Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-28-70 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 1970 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 28th day of September, 1970, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. of said day in the Council Chambers, 275 South Street, Tustin, California. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Cpmm~ssioner Shar~. The Invocation was given by Commissioner Mghoney. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Others Present: Edelstein, Curtis, Mahoney, Sharp Larnard James G. Rourke, City Attorney R. Kenneth Fleagle, Ass't. CA-City Administrator Community Development Director D. L. "Pat" Brown, Ass't. Planning Director Zoning Administrator Jeannine'Lindsey, Planning Commission Recording Secret~ry APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1970 ' Moved by Mr. Mah~n~y., seco'nded 5~'Mr. Sharp, that the minutes · of September 14, 1970, be a~prov~ a~ .s~bmitted. MOTION CARRIED 4-0 ZC-70-216-COVINGTON BROTHERS, ON BEHALF OF MARVIN L. AND WANDA L. BOSE. Authority for a zone Change (ZC~70-216) of subject property from the PC-R-3(1750) (Planned Community Multiple Family Residential, 1750 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit) District to the PC-R-3(1350) District (Planned Community Multiple Residential, 1350 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit). Location: Site fronts approximately 214 feet on the west side of Williams Street and is located approximately 774 feet north of the centerline of McFadden Street. Mr. Flea~le stated t~at this application h~s been before the Planning Commission on four separate occasions to enable the applicants time to submit revised plans. He went on to say that another letter has been received from Covington Brothers requesting a further continuance to the October 26, 1970, Planning Commission meeting. The Development Preview Commission has' mentioned that several problem areas still exist, as far as the design and density are concerned. -1- 9/28/70 PC Minutes-September 28, 1970 Mr. Mahoney inquired as to whether any new revised plans were received by the Development Preview Commission since the September 14, 1970 Planning Commission meeting. Staff replied none had begn received. Moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that Resolution No. 1178 be adopted recommending denial to the City Council of ZC-70-216 with the further stipu, lation. that the matter could then be returned to. the Planning Commission by the City Council if the City Council a~rees with the action of the Planning Commission.' MOTION CARRIED 4-0 ZC-70-219-(R-'3 and R-1 to PC-C-2) - R. T. FRENCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ON BEHALF OF HARRIET O. ENDERLE Application has been filed to rezone from existing'R-3 and C-2 to PC-C-2 for that portion of the total area consisting of ± 10 acres easterly of Yorba for a distance of ~ 500 feet and commencing + 300 feet southerly ~f the south line of 17th St~eet~ Location: Property is located · 300 feet southeasterly of the intersection of 17th Street and Yorba ZC-70-220 - (R-1 to PC-R~3)-R. T. FRENCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ON BEHALF OF HARRIET O. ENDERLE Application is made for a zone change from R-1 to PC-R-3 for a 10.5 acre parcel adjacent to existing developed R-1 properties and proposed commercial developments. Location: Site fronts ± 355 feet on the east side of Yorba Street approximately 735·feet south of the centerline of l~th Street. ~Z-70-122 - (COUNTY AC-PA, AC-CN & AC-R-2) to Cit~ PC)- R. T. FRENCH DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF HARRIET O. ENDERLE To convert county approved zoning of AC-PA, AC-CN and AC-R-2 to appropriate city classification of PC (Planned Community) to be effective upon annexation to the City of Tustin. Location: Approximately 1731 feet on the south side of 17th Street, ± 506 feet on the west side of Prospect Avenue. Mr. Flea~le stated that discussion would be on all three of the ~rojects since' they are related and comprise a total of 43 acres of this proposed development. He went on to state that application ZC-70-220 has an increase in density for residential development. The surrounding area has high value single-family developments and the area would be a buffer zone between commercial and residential developments. The density of the proposed project is not as critical as the design factors. With reference to the application on ZC-70-219, Mr. Fleagle pointed out that concern had been expressed over the..design and physical layout of the project, as related to the whole development The application of PZ-70-122, as stated by by the Board of Supervisors of Orange County on March 11, 1970 by 9/28/70 -2- PC Minutes-September 28, 1970 Ordinance No. 2377 which authorized the construction of commercial and professional buildings. The applicants have granted consent for annexation upon completion of the development on or about October 1, 1971. Staff pointed out that it was the City's intent to assure the highest quality of development possible under the approved zoning and for the City to gain the sales tax advantages from the development being within the City. The Development Preview Commission reviewed this application at their September 16, 1970, meeting. It was their suggestion that th~ Development Preview Commission participate with the Architectural Review Board of Orange County, to assure compatibility of design and development standards, in the development of subject parcels. Mr. Fleagle presented the following development criteria to be used for the proposed development for that portion included under ZC-70-220: Height limitation of one-story structure (18 feet maximum) within 100 feet of the southerly property line adjacent to any property'zoned R-1 or E-4. o Density standard not to exceed one unit for each 2000 square feet of land area (21 units per acre). Installation of lighting directed away from adjacent residential developments. e Parking accommodations shall be provided at a ratio of two spaces for each dwelling unit and located at a distance not greater than 250 feet from the unit served. Project to be bordered by a 6'8" perimeter wall adjacent to any property line in a single-family residential district, wi~h 'said wall. to be constructed prior to the issuance of a permit fo~ any other structure. Perimeter landscaping in conjunction with perimeter wall to provide screening for adjacent residential developments. Land coverage of the total lot area shall be limited to not more than 50% for main and accessory building area, excluding recreational structures, driveways and parking areas. The remaining 50% shall be devoted to landscapiDg, lawn areas, recreational facilities, patios, and walkways. Coordination and approval of street system to serve the entire project and provide emergency vehicle access. 