HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-10-71 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 10, 1971
The regular meeting of the City of T~stin Planning Commission
was held on the 10th day of May at the hour of 7:30 p.m. of
said day in thc 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: Larnard, Curtis, Edelstein, Mahoney, Sharp
Absent: None
Others R. Kenneth Fleagle, Asst. CA - Comm. Development Director
Present: Pat Brown, Ass't. Planning Director
Jean M. Smith, Planning Commission Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
OF REGULAR MEETING
OF APRIL 26, 1971
Moved by Ur. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Edels%.ein, that the
minutes of the April 26, 1971 meeting be approved, as submitted.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
PUBLIC IIEARINGS ~ CONTINUED
EL CAMINO REAI, DEVELOPMENT - Specific Plan No. 1
Mr. Fleagle explained that this hearing had been continued from
the April 12, 1971 meeting to enable Staff and all interested
parties to again meet, exchange ideas, suggestions, criticisms,
etc., and for Staff to present an amended Specific Plan for the
downtown area. The plan as now formulated has been endorsed by
the Downtown Business Association and the Tustin Now and Tomor-
row Committee, with reservations that the plan should be reviewed
after it has been in effect, to re-evaluate the provisions perti-
nent to parking and signing. This plan has also modified the
"village" theme to authorize that which would be compatible.
Chairman Larnard opened the public portion of the hearing at
7:38 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Kelly of 330 E1Cam~no Real, Tustin, inquired regarding
the parking aspects of the plan, with reference to existing
tenants Vs. new tenants or building owners coming into the area;
whether an assessment should be levied against all tenants, both
old and new; and how the ordinance would apply to "mixed type
uses - commercial and offices combined". It was his opinion
that new businesses that provided parking were being discrimi-
nated against in comparison with established businesses that do
not provide parking.
Mr. John Roach, President of the Downtown Business Association,
stated that at their most recent meeting, the association had
unanimously ado~ted the amended plan, with exception being made
to the signinq l~ortion, and felt that further study was needed
in that respect.
PC 5/10/71 -1-
hi.q qrc~u..-~ .hi,.~J:~y .,n,.i<,'.,-:~,..,! t!,(. :,]an, ar],,1 (:c~;~c:urred with Staff':.;
opinion tb.c,r~.~ wi1.] i)c, n(.('(~ fc)r c!lanqe~ in thc plan as time (joes
on, but thi~ Ls ,n ~tart~nq j)oJ. nt, and future problems wil] be
met as they come along. Their desire is to see the plan adopted
as soon as possible, so it may become effective.
Public ~)ortion of the hearing was closed at 7:47 ~).m.
A discussion followed among the Commissioners and Staff relative
to anticipated parking problems and what the possible solutions
might be for the merchants, and the financial burden for improve-
ments placed on the businessmen.
Mr. Curtis made a motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, that Resolu-
tion No. ].215 be ad?:)_~_t_c!.d, recommending to the City Council ado.?tio~L
of the E1 Camino Real Devclo?mont - S:)ecific Plan No. 1, and also
requested Staff to continue their investigation of the potential
problems and bring the matter up before the Commission, as neces-
sary, to discuss the progress and problems of the plan, on a
regular basis.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
PUBI, IC HEARINGS - NEW
Public Hearing No. 1
PREZONE PZ-71-126 AND GENERAI, 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 Venta spurline to
the northwest.
Mr. Fleagle presented a summation of the Staff Report on this
prezone action, requesting amendment to the General Plan from
Agricultural Use to Low Density, Medium Low Density and Medium
Density Residential Use and to amend the Zoning Ordinance by
establishing a Planned Community (Residential Development) Dis-
trict, subject to Specific Plan submission and approval, in
accordance wfth the Precise Land Use Development Plan dated
April 1971, as submftted to the Irvine Company. It was also
brought out, an Annexation proposal has been filed with LAFCO
to bring the subject area into the incorporated limits of the
City.
It is Staff's recommendation that this hearing be continued to
May 24, 1971 in order to obtain the benefit of comments that may
be forthcoming from the Irvine Company, School District and
City Staff.
Mr. Larnard opened the public.portipn of the hearin9 at 8:10 ~.m.;
seeing and hearing no one who desired to speak for or against the
issue, the public portion was closed at 8:11 p.m.
Mr. Mahonev moved that Public Hearing on PZ-71-126 be continued
until the next Planning Co~mission meeting on May 24, 1971;
seconded by Mr. Ede]stein.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
Public Hearing No. 2
UP-71-361 - TIC TOC ,~g%RKI'TF.c], TNC. on beha]f of John Richardson
Location:
Site fronts ap[~ro>:Jmately 250 ft. on the east side of
Pasadena Ave. and ~s locat~d ap[~roximately 190 ft. .~;out',~
of the center line of McFadden Avenue, at 15832 Pasadena
Avenue., Tustin, California.
