Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-08-71 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 1971 The regular meeting of the City. of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 8th day of February 1971 at the hour of 7:30 p.m. of said day in the Council Chambers, 275 South "C" Street, ~ustin, California. The Pledge of Allegiance was given by Commissioner Curtis. The Invocation was given by Commissioner Mahoney. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Others Present: Larnard, Edelstein, Curtis, Mahoney, Sharp None 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 JANUARY 25, '1971 Moved by Mr. ~har~p, seconded by Mr. Curtis, that the minutes of January 25, lg71~e approved as submitted. MOTION CARRIED 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS No public hearings were scheduled. OLD BUSINESS UP-69-311 - SMITH PRINTERS (sign) Request for Time Extension Mr. Brown: Smith Printers in October 1969 applied for and received approval of UP-69-311 permitting a free standing sign 58'6" high, with total display area of 322 sq.ft. (166 sq.ft, each side), per Resolution No. 1111. Summation of Staff Report given by Mr. Brown to the Commission, indi- cating that a Drevious flagging had been conducted and the Commission had approved the request by a 7-0 vote. The time period has elapsed and the applicant was now requesting an extension for the Use Permit. Mr. ~elstein: Most of the commissioners here tonight were probably not ~ere at the time this particular sign was approved. I would like to review what the sign looks like and what the situation is before I make a determination on the request. Mr. Curtis: As I remember, two of the commissioners now present were present at the original flagging. To my way of thinking it was pre- viously established as to the appropriateness of the request. 2/8/71 -1- PC Minutes-2/8/71 Mr. Mahone¥: I would like to bring out I wasn't there at the par- ticular flagginq, but believe from reports, this is an unusual piece of property located in the middle of a complex, and. there is really no other outside identification they can obtain other than this sign. Mr. Sharp: Why is this a Use Permit rather than a Variance? Mr. Brown: Subject property and site is located within 200 ft. of a freeway, and therefore, follows special provision of the sign ordinance. Mr. Mahone¥: Approval was gran'ted for this sign on October 13, 1969 and now on February 8, 1971 a time extension is requested. Are we in our prerogative to grant an extension.with this many months beyond or would it possibly require a complete new hearing. Mr. Brown: The time limit for a use permit is normally 12 months. Technically, this request should have been submitted to your Body prior to October 13, 1970. I discussed this with Mr. Rourke, the City Attorney, and he seemed to feel the Commission has the authority to consider the time extension. Mr. Sharp: If we wish to rehear this, will the applicant be forced to pay a new filing fee and go through the process all over again? Mr. Brown: Yes, if you were to go back before public hearing again, the applicant would have to submit a new application and fee. Mr. Edelstein: I just don't know enough about this to sit here and make a judgement as to how we should reactivate the original action and approval, unless I can see some background tonight. Mr. Curtis: I do feel the Commission, by approving it unanimously before, and having participated in a flagging, with at least two of us involved in 'the flagging, I feel we do have sufficient background to take some action without having to go back and reflag and rehear this item. I would move we reinstate the Use Permit 69-311 subject to the conditions as noted by the Staff. Mr. Mahoney: S'econded Mr. Larnard: It has been moved and seconded to approve the extension of UP-69-311; is there any discussion? Mr. Mahoney: Is the applicant aware of these conditions of removing the existing sign and also that it will go before the Development Preview Commission for final approval? Mr. Joe Moore, Smith Printers & Lithographers, 424 W. 6th St.,Tustin - We would submit the plans to the Development Preview Commission, but the existing pole sign referred to was blown down by the Santa Ana winds. The same sign as originally submitted to the Commission will be erected. Mr. Edelstein: I notice applicant has some photographs and exhibits. Could we have them shown? Mr. Mo6re: I do have copi'es of the proposed sign that was approved previously. Due to tightness of money, etc. I really haven't pursue trying to erect the sign until now. (Exhibits were projected) Mr. Larnard: For sake of discussion, I was on the Commission at the time this Use Permit was originally heard by the Commission, did at- tend the flagging and I felt at that time it was justified and felt it was necessary, as indicated by the applicant. I still feel the same way and I agree with Mr. Curtis, I certainly have enough infor- mation to vote in favor of the motion we have before us. Any further discussion? 2/8/71 -2- ' PC Minutes'2/8/71 "' Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Mahoney_ to grant a six month tim~. extension from today's date for Use Permit 69-311 for a free standing siqn, subject to removal of any existin~ Dole sign on the s .i, te and final review by the Development Preview Commission. Above motion was voted on by roll call: AYES: Mahoney, Curtis, Larnard NOES: Sharp, Edelstein MOTION.CARRIED 3-2 OLD BUSINESS: Mr. Fleaqle: You have the report of the City Council's action of February 1, 1971 when they considered the zone changes for the pro- perty at 17th and Yorba. There were three separate ordinances under consideration: Nos. 486, 487 and 488. Nos. 486 and 487 were re- zoning actions to PC, C-2 and PC-R3, and the council insertion into that ordinance approving a special requirement for coordination and approval of specific ratios for building areas and open space for specific portions of the subject property and street systems to serve the entire project to provide emergency vehicle access. The amended condition means little unless you incorporate the councils' thoughts as stated in the minu~es of the council meeting. Synopsis of the Staff report read to the commission. To clarify the intent of the council in this instance, they said, when a use permit is submitted to the Planning Commission for a public hearing, they want to see a total development plan for the residential property. In that. total development plan they want the allocation of open space to the dwelling units and the density shown on that plan. They want the greatest amount of open space and least density in the project to be on the southerly property line and Yorba frontage. According to the developer this would be the first portion of the project that would be developed. They would start at Yorba and proceed easterly. When it is developed that way, they don't want a second developer coming in and saying I need the density of 1250 sq.ft, of land area per unit because my open space is included in the first project. Second developer would have to be put on notice that his open space, which is required for his parcel, is in accordance with the master plan of development. Ordinance 488 was a prezoning action initially, as considered by the Planning Commission and extending all the way to Prospect Street. The easterly six acres were deleted from that action and the rest of the property has been annexed to the City. There is a modifica- tion of the legal description of the property contained in Ordinance 488 It would be the recommendation of the Staff that the Planning Com- mision direct the Staff to report to the City Council that the Planning Commission concurs with the modifications to Ordinances 486, 487 and 488. The commission understands and will implement the desires of the City Council for a plan for the total density of the project with graduations in density from the southerly and Yorba frontage portions. Mm. Sharp; By the Staff recommendations, I assume this is not only proper, but they can handle it and help us implement as the City Council desires; and on that basis, I would so move the recommendation. Mr. Edelstein{ ~econded Mr. Larnard: It has been moved and seconded to recommend as outlined ky the Staff; is there any more discussion? Mr. Curtis: Does the' final approval rest wi~h the Council? Zl8171 PC Minutes 2/8/71 Mr. Fleaqle: The final approval does rest with the Council, but only on the basis of council initiated requests. Otherwise the jurisdiction will be with the Planning Commission, and assurance was given to the Council by the Staff that the coun6ils' concerns in this matter would be protected and brought to their attention in the event there is any deviation from the council's intention. Mr. Sharp: As £ understand it, and my motion was based on the fact that any one member of the council, if he finds our findings not to his particular liking, can initiate a review before the council. Mr. Larnard: Any further discu'ssion on this motion? Motion made by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Edelstein for the Staff to report to City Council that the Planning Commission concurs with the modifications to Ordinances 486, 487 and 488. MOTION CARRIED: Unanimous NEW BUSINESS Mr. Fleagle: Presented to you at this time is the first of the Annual Reports. Included within the report are the activities of the Commission, the department, the TNT related activities and the Development Preview Commission. Mr. Curtis: I wish to compliment the Staff; they have picked out all significant items, highlights and covered the past year's activities well. Mr. Mahoney: I would like to go along with Mr. Curtis; think the ~taff did an outstanding job; enjoyed reading it. Mr. Sharp: Looks like a very good job, and I go along with the others in complimenting the Staff. This is a Xerox copy we are looking at, and I do hope that, if budget permits, some sort of a cover, that is in keeping with the quality of the report itself, is put on, before forwarding to the COuncil. Mr. Curtis: Recommend we approve and forward the Annual Report to the City Council. Mr. Sharp: Seconded Mr. Larnard: Let me add my comments and compliment the Staff. certainly concur with everything that has been said. The Staff did a fine job. Any further discussion on this motiQn? Mr. Mahoney: Was there any plans by Staff to put on a different cover on this report? Mr. Fleagle: We would like to put the meport in a hard binder cover, but we share the City Councils' cost consciousness. However, we will prepare a limited number of copies for the Council in binder form. Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Sharp to approve and forward the 1970 Annual Report to the City Council. MOTION CARRIED: Unanimous PENDING APPLICATIONS ZC-71-222 and ZC-71-223 Mr. Brown: Pending applications encompass two zone change actions. ZC-71-222 pertains to properties where the old warehouses are lo- cated on Newport Avenue south of Irvine; they are to be removed. Commission has initiated action to rezone to PC from C2. 218171 -4- PC Minutes 2/8/71 ZC-71-223 is for the property immediately south of that area ex- ~ending on down to the Flood Control Channel, presently developed with ~partment-complex; and again'commission initia~ed action to rezone from C2 to R3. UP-71-358 - H. LINDGREN - MOTEL/TRAILER Motel located at s/e corner of "C" Street and First Street. They are presently undergoing modification and addition of several units. They have installed a 20 x 60 ft. double trailer, which is being utilized for dual purposes of ~emporary motel construction office .and living quarters for the manager during construction. PZ-71-125 - EDDY MEREDITH Covering property which is proposed eventually to be annexed to the City; presently is not contiguous to the city boundaries. However, the city does have the prerogative of prezoning, if so requested by the owner, Mr. Meredith in this case. Recommendation is from E4 to PC. Property is located on s/e corner of Prospect and 17th Street. CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Fleagle: A report from Parks & Recreation Dept. indicates sur- plus land of the Flood Control' District on Prospect Avenue, immediately north and south of Beneta Way. The Orange County Board of Super- visors will instruct their real property management office to ad- vertise this property for sale and take bids on it. The property is in the County, but within the ultimate area of the City of Tustin. There is nothing to preclude the County granting a building permit for that property. We feel the residents of the City would lose greatly if that portion immediate adjacent to the proposed city park site were to be sold off for a building site immediately south of Beneta Way; and' if we lose the strip north of Beneta Way we are losing a portion of open space that cannot again be recovered. If we were forced to go out and buy it, there is no way that I know of the City could do it, short of the bond issue. A 1970 amendment to the Act which created the Orange County Flood Control District states that Flood Control District has the authority to acquire property adjacent to their right of way for recreation purposes. It is suggested that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council petition the Orange County Board of Supervisors not to declare this land surplus, but to retain title to it and grant a lease to the City of Tustin to be maintained in open space and developed as funds permit. Any land which is acquired or disposed of for public purpose by the city requires a report from the Planning Commission. It would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to introduce a minute resolution.recommending to City Council that the Board of Supervisors be requested to retain ownership of the property and grant to the City of Tustin a lease for the property for open space or recreational use. The only expense to the city would be maintenance and development. Mr. Sharp: I agree the City is not in financial position to purchase the property, but would it be possible to budget the money to develop it, if a deal were consummated. Is it in the capital outlay budget or the operating budget? Mr. Fleagle: It is not a budgeted project. Mr. Sharp: Would it need to be a capital budget item or would the operating-budget handle the m%nor construction? ~r. Fleagle: I would assume ~hat the city would budget for the main- tenance of this site as the funds are available. I do not believe the City would want to spend any funds there until the property surrounding it was within the City Limits. 2/8/71 .--5-- PC Minutes 2/8/71 Mr. Larnard: What would it cost to lease this land until the time it was decided to develop? Mr. Fleag]e: It could be a token lease, The Flood~Control District and Board of Supervisors can, on their own, retain title and develop it for park purposes, however, this would be against 'the present policy of the Board of Supervisors, in that present policy is to develop only regional or county parks. Motion by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Curtis to adopt a minute re- solution rec'6mmending that the City Council petition the Board of Supervisors to retain title to the Flood Control District surplus property eas.t of Prospect adjacent to Beneta Way for open space and recreational purposes with said proper, ty to be leased for a token fee to the City of Tustin. MOTION CARRIED - Unanimous STAFF CONCERNS Downtown Redevelopment Mr. Flea~e: It was suggested in my report to you that the Commission adjourn to a workshop session to meet with interested p~operty owners and business men of the Central Business District. Mr. Larnard: I concur with this. Mr. Edelstein: I wonder if everyone present tonight was aware that a workshop was going to take place. Mrs. Lee Wagner, Lee's Lamps, E1 Camino Real & Main St., Tustin Evidently there has been a'lack of communication & understanding. The downtown area of Tustin (El Camino Real and Main St.) is suffering. My understanding was that tonight we would have a chance to speak to you about the changing of Fire Zones in our area from Zone 1 to Zone 2. It is imperative something be done. Mr. Ede'lstein: The group came to'night to discuss the change of fire zoning and I think we should go along with this and talk about this fire zone change. Also, I think we should determine whether people are for or against a zone change. Mr. Mahoney: hearing? Would a change of Fire Zone have to be at a public Mr. Fleagle: This would be a city council action requiring a public hearing. The Commission is not required to act on it. We are sug- gesting the Commission take an active role in assisting the Downtown Redevelopment and making a recommendation to the Council that they initiate hearings for that purpose. Mr. Larnard: Do you feel, Mr. Fleagle, that by going to the City Council with a request for a change in Fire Zone, you will be accomplishing what is needed. Mr. Fleagle: I think if you go to the council with a recommenda- tion to change to Fire Zone 2, you are going to have to defend that action and give reasons for the action. I think the best way to ju. tify that action is to say to the City Council we have a Redevelopm( Plan and Proposal for the Central Business District - this is a part of it, therefore, we want the city council to amend the fire zone to make this redevelopment program come into fruition. The first ques- tion that would come up, if the fire zone was changed, would be the parking accomodations on the small lots, which would force the pro- perty owners into a variance procedure, which is what I want to avoid as much as possible, and make it a matter of right to redevelop without going to public hearing on a variance as we have done in the past. You need a basis for making a recommendation to the city 2/8/71 -6- PC Minutes 2/8/71 council and that basis of recommendation would be a designed concept ~or redevelopment. Property owners and merchants of the Central Business District at- tending the workshop session made proposals and requested Commission assistance in redeveloping E1 Camino Real property, primarily by the removal of the restrictive requirements of Fire Zone 1. Mr. Edelstein: I think Mr. Fleagle has the right idea; can he give us a background as to what initiated the original change in the fire zones in the location in question, to Fire Zone 1. Mr. Flea~le: If you would like to separate issues and proposals and discuss just the fire zones, I will be happy to give the background at this time. Mr. Edelstein: Maybe after what you tell them, they might still want to go in the direction you are asking, or maybe they won't, but they ought to know the background. Mr. Curtis: Might be well to break for just a short workshop; sit down here in a little group and give some of the people who wish to speak, a chance to state which issues they have an interest in talking about. Mr. Larnard: Do I understand that to be a motion? Mr. Curtis: Yes, I suggest we have a small workshop session and then reconvene the meeting. Mr. Mahoney: I go along with Mr. Fleagle's feeling and I would be in favor'of submitting a package deal, at one time, not wanting to sub- mit a request for change in fire zone; then for a change in set backs and then parking. Go with a complete package, well formulated. Mr. Curtis: I go along with Mr. Mahoney except I don't feel it is necessary, at this time, to make final decisions on each and every item, such as a common theme. I think we can touch on them, and eventually finalize them, but just get it rolling now. Mr. Edelstein: In effort to give these people an opportunity to say what is on their minds, on these point, I will second Mr. Curtis' motion to have the workshop now. Motion by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Edelstein to adjourn to a workshop at this time, meeting to reconvened after session. MOTION CARRIED: Unanimous MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:45 p.m. for workshop session. WORKSHOP SESSION In attendance from downtown merchants were: John Watz, Lou Gerding, Mr. & Mrs. Tom Kelly, Jean Adams and employee, Mr. & Mrs. Wagner and John Roche. '~ ~ MEETING RECONVENED at 10:00 p.m. with all members present. Mr. Larnard: We will. entertain a motion at ~is time. Mr. Curtis: I move we direct the Staff to prepare a package re- garding the Downtown Redevelopment covering the six items we have discussed in some detail at the workshop tonight, with primary emphasis on the fire zone change for the first action and carrying on through with the recommended priority and plan of attack on the other items for our review at the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Sharp: Seconded 2/8/71 -7- PC Minutes 2/8/71 Mr. Mahone~: Is staff going to enumerate the different items, with change of fire zone as first requisite, then on to what you feel is the 2nd, etc. Mr. Larnard: They will give us their recommended priorities on the whole package. All details will be taken care of by Staff. Motion by Mr. Curtis, seconded b~ Mr. Sharp for the Staff to prepare Redevelopment Program for downtown area to be presented at next commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED: Unanimous CONCERNS OF THE COMMISSION None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was moved by Mr. Mahoney that the meeting be adjourned at 10:10 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN PLYING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY 2/8/71 -8-