Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-22-71 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 1971 The regular meeting of the City of.Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 22nd day of February 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 b~ Commissioner Edelsteln. The Invocation was given by Commissioner Curtis. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Others Present: Larnard, Edelstein, Curtis, Sharp Mahoney James G. Rourke, City Attorney R. Kenneth Fleagle, Asst. CA - CommUnity Development Director Pat Brown, Assistant Planning Director Jean M. Smith, Planning Commission Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 8, 1971 Moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Curtis, that the minutes--of ~February 8, 19'71 me_etin~ be .a~prOved~. asi~s~bm~i_t_ted-~._ MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. ]. ZC-71-222 - PC INITIATED on behalf of Alexander E. Sandorf Zone C'hange requested for subject property from 100-C-2-10,000 (Central Commercial) District to R-3 (Multiple-Family) District. Location: Subject property located on the southeast side of Newport Avenue, approximately 990 ft. southwest of the center line of Irvine Boulevard with frontage of approximately 185 ft. and maximum depth of approximately 1240 ft. Mr. Brown read summation of Staff Report to Commission, indicating that subject property is presently zoned 100-C-2-10,000, but has been developed with a 92-unit apartment complex for several years, consequently the use and structures are non-conforming in status. Staff recommends approval of Zone Change 71-222 to the City Council by adoption of Resolution 1202 so as to accurately reflect these uses and structures of the property.. Mr. Larnard declared the public portion of the hearing open at ~':40 p.m. There being no comments from the audience, the public portion of the hearing was closed at 7:42 p.m. Mo~_by_ Mr. Curtis, seconded, by Mr. Edelstein that Resolution No.1202 be adopted, approv~n~ ZC~71~2~2. - ..... MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PC 2/22/71 PC Minutes - February 22, 1971 PUBLIC IlEARING NO. 2 ZC-71-°223 - PC INITIATED on behalf of County of Orange, Blanche Gris~t, and Robert Cl Muir, et al. Zone Change requested from 100-C-2-10,000 (Central Commercial) District to the Planned Community District (P-C-Commercial). Location: Subject properties are located on southeast side of Newport Avenue, approximately 530 feet southwest of the center line of Irvine Boulevard with a frontage of approximately 460 feet and maximum depth of ap- proximately 1270 feet. Mr. Brown: Read summation of Staff Report, stating it was the Staff's Recommendation that subject properties be rezoned, inasmuch as it is the desire of the City of Tustin to generate not only com- patible developments, but additionally those with the highest stan- dards of quality, and rezoning to Planned Community Commercial Dis- trict, subject to submission and approval of a Use Permit and spe- cific plans, would assure the city of these standards. Mr. Larnard declared the public portion of the hearing open at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Richard Griset, son of Blanche Griset, representing her. We are not necessarily for or against said rezoning at this point, Our property is behind most of the other property, and we do have an outlet to both Newport and Irvine Boulevard, but it would seem, it would be rather difficult to develop this property separately, as commercial. We have long felt it should be developed together as one property, for a large commercial center. Feel the Tustin area has need for a large commercial center, if it intends to compete with the large shopping centers coming in on our borders. We do go along with the thoughts of the planning director, it would make for a very fin~ joint operation for development, but do we have any assurance it would be developed in this way. We do not want the property to the front of ours so developed, that it would, in a sense, make ours "landlocked". Mr. Larnard declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:10 p.m. Mr. Larnard stated our action tonight would give the necessary tools to develop the proper~y into a good shopping area. Mr. Shar~ stated he can see where we can help coordinate the project, but it would have to also be arranged between the property owners. Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Sharp that Resolution No. 1203 be adopted approving Zone Change 71-223. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 Pu~IU H~A~±NG NO.- 3 -~ UP-71-358 - HAROLD A. LINDGREN, dba Bel Air Motel Request ~ut~rity to permit the use of 24 x 60 ft. mobile home as temporary motel and construction office with tem- porary living quarters for the manager, during construction of new motel facilities. Location: Approximately 150 ft. on south side of First Street and approximately 233 ft. on east side of "C" Street. Mr. Brown read Staff Report to CommiSsion with Staff recommending adoption of Resolution No. 1204 approving Use Permit 71-358, limiting to maximum of eight months or upon completion of construction, whichever is sooner. PC 2/22/71 -2- PC Minutes February 22, 1971 Mr. Larnard declared the public portion of hearing open at 8:20 p.m. There being no comments, from the audience, the public portion was closed at 8:21 p.m. ~ ,~... ~..-~... Moved by Mr. Edelstein, seconded by Mr. Curtis, to~appr6Ve UP-71-358 by adoption of Resolution No. 1204. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 4 PZ-71-125 - Eddy Meredith Request authority for Pre-zoning of approximately 8.9 acre parcel of lahd from Orange County E-4 (Small Estates) District to the City of Tustin P-C (Planned Community-Business Park) District. Location: Site fronts approximately 638 ft? on south side of Seventeenth Street and approximately 608 ft. on the east side of Prospect Avenue. Mr. Fleagle read Staff Report to Commission with recommendation that Planning Commission approve subject Pre-zoning request to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 1205. Presently there is no annexation action taking place on this pro- perty; it is not contiguous to the City of Tustin boundaries, and action would not be initiated for annexation until there were contiguous properties within the city limits, so at this point it is merely a preliminary indication of approval of a concept in the event it does become, at some future time, within the City of Tustin. In light of the recent pre-zoning of Planned Community Commercial annexation actions on the Enderle property, County rezoning of the Jones property, the Vandenberg property and the Commission's action on ~e opposite side of the street on the Bonner-Opp properties, it would appear that the applicant's request would be appropriate and a justifiable one, particularly where he indicates an intent to develop it as professional office buildings rather than strictly commercial complex. Property does abut single family subdivisions to the east and to the south, and development of this property for single family use would not be considered by the Staff as appro- priate with the Seventeenth Street primary arterial and Prospect Avenue as a secondary arterial located on the perimeters of the property. The thought in presenting this pre-zoning action, that under the Planned Community concept, the City could control the ultimate development of this property, and would have that oppor- tunity since it is the practise and policy of the Commission and Ordinance provides and requires submission and approval of a Use Permit plus specific plans. At this time there are no specific development plans, although there are concepts, and this proposal is that of a land use concept. Also read was a communication from the Orange County Planning Com- mission, with their recommendation that request for pre-zoning be denied, as they are opposed to encroachment of business easterly along Seventeenth Street, west of Prospect Avenue. I think from the.City standp(..int there is a greater guarantee of compatibility if developed within the City, under city zoning and use permit, than what would be~ developed under any other jurisdiction. Mr. SharR stated I wonder if the applicant has approached the County previously for a zone change on this property, or if this is the first time he is trying out a zone change proposal as a part of a future annexation. And, since we are not in the habit of trying to annex pieces of property which' are not connected to the City, wonder what the timing might be. PC 2/22/71 -~- PC Minutes February 22, 1971 J Mr. Larnard: It would appear that it would come to us at the time the property across the street were annexed, so there would be property contiguous to it within the City. Mr. Fleagle: Mr. French, who acquired options on ~he Vandenberg, Enderle and other properties, was in negotiation with Mr. Jones, adjoining property owner, which is adjacent to the Meredith Pro- perty, did drop the option with the intention he would pick it up again. If the option is again exercised, we could see immediate annexation proceedings. Mr. Jones does not want to annex to the City until he has a developer guarantee for his property. We are talking about a period of time that may run as long as a year, but I rather suspect it will be br6ught to a conclusion within a thre~, to six month period. Mr. Curtis: What would the time limit be on our action? Mr. Flea~le: Pre-zoning action is an indefinite action and valid until some action is taken by the Commission to revoke, rescind or amend. All this action states, is that should the property come within the City, it would be necessary that the property at that %ime have precise plans submitted and public hearing for use permit for authority to develop. Mr. Larnard: If it came into the City without this pre-zone action, it would come in as U-zoned with it or with county existing zoning. Mr. Larnard declared the public portion of the hearing open at 8:30 p.m. Mr. William G. Johnson, 17861 Arbolada, Tustin - my property backs on to Mr. Meredith's property, and as such, I have a great interest in what happens to that property. Previously it was an orange grove for many years, and incidentally, there have been numerous attempts through the Orange County Planning Commission to rezone this particula~ piece of property. Also, remember some time back when this particular area was up for incorporation into the City of Tustin. Speaking personally, and probably for a few of the people in the same area, the major reason we did not go into the City of Tustin at that time, was because the Planning Commission indi- cated to us they would probably rezone the property to something other than E-4. The previous comments I heard in connection with the fact this property is not suitable for E-4 development, I do not understand because the street on which I live, which would pro- bably be similar to what would be put in, in that particular strip, also exits directly on to Prospect. I see no reason why it would not be suitable for single family residences. Regardless of the fancy names you attach to this, talking about stores-office complex, I see no way at all this could possibly be construed as doing any- thing in the way of benefiting the property owners, other than Mr. Meredith. I, speaking personally again, would be definitely against it, and while, probably wouldn't be directly involved in a vote to