Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-22-71 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1971 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 22nd day of March 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 Sharp, The Invocation was given by Commissioner Edelstein. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Others Present: Larnard, Edelstein, Curtis, Mahoney, Sharp None James G. Rourke, City Attorney R. Kenneth Fleagle, Asst. CA - Comm. Development Director Pat Brown, Asst. Planning Director Jean M. Smith, Planning Commission Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 8, 1971 Moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Sharp, that the minutes of the March 8, 1971 be approved, as submitted. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 ZC-71-224 - SANTIAGO COMMERCIAL BANK ON BEHALF OF ANDREWS DEVELOPMENT CO. Request authority to rezone an approximate 4.8 acre parcel of land from the Pr (Professional) District to C-1 (Retail- Commercial-Restricted) District. Location: Site fronts approximately 970 feet on the north side of Irvine Boulevard, approximately 217 feet on the east side of "B" Street, and approximately 217 feet on the west side of Prospect Avenue, and is further described as Lot No. 33, Tract No. 7332. Mr. Flea~le read summation of Staff Report to the Commission, which included report from City Engineer, stating if rezoning was granted he recommends street improvement to the full standards of a ~).jor arterial highway. The Commission is called upon to determine, upon basis of a public hearing, whether or not the proposed location is appropriate for a bank; should the remainder of the property, as well as property on the southerly side of Irvine Boulevard, be authorized for commercial use; and should the Professional District be amended to include banks as permitted uses? Mr. Fleagle further stated there had been one letter of protest directed to the City Council from Mr. Walter J. Wands, 17692 Westbury Lane, Tustin, California. PC 3/22/71 ~C Minutes March 22, 1971 Mr. Larnard opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Walter J. Wands, 17692 Westbury Lane, Tustin stated, in substance, that the adjoining property owners appreciated the efforts of the Commission to keep Tustin a better place to live; that the proposed zone change and bank development would not be compatible with the existing professional developments nor to the prospective home buyers in the adjoining residential area. The location of the bank at this site would cause traffic problems in relationship to the schools and would portend toward spot zoning. Mr. James Engbarth, President of Santiago Commercial Bank said he does respect the integrity of the people and the area, and he did not want to do anything to alienate the people of Tustin, as the success of the bank depends on them. The reason for selecting this particular location is that the present site is inadequate to handle the volume of business they now have and this site would be in close proximity to their present location. Mr. Norman Temple, 17572 Westbury Lane, Tustin remarked he, too, lived in the area to the rear of the property in question, and he felt that a continual downgrading of this property w~ll lead away from the General Plan of the City of Tustin. Mr. Jay Andrews, Buena Park, owner of the property, speaking on behalf of Robert Hall and Andrews Development Co., who control the balance of the property not sold, or subject to sale to Santiago Bank, said it was not their intent to zone the entire property commercial. The purpose of the request was to authorize the bank to build on the first 200 feet of the corner, and he thought the bank would be an excellent neighbor. Mr. ?avid King, 17671 Westbur¥ Lane, Tustin stated he wished to submit a written protest, and also to complain from the standpoint of traffic congestion on Irvine Boulevard now, as well as in the future. }{is feeling was this would not be a good location for a bank and that the professional zoning should be adhered to. Mr. Gordon }{ill, 14702 Brookline Way, Tustin, said he concurred with the opinions of Messrs. Wands, Temple and King, and he thought that inasmuch as there is much discussion about the rejuvenation of the downtown area of Tustin in the local newspaper, why couldn't the bank locate in that area; it would be an excellent addition. Mr. Larnard closed the ~ublic portion of the hearing at 7:58 ~.m. Mr. Larnard stated for the record he had an account in the Santiago Bank, but did not feel it would create any conflict. Mr. Mahoney