PC 5/10/71
-2-
"r Brc)wl~ r(,v;~,',.;c:i ih:..(;t:,-~ff R~.:;o:;t :~t~[.in~; that subject pro:)c.,rty
is cu~l.~'t:lv z()~e(] C-2, ~m-:~".'(,r, a drive-in or take-out type
rcstaur~nt in ,.~ c(~mm,'.r'c~ql die, trier r('~cluirc~; the submission and
approval off a Iisi' l~c:rmi t, henc(~ thc purl)ese of this application.
The opinion of Staff is that the use as proposed, per the sub-
mitted ,~lans, would be a!>propriate to the surrounding area and
recommends ador)tion of Resolution No. 1214 subject to the recom-
mendations of the Fire, Engineering and Building Departments.
Mr. Larnar¢_______~_l Jeclared the.Du~_J~?l__ic portion of the hearing open at
8:18 p.m.
Mr. John K___e_r_,_.'_, reprcsc_n_t ing the Tic Toc Markets, spoke on theJ r
behalf, stating they were agreeable to all the recommendations of
the various do.~artm,~nts; however, did take exception to the re-
quirement of a 36" block wall or landscaping required between the
two accessways, to effectively screen the parked automobiles from
public view. l{e cited the possible danger of small children
darting out from behind same, into the path of oncoming autos
or falling off the wall. It was their feeling a wall could be
both detrimental and dangerous.
Public portion of the meeting closed at 8:28 p.m.
After some. discussion among the Con,missioners, Mr. Edelstein made
a motion that Resolution No. 1214 be adopted granting approval of
Us~ Permit 7'i-~6] with the foll6_Wi,ng conditiOnS; seconde~ by Mr.Mahone'~
a)
That food products involved in this operation will be
cooke(] and !~repared off-site, with heating and cooling
only being involved on the premises;
b)
That a landscape screen with irrigation shall be pro-
vided adjacent to the sidewalk between the two access-
ways to effectively screen parked automobiles from
public view;
c)
That ail outdoor uses on this shopping center site,
other than newspaper racks, be located totally within
the business structure;
d)
Compliance witl~ the stipulated requirements of the
Engineering, Building and Fire Departments as con-
tained in Exhibits "A", "B", and "C" referenced hereby
and made. a part hereof of this Resolution.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
OLD BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF PP, EC1SI:', Pl,~,.,~: OF DEVELOP.,;E,,,T - Steelcase, Inc. -
Continued front April 26, 1971 meeting.
Mr. Fleaq].e sumgnarized the Staf'f R.eport, recalling that the matter
had been continued from the previous meeting in order that the
applicant might consider the recommendations of the Fire Chief
and the City Engineer. An cxpres:;ion of appreciation was extended
to Steelcase, Inc. and their architect, Albert C. Martin & Assoc.,
for their corn:0]ete cooperation in this matter. Inasmuch as all
problems have been resolved, it is Staff's recommendation that
Resolution No. 1211 be adopted, approving the Precise Plans of
Development, as submitted.
Mr. Sharp moved._.t_.h.3_t._f_.~.~.~n_ol_t.Lt'._i:o..n No. ]2].]. bo adomtef.t~ apR.%..o..v_ing..
Prec i se P 1 a_n. 5 _.q .f_!.)_c,_yF_l_f,! >~nc~.!l t ._f_'_qr_f.'; tJ.;?_]:~'.-ia_.9(..'., Io...c.._._~__..5..C.gO~ld,pd by. ~ ·
Edelstein, subject to t!~(? following condit ions:
PC 5/10/71 -3-
a)
Tile recordin~ of a Covenant running with the land, as
approved by the City Attorney, guaranteeing that suf-
ficient on-site parking facilities shall be provided
at the owner's cxpense to accommodate all employees
and guests of' present and future proposed developments
and use, based upon a determination of requirements
by the Planning Commission on the recommendation of
City Staff.
b) Satisfaction of the requirements of the City Engineer,
.as .contained in memorandum dated April 21, 1971, referenc~
hereby and made a pa'rt hereof.
c) The installation of fire hydrants as stipulated by
the Fire Chief.
Approval by the Planning Commission of any future
Precise Plans for expansion.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 7405
Location:
That portion of the Walnut-Browning Annexation
located north of Walnut Avenue and from 990 to
.1325 'ft. wes'terly.of Browning Avenue, located
' between Tract 6595 and Tract 6484.