bring it into the City of Tustin; if I were, I would certainly vote against it. Mr. Tom Lenhart, 13881 Dall Lane, Tustin - which is on the north side of Seventeenth Street, approximately one block east of property in question. I respresent the Foothill Homeowners Assocication, an organization of some 800 homeowners in the Tustin and North Tustin area. Our organization is opposed to the proposed pre-zoning. We feel this is an end run around the action taken by the County, and on previous action taken by this very Commission and by the City Council of Tustin. We have had your support and cooperation in the past and hope to have it in the future to maintain the integrity of this area. This is just another step in the creeping commercialism down Seventeenth Street. We hear all the stories about the property abutting Seventeenth St. cannot be developed for single family homes, yet almost directly across the street,just a few years ago they did successfully develop an area comparable in size. We feel this is spot zoning of the worst kind and feel the Greater Tustin General Plan is in jeopardy if the action is taken to approve this request. Gentle- men, we sincerely hope you will vote against this and help maintain our area as a residential, rural neighborhood. PC Minutes February 22, 1971 Mr. William W. Meade, 1410.1.[~OW~9~ Way, Tustin - back of my pro- perty adjoins the Meredith property; can't add much to what the two ~D~lemen ahead of me said, but I feel it is abso!u.tely neces- sary.~t we stop this creeping commercialism along Seventeenth St. It has started, and we were told it was going to stop permanently at Prospect. Now we find an attempt to go far beyond Prospect. I would like to make a comment on the report given on the buffering of the property. It is very difficult to get good buffering from commercial or business property against residential. We had pretty good buffering in a row of eucalyptus trees, for many years, which have subsequently been destroyed. It is hard to imagine much better buffering than that, but they have been removed. I agree with the other gentlemen, this should remain as a residential area; I also strongly feel any argument that the property becomes too valuable for putting residences on, is specious. The longer we wait, the more valuable it gets, and the stronger the argument; it is the waiting that is making us run. into this type of problem right now~ I know the property is being held purposely, and not developed primarily so it can become commercial, without regard for the citizens who"live in adjoining areas and those who are living further down on Seventeenth Street, and trying so hard to protect our rights. Mr. Manual DeLeon, 17811 Arbolada, Tustin - I would like to back 100% what has already been sald regarding the property in question. I would like to add a little bit more, however, as it is a field I am concerned with. I am a professor of Fine Arts at Cerritos Col- lege in Norwalk, member of the California Art Educators Assoc. and have attended several conferences based on environmental problems throughout the State, and in Mexico. I think if we were to look at the broad situation and consider, as Winston Riles, Supt. of State of California, has brought out recently, the problems at hand, environment, etc., and what we are doing to our neighborhoods, by this great i~fl~x of commercialization, typified by what is taking place on Seventeenth Street at the moment, we will see we are going in the wrong direction completely. Any property owner who originally pur'chased property in this area, East of Ralph's Market, will tell you they had been told, and had s~.en it in writing, that Seventeenth St. was to be maintained as a residential district. It is quite obvious, one way or another, commercialism has crept in. Two or three years ago, when I came into 'this area, I was told by two real estate companies that this ~as a residential area and would be maintained as such. ~Now I have found we have had to defend our 'right to live, on many occasions. Here in the City of Tustin, supposedly very well established area, we do not have a Parks and Recreation Commission, that I know of; there is no public park where children can play under supervision, unfortunately. I only cite this, because I feel any addition to commercialization is certainly going in the wrong direction at this time. Mr. Larnard: Mr. DeLeon, we do have a Parks & Recreation Commission and we do have a number of parks. We do hope to do more work in the area of parks and planning for parks. Dessa M. Schroeder, 13902 Dall Lane, Tustin - I am very much in- terested and concerned about the proposed pre-zoning. I feel it is ~ot in keeping with the Tustin Area General Plan which was drawn up,gI believe in 1968. At that time nothing was supposed to be put in east of the Newport Freeway. Unfortunately it was allowed to be done; and of course, the fault does lie with the City of Tustin, who allowed this; it was a mistake. Tustin is supposed to be the Bel Air of Orange County. Mr. Fleagle has pointed out this would be in keeping and compatible with the City of Tustin. I think more con- cern should be given to being compatible with the residents, and in keeping with their goals and needs. I think this is more vital; this should be what this Commission is concerned with; what is com- patible and needed by the residents, because the residents are the community and the community is Tustin. We, as residents, did not want to become annexed by Tustin, because we felt we would not be represented in the way we wanted. In other words, the Tustin Area General Plan has never been really adhered to; yet we spent all this money on the plan, and at every turn, you know it is the carrot