HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-13-70 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 13, 1970
The regular, meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission
was held on 'the 13th day of October, 1970, at the hour of
7:30 p.m. of said da~ i~' the Council Chambers, 275 South "C"
Street, Tustin, California.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner ~delstein.
The Invocation was given by Commissioner Curtis'.
ROLL CALL:
Present:
Absent:
Others
Present:
Edelstein, Curtis, Mahoney, Sharp, Larnard
None
James G. Rourke, City Attorney
R. Ker~neth Fleagle, Ass't. CA - City Administrator
Community Development Director
D. L. "Pat" Brown, Ass't. Planning Director
Zoning Administrator'
JeannineLindsey, Planning Commission Recording
Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
OF REGULAR MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 28, 1970
Moved by Mr. Mahgney, seconded by'Mr.. Sharp, that the minutes
of September 28, 1970, Re approved as submitted.
MOTION CARRIED 4-0
Commissioner Larnard abstained from voting due to his
absence at that meeting, September 28, 1970.
ZC-70-221 - ANDREWS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
The applicant requests a zone change from E-4 to
PR (Professional District) for the southerly
209.64 feet (4.4 acres) and PC-R-1 (Residential)
for the remaining 290 feet (6.7 acres).
Location:
A 11.12 acre parcel on the northerly side of Irvine
Boulevard between "B" Street and Prospect Avenue.
Mr. Fl~agle stated thak.the.property is presentlY occupied by
a residence surrounded'by an orange grove in the E-4 District.
The applicant proposes to develop two-story office buildings
on Irvine Boulevard frontage and to develop the remaining
portion of the property with single-story family residences.
The Development Preview Commission believes the Southerly 210
feet of subject parcel is feasible for professional office
building development, subject to review and approval of final
development plans. The northerly 290 feet was also considered
feasible for development under specific plans that would be reviewed
in detail by the Planning Commission and Development Preview
Commission. ,.
-1-
PC Minutes-10/13/70
Mr. FleaQle went on to say that if the zone change were to
receive approval o~ the Planning Commission and City Council,
a subdivision map would be required and development plans
would require approval of a Use Permit following public
hearing. The City Engineer has requested the following rec-
ommendations be adhered to:
1. Dedication of 15 feet of additional right-of-way for
Prospect Avenue and 30 feet for Irvine Boulevard in
accordance with the adopted Master Plan of Arterial
Highways and 30 feet for the easterly half of "B"
Street plus the standard "corner cutoff" at "B"
and at Prospect.
Dedication of right-of-way for interior streets in
accordance with the Council's policy concerning
dedication of minimum street rights-of-way of 60
feet on through streets and 56 feet on cul-de-sacs.
Installation of full street 'improvements on "B" Street,
Prospect, Irvine and all interior streets, including
curb and gutter, sidewalks, paving, cross gutters, and
underground conduit street Iighting to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
Installation of street trees in accordance with the
Master Street Tree Plan.
Se
Installation of storm drain facilities and inlets along
the Irvine Boulevard frontage.
Se
Installation of all utilities underground in all phases
of development.
Modify the existing drainage facilities and traffic
signals as necessary to conform with the development
of the propertY.
Mr. Fleagle further stated that the'primary objective at this
point is to determine the number of lots. There are 16 lots with
60 foot frontage on the north side. There are 17 lots on the
south side. The lots could be expanded by the reduction of one
lot that would still allow 60 foot frontage but may be sub-standard
in depth.
Mr. Curtis inquired about the street dedication of 120 foot width
being 20 feet wider than our current, dedication to the west.
Mr. Flea~le replied that the 120 feet is the standard for a major
arterial. The assumption is that 10 feet are taken from each
side of the centerline so that presently there are 50 feet
in the dedicated right-of-way. This would require an additional
10 feet making 60 feet from the centerline.
Mr. Mahoney inquired as to the request for an additional 10 feet
of depth on Irvine Boulevard coming off of the residential lots on
the south side of the street. Mr. Fleagle stated that was correct.
Chairman Larnard declared the public portion of the hearing open
at 7:40 p.m.
Mr. John Mandrell, 129 Cabrillo, Costa Mesa, with R. M. Galloway
and Associates, consultants for the applicants of this case, stated
that he felt he hoped the plans met with the satisfaction of the
homeowners and the Planning Commission. He further commented that
in the suggestion or recommendation by the City Engineer relating
to the street width, they would like to receive favorable approval
On the 56 foot ~gh%-Of-way.
-2-
PC Minutes-10/13/70
Mr. Walt Wands, 17692 Westbu.ry Lane, Tustin, stated tha't~'%he
homeowners in the area "~'
lkewould some type of assurance that
approval of the detailed plans is contigent upon the builder
meeting certain requirements such as treatment of trees in the
area, location and elevation of fences between adjacent properties
and the property satbacks.
· Mr. Jay Andrews, 6550 Caballero Boulevard, Buena Park, expressed
a desire for Mr. Wands, or a representative of the homeowners,
to be pre~ent at the Development Preview Commission meetings
also in th& event of the representative of the neighbors and himself
being in disagreemen~a on some point, that the majority vote
of the Development Preview Commission will be binding.
The public portion of the hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m. by
Chairman Larnard.
Mr. Curtis expressed concern as to the' 120 foot width on the
Irvine Boulevard property. ·
Mr. Flea$1e, through.the chair, stated that the City could ask
for the 'dedication of the right-of-way' at the time the property
is developed ~llowing the street improvement to be aligned
within the 100' foot right-of-way but permit no structure to
go in a setback line. ~owever, this would result in an additional
expense to the City at such time as the additional street width
was required.
Mr. Shar~ inquired as to proposed time schedule for development
of the overall project?
Mr. Andrews replied that they would start immediately on the
~esidential portion of the'property, would start construction
on approximately 20-25% of the professional. He further stated
that under present economic conditions, the professional buildings
would vary in character and would take from 2 to 3 years to
complete the project~ M£.. Andrews also pointed out that the
trees on the property,that they ~elt0could be maintained, would
be kept in tact. .
Moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that Resolution
No. 1185 be adopted recommendin~ a~proval of ZC-70-221, in accordance
with the plot ~lan as sUbmitted subject to:
Approval of a Use Permit for specific development
plans limiting height of single-family residences
to one-story structures.
2. Filing and approval of subdivision map.
Mr. Flea~le suggested that this approval might possibly include:
A 5~ foot right-of-way for the center street in
lieu of the 60 feet.
Approval ~f0%6 lots on the south side which would
allow 60 fo6t frontage in lieu of the 17 lots shown
with 57 foot frontage.
Mr. Mahone~ amended his motion to. include the 56 foot ri~ht-of-wa~
~or the center street, seconded b~ Mr. Edelstein.
10/13/70
-3-
PC Minutes-10/13/70
This motion was votgd by roll call:
AYES: Edelstein, Curtis, Sharp, Mahoney, Larnard
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED 5-~
NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. 1 - AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 4.14, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 of Ordinance No.
157 (Minimum Parking Space requirement
for Medical-Dental Professional
Development)
Mr. Brown stated that the present Zoning Ordinance has no
provisions for parking standards in regards to medical-dental
professional developments. Staff and the Development Preview
Commission have expressed concern over these standards. The
Development Preview Commission felt that a minimum of 6 parking
spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area would be
a recommended requirement. Mr. Brown. pointed out that the
Staff has surveyed 20 cities in the Orange County area which
indicated tha't 18 out of the 20 cities required 5 or more
spaces per 1,000 square feet, 90% of the total survey.
Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Edelstein that the Planning
Commission initiate on its own motion an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance for Sections' 4.14 (PR District), 4.7(C-1 District)~
· 4.8(C-2 District), 4.9(C'3 District), and 4.10(M bistrict) to
add the following pa~king requirement:
Medical-Dental Professional Uses:
Six (6) parking spaces
per 1,000 square feet
of gross floor area.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0
NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. 2 - AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 157,
Addition of Minimum on-site
landscaping requirements for
professional, commercial and
industrial developments, Section 5.29.
~r. Brown stated that the Development Preview Commission expressed
concern over there being no specifid standards in regards to
landscaping in the present Zoning Ordinance. Such minimum
requirements would be of assistance to architects, designers
and developers towards helping in their considerations for the
total design of any given project.
Mr. Curtis felt that some specific recommendations could be
made to give the Commissioners more information so they may
better analyze the proposed amendment.
Mr. Sharp stated tha~ the 'standards to be established would be
a minimum guideline for developers to follow.
Moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Mahone~, that recommendations
be developed by Staff and' forwarded to the Commissioners for
~urther study on the Amendment to Ordinance No. 157.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0
10/]
-4-
PC Minutes-10/13/70
CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 1 - SECOND AMENDMENT TO TIIE "TUSTIN
AREA GENERAL PLAN" - The Orange County
Planning Department.'
Location: Properties involved are located: approximately 40. acres
northeast of the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and
the Santa Ana Freeway, and, approximately 28 acres of
land located generally southeast of the intersection
of Red Hill Avenue and the Santa Ana F~eeway.
Mr. Brown stated that this proposal was generated by the Orange
County Planning Department feeling that the present. General Plan
does not indicate the development permitted under the present
zoning. He went on to say the primary problem common to both
areas is that of traffic circulation.
Mr. Curtis stated he felt the County is proposing to go against
what the people wanted and what the City wanted. He went on. to
say that they have already approved significant numbers of
'zoning changes to the area covered by low density and put in
· high density w~ere it was never intended and was not desired
by the City and the general public. Mr. Curtis'felt that we
should in no way encourage the County to continue expanding the
high density developments in areas that are detrimental to
the City and as a side note create traffic problems.
Mr. Sharp stated the one problem in the past dealings with the
County Planning Department was the timing of the meetings of
the Tustin Planning Commission'and. the Orange County Planning
Commission.
Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, that a minute
order be adopted, requesting staff to prepare a communication
to the County Planning Commission-supportin~ the recommendations
of ~he Commis§~0ners and tha~' a ~oin~ meeting be established
b~tween the two Pla~nin~jCommissions to discuss the TUstin Area
General Plan.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0
CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 2 - UP-69-303 - GERTRUDE HARRIS, ON BEHALF
OF BLANCHE WOLFE
Location .'
Site fronts 180 feet on' the southeast side of Newport.
Avenue approximately 15~ feet southwest of the centerline
of Irvine Boulevard and is further known as 13122
Newport Avenue.
Mr. Flea~le stated that a letter was received from Mrs. Harris
asking for a 90 day extension of her Use Permit which would allow
her time to clear the remaining inventory Of her business.
Moved by Mr. Shar~., s~cohded by Mr. C~r.tis~ that a minute order
be adopted a~prov~n~ a 90 day extension of UP-69-303 continent
~p~ City Coun6il action that might ~ossibl~ 'effect the disposition
of the structure.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0
10/13/70
-5-
PC Minutes-10/13/70
OTHER BUSINESS:
PENDING APPLICATIONS - For meeting of October 26, 1970
1. UP-70-353 - McKESSON CHF34ICAL COMPANY ON BEHALF OF
THE SANTA FE LAND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY
To permit an industrial development involving the
storage and handling of dangerous chemicals.
Location:
Site fronts approximately 468 fee~ on the
southwest side of Industrial Drive and
approximately 235 feet on the southeast
side of Woodlawn Avenue.
2. V-70-276 - FEDERAL SIGN & SIGNAL CORPORATION, ON
BEHALF OF ROBERT B. HORNE
To permit a roof sign in addition to a free-
standing sign on the same proper~y.
Location: ~Site fronts approximately 90 feet on the
southeast side of Newport Avenue,
approximately 240 feet northeast of the
centerline of Walnut Avenue.
3. V-70-275 - GENERAL MAINTENANCE, INC., ON BEHALF OF
ATLANTIC-RICHFIELD COMPANY
To permit a free-standing sign replacement with
maximum display area and height exceeding that
permitted by Code.
Location:
Site fronts approximately 140 feet on
the northeast side of Mitchell Avenue and
approximately 150 ~eet on the northwest
side of Red Hill Aven6e.
CONCERNS OF THE COMMISSIONERS:
Mr. Mahone~ expressed concern over carnivals taking up parking
spaces at various shopping centers. He asked if we had any control
over their occupancy of parking spaces, if not, would like the
Sfaff to look into this.
There being no further business to come before the Commission,
the meeting was adjourned to a workshop on Parcel Map -
PM-70-41 - R. R. AND B. J. KRUPPE. Location: South side of
Main Street, east
of Pacific at
440 West Main
-6-