Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-12-71MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1971 The regular mcetin:t of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 12th 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 qiven by Commissioner Edelstein. The Invocation ;vas given by Commissioner Mahoney. ROLL CALL: Present: Curtis, Edelstein, Mahoney, Sharp Absent: Larnard Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney R. Kenneth Fleaqle, Asst. CA - Comm. Deve]. Director Pat Brown, Asst. Pi. arming Director Jean M. Smith, Planning Co.mmission Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF ~:INUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF MARCII 22, 1971 Moved by Mr. Share, seconded bv~ Mr. Mah0ney, that the minutes of the March 22, 1971 meeting be approved, as submitted. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PUBLIC IIEARING NO. 1 V-69-233 - JOIIN ROACI{ ON BEIIALF OF JEROME A. STEWART Reactivation of Variance V-69-233 for the con- struction of an office building in the C-2-P (Central Commercial and Combined Parking) Dis- trict, with a reduction in the required number of off-street parking spaces (19 spaces required - 13 spaces proposed) and z~.o-foot structural set- backs from all property l~nes Location: Site is located at southwest corner of E1 Camino Real and Main Street, with frontages of approxi- mately 100 ft. on the west side of E1 Camino Real and 70 ft. on the south side of Main Street. Mr. Fleagle stated that due notice had been given that the Planninq Commission would hold a ~ublic hearing at this time and place for the Variance Application. A summation of the Staff Report.~; were pre.~;ented, qiving the history of the case and Staff recommended conditions of approval. Vice Chairman Curt. i.~ o}~cncd the public portion of the hearing at 7:40 p.m. - 1 - Mr'. John l{o~'~ch, ]3671 :~a]r.:n,~ I)rive, Tu:;t]n, Ca].iforn]a, the applicant, 7~-~e.--i~-[-,-i~-<,'or of the wlrianc(~, an(l agreed to the conditions r(.~com:m.?nded by Staff. In response to a question from the Commis.~;ion, Mr. Roach stated his proposed building would basically be an office building with an insurance of- fice and some retail. There being no further comments from the audience, the public portion of the hearing was closed at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Mahone¥ moved approval of Resolution No. 1053 granting an extension of V-69-233 to A?ril 12, 1972, subject to the fol- lowing terms and conditions; seconded by bit. Edelstein. Approval of precise development plans and architectural design by the Development Preview Commission. e Installation of street trees per Master Street Tree Plan. 3. Close off all unused driveway entrances. Modify drainage structure as necessary to permit new driveway construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Se Reconstruct broken and missing sections of concrete sidewalk. Replacement of hydrant at Main and "C" Streets with an approved type hydrant. Dedication of a 5'X5' triangular corner cut-off at the northwest corner of the property. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2 SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ORDINANCE NO. 438 Mr. Brown read Staff Report to the Commission relative to amend- ments to the Sign Ordinance with reference to signs affixed to vehicles. Basically, the amendments to Sign Ordinance No. 438 refer to Section 4 of Article V, amending subparagraph "a" and addition of subparagraph "i", as follows: Subparagraph "a" is amended to read as follows: "Any sign erected for the purpose of advertising a pro- duct, event, person or subject not related to the pre- mises upon which said sign is located, except directional signs, is prohibited, including any sign maintained or affixed to any vehicle which is used primarily to support or display such sign while parked on public or private property, other than for the purposes of lawfully making deliveries or sales of merchandise or rendering services from such vehicle." Subparagraph "i" is to be added, reading as follows: "Business signs on or affixed to trucks, automobiles, trailers or other vehicles, used primarily to support or display such signs while parked on public or private pro- perty,other than for the purpose of lawfully making de- liveries or sales of merchandise or rendering services from such vehicles." PC 4/12/71 - 2 - Staff ~ugq(,~;t-z t}](~ P].'~nnin,! Commi.~;sion r(~co:nmond api~roval to the City Council of the amend~nents to th{~ Si. gn Ordinance by adoption of Resolution No.12].0. Mr. Curtis opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:50 p.m. As ti]ere was nobody desiring to speak for or against said amendments, the public portion was closed at 7:51 p.m. After a brief discussion by the Commission, Mr. Edelstein moved that Resolution No. 1210 be adopted, recommending a_~- proval of said amendments to the City Council; seconded by Mr. Sharp. MOTION CARRIED: 3-1 AYES: Curtis, Edelstein, Sharp NOES: Mahoney PUBLIC HEARING NO. 3 EL CAMINO REAL DEVELOPMENT.- SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1 Mr. Fleagle stated that for some time the Commissioners had the proposed draft of the Downtown' Development Program, and at a joint meeting on March llth, it was submitted to the TNT Com- mittee, Downtown Business Association, Chamber of Commerce and other interested property owners. SubSequently, the Downtown Business Assoc. considered the program at their meeting on March 31st. The.suggestions and recommendations of these associations and individuals have also been submitted to the Commissioners. This matter has been advertised for a public hearing tonight for the benefit of any other interested property owners and residents of the City, so they may voice their comments and opinions. The purpose and intent of this plan was to.give impetus to the private property owners to develop, where pre- viously he has been prohibited due to various restrictions. It is Staff's recommendation that this hearing be continued until the May 10, 1971 meeting, and in the interim Staff will take all the comments, suggestions, proposals, etc. received, and mold them into a plan they hope will be feasible and equitable for everyone, and one that the people will find acceptable. It is intended to present the final plan to the various organi- zations prior to the May 10th meeting for review, and it is. anticipated that at the May 10, 1971 meeting, we will have a "plan for the people". Vice Chairman Curtis opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:05 p.m. Mrs. Thomas Kelly, 14691 Charloma Drive, Tustin, expressed her favor of the plan and presented her suggestion for a "wishing well"theme for the project as a focal point. Virginia Stevens, 14332 S. Holt Avenue, suggested that perhaps the directional signs for City Hall might be changed to direct the traffic south on Prospect to Second Street. Lee Wagner, owner of Lee's Lamo Shop, stated she was one of the instigators of this program; ti]anked the Commission and Staff for their assistance and help. She feels it is too soon to present anything concrete, but did feel that settling on one definite theme for the program would not be practical at this time. PC 4/12/71 -3- Mr. Jolin l;',',~,'~ch, i'r.,':i,,l(,~,l. :>f t.}~c'. Do'...';:i(,,'...':,, {';;;:,in,,:;:; Asr;oc:i.lt.i. on, declarcd tilt:?:' d.W.' ~!' ']":k-,,-~ .'"a' mc.e t i. ri'U, -l'5'u-t'~--~-oi'--ii resolved at the m~.~c,t, i n~i; tho cons~,n:;u.~; of o:~i. ni~n bei. nq to wait for a more dctai i~.d plan. The feeling wan to play down strict Spanish thc,me. Parkinq problem:; wor~', also discussed and it was felt th(:5, did not want all parkinq restrictions lifted. The thouqht was to reduce parking restrictions; it was voted to suggest one parkinq space for each 400 sq. ft. of retail and 600 sq. ft. for office. Charles F. Greenwood, Chairman of TNT CommSttee, speaking for his committee as a whole, would like to .qupport whatever plan is decided upon to be the best. The TNT Committee feels it is fundamentally up to the downtown property owners and merchants to work on this project. The desire is to push the program along as fast as possible, as the E1 Camino Rea] area is very much in need of many improvements, in order for Tustin to become a well- balanced city, from a business standpoint. Mr. Richard J. Redline, 420 "D" Street, Tustin, stated his con- cern for the proposed downtown plan was the variances that were being granted in order to encourage development in the area. He wondered whether the variances should be so diverse in nature, considering other problems that may arise as a result of these variances. The public portion of the hearinq was closed at 8:27 p.m. In their discussion of this matter the Commissioners requested that when Staff present the proposed plan, it definitely spell out the specifics on parking, signing, etc., and also include an analysis or comparison on the present restrictions Vs. the proposed. Motion made by Mr. Mahoney to have this hearinq continued until May 10, 1971 and Staff be directed to formulate and amend Spe- cific Plan No. 1 for presentation at that time, in accordance with the comments, suggestions and recommendations received; seconded by Mr. Sharp. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 OLD BUSINESS 1) EXTENSION OF SIXTH STREET Mr. Fleagle stated the matter of the extension of Sixth Street (modification and alignment) and Prospect Street also ties into the Downtown Development Program. At the last Planning Commis- sion meeting the Commissioners were given the City Engineer's report along with 15 alternatives and suggestions for these extensions, for review so they could suggest two or three alternatives that might be studied further for possible action. Mr. John A. Prescott stated that at one of the first meetings of the TNT Committee about three years ago, he suggested then to extend Sixth Street out to Newport Avenue, but the idea of extending Prospect, unless there is some bonafide justification, is inconceivable at this time. tie had