Mr. Brown presented Staff Report from the Engineering Department
requesting approval of subject map, which conforms to Tentative
Tract Map approved by the Commission on April 26, 1971.
Mr.. C~rt. ia made motion, seconded b~ Mr. Edelstein, that Final
..Tra~%~'.~ No. 7405 b~_ ap~rov&~,'.subject to final approval by the
~lty Council and~ty Engineer.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
NEW BUSINESS
Pending Applications
UP-71-362..- Hester Development'on behalf of Harriet O. Enderle.
Application to permit construction of 198 apartment
units in the PC R~3 District, located on the east
side of Yorba Street, 737 ft. south of 17th Street.
ZONING OI{DINANCE AMENDMENT -'Home Day Care Type Nurseries
Mr..Brown p~esented summation on Staff Report covering subject
matter, specifically pointing out under the Zoning Ordinance,
Ordinance.No. 157,.the. dafinitions of Day Nurseries and Nursery
Schools. Regarding "home day care type nurseries", the policy
of the City has been to permit the care of three children or
less as a.Home Occupation, wherein a business license is required,
but not a Use Permit.
However, .a.communication was received from the Chairman of the
Tustin Day Care Families Association stating that Tustin was too
restrictive in their policy, and it was felt Tustin should be more
in line with the State regulations that permit 5 or 6 children
(depending upon the age of the children). Subsequently Staff
surveyed the other Oran(!e County cities and checked with the
Orange County Social Welfare Department ~; to their policies.
PC 5/10/71 .'i ·-4- ...
.......... PC 5/10/71
In line with the results of Staff's investigation, it is the con-
sonsus of opinion that an amendment to our ordinance, commensurate
with the limitations established by the State, would be beneficial
to the community. In addition, it would also bring our Ordinance
in line with the State requirements, therefore, avoiding inter-
jurisdictional conflicts and inconsistencies.
It is Staff's recommendation that in view of the above, the Planning
Commission, by adoption of a Minute Resolution, set for public
hearing at their May 24, 1971 meeting, the following amendments to
the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance 157, as amended:
Ordinance No. 372, Section 11.131, be amended as'follows:
'Day Nursery' - a place where seven (7) or more children are
left for day time care, institutional in nature.
Ordinance 372, Section 11.331, be amended as follows:
'Nursery school' - a public or private agency engaged in
educational activity with six (6) or more pre-school children.
Ordinance 157, be amended by the addition of the following
Definition to Section' 11:
Section 11.1311 - 'Day Care Homes'- Children' - a family
home, non-institutional in character, 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;
b)
Not more than six (6) children when the age range is
3 through 16, including the day care mother's own
children.
Mr. Larnard asked Mrs. O'Brien of the Orange County Social Welfare
Department, who was in the audience, if she had any comments to make
to the Commission. She deferred to her supervisor, Mr. Pritchard,
who stated that our proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
seemed to be quite reasonable and in line with State regulations.
He suggested that the definition of "day nursery" include the words
"institutional in nature". He also said that he, as well as the
Chairman of the Tustin Day Care Families Association, would be at
the public hearing on May 24, 1971.
Mrs. Eileen March, Chairman of the Tustin Day Care Families Assoc.
also spgke, stating it took a special kind of person to be a real
good day care mother; and that not only the day care mother, but
also her spouse were subject to a clearance by the law enforcement
agencies.
Motion made by Mr. Mahon~y, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that a Minute
Resolution be adopted, setting up a public hearing for the May 24,
1971 Plannin~ Commission meeting to consider the above amendments
to Zoning Ordinance No. 157, as amended.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
CORRESPONDENCE
COUNTY CASE - ZC-71-24
Rezoning of properties generally located northeasterly and south-
easterly of the intersection of Newport Avenue and La Colina Drive.
The Staff Report was summariz%d by Mr. Brown, stating in essence,
that the County was proposing a rezoning of several individual par-
cels of land, approximately 13 acres in total. Proposed rezoning on
southeasterly port~on is basically in conform.~nce with existing
zoning on those properties, which was recently approved by the
Orange County Board of Supervisors.
