 43 acres. Mr. Sharp moved that the hearing be continued until the next regular meeting, and ask Staff to attempt to reconcile the problems still existing with the applicant and the other property owners, and if reconciliation is not possible, that we begin or initiate public hearings to rezone the properties back to their original zones; motion seconded by Mr. Edelstein. Nr. Larnard opened the motion to further discussion and discus- sion ensued pertaining to justification for the PC-R-3 zoning and alternatives available to the property owner for development. Counsel was questioned as to the legality of the motion made, and on being advised by Counsel it was not a proper motion, Mr. Sharp withdrew his motion, which was agreed to by the second, Mr. Edelstein. Mr. Edelstein then made a motion to deny this Use Permit 71-362, by the adoption of Resolution No. 1217; seconded by Mr. Shar~. 'MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 Mr. Fleagle requested that in view of the people in the audience interested in New Business -- Item #2, Tentative Tract Map 7427, the Commission consider this item out of order. Mr. Sharp made motion to suspend the rules, and take Item 2 of New Business out of order; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 NEW BUSINESS ~ Item 2 Tentative Tract Map #7427 - located at southwest corner of Red Hil[ Avenue and Bryan Avenue. Mr. Fleagle advised that subject tract map had been submitted to ~he City Engineer, with the request it be withheld from the pre- vious Commission meeting, pending receipt of evidence of legal capability of the applicant having authority and power to file the map. As of this time and date, the City Attorney has not re- viewed any evidence of the capability of the applicant to so file the Tract Map. It is the recomm~ndation of the City Engineer the matter be continued to the next reqular meetinq or until such time as evid,~nce has been presented to tile City Attorney for review. PC 5/24/7] -4- Moved by Mr. Edclstein, seconded by Mr. Sharp, to continue the ~tcm of Tentative Tract Map 7427 to the June 14, 1971, meeting. MOT L~N ~ARRIED: 5-0 OLD BUSINESS 1) Smith Printers - (UP-69-311) Mr. Brown revie~d the action of the Development Preview Com- mission in the relocation of the sign for Smith Printers. He noted that no objections had'been filed to the new location by any adjacent property owner. It was moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that the Planning Commission confirm the sign location as designated by the Development Preview Commission pertinent to Use Permit 69-311. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 NEW BUSINESS 1) Park Land Dedication Ordinance Mr. Fleagle stated that the Commissioners had a copy of a letter of protest from Mr. John H. Siegel questioning the application · of the proposed ordinance, and its effect upon existing pro- perties that are now zoned, and had been purchased for the purpose Of development with permitted use, and the discriminatory aspect of the ordinance, where it would apply to payment of a fee for development of existing zoned property. The proposed ordinance had been presented to the City Council for public hearing, and Staff requested that the Council return it to the Commission without action for reconsideration of Section 7. An amendment to Section 7 has been prepared for Commission consideration, excluding those properties from payment of fees, that are pre- sently subdivided and zoned for development, Remaining in the proposed ordinance is the application of fees for those properties subsequently receiving a zone change, which increases the permitted density. Leaving this in may also cause objections. It is con- sidered an equitable assessment against property that has an increase in permitted density, where there is no contribution made to that increased value and where it does not effect the purchase price of the land. It would be Staff's recommendation that the Park Land Dedicatio~ Ordinance be returned to the City Council, as amended, for their approval. Mr. Curtis moved that the revised Park Land Dedication ordinance be referred to the City Council for their approval; seconded by Mr. Sharp. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Fleagle advised he had received this date, report of Housing Condition Survey in the City of Tustin, October 1970, as con- ducted by the Orange County Health Department, with the assistance of the City of Tustin Planning Department. The survey identifies areas of the City that are in a state of needed attention to pre- serve their values. It could serve as a background for a housing element as required by state law. Inasmuch as the report was just received, it has not been reviewd, but it was felt the Com- missioners should have a copy for their review. When the Housing Element does find its way to public hearing, they will have the background information. PC 5/24/71 -5- 5/24/71 STAFF CONCERNS Mr. F]eaqlc? advJ.~ed the Commission that the City Council had approv~d his attendance at the Urban Affairs InstL. tute at the American University in Washinqton, D. C. to study the new towns of Rest,~n, Virq~nia, Columbia, Maryland and the core problems of Washington, D.C., during the period June 14 - July 23, 1971, and in his ~bs~ce Mr. Brown will assume Mr. Fleagle's duties. In the interim there are several items to come before the Com- mission, some fairly critical; one in particular being the Irvine Pre-Zone and. General Plan Amendment, that the Commissioners should be made aware of and should be a ma~%er for workshop discussion. It was suggested the Commission may wish to adjourn to a workshop session after tonight's meeting to review pending applications and other critical matters. It was also brought to the Commission's attention that the amendment to the County Zoning Ordinance, Sectional Map #13, is scheduled for June 8, 1971. This pertains to the property on Newport at La Colina, that the Commission took action on at their last meeting. COMMISSION CONCERNS Mr. Edelstein stated he wished to comment on the new heater installed in the Council Chambers. Mr. Mahone~ made reference to the public hearing on the Use Permit for Hester Development Co. with reference to a master plan and development of one portion of the property without having a ma~t, er plan for the entire area; questioning hardships imposed on one property owner. Mr. Sharp_requested that Staff keep posted on the Z-zone matters in the city of Los Angeles at this time. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mr. Tom Greeley, 1391 Lance Drive, Tustin, stated he was a new resident of Tustin, having bought some property here, which is a site of one of the new proposed parks. He asked if the Park Bond issue did not pass on May 25, 1971, is the issue dead? He was advised if the bond issue did not pass, that would be the end of it until it was brought up for election again. He was also told the sites for new parks, were only proposed at this time; nothing specific. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Sharp made a motion that the Commission adjourn to a Workshop Session; seconded by Mr. Mahoney. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. to a Workshop Session. PLT~NNING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY