Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-14-70 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 1970 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 14th day of December, 1970, at the hour of 7:40 p.m., of said day in the Council Chambers, 275 South #C" Street, Tustin, California. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sharp. The Invocation was. given by Commissioner 'Mahoney.' ROLL CALL: Present: Larnard, Edelstein, Curtis, Mahoney, Sharp Absent: None Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney R. Kenneth Fleagle, Ass't. City Administrator Community Development Dir Pat Brown, Ass't. Planning Director Zoning Administrator Carol L. Culve~, Planning Commission Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 23, 1970 Moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Curtis, that the minutes of November 23, 1970, be approved as corrected, sho~in~ the maker of motions in reference to UP-70-355. MOTION CARRIED 5-0 V-70-277 - UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA Authority is requested to erect a 90-foot high, 628-square foot display area free-staDding sign exceeding the maximum permitted height and display area for a given service station site. Location: Subject property is located at the southwest corner of Red Hill Avenue and Nisson Road and is zoned 100-C-l-10,0uu. Mr. Brown stated that the Staff would recommend that a continuance of two weeks be granted, until the next Planning Commission Meeting of December 28, 1970. This continuance was due to inclement weather conditions which, consequently, delayed a programmed "flagging" at the above-mentioned site. Moved..bY .Mr ,, Edel,qteinn. ~qor~ded .b~__MrJ_ _Eh.~rR__that _V3-..TQ~]7.7~_ be granted 1970. ' MOTION CARRIED 5-0 - ] - 17/~4/70 PC Minutes-December 14, 1970 PZ-70-123 - TREE HAVEN ASSOCIATE'S Authority to pre-zone the subject property from Orange County R-1 (Single-family Residential District - developed as a garden-type apartment by Use Variance) to the City of Tustin PC (Planned Community) District. Location: Subject property is an approximately 9.4 acre parcel of land with 92 dwelling units fronting approximately 677 feet on the east side of Yorba Street, and being approximately 250 feet north of the centerline of 17th Street. Mr. Fleagle stated that the owners of the property indicate they have filed for annexation of the property to the City of Tustin. He went on to say that at the present time, this is a medium-high-to-high density multi-family residential apartment complex. The intention of the owner is to eventually Convert it to a condominium status and, thus, have filed a Tract Map with the commission for subdivision. Mr. Fleagle further stated that, though this property would fit the classification' of a "Planned Community Residential District", in keeping with other developments and since it is already developed no changes are proposed in the'structure; thus, it would be in con- formance with other zoning to classify it as a "Planned Development District". It would be the recommendation of the Staff that the property be re-zoned to "Planned Development" accepting the develop- ment on the property as it now is. Mr. Fleagle further stated that the matter has been duly advertised for a public hearing at this time and place. Mr. Mahoney inquired what was meant when it was stated -- "The appli- cant has indicated that it is his desire to ultimately convert it to a condominium status". Is there going to be a change in ownership to individuals rather than. being under'one operation? Mr. Flea~le replied that it's ~he applicant's intent to divide the property and ownership, so that the people presently residing there would have the opportunity to buy their apartment, but that would not be a part of this action. Chairman Larnard declared th'e public portion of the meeting open at 7:50. Mr. Don Davis, c/o E. L. PEARSON & AS'SOCIATES, 1551 West Redondo Beach Boulevard, Gardena, appearing on behalf of TREE HAVEN ASSOCIATES, stated that the purposes of their application for Pre-Zoning were simply that TREE HAVEN ASSOCIATES purchased the property on the understanding of two factors: (1) That it was in the City of Tustin; and, (2) That it was in an RJ4 Zone. Mr. Davis went on to ~ay that after TREE HAVEN ASSOCIATES purchased the property and came to E.- L. 'Pearson & Associates,'Mr. Davis' office did an investigation and found that the two above-mentioned factors were not as originally stated -- It was not in the City of Tustin and also was not in an R-4 Zone. Mr. Davis further stated that the appli- cant desires very mu~h to be in the City of Tustin and, consequently, has filed an application with LAFCO for annexation purposes to this City, and feels that it is only proper, along with said annexation, to take the action to place it into a zone that is compatible with the construction in said site. ~ The purposes of TREE HAVEN purchasing it are for an investment to convert to a condominium-type ownership, - 2 - 12/14/70 PC Minutes-December 14, 1970 He further stated that the applicant has done considerable market research and finds that this is a desirable item. He went on to say that it would not ~nclude any further construction, but would merely be an air-space c~ndominium division of the property as it presently stands. Mr. Mahoney inquired as to when TREE HAVEN ASSOCIATES acquired the property in question? Mr. Davis replied this was done in March of 1970. Mr. Larnard closed the public portion of the hearing at 7:55. Mr. Edelstein brought up the fact that if this is going to be even- tually changed to a condominium, would this need to be brought up before the City in any manner for approval? Mr. Fleagle replied, that the subdivisiQn would be part of this, and in addition to this, would be the Report to the State Real Estate Commissioner before any lands could be sold. Moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Edelstein that Resolution No. 1195 be adopted recommending approval to the qi~y Council of PZ-70-123 fo.r subject property to the Planned Development District (PD) effective upon annexation. MOTION CARRIED 5-0 OLD BUSINESS - NONE NEW BUSINESS UP-69-319 - TIME EXTENSION - MOTEL (~.INDGREN) Authority for an extension of time for subject Use Permit. Location: Site fronts approximately 150 feet on the south side of First Street, approximately 231 feet on the east side of "C" Street, and approximately 50 feet on the west side of E1 Camino Real. Mr. Brown stated that the Use Permit was approved by the Planning Commission in November of 1969 to permit the modification of this existing 17-unit motel by expanding it to 46 units. He further stated that on November 24, 1970, the applicant submitted a letter to the Staff, indicating that up until that time, he was unable to obtain a loan commitment to take care of this expansion, but at the present time one has been obtained. Therefore, the Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission grant a Use Permit extension for a six-months' period of time in order to consummate this construction. Mr. Curtis stated that in yiew of the difficulties in arranging financing for certain types of real estate investments over the past year or so, he saw no reason to place an undue hardship upon the appl cant. Moved by M~. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Mahoney that an extension of six months be approved o~ uP-69-319. MOTION CARRIED 5-0 12/14/70 PC Mi~~December 14, 1970 PM-70-44 - C. S. SUDDABY Authority to create Parcel 2 for sale and future development. Location: Souther}y side of First Street, 300 feet easterly of Newport Avenue. Mr. Brown stated that this is a 2-1o% split of an existing lot. He further stated that Parcel 2 in question is presently proposed to be developed for an expansion of an existing medical center now located on Newport Avenue. Parcel 2, itself, fronts on Pirst Street just east of Newport Avenue. The recommended action by the City Engineer would be that the Planning Commission adopt a Minute Order approving this Parcel Map subject to the. following conditions: (1) Upon development of Parcel 2, the installation of an 8-foot sidewalk and-street.trees in accordance with the Master Street Tree Plan and the installation of one street light; and, (2) Final approval by the City 'Engineer and recordation of the map. Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that Parcel Map 70-44 be approved based on the c6nditions as recommended b~ the Staff. MOTION CARRIED 5-0 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 7332 - (Revised Map) - ANDREWS CONSTRUCTION CO. Location: North side of Irvine Boulevard between "B" Street and Prospect Avenue. Mr. Flea~le presented the City Engineer's Report recommending approval of said map subject to 'conditions.. Mr. Flea~le went on to say that the only question of dispute at this point would be the Irvine Boulevard frontage. Mr. Jay Andrews, 6550 Caballero Boulevard, Buena Park, stated that to set the street width on Irvine Boulevard at 60 feet would be an undue imposition on him, as there would be only the block between Prospect and "B" on Irvine Boulevard that would have a 60-foot width a% opposed to 50 feet. When the Planning Commission approved the Planned Unit Development, there was discussed the 10-foot setback of the office buildings which was:part of the bargaining in creating this Planned Unit Development which has substandard lots. Mr. Andrews stated that they would be willing to make a stipulation that all office buildings be set back 10 feet from Irvine Boulevard;'however, he didn't feel it would be proper to require him to set the street back an ad- ditional 10 feet as there is no plan approved by the City to require that Irvine Boulevard be an 12Q-foot street. Mr. Curtis pointed 'out a correction -- There is an approved plan adopted by the City which would require the additional 10 feet for a 60-foot distance from the centerline of Irvine Boulevard. Mr. Flea~l.e replied that all the right-of-way dedication, the width of the street, and the number of lots were requirements or stipula- tions of What would have to be considered in conjunction with approval of the Subdivision Map. Mr. Fleagle went on to say that now is the 12/14/70 PC Minutes-December 14, 1970 Mr. Andrews pointed out the item on the map that stated -- "possible future dedication". Mr. Fleag.le 'stated that he had discussed with the City Engineer possible alternatives to the improvement of the 60-foot right-of-way on Irvine Boulevard. To put it into a major arterial, the require- ment is that there be three travel lanes and that can be done with 50-foot right-of-way. If this property is improved to the 50-foot right-of-way (120-foot total right-of-way), the'City should require an easement for the additional 10 feet and establish a building setback line from that point. Then at such time as the street goes to three travel lanes, if the owner of the property wanted a parking lane, he would have to move the curb line to acquire that parking lane. All that would be done is improving it to the 50-foot right-of-way and requiring an easement for street purposes of an additional 10 feet to provide a parking lane at such time as is necessary. Mr. Flea~e stated.that the City Engineer.desires a 120mfoot right- of-way, three travel lanes and a parking lane, but takes no strong position in r~quiring it in this instance. Mr. Mahoney inquired as to what this would do to the building con- struction -- wouldn't it put it back an additional 10 feet from the other buildings on Irvine Boulevard? Mr. Fleagle replied that was true -- it would widen the exposure an additional 10 feet, which, he felt, was not bad. Mr. Larnard stated that improvement to a 60-foot right-of-way would tend to create some definite traffic hazard -- having the curb jut- ting out beyond the normal lanes of travel for a relatively short distance. Mr. Larnard cited as, a similar situation, in Santa Ana on First Street. He went on to say that they have had a number of bad traffic accidents there close, to the drive-in restaurant. It makes it necessary to put a lighted'barrier of some type or some reflectors on a barrier. Mr. Sharp said to go to three travel lanes with a 50-foot right-of- way, you would have to do away with the parking lane and have no parking at any time in that area. Mr. Curtis stated that he had no objections to the above proposal ~s discussed; however, he wondered i-f we should be asking for the 60-foot dedication as opposed to the 50-foot dedication. He went on to say that he agreed that the 50-foot dedication is more pref- erable to him than the 60~foot in the actual development, at ~his point, especially. Mr. Fleagle suggested that the condition could be changed to provi4e that: "A total of 60 feet of right-of-way could be provided for Irvine Boulevard frontage. The first 50 feet north of the centerline would be improved. The remaining 10 feet could be granted to the City'by easement or agreement to dedicate at such time as required. The building setback line should be established at 10 feet from the ultimate right-of-way li~e." 12/14/70 PC Minutes-December 14, 1970 Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Sharp that Tentative Tract Map 'No. 7332 be.approved subject t? the following conditions: The dedication of 30 feet of additional right-of-way to provid~ a total of 60 feet north of the centerline for Irvine Boulevard plus a standard corner cut-off at "B" and Prospect. Streets. This requirement specifies that Irvine Boulevard be improved to a width of 50 feet north of the centerline with the remaining 10 feet to be an easement or an agreement to dedicate, for street purposes at such future time as may be required, subject to approval of the City Attorney. Dedication of 56 feet right-of-way for Miller Drive and 30 feet of right-of,way for the east half of "B" Street as shown on.the tentative tract map~ Installation of full street improvements on "B" Street, Miller Drive, Irvine Boulevard (with exception of the 10 feet reserve for future rQadway), and Prospect Avenue including curb and gutter, sidewalk, paving, cross gutters and underground conduit street lighting, including annex- ation of the entire property to the Tustin Lighting District, all being constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Installation of street trees in all frontages in accordance with the Master Street Tree Plan to include local streets. Installation of storm drain facilities and inlets along the Irvine Boulevard frontage including the "B" Street intersection. Installation of all utilities underground in all phases of the. development. No additional overhead poles to be set within the property~ . . Modification of existing drainage facilities and traffic signals as necessary to conform with the development of the property. 8. Provide water system and public sewers to serve all lots. Those segments of existing irrigation lines conflicting with or endangered by any p~oposed construction shall be removed and relocated or collapsed and backfilled, or otherwise made to conform to the specifications of the City of Tustin Building Code or to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the irrigation line owner. 10. Minimum street grades within the Tract must be reviewed with and approved by the City Engineer. 11. Ail lots must meet minimum frontage and area requirements of the use p~rmit.' 12. Establishment of a building setback line 10 feet from the ultimate right-of-way line. MOTION CARRIED 5-0 12/14/70. - 6 - PC Minutes-December 14, 1970 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 4587 - TREE HAVEN ASSOCIATES Mr. Flea~le stated that this is to be a l-lot subdivision for the existing development. The intent of the developer is to divide the property further into a condominium by air rights and common use of the land. The recommendations of the City Engineer were presented. Mr. Flea~le suggested that Recommendation #5 be added to read as follows: "As a condition of approval of the final map that the terms and agreements as related to physical descriptions for transfer of individual ownership or acquisition of individual ownership of portions of the property be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission." Mr. Mahoney asked Mr. Davis if he was familiar with the conditions as outlined by the Staff? Mr. Davis stated that they did not receive a copy in the mail but Mr. Fleagle, Mr. Myers and he had discussed these matters at length, earlier, and stated that he was satisfied with the conditions as they presently stand. However, Mr. Davis commented that there was one additional condition that he wanted to propose. The Tentative Map that was presented shows the boundary of the tract going through the middle of the private street that goes to Seventeenth Street. He went on to say that they submitted this because the lands facing onto the private street, on either side of it, south of the boundary line, are in a separate ownership, and were not contemplated at that time to be annexed into the City of Tustin. He further stated that for that reason it was requested by LAFCO to leave that portion of the private street out of their annexation request. Mr. Davis commented that since that time, the lands to the south, the owners thereof, ha agreed to join TREE HAVEN in the annexation and we anticipate a total annexation to 'the City of ~ustin down to Seventeenth Street. For the above reason, he asked that'Condition #6 be placed on the Map stating that all lands within the ownership of TREE HAVEN ASSOCIATES be included within the border of the final tract. He stated that the reason he wanted this added is that at such time as they submit their final map to the County of Orange for final certification prior to recording, they would compare this to the Tentative Map. He further stated that he felt it only proper if all of these lands are in the City of Tustin to include them in the tract. Mr. Flea~le replied that that was a reasonable request and the Staff would endorse it. There can be no final approval of the final map until the property is annexed, so it would alleviate any question. Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Edelstein that.Tentative Tract Map No. 4587 be a~Rroved subject to the following conditions: Completion of the annexation to the City of Tustin by July. 1, 1971. ® Installation of adequate street lighting on the Yorba Street frontage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and annexation of the entire property to the Tustin Lighting District. e Installation of street trees on the Yorba Street frontage in accordance with the City's. Master Plan of Street Trees. Either revise the boundaries of the tract to include the 25 ft. flood control easement within the tract or the granting of fee ownership of this strip to the Flood Control District. PC Minutes-December 14 1970 .~.~.~., Se The terms, conditions and agreements for the transfer of ownership or interest in the whole or separate parcels of subject lot to be sub- mitted to the Planning Commission for their review and Approval (this refers only to the physical description of the property and not to any of the financial relations). e Ail lands within the subdivision within the City of Tustin are to be included within the tract. This would include the private street right-of-way serving the tract and connecting to 17th Street. MOTION CARRIED 5-0 STREET TREE VARIANCES Mr. Fleagle stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission recom- mended to the City Council that Street .Tree'Variances be under the authority of the Development Preview Commission. If it is necessary to amend Ordinance No. 439 by public hearing, he desired a Resolution of the Commission to advertise, subject to the City Attorney's opinion. Moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Mahoney that approval be granted to advertise an amendment to Ordinance #439, if deemed necessary by the City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED 5-0 OTHER BUSINESS PENDING APPLICATIONS for PC Meeting - 12/28/70 V-70-278 - LE D. NUTTER (BILL'S UNION'SERVICE STATION) Authority for temporary use of three, portable, automobile lifts. Location: Northwest side of Newport Avenue - east side of E1 Camino Real - northeast side of the Santa Ana Freeway on-ramp. UP-70-357 - UNITED CALIFORNIA BANK (UCB) - Drive-up Window Location: Southwest side of Irvine Boulevard, southeast of Newport Avenue (Tustin Heights Shopping Center) ~r. Brown stated that they are requesting an addition of a drive-up window. PZ-70-124 - SEVENTEENTH STREET - C. J. BONNER & WALTER H. OPP From Orange County RP District to City of Tustin PC (Planned Community) (Commer6ial Distr~ct). Location: Seventeenth Street Mr. Brown stated that this is a Pre-Zoning action "Planned Community District"·for the property just south of the TREE HAVEN apartment development. - 8 - 12/14/70 PC Minutes-December 14, 1970 AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - Temporary Uses Mr. Brown stated that this is for the issuance of Temporary Use Permits by the Planning Director. FRONT BUILDING SETBACK ADJUSTMENT LINES - FIRST STREET Mr. Fleagle suggested in regards to V-70-278, that the Commission, in the next two weeks, take an opportunity to see and observe porta e automobile grease service racks. He went on to say that these racks or hoists are put on a vacant lot or on a service station site for a "do-it-yourself" job. Mr. Fleagle suggested to the Commission that they see this in operation before they are in a position to make a determination as to whether or not they wish to grant a Use Permit. Mr. Larnard asked Mr. Fleagle to make available to the Commission pictures or diagrams of this apparatus. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Flea~le p~inted out that the Film Club of America came before th~ Development Preview Commission and when their plans were finally submitted, they showed their ad panels on it. The Development Preview Commission was aware of this, and directed that a letter be sent to the fact that when that was approved by the Development Preview Commis- sion, it did not include any advertising, other than that which was on the building parapet. Mr. Fleagle stated that in spite of this letter, all the side panels were covered with posters. It was at this point that Mr. Brown and Mr. Snyder went over to see them with the instructions that if those signs were not removed, it would be on the Planning Commission Agenda of December 14, 1970, for the purpose of the Commission initiating action to revoke their Use Permit for vio tion of the conditions. Consequently, the signs came off and it is not necessary to take action at ~his time. Mr. Cu~t-i~ stated that it would be appropriate for the Commission to ~n~tlate action to re- voke the Use Permit in the event of future violations of the permitted signing. Mr. Flea~le asked the Commission to adopt a Resolution to initiate a Pre-Zoning action for the property on Seventeenth Street, owned by C. J. BONNER and WALTER H. OPP, between the TREE I~VEN development and Seventeenth Street, to go from the County RP District to the City PC (Planned Community) (Commercial), prior to annexation. Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by ~wir. Edelstein, that a Minute Order be adopted to advertise PZ-70-124 as Planned Community (Commercial) District wi'thout endorsement of the proposal at this time. MOTION CARRIED 5-0 TEMPORARY USE PERMITS Mr. Flea~le stated that the City Attorney recommends that an amendment to Ordinance #157 for Temporary Use Permits be advertised, for publi~ hearing. Moved by Mr. Shar~, seconded by Curtis that.t~e ~a~r of Temporary Use' Permits be advertised .for ~ubliq~earing. · Mr. Flea~le asked to advertise for a public hearing for a building setback line for First Street as it is now on Irvine Boulevard. - 9 - PC Minutes-December 14, 1970 Moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Sharp that approval be granted to advertise for a public hearing for a 10-foot' building setback line for First Street.. MOTION CARRIED 5-0 Mr. Fleagle then brought up about the matter of abandoned service stations that was previously brought up at the last meeting. He went on to say that the Fire Department has notified that it's being processed under the Fire Code. Mr. Fleagle mentioned the Planning courses being offered at the. University of California at Irvine. Mr. Fleagle requested the Commission to consider the Sign Code rela- tive to Pr Zone, as to permitting a free-standing sign in addition to the wall sign. ., Mr. Sharp asked if the intent of the proposal was'to include a free- standing sign'which is perpendicular to the flow of traffic which can be used practically as an adjustable letter reader board of all of the occupants of the structure. His reaction is that this is not the least bit desirable and he wouldn't be interested in having any part of a positive motion. He went on to say that he felt these buildings are identified by their presence,.their good design and what the Commission has been able to accomplish. Mr. Mahoney stated that the building that is being referred to is in very good taste. He went on to say that it's only the name of. the building identifying the building in gold letters -- it's just · on the side and' that limiting the size to 12 square feet is, some- times, a real hardship. He stated that he would like to see some kind of a relationship b~tween t~e building, the size, and how that name is put on the building. Mr. Larnard polled the Commission to determine if a free-standing sign should be allowed in addition to the wall sign. AYES: Mr. Mahoney NOES: Mr. Edelstein, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Larnard, Mr. Sharp There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY /clc 1 -/14/?o