PC 5/10/71 -5-
COR R E S Pf)..'q i.)I; NC F, (cont:intu:d)
However, the proposed rezoninq of the norteasterly portion, no
matter which of the three alternate methods they have presented
would be used, would far exceed the medium ].ow density indica-
tions of the Tustin Area General Plan. Consequently the County
has indicated any approval of this request would necessitate a
General Plan Amendment for that area. It would be Staff's recom-
mendation that the Tustin Planning Commission direct a communica-
tion to the Orange County Planning Commission suggesting that
serious consideration be given to the traffic situation in this
area, both for the present and future; that development of the
northeasterly parcels be restricted to a density no greater than
that proposed by subdividing these properties for a development of
duplex dwelling units on 6000 sq. ft. lots; and that any change of
zoning for these properties should require the submission and ap-
proval o~ precise plans of development to encompass all parcels in
the area a~ Newport and La Colina Drive, which are now in the R-1
District. ~
After considerable discussion among the Commissioners and Staff, a
motion was made by Mr. Shar~, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that a
communication be directed to the Orange County Planning Commission
(with a copy to the Foothill Home Owners Association) stating
basically those recommendations as noted by Staff.
MOTION CARRI.ED:. 4-1
AYES: Larnard., Curtis, Sharp, Edelstein
NOES: Mahoney
STAFF CONCERNS
Use Permit UP-69-311 - Smith Printers
Mr. Fleaqle.apprised the Commission of the background on subject
Use Permit covering a free-standing sign to be erected at 424 West
Sixth Street. The original Use Permit was granted on October 13,
1969; a six months' extension was granted from the date of February
8, 1971, with the undarstanding that no other free-standing sign
would be permitted at that location.
It has come to Staff's attention that the applicant has now changed
the location of the sign from the rear of the structure (easterly
side) to the southwest corner of the property; the reason being
that Smith Printers intends to expand their building to the rear.
The matter is being brought to the attention of the Commission in-
asmuch.as permission was granted for the free-standinq sign to be
located at the rear of the structure, and the Development Preview
Commission at their April 22, 1971 meeting gave their approval for
erection of the sign at the new location.
A lengthy discussion followed among the Commissioners, and questions
were directed to Staff, as to what action, if any, should be taken
by the Commission at this time. Inasmuch as the Commissioners were
unaware of wha.t had transpired, it was felt they would like to delve
further into the matter and also check out the actual site.
Motion made by Mr. Shar?, seconded bv Mr. Edelstein, that action on
this matter be delayed until the next P].ann~n.q. Commission Meeting
on May 24, 1971.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Sixth Street Extension
M'r. Curtis inquired of Staff when further action will be taken on the
extension of Sixth Street. Felt that since we now have moved on the
Downtown Development, someti%ing concrete should be forthcoming on
this matter. Staff advised the extensi, ons of Sixth Street and Prospect
will be proposed fol]owinq City Council's consideration of the Down-
town Development Program - Specific Plan No. 1.
PC 5/10/71 -6-
~"; ,) .....}<.,,, (Con[
C()5~r'.'..l.,, IrKq Cr ,,r'~...-~'
Mr. CurtS.q rained thr: qu:.~r.;[.ion of Staff r,..:co:nmcndations on
and deve].opmcnt polieJ, r~s being directed to othr'r government;:l
Co.mn] ..... ion or ·
agencies without tlne endorsement of the ,, ' .... Council
Specific reference was made to the Master Plan of Arterial
as related to the Circulation Element of thc General Plan. The
Commission exprr~ssed the unanimous opinion that staff reco;rxnenda-
tions to other qovernmcntal agencies, that pertain to plannin? and
physical development of the community, should have the prior
approval of the Corn.mission or Council.
Tree and Shrubber,y Trimmin.'j
Mr. Mahone¥ requested the Staff to investigate and correct instanca5
of projecting shrubbery and trees in the public right-of-way ang
sidewalk areas. Specific reference was made to the properties
located south of Santa Clara on Loretta and Leafwood Drive.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Mr. C. Miller,Tustin City Councilman, stated he wished to speak to
the Commission regarding Tract Map 7405. He was informed by ~'-~.
Larnard that Final Tract Map had been approved by the Commissicn
earlier in the evening, subject to final approval by the Ci~-v
and City Engineer. His concern regarding this tract centered cn the
drainage ditch along the western boundary of the tract, which ke
felt was a hazard to the health and safety of anyone living in the
area. Staff advised Mr. Miller that it had been hoped that the
new developer would be able to alleviate or eliminate this prcb!a.-..
area; however, inasmuch as it was not on his land and on the ad':ice
of the City Attorney, we could not force the developer to eliminate
the drainage ditch. The City does hope to be able to enforce the
owner of the drainage ditch to maintain and keep it free of debris,
weeds, etc. and free running.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Mahoney. made motion to adjourn the meating at 10:~2 p,m.
ClIAIRMAN OF T}IE ~,A--NNING COMaMISS[]O'N
PLANNING COMb!ISSION RECORDING SECRETARY
PC 5/10/7]. -7-