previously indicated to Councilman Marsters his willinqness to dedicate any property he owns that would be in the extended right-of-way of Sixth Street and that offer is still good. lie feels it would not be wise to go along with an extension of Prospect at this time. Mr. Mahoney ~nquired if any effort had been made to contact the various property owners regarding these street extensions. PC 4/12/71 -4- PC 4/12/71 Mr. Fleagle replied that the City Council h.](] brought up at a recent meeting they would like the Planning Commission to consider the offer of the Sixth Street dedication and align- ment, and as a result the City Engineer was asked to present a report with suggested alternatives. These have been pre- sented to you, and what we are trying to determine is your feeling as to the best solution, and go back to the City Engineer, so further study can be made as to cost, feasibility, and to work it out with the property owners. There have been no specific reco~nendations made or contact with property owners. Following a discussion among the Commissioners, they seemed to be in favor of Alternative No. 1, which is the direct extension of Sixth Street to Newport on alignment with Walnut; and Alter- native No. 8, which is the extension of Sixth Street to Newport, and the extension of Prospect to Sixth Street. Staff was requested to return these alternatives to the City Engineer, with the Commission's desire for him to further con- sider Proposal #1, with recommendations to be presented to the Commission prior to a public hearing, regarding the feasibility of such an alignment; and also the feasibility of an alignment of Prospect to Sixth Street in the long range plan, and concurrently for Staff to work with the property owners as to their develop- ment plans, to make certain it is a compatible plan. NEW BUSINESS 1) Appropriateness of a Dance Studio in a C-1 District A summation of the Staff Report was ~given by Mr. Brown stating than an application for a business kicense on a ballroom dance studio had been received, and inasmuch as the Zoning Ordinance No. 157 did not specifically categorize a dance studio for a C-1 zone, the Commission was requested to determine if the pro- posed use was similar in character to the particular uses allowed in the C-1 District. The Staff was asked by the Commission about parking problems and any other restrictions or problems that might arise. Mr. Brown replied there did not seem to be any problem with parking, and that the tenants in the building voiced no objec- tions to a dance studio being located there. Mr. Mahoney moved that a Minute Order be made approving a ballroom dance studio in a C-1 Zone; seconded by Mr. Sharp. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 2) Park Land Dedication Ordinance Mr. Fleagle reported that the County had adopted a Park Land Dedication Ordinance for new developments on the submission of subdivision maps, requiring the dedication of park lands. Our concern is for what might happen within our Sphere of Influence on the development of lands easterly of the present City of Tustin should they develop without parks or without requirements for parks. Staff's recommendation is the Commission adopt a Minute Resolution to advertise for a public hearing at the April 26, 1971 meeting for the purpose of adopting an ordinance applicable to the City of Tustin, using the same standards, basically, as adopted by the County of Orange. This will not affect existing subdivisions within the City; only new subdivisions. Mr. Sharp queried as to whether there would be adequate hearings so the public could be heard and speak out for or against the issue. PC 4/12/71 -5- PC 4/12/71 Mr. FleaQle stat(x] that under thc proce~.ucs proposed there would be a hearinq by the Planning Commission with a recom- mendation to the City Council. for adoption; then advertised for a public hearing before the City Council; first reading, second reading and a 30 day period following that, before it would be effective. Mr. Sharp made a motion that Minute Resolution be adopted directing the Staff to p.re.~)ar(: a Park Land Dedication Ordi- nance and authorJzo it for public hearing on April 26, 1971; seconded b.v Mr. Ed(.:lstein. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 3) Parcel MaD PM-71-45 - Santa Fe Land Improvement Co. Location: Bounded by Red Hill, Santa Fe Drive, Woodlawn Avenue and Industrial Drive. Mr. Brown read summation of City Engineer's Staff Report giviag past history of the site, in that Parcel 1 was the subject of previous Planning Commission action, and a Condition of Approval for development of Parcels 2 and 3 was the submission of a Parcel Map. Staff's recommendation is for adoption of a Minute Order by the Commission approving Parcel Map, subject to the following conditions: Upon development of Parcel 2 or 3, the installation of street lighting with underground conduit on the parcel frontages as well as annexation to the Tustin Lighting District and the installation of approved street trees on the parcel frontages. Final approval by the City Engineer and recordation of the map. Mr. Edelstein moved to adopt a Minute Order for approval of Parcel Map 71-45, subject to conditions specified; seconded by Mr. Mahoney. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 4. Tentative Tract Map 7405 - Ralph Bernard and Don Spengler Location: That portion of the Walnut-Browning Annexation located north of Walnut Avenue, and from 900 to 1325 ft. westerly of Browning Avenue, located between Tract 6595 and Tract 6484. Summation of City Engineer's Staff Report read by Mr. Flea~le, with City Engineer recommending approval, subject to 13 con- ditions. The one condition of approval which causes great concern is the construction of a 6 ft. masonry wall along the west boundary of the tract together with a lockable gate across the open drainage channel at Walnut Avenue, or the acquisition of the 6 ft. strip of drain right-of-way and the replacement of the open drain with an underqround conduit and incorporation of the 6 ft. strip within the tract lots. To elaborate on this matter, on the westerly property line there is a privately owned open drain channel on a six foot strip of land. What is being proposed in this recommendat'i, on is, that this subdivision be approved with a wall on the westerly property line, to isolate the property from the open drainage channel. Under any approach, this drainage channel is a potential hazard to the health and safety of anyone living in the area. For the City to approve the subdivision as subm~ tted would perpetuate an undesirable condition. If it is ever going to be eliminated, now is the time to do it. Staff recommends withholding approval of this Tract Map until every possible avenue has been explored to find a so]ut[on to this crucial ~)roblem. PC 4/12/71 -6- PC 4/] 2/7i Mr. ,'Jack I{all, Civil Engin~.'~..r, rc~;'~rescntin~j thc developers, and Ralph E. Berne]rd, one of the developers, both voiced con- cern over this r¢,quc.~;t of the City, and ex..')ressed their anxiety over the delay that will be caused, as timo is of the essence, not to mention the additonal cost. Following a lengthy discussion regarding this open drainage ditch and its problems, among the Commissioners, the Community Development Director and the 'applicant and his engineer, a motion was made by .Mr. Mahoney, seconded bv Mr. Sharp, to withhold approval of this Tract Man until ~he next Planning Commission meeting, _duri_n~ which time the Staff and the City Engineer will work with the applicant, doin(~ their utmost to come up with a workable solution to this problem. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PENDING APPLICATIONS: 1) UP-71-360 - First Southern Baptist Church Application to permit the development of a church facility and auxiliary uses in the R-1 District, subject to annexa- tion to the City of Tustin. Site fronts approximately 594 feet on the southwest side of Irvine Boulevard and approxi- mately 313 ft. on the northwest side of Red Hill. PENDING MATTERS 1) Review of Precise Plans of Development for Steelcase, Inc. at next Planning Commission Meeting on April 26, 1971, covering proposed development of approximately 36 acres of land at Newport Freeway and Warner Avenue, located in P-C Zone. CORRESPONDENCE 1) County Case - UP-31-36 Private school to be located on northwesterly side of Newport Avenue, southwesterly of Vanderlip in the northeast area of Tustin. Mr. Brown stated notice of hearing was received by Staff the d~y following the last Planning Commission meeting, and the hearing was held on April 8, 1971. Approval was given by the County for this school, and from Staff's standpoint it will be an excellent use of this property in the R-1 District. 2) County Case - Zone Change and Ordinance relative to scenic ZC-70-72 highway zoning. Mr. Brown said notice was received of this hearing to be held on April 13, 1971 by the County covering scenic highway zoning throughout the County in unincorporated areas, and signing restric- tions for those particular scenic highway belts. A member of the Staff will attend the hearing so a report can be given on the results. STAFF CONCERNS 1) Mr. Fleagle reported a copy of the 1970 Federal census was received today, and said there were some discrepancies noted relating to city boundaries; and the latest Federal count for population of Tustin was 21,178. PC 4/12/71 -7- PC 4-12-71 COMMISSION CONC ER,~S Mr. Sha.r~_brought u.o the matter of the possibility or feasibility of' a different zoning clas.qification for banks and savings and loan institutions. Mr. Mahoney asked J f Staff knew when the County was going to notify the home owners J n the northern part of town when they can take back the 25 ft. of ]and where the flood control channel has gone in. Staff replied they had no information to offer on the matter. Mr. Mahone}~ also made reference to sign control and the fact the telephone company locates signs on the top of their telephone booths. Mr. Mahone¥ made motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m.