asked Mr. Engbarth where some of the other C-1 sites mentioned, were located. Mr. Engbarth replied they had made a sincere effort to capture the property at Fourth and Holt, known as the Thriftimart property, but their financial ability to develop it was indadequate. Undoubtedly, this would be the most desirable site in the City. Another site was the triangular piece at Newport, Bryant and Main Street, but it removed them too far from the downtown area. Even Fourth and Prospect admittedly removes us away from our present site, but it was as close as we could get and still provide adequate parking and obtain the lane at a reasonable price. They had looked at 7 or 8 potential propertie~ but could not specifically remember the others; however, most of them were removed from the general area of downtown. Mr. Mahone¥ asked about the property across from Larwin Square by the Savings and Loan. Mr. Ensbarth replied the asking price was too high and that location would not be the most advantageous to the bank. PC 3/22/71 -2- Mr. Edelstein asked if Staff could review some of the restrictions that might be placed on the present proposed site, to assure the specific development taking place, and give protection to the pro- perty owners and neighboring buildings. Mr. Larnard replied that banks are not permitted in the Pr Zone and that is the reason for the zone change request. Mr. Edelstein asked if the Pr zone could be amended. Mr. Larnard said it would have to be amended to allow a banking facility in the Pr zone but the Staff Report had made note there could be leaal ramifications in attachina a condition to a commercial zone, that is not attached to all other commercial zones. Mr. Fleagle stated if the Commission so desired they could amend the Pr zone to permit banking and financial institutions as being com- patible or a permitted use in the Pr zone. The restrictions would be the same restrictions imposed on all developments reviewed by the Development Preview Commission. Mr. Larnard asked Mr. Fleagle's opinion as to the size of site which would be required for a drive-in type bank facility such as this, and how much traffic would be generated. Mr. Fleagle said it would depend on the size of the structure and the location. The Pr zone requires all parking in the rear with the structure in the front; and in a facility such as this, the drive-in part would have to be in the rear, along with the parking. The loca- tion and size of the building would determine the size of the lot necessary. You have two major intersections and you have a turn-in and turn-out at the intersection for approach and exit from the bank, or if you have an entrance and exit at the same location, you have much the same situation as at a service station. You should have a minimum of 500 ft. from the intersection, especially if you have a stacking lane for left turns. It is preferred to have a commercial bank in the center of a professional district, with interior orientation and professional buildings radiating around it, so the bank becomes the focal point to service the professional buildings. That is not the concept that is being presented here for your consideration. Mr. Sharp asked what kind of a traffic generator would a bank such as this be; what are the peak times. His main concern is a lot of traffic in the area which would conflict with children coming and going to school. Mr. Fleagle stated he did not have the precise experience of the Santiago Bank, but a bank transaction with a drive-up window usually completes a transaction in three minutes, which is a ~horter duration than at a gas station. With banks there are daily peak periods and of course, the peak period of Friday banking. Some of the peak banking periods would not conflict with school hours. Mr. Mahoney asked if Staff knew the size of the property at First and Newport, on which another bank is located. Mr. Fleagle replied he was not certain, but probably less than two acres. Mr. Edelstein asked if the Pr district were to be amended by the Com- missi0n, for this particular situation, would it require a public hearing. Mr. Fleagle stated that the Commission, on its own motion, could ini%iate a public hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit banks, financial institutions, etc., in the Pr Zone. Mr. Mahoney then asked if that were the case, wouldn't it come under the more restrictive signing of the Pr district. PC 3/22/71 -3- Mr. Fleaqle said it would be limited to the more restricted signing of the Pr zone rather than commercial. Mr. Curtis stated that it was the appropriateness of the bank facility at this location which was the main concern; the second con- cern being, if we so decide, what would be the mechanism for assuring some kind of a reasonable development which would not be detrimental to the rest of the area. He said that nothing had been presented to convince him this was an appropriate site. It would appear a real traffic problem will be present with a drive-in operation, combined with the traffic flow projected for Irvine Boulevard, and even with the current traffic flow. Mr. Curtis moved to deny the rezon~ng request ZC-71-224; seconded by Mr. SharD, for purposes of discussion. Mr. Edelstein said it might be appropriate for a bank site, if the proper zone was put in; which zone should be used, he was not sure. Perhaps more study is needed. Rather than put this up for denial, he would like to see a continuance so we can get a little more infor- mation, to make sure we are taking the proper steps. Mr. Larnard said Fourth Street is very definite strip zoning and in many cases this is not a desirable type zoning. However, in the case of Fourth Street it has been very desirable, but he did not feel this piece of property before us should be zoned commercial. He did add it might be wise to consider a banking facility in the Pr Zone for the future, but in this case he was in agreement with Mr. Curtis for denial. Mr. Mahoney remarked that from the bank's standpoint, he didn't think they would be too interested going into this site if the Pr Zone could be amended to include banking, due to the signing restrictions. He agrees with his fellow commissioners, in that he has seen nothing to make him feel this should be changed to C-1. Mr. Sharp stated he tends to agree; feel we are going at the problem incorrectly through a rezoning. Also, there are no precise plans and he is concerned about the traffic it might generate. It is for these feelings he would not favor rezoning. Motion to deny ZC-71-224 by adoption of Resolution No. 1209, was voted upon by roll call. MOTION CARRIED: 4-1 AYES: Larnard, Sharp, Mahoney, Curtis NOES: Edelstein OLD BUSINESS ITEM 1 APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLANS FOR 104-UNIT APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT (ZC-70-204) Location: Site fronts approximately 214 ft. on the west side of Williams Street and lies approximately 774 ft. north of the center line of McFadden. Applicant: Acacia Enterprises, Inc., on behalf of Mervin L. Bose. Mr. Brown read Staff Report to the Commission and asked for adoption of Resolution No. 1208 approving precise plans submitted. Mr. MaJ]oney reque.~%ted a few minutes recess in order for the Commis- sioners to review the City Engineer's report as well as the plans. PC 3/22/71 -4- PC Meeting 3/22/71 Mr. Larnard declared a recess at 8:30 p.m.; meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m. Mr. Larnard remarked that although this was not a public hearing, he noticed the applicant and his representative were present, and he felt it appropriate to ask them for any comments. Mr. Gared Smith, Newport Beach, the architect and agent for the ap- plicant, stated this property had previously been before the Commission. and is a difficult piece of property. However, they have a different solution with a lower density, lower coverage and good circulation. Mr. Larnard asked if Mr. Smith had read the Staff REport as well as the City Engineer's report. Mr, Smith replied he had read the reports and all the requirements are acceptable to them. Mr. Curtis inquired of Staff if they had any specific information or experience with the one day nursery that has been approved by a Use Permit in an apartment complex. Mr. Fleagle answered that day nurseries are subject to requirements of a Use Permit; however, there is within the Zoning Ordinance specific criteria for day nurseries as to parking facilities and other develop- ment standards which they were unable to meet, but the feeling was it was necessary to the development, and the Use Permit was approved. Mr. Curtis asked if Staff had any specific reports or any particular problems with this particular Use Permit. Mr. Fleagle stated, nothing that had not been anticipated, as it is interior oriented so that it does not get an exposure, and had to be signed in order to attract enough students to make it profitable. It also negates the amount of recreational area available to adult tenants. Any conversion that is not planned, has that possibility. Hence, the reason for suggesting if these plans are accepted for the purpose they were designed, the Co~mission would like to specify that they are looking at plans that do not include a nursery school at this time. There is a potential for a nursery school; they are looking at adjacent property for that purpose which would be very compatible but the developer is not in a position to acquire it at this time. The applicant is not requesting a nursery school at this time. We are making it a matter of record that a nursery school is not an ap- propriate addition under these plans. It is a matter of avoidinq problems we have had in the past and to let the applicant know the Commission's position. Mr. Curtis moved that the precise plans be approved by the formal adoption of Resolution No. 1208; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. Mr. Fleagle stated, for clarity's sake, would like to identify the City Engineer's report as Exhibit "C" for Resolution No.1208, coverinq the street improvements, as stipulated by the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 ITEM 2 - POOL }~LL DEFINITION - FOR~L FINDING #71-8 Mr. Fleagle stated that the Commission had discussed at the last PlanningCo~ission meeting Staff questions pertaining to pool hall definitions, their control and Use Permits. Upon research into the City Ordinances we find the City Council by Ordinance No. 13 identi- fied the control and permit procedure for pool and billiard parlors, as amended by Ordinance No. 357. These controls are within the sole jurisdiction of the License and Permit Board; however, the ordinance does not define a billiard parlor or pool hall. He suggested adoption of a Formal Finding, and that recommendation would be for the benefit of the License and Permit Board so they would have Commission guidance as to when they would require a permit and approval of the License and Permit Board. Formal Finding No. 71-8 was then read. PC 3/22/71 --5-- Mr. Larnard asked if there were ()ne, two or three pool tables, and a sign was put up, it would be a pool hall. If there were more than three, it would be a pool hall, whether a sign was put up or not. Mr. Fle. agle stated that would be his recommendation; if they have a sign up advertisinq "pool" to the public, even if there were only two tables, it becomes a pool hall. But, if they don't have a sign up, and have more than three tables, it is still a pool hall. It is an arbitrary decision, but one based upon what we could determine from other comparable ordinances. Mr. Curtis asked what if they just put up a sign "game room" and had three billiard tables and ten pin ball machines. Mr. Fleagle replied it would be an amusement center. Mr. Sharp moved to accept staff recommendations and adopt Formal Finding No. 71-8; seconded by Mr. Mahoney. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 ITEM 3 - PZ-71-125 - EDDY MEREDITt! Mr. Fleagle stated that the City Council at their last meeting in- structed the City Attorney to prepare the Ordinance for introduction at the next Council meeting approving the Pre-Zoning Application PZ-71-125 for the property of Mr. Meredith, at Prospect and 17th Street, subject to the conditions, it would be effective upon annexation, and subject to the submission of precise development plans. This action did overrule the Commission. The intent of the Council in acting upon this, was to avoid any delay in the de- termination and hearing process. By State Law the Commission has a 40-day time period to report back to the City Council on the actions taken by the Council overruling them. If there is no report back, then the action does become final. In the interest of expediting, the Commission could move to support and accept the findings made by the City Council at their March 15, 1971 meeting. Mr. Edelstein made a motion that the Commission accept the findings of the Council and moved we send them a communication affirming our support; seconded by Mr. Larnard. Mr. Sharp asked if the Council received essentially the package he had received in the mail, and if their decision was based on some- thing more complete than our decision. Mr. Fleagle replied that the Council had received more detailed information prior to their meeting, and evidently their decision was based on that information. Mr. Shar? asked if any of the Merediths attended the meeting, and i=~ a presentation was made; Mr. Fleaqle replied in the affirmative. Mr. Larn~rd stated that the Council did make a condition that precise plans be submitted to the Planning Commission at the time of develop- ment, further indicating they were aware of our concerns; did concur with Commission concerns as far as control standards on the develo~r~ent. ABOVE MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. 1 Developm_o. nt of Standards for Irvine I.and; south of Santa Ana Freeway, north of Ma~n l,ine of railroad and east of Brownin.g. Mr. ~ sta~ed that the City Council at their March 15, 1971 meeting voiced concern about the future development of land belonging PC 3/22/71 -6- to the Irvine Company east of Tustin Meadows. The Council wanted to make sure when that land was developed, be it within or without the City at the time of development, that it did not create future 'problems for the the City of Tustin, relating to the railroads, shifting yard, flight overpath and other noise factors. Council does not want to inherit problems. As a result of the Council's concern, he went to the Orange County Planning Department to determine what was pending, and found there are no development plans on file for the area west of X{arvard Road. Walnut East had been submitted as a tract area, but was later withdrawn. There is some possibility it would develop under prezoning and come into the City prior to development, but still probable it could be developed under County standards. It is Mr. Fleagle's opinion that it would be appropriate for the Commission to direct a communication to the Orange County Planning Commission indicating, regardless of which way or under whose juris- diction the property is developed, that it be jointly reviewed by both agencies to preclude any future problems and obtain the highest quality of development. Mr. Curtis asked why the property north of the freeway is not included. Mr. Fleagl~ replied that property is an agricultural preserve and improbable of immediate development, and if by chance it did develop, it would be so firmly established in Tustin's Sphere of Influence, the jurisdiction or responsibility ther%would cause no anxiety for approval of development plans. Mr. ~ahoney made a motion to authorize the Commission Chairman to direct a communication to the Orange County Planning Commission requesting a joint review of any future developments; seconded b~ Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 CORRESPONDENCE ITEM 1 COUNTY CASE - ZC-71-8 Zone Change from R-4 to R-2 located at San Juan and Farmington. ~. Fleagle informed the Commission that their Chairman had carried out their wishes by communicating with the Orange County Planning Commission on the above case, and the public hearing will be on April 13, 1971. Mr. Larnard stated that in his letter he had asked the County if further information was needed or if testimony could be presented, we would be happy to comply. He asked if any further communication had been received. Mr. Fleagle replied that no response was received. Mr. Larnard suggested it might be appropriate to discuss having a member of the Staff attend the hearing and further fortify our feeling in the matter, and look after the concerns of the City of Tustin. He did feel it would be to our advantage to have a member of the Staff present at the hearing. Mr. Fleagle advised that it would be arranged. PC 3/22/71 -7- ITEM 2 PAVING - HOLT AVE:~UE (County Area) In response to an inquiry by Commissioner :'~a!]oney at the last meeting, Mr. Fleagle stated that the City Engineer discussed this matter with the County Road Department and they indicated that in the near future some "featherinq" work would be done, but until a storm drain facility was installed at that spot, the street would not be fully paved. ITEM 3 DIVERSIFIED SHOPPING CENTER Mr. Fleagle reported that Paragraph 2-"1" of subject Use Permit stated "s~gns for individual tenants be located under the walking canopies or on the walls and shall be limited to an area of two square feet lineal foot of building or portion of the building frontage occupied by the tenant in which the main entrance to the business is located." For that development precise sign plans were submitted for the Alpha Beta Market and other tenants, which were approved and made a part of the agreement between the shopping center and their tenants. There were two exceptions to the plan, one being the bank on the southern end of the property (a separate building) and the Goodyear Store, on the north end. Goodyear desires permission to put a sign on the mansard roof over their drive-in bays. He requested an interpretation of the Commission's intention when they acted on this Use Permit in regard to the signing. Mr. Larnard stated that it was his intention, in approving Use Permit 69-286 that the signing be limited to the area under the canopy, either as a hanging sign or placed on the wall. A sign on the mansard roof would not meet this criteria. ACTION: It was the general consensus of the Commission that Paragraph 1, Section 2, of Resolution No. 1051 precluded a sign being placed on the mansard roof of the Goodyear Store and approval could be granted only by an amendment to the Use Permit. ITEM 4 Mr. Fleagle stated he had a report from the City Engineer, initiated by the City Coundil, requesting consideration be given to the exten- sion of Sixth Street, and he has furnished us with 15 alternatives for the alignment of Prospect and Sixth Street. The Commission was asked to review these alternatives that would appear on the agenda for April 12, 1971. ITEM 5 REDEVELOPMENT PI2t~ FOR DOWNTOWN AREA Mr. Fleaql~ stated that the Commissioners have received synopsis of testimony given at March 11, 1971 meeting and letter of com- ment from one of the property owners, who is proceeding to develop. Further comments and recommendations are expected from the Down- town Business Association. Authority was requested to advertise a public hearing for the E1 Camino Real Plan for April 12, 1971. Mr. Curtis moved we adopt a Minute Resolution instructing Staff to advertise a public hearing for Downtown Development Plan for April 12, 1971 meeting; seconded bt' Mr. Sharp. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PC 3/22/71 -8- PC Meeting 3/22/'7! ITEM 6 AMENDMENT TO SIGN ORDI?.;A~."CE Mr. Fleaqle stated that an amendment to the Sign Ordinance was discussed at the last meet[n(! of the Planning Conzmission, regardiD? the control of billboards, signing on vehicles, etc. Authority wa.~ requested to advertise a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Edelstein moved that we authorize Staff to advertise a public hearin~ for a Proposed Amendm¢;nt to the Sign Ordinance; seconded by Mr. Curtis. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 ITEM 7 Mr. Fleaqle reported there will be a joint meeting with the City Council on March 29, 1971 in the City Hall Conference Room. One item for discussion will be development standards, upon the ap- proval of application, Use Permit, Zone Change, and like matters, as to the policy of City Council on imposing restrictions. If any member of the Commission has any items for discussion for this upcoming meeting, please advise Staff so it can be put on the agenda. ITEM 8 VARIANCE 69-233 - John Roach and Jerome Stewart Mr. Fleaqle stated the Commission had granted Variance 69-233 to Mr. Roach and Mr. Stewart to construct an office building on the southwest corner of Main and E1 Camino Real. Variance was granted with conditions for approval of plans, set backs, parking, etc. It went through a second hearing, advertised and approved. When con- struction was to begin, developer found out about Fire Zone 1, and due to added construction costs, was unable to proceed. Now that Fire Zone 1 is to be lifted, developer is willing to go ahead. Question is, can Commission grant extension on subject variance. Opinion of City Attorney is requested. Mr. Rourke stated he did not feel we had any other alternative other than to publish for a new public hearing, since this is over two years old, and over one year past the date of expiration. New application will have to be filed and variance fee paid. COM_M I SS IO:< CONCERNS ~r. Edelstein asked if window signs on outside of windows were re- stricted to 30 days posting, tie noticed a Shell Service Station on corner of Laguna and Red Hill, that had window signs up for some time. Mr. Fleaqle replied there was a limitation of 30 days per quarter; no limitation if on inside of windows. Mr. Curtis asked if there was any more information on the possibility of the County Library going in with us in the Civic Center. Mr. Fleagle stated he had received a re~ort from County Librarian that they are going to proceed (,ither indeI)(~ndently or jointly to develop a branch library in Tustin. We are now awaiting a response from the Board of Supervisors to the Council Resolution requesting a joint proj(?ct. The County Library has an April 1973 deadline to be in new quarters. PC 3/22/71 -9- 4 Mr. Curti:, stttt~~ci t'~cit for thy` ]1cic~nd~~ fir tl~r March 29, 1971 joint-. meot_ind with Cllr. (.'.i t•; Council , he woulct like to hriv~~ the Council`s feelincFs on' thr. dc~::nto~:n~ c?~~vclc~nmrnt: nl.-n. T}1CrC' }JC'1nU rich flirt:}1('r }i11:;1.11!'~.`i to C?lSC:ilfiS 71 TT1c)t'.].On Wc"lS iTl•l(?f? }J',.' Mr. hiZhnnc~y to ac?jciurn; st:t:r~rc:~~c? k,y Mr. Curti ~.^ MOTIO?7 CARRII'.f?: 5-0. PLANNING CO~'it•IISSION CHAIRMAN PLAN~3IN COM.4IISSION RECORDIi:G SECRETARY 3/22/71