in front of the rabbit; we have that rabbit in front of every vacant lot on Seventeenth Street and everyone keeps screaming the same old PC 2/22/71 '-5- PC Minutes February 22, 1971 Dessa M. Schorede'r (Continued) song that these other gentlemen have said, that Seventeenth St. cannot be developed as residential area. Yet on Mauve, there are $50,000 homes that have been developed there; residents are per- fectly happy there and resale is no problem, so it i.s really in- correct. I feel you people should not allow this pre-zoning to go on because it is again, this temptation of holding out for the better price and then it will open up all the lots on Seventeenth Street; to our corner, who is just sitting there waiting for the creeping to come up Seventeenth St. right up to Newport. Gentlemen please, consider the residents~and how we would like to see it developed, and I am sure you would too, if you were part of this area. Mrs. Lee Wagner: I fought a losing battle on the development of Seventeenth St. commercially in my area, but I am behind these people 100%. I feel there has to be some stopping place, and ~very time we reach a corner, they promise we are going to stop, but they don't seem to stop. My feeling is this, we do have homes, many private homes on Seventeenth Street, east of Prospect. I am with the gentleman from the Foothill Homeowners Assoc. and think that this is spot zoning, and when you pre-zone this corner, what are you going to do when you jump up a couple of blocks and another vacant piece of land. I am very interested in this area, as you know, and would like to see this commercialism stop at .the corner of Prospec.t and 17th on the west side. I don't know how far I will get with this plea, but I will try. Consider this in the sense that you can't continue up the street with a residence here and a business there; and that is what you will have by the time you get to Newport unless you go in and move all the houses. Let's put commercial on both sides of the street. If you want to do that, then go in and pay these people the price for their property and develop 17th Street all the way commercially.. We have run into this problem in the old downtown area,, as you know, with business and residences, but this started before we had any Planning Commission. I can see the reaso for that, but cannot understand the reason for what is happening on Seventeenth Street. At this stage I can see no reason for it to be happening on Seventeenth Street. Mr~ Larnard declared the public portion of the meeting closed at 9:05 p.m. Mr. Edelstein: This looks vaguely like another problem we have en- countered in the past, and I think at this point I would be in sympathy with the home owners. I am not saying that the Staff's recommendation doesn't have some merit, but I am not too familiar with all the pros and cons of this situation. I, for one, would be opposed to taring any action at this time on pre-zoning for this property. Mr. Sharp: I think I will have to go along with Mr. Edelstein until we have a physical connection between the proposed piece and our City. It seems to me it might be a little premature. I will have to go along with the Foothill Homeowners Assoc. regarding the creeping commercialism along Seventeenth St. and Prospect is as good a place as any to trench in once again. For that reason I would move that PZ-71-125 be denied. Mr. Edelstein: I will second the motion. Mr. Curtis: We might clear up a few other points before voting. T~u action to the west of this property known as Jones, Enderle property was approved by the County prior to any action by the City, other than some requests and some support to the Foothill Homeowners Assoc. in the County Workshop to try and get some barrier between residen- tial and commercial property. This property is in process of being brought into the City in the hope we can do the best possible for this area. PC 2/22/71 -6- PC Minutes February 22, 1971 Mr. Curtis: Since it was already approved as Commercial, we were lost~.~r as any action to turn it around; best thin~ ~e can hope to d~i~now, is to see that it is developed in the b~s~'~fner. Moved by Mr. Sharp that PZ-71-125 be denied; seconded by Mr. Edelstein. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 OLD BUSINESS Downtown Redevelopment Mr. Fleagle: Gave a synopsis of the entire program presented for the redevelopment of the downtown area, vicinity of E1 Camino Real and Main Street. Program is projected and proposed to avoid the City of Tustin ever reaching a point of "no return" -- now is the time to do something; to do something constructive and to do it with a concerted effort of the Planning Commission, City Council, Mer- chants, Downtown Businessmen's Assoc., the Chamber of Commerce, TNT Committee and all others who will join in to support this venture. First part of report is intended to show, that on the basis of economic analysis, a review of what has happened there, and what is likely to happen; shows that something on the part of the pro- perty owners and government of the City, is necessary to reverse the trend. Second part of the program is a proposed ordinance that would create a specific plan for the downtown commercial area. Mr. Larnard: Although this isn't a public hearing, perhaps Mrs. Wagner would like to add something as representative of the Down- town Businessmen's Association. Mrs. Lee Wagner: First, I would like to thank Mr. Fleagle for all his work on this project. It is the first time that the downtown business people have had anything concrete offered to them. First time we have really gone to any of the city bodies and had coopera- tion, and at this time I would like, and I am sure the rest of the people join with me, to