Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-26-71 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 26, 1971 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 26th day of April 1971 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 Mahoney. The Invocation was given by Commissioner Edelstein. ROLL CALL: Present: Larnard, Edelstein, Mahoney, Sharp Absent: Curtis Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney R. Kenneth Fleagle, Asst.'CA - Community Development Director Pat Brown, Asst. Planning Director Jean M. Smith, Planning Commission Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 12, 1971 Moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that the minutes of the April 12, 1971 meeting be approved, as submitted. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 UP-71-360 - FIRST SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH Application requesting permission to relocate an existing church structure and to permit the future development of a church facility and auxiliary uses in the R-1 District, subject to the annexation by the City of Tustin. Location: Site fronts approximately 594 ft. on the southwest side of Irvine Boulevard and approximately 313 ft. on the northwest side of Red Hill Avenue. Mr. Brown presented a summation of the Staff Reports, noting that churches and allied facilities are permitted in the R-1 District, subject to the submission and approval of a Use Permit, hence the purpose of this application. It was Staff's opinion that the use as proposed would be appropriate for the surrounding area, and recommended approval of the Use Permit UP-71-360 and adoption of Resolution No. 1212, subject to all conditions as noted, and sub- ject to annexation by the City of Tustin. Annexation proceedings are presently under way on this property by the City. Chairman Larnard opened the public portion of the meeting at 7:40 p.m. PC 4/26/71 PC 4/26/71 Mr. William E. Dean, 13422 Laurinda Way, Santa Ana, spoke on behalf of the First Southern Baptist Church of Tustin, stating he would answer any questions from the Commission or the audience. In answer to questions by the Commission, Mr. Dean stated it was hoped that within two years from moving on to the property, they would be able to complete Buildings 2 and 3, as shown on the Master Plan, as well as the required parking facilities for same. They do intend to utilize as many of the fruit trees on the land as possible, in the landscaping of the property. Irene E. Pelleriti, 1411 Garland Avenue, Tustin, questioned whethel it was the intent of the church to erect some type of fence or block wall behind the property, inasmuch as their homes are behind Mr. Brown advised that at the Development Preview Commission meeting, it was determined that walls would be constructed along the southerly and westerly property lines. Public portion of the hearing closed at 7:55 Mr. Sharp moved to adopt Resolution No. 1212, approving UP-71-360, with conditions as noted below, and with a recommendation to the Development Preview Commission that on their landscaping require- ments trees be required on the southerly and westerly perimeters, either those presently growing or replacement trees, to act as buffers for the abutting property owners; motion seconded by Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 1212 a) Subject to annexation by the City of Tustin. b) That a 6'8" block wall be constructed on the southerly and westerly property lines within a six month period from the time of the relocation of the church structure on said site; c) Recommendations and reports of Fire Chief, City Engineer and Building Official are referred to, and made a part hereof; d) That precise plans of any phase of future development, in accordance with the Master Plan of Development, as submitted with this application, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commiss£on, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2 PARK LAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE Mr. Fleagle reported that a proposed model ordinance had been given to the Commissioners at the last meeting for their review, and some minor changes have been made for the sake of clarity. The format of this ordinance is from the League of California Cities model ordinance, and the standards are as adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, in the interest of being uniform with the County Ordinance. A communication has been received from the Chairman of the Parks & Recreation Commission of the City of Tustin, supporting the adoption of this ordinance and commending the Planning Commission for their prompt action in developing such an ordinance, inasmuch as the City is completely surrounded by other cities and county areas that do have such a Park Land Dedication Ordinance. The matter was brought to the attention of the Orange County Chapter of the Building Industry Association, and no comment had been received from them. PC 4/26/71 - 2 - ....... { ' ;..q:c tho t. J tutionality of thc! law had Mr. Shnr:.~ :~ .... .,~..(,::r.