say "thanks" and hopefully it will be the start of something new. I think whether this dream will ever come about, is what we have looked for and talked about for many years. Don't know how much we can do as a group, we will try to do our best. Mr. Greenwood: During the past couple of weeks Mr. Fleagle has talked with me about this report. I encouraged him to get it started as soon as possible. It is a plan everyone can tie in to, and the sooner we get it out to the various groups, the better. I think this is a wonderful plan, with incentives, and hope we can get it under way. Mr. John Roche: I too, would like to thank Mr. Fleagle; lot of work connected with this report; we are delighted with it. What we ~ant to know now, where do we go from here. What can we do to help get it off the ground. I am anxious to get started on my building. M~. Larnard: Would like to join in with the others in complimenting the Staff - a terrific job has been done putting this package to- gether. This certainly may not be the only approach, but it cer- tainly is a start, and a good start. We can all be proud of it. Mr. Fleagle: Mr. Greenwood had an artist draw up two concepts on two different properities showing what could be done, to the existing properties, following the suggested redevelopment theme. ~r. Curtis: Now long do you ~hink it would take to get a response from the other three agencies mentioned, so we can get some kind of a public hearing going. PC 2/22/71 -7- PC Minutes February 22, 1971 ~r.. Fleagle: It is conceivable within 30 days we would have the report back to us and to the City Council for their reaction and proposal. Mr. Larnard:' meeting? Is this going to be introduced at Friday morning's Mr. Fleagle: This will be introduced at the Friday morning's meeting, depending on the Commissions's action. Mr. Sharp: In reading the Staff's recommendation, it appears there are several things we can be doing simultaneously; one is, thee we get it rolling just as soon.as possible. Moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Edelstein, that Resolution No. 1206 contained in Appendix "B" of Downtown Commercial Area Plan be ~dopted. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 Mr. Larnard: As I understand the recommendations, we now have adopted unanimously the Resolution set forth and contained in Appendix "B" and it would appear we should take further action on Item 2, to get the packages to the various organizations as soon as possible. Moved by Mr. Curtis that we get plan of action to the three agencies ~equesting their recommendations and then we can plan on setting a public hearing, say about six weeks from now, having their responses back by then. Move seconded by Mr. Sharp. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 NEW BUSINESS 1) Pending Application Mr. Brown: Only. pending application is UP-71-359 from Frank Greink~ for a roof sign. CORRESPONDENCE 1) Tract 7332 - Andrews Development Co. - Widening of Irving Blvd. Mr. Fleagle: Read letter from Orange County Road Dept. along with comments from Tustin City Engineer. It is their opinion Commission was wrong, did not use the same judgement they would have used in dedication and improvement of Irvine Boulevard. I feel sure the Com- mission was aware of the ramifications of its decision. Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Edelstein~ to receive subject letter and file same. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 2) County Case - Zone Change from R-4 to R-2 (1500) (San Juan and Farmin¢) ton) . Mr. Fleagle: We have not received the letter or been advised, but I have seen notice of fact that zone change application has been made and scheduled for Orange County Planning Commission, for the proper' belonging to the Church of the Latter Day Sents located on San Juan and Farmington. It was the intent of our joint workshop session with the Orange County Planning Dept. that we would receive these requests in suf- ficient time for both the Commission and the Council to respond to them. PC 2/22/71 -8- PC Minutes February 22, 1971 Motion made by Mr. Curtis,"g'econd'ed by Mr. Sharp that we instruct the Cha~.rman to initiate correspondence as necessary, to reinforce this concern with the County, if necessary, before our next meeting. MOTI,ON CARRIED: 4-0 STAFF CONCERNS 1) Diversified Shoppiqg Centers Mr. F]eaqle: Copy of correspondence sent to Diversified Shopping Centers over continued violation, ignoring, skirting and harassment given to the City by one of tke tenants in the Shgpping Center, with the signing program. It was brought to the attention of the Shopping Center and they have rectified the problem; it no longer exists, as of today. Appropriate action at this point, I feel, would be to express our appreciation to the management of Diversified Shopping Centers for using their influence in cooperating with the City. Moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, to commend Diversified Shopping Centers for their assistance and cooperation with the city. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 COMMISSION CONCERNS None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Jean Adams, Saddleback Realty - The Chamber of Commerce TGIF Party is ak my office on E1 Camino Real on Friday evening from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. and I should like to invite each and everyone of you gentlemen to come visit us that evening. There being no. further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was moved by Mr. Edelstein, seconded by Mr. Sharp, that the meeting be adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ~LA/NING COMMIS~C~IAIRMAN NNING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY PC 2/22/71 KF/Js -9-