{. t?:(,r cons been tested; and Xr. F],~aqlc: replied a c]cc[~;ion was pendinq in the State Supr~.m'~ Court o:~ thc "~ Creek -: ~'~. Mr. Rourko added a decision should be forthcoming shortly, as the case had been argued in February. A discussion followed among the Co:mn]ss]oners and Staff regarding ,/ the dedication of land anco, or fees, and private park land dedica- tion, as well a:; the fact that the ordinance would not apply to commercial or industrial developments. Chairman Larn,a__r.c_l__o.:2en?_d__t.~_~e :?~_u.b].ic oor___~tion of the hearing at 8:08 p.m. As no one appeared to .~3peak for or against the ordinance, the public portion was closed at 8:09 ~).m. Mr. Shar:) made a motion, t.h_!a~__t_.+.~_e Pl___a_n_ni__nc_j Co~mission adoo: Resolu- tion No. 1213 rc:cc?u:'..:,~nd_i.[':,'..!_adoi,~ti',:,~n of this proposed Park Land Dedication Ordinance to the C4uy Council; seconded by Mr. Mahoney. MOTION CARRII.:D: 4-0 OLD BUSINESS TENTATIVE TP. ACU' ..'.QAP N©. 7405 -ConLinued from last Com3n:.ssion meetinc of April 12, ].97]; covering land on the northerly side of Walnut Avenue, between Si lverbrook Drive and Oxford Avenue. Mr. Fleaq. 1e reviewed the Staff Reports that had been presented at the April 12, 1971 meeting, and the problems that might be antici- pated if the drainage ditch on th(,, westerly property line was not replaced with underqround conduit, and the incorporation of the six foot stri'.p within the tract lots. The purpose of continuing the matter to this meeting, was in the hopes of coming up with a solution to eliminate the ex.~sting and potential problems that might be created 1,I' thc erection of a 6 ft. masonry wall, isolating this drainaqe ditch. The City Engineer's latest report expanding the previous re.?:3rt, stated that if the six foot strip of land is accepted by thc City from the present owner, that the City would require at least a 10 ft. easem(~nt in order to accept thc-', drain as a public facility and prouerly maintain it; and if an underground drain was to bo built, a 10 ft. drainage easement should be acquired from Lot 13 of the development. The Commissioners discus!;ed the matter of what could or could not be done as far ,~r; recue:;tinq tho devc].oper to go underground with this drain, or acquiri, nq thc: easement: riqhts for the ditch. It was the opinion of thc: City Attornc:v, Mr. Rourke, that we would not be able to require the developer to make these improvements, seeing that he is not be]hq sorw;d ]n any wa5' by the drainage ditch, and was not responsible for .it being there. Mr. Ra]:~!~ !%er:':~:rd, one of the developers of the project, spoke on their behalf, and .:)resented figures covering the installation of this underqround conduit and pictures showi, nq the drainage ditch after work had !>eo.n done on it to clear it out. The fiqures shown were act,,~a], b]d.u th<~v .ha(~ rc, c,,~i, vod co\'eri, n~': the work that would have to ,lack Ilal], enqineer for tho dew':loper, also spoke on behalf of the developers, r(:iteratir:q :.Ir. Bernard's thoughts, makinq note of the point that the (;it.,.' miqi:t be able to enforce the owner of this ditch to koe~> it free and clean of weeds, debris, trash, etc., and free runni.nc;. Mr. Edel'.;toin m¢~v,',i t!',,'~t '!k,nt. ativ(? '?tact .Ma:'3 7405 be apl)roved, subject t:o th<' t}~[rt.oon con,iitions of the City Engineer; seconded by Mr. Sh,~rp. HOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PC 4/26/71 - 3 - NEW BUSi~' '¢' ' APPROVAL OF PREC',SE PLAN,(] OF DE3I'.;,OP?.nNF - Steelcase, Inc. Mr. Fleagle presented for the Commission's approval Precise Plans of Development for Steelcase, Inc., for property bounded by Newport Freeway, Warner Avenue, and the newly insta]led Bell Avenue; an approximate 37 acre parcel, for the construction of a manufacturing plant and administrative office and showroom. Staff expressed con- cern over the proposed parking accommodations, but would acquiesce to Steelcase's empirical knowledge of their parking requirements. However, to guarantee the interest of the City and any future pro- perty owners, it was suggested that the olans be approved as sub- mitted, subject to the recording of a Covenant running with the land, approved by the City Attorney, guaranteeing that sufficient on-site parking facilities shall be provided at the owner's expense to accommodate a].] employees and guests of the present and future development. This will be based upon a determination of the Planning Comanission, on reco~nendation of Staff, and approval of any future precise plans for expansion by the Planning Commission inasmuch as this is a 3-phase development. Mr. Fleagl~ then introduced Mr. Arthur Fretwell, Vice President of Steelcase, Inc., to make the presentation, and acknowledged the presence of Councilman Marsters reoresenting the City Council, and Mr. Bud Jackle¥ representing the Chamber of Commerce and Southern California Edison Co. Presentation boards were explained in detail by Mr. Fretwe!l, with assistance from ,John Lloyd representing the architect, Albert C. Martin & Associates and %he plant manager of their La Mirada opera- tion, Jim Delaney. All phases and concepts were illustrated on the presentation boards. The plans at present are to move in by June 1972, which will be completion of Phase I of the development, representing a $7-8 million dollar investment. Following the presentation the Commissioners discussed various aspects of the proposed development, dwelling mostly on the parking facilities, anticipated traffic, access driveways, rail facilities and truck traffic. Mr. Fleagle inquired of .Mr. Fretwell if the comments of the various city departments had been reviewed by them, and if they were in agreement with thc. ir recommendations. As Mr. Fretwell and Mr. Lloyd had no knowledge of same, they were given copies of the re:)orts in question (said reoorts had been mailed to them on April 23, 1971). Inasmuch as the applicant had no prior knowledge of the recommenda- tions made by the Fire Chief and City Engineer, they requested a continuance in order that they might evaluate these recommended conditions and meet with the Staff. Mr. Sharp movecl that the matt:~r of apr)royal of precise .?]ans of develo ~ment for .~; , . , ~ .,... tee l. case lnc b(? delayed until the next P].an'ninq Commission meetJnc~ c., )f May 10, !971; seconded by Mr. Mahonev. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 GENERAL PI,AN A:.',i~X:).ME:;T & PREZ()N]NG - irvine Property Mr. Fleaqlo infor:n~d the Contmission that Irvine Company has indicat~ they are about to proceed with a development of some 30 acres, south of the Santa Ana Freeway, north of Warner. It is the recommendation of Staff that a l~rezoninq action bo initiated covering that pro- perty, which will be up for annexation, and to be heard by LAFCO on April 28, 1971. There is some quesl:ion if it will be acted upon im- mediately, but in tho interest' of having thc zoning applied before annexation, Staff r~.~commcnds the Co:mnis'~-;ion initiate a joint General Plan Amendment an¢! Prezon[ng to thc PC (Planned Community), in accordance with the develo[)ment plan:] of the Irvine Company. PC 4/26/71 -4- Mr. Mahone'~,,__m_o,,_'c~!i__ t~hat a Minute Resoluti~n b%_a__d_opted di recting the Staff t_o r',r__,__!~,'nrc a General ?lan Amen(t.?.ent.__ and Prezonin~, action on the above pr¢):~ertv, ar,.(1 authorize it for 1~ublic }{earing on May 10, 1971; .~ccondc~d b~' Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PENDING APPLICATIONS UP-71-361 - TIC TOC MARKETS Application for a Use Permit to permit a take-out restaurant and delicatessen at 1431 South Village Way, Tustin. Site fronts approximately 250 ft. on east side of Pasadena Avenue and is located approximately 190 ft. south of the centerline of McFadden Avenue. CORRESPONDENCE County Case - Santa Aha River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan Mr. Fleagle declared that Staff had received'notice the Orange County Planning Commission would be holding a public hearing on Tuesday, May 11, 1971 on the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Green- belt Plan. Information was given to all Commissioners in the anti- cipation that this Commission would desire to have a communication directed to the Orange County Planning Commission with reference to this Greenbelt Proposal. He further stated this project has very little direct impact on the City of Tustin, but indirectly, it could be far reaching; possibility of tying in on hiking and biking trails, flood control channels and other open areas to link the City of Tustin with this Greenbelt, that is proposed from the ocean to the mountains. Mr. Edelstein made a motion,seconded by Mr. Sharp, that Staff direct a letter to Orange County Planning Co~mission endorsing the Greenbelt Plan. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 County Case - Change of Zone Case ZC-71-11 - Williamson & Schmid Mr. Fleagle advised that Staff had just received information on said case, to reduce size of lots R1-10,000 and Ri-18,000 "Single Family Residence" Districts to RS-]0,000 Residential, Single Family" Dis- trict, on property between and southeasterly of the stub ends of Overhill Drive northeasterly of Miravista Drive in the Cowan Heights Area. There is an Alternate Proposal to change about 11.5 acres to the A1 "Genera] Agricu].tural" District. The Orange County Planning Depart~nent Staff's reco~mmendation is to approve the RS-10,000 for the areas shown, and the area presently a stable, to Al Agri- cultural DistrLct, to permit its continuance. Mr. Sh. arp inquired as to the hearinq date, and Staff replied that no date was sho'~.:n on +~'hc notice. The Tustin News reporter informed the Co~mission tile IIearin~..' had been held on 'Puesday, April 20, 1971 and had been continued until. Tuesday,April 27, 1971. Motion made by Mr. Sharr) that a communication be dispatched to the Orange Count~, l~lanp..jn~_~__C_(..3..-zmission indicati, nq we do not wish to com- ment on tile subject, elaborat~nc on our reasons, in that there was insufficient t~.me to consider tt~e matter; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PC 4/26/71 -5- CO~,~4I SS I ON CONCERNS Mr. Mahoney complimented the Staff on the fast action he received in response to his previous concern. Mr. Edelstein expressed concern regarding the s~tuation that had occurred this evening with Steelcase, Inc. not receiving the reports from Staff in sufficient time to review them prior to the meeting at which they were to be heard. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None There being no ~ur~her business to discuss a motion was made by Mr. Mahone~, to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Shar~. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0. PLAN/WING COStMISSION ~HAIRMAN J PLANNING CO:,t,~ISSI(.)X RECORDING SECRETARY PC 4/26/71 -6-