9. Project to be designed with interior lot orientation. The public portion of the hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. by Chairman Pro Tem Curtis. Mr. Robert T. French, 2172 Dupon~ Drive, Huntington Beach, stated that he took no exception to the Staff Report and was present for any questions the Commissioners might have. Mr. Jim Matthias, 14321 Wisteria Lane, Tustin, stated that the 57 homeowners in Enderle Gardens were unanimously against two story apartments in their area. He mentioned that copies of the survey were agailable to the Planning Commission and Mr. French if they so desired it. He further stated that they had no objection to the proposal and development criteria 9/28/70 -3- PC Minutes-September 28, 1970 Others opposing this application~.were: Mrs. Harry Wagner, 17331 Jacaranda, Tustin. Mr. IIarry Wa~ner, 17331 Jacaranda, Tustin. Mr. 'Saloman Shapiro~ 14222 Mimosa Lane, Tustin, inquired as to whether this hearing was a final decision or did the Council have final review of it? Chairman Curtis replied that this hearing would have a recommena~tion of approval or denial to b~ sent to the Council. Mr. John Watz, 105 El'Camino Re.a~, Tustin, expre§sed concern over the property, as shown.on the plot plan, being in the County and the amount of authority the City would have over County property if not annexed. The public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Curtis. Mr.. Flea~le, through the Chair, stated that the control of the colored section of the plot plan rests with the County. He went on to say that as a condition of the prezoning on . the basis tha~ it has been petitioned for annexation to the City, that the City of ~ustin has a moral right to participate in the development of it. Moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that Resolution No. 1179 be adopted recommendin~ approval to the Ci~ CoUncil of ZC~70-219 subject to the development criteria as recommended b~ Staff. ' The above motion was voted by roll call: AYES: Edelstein, Mahoney, sharp, Curtis NOES: None ABSENT: Larnard MOTION CARRIED 4-0 Moved by Mr. Sharp, sec6nded by Mr. Mahoney, that Resolution No. 1180 be adop{ed recommending approval to the City CoUncil of ZC-70-220 subject to the n~ne~conditions of development criteria as stated above and that the Cit~ Council reserves to itself the final authority for review and approval of any Use Permit applicable to subject property. ~oted by roll call: AYES: Sharp, Mahoney, Edelstein, Curtis NOES: None ABSENT:Larnard MOTION CARRIED 4-0 Moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that Resolution No. 1181 be adopted recommendin9 approval to the City Council of PZ-70-122 and that a communication be directed to Orange "County Board of Supe·r~fsor~ requestin9 authorization for the ' Development Preview Commission of the City of Tustin to participate in the review and approval' of ~esign plans with the Orange ''County Architectural Review Board subject to public review. The above motion was voted by roll call: AYES: Mahoney, Sharp, Edelstein, Curtis NOES: None ABSENT: Larnard MOTION CARRIED 4-0 9/28/70 -4- PC Minutes-September 28, 1970 V-70-273 - SUNSET BUILDERS, ON BEIIALF OF EDMUND C. GAULDEN AND JAMES A; PADOVA Authority to permit variances to establish a medical- office building with less than the minimum required side and rear yard structural setback. Location: Site fronts approximately 144 feet on the north side of Irvine Boulevard and approximately 94 feet on the west side of "B" Street. Mr. Brown stated that the property in question is zoned PR and is now undeveloped. The applicant's plans indicate a proposal to construct a 5,420 square foot medical-professional building. The proposed structure will have a zero foot setback on the rear property line adjacent to an elementary school playground and parking lot area, and a zero side yard setback to the west adjacent to a private drive on professionally developed property to the west. Mr. Brown further pointed out that 18 parking spaces, as required by Code, would be provided on the site. The Development Preview Commission at its September 23, 1970, meeting, reviewed this proposal and was concerned with the location of th~ parking lot area in the eastern portion of the property where it was visually exposed to vehicular traffic. The Development Preview Commission further suggested a 6'8" block wall should be erected along the north property line wherever the building itself did not abut that line. The City Engineer expressed concern over the drive access being on Irvine Boulevard. Mr. Myers stated that the applicant should be made aware of raised median islands in Irvine Boulevard, left turn access in and out of this driveway will not be possible. A letter of protest was received from C. M. Sexton, 325 West Fourth Street, Tustin, .stating that he would object strongly to any variance in side yard set-back abutting his property on the east side. Mr. Sharp inquired as to the hardship that exists to justify ~his Variance request. Hardships were defined as related to the size and shape of the property and alignment of street frontage. The public portion of the hearing was ~pened at 8:40 ~.m. C. M. Sexton, 1197 East First Street, Tustin, stated that he objected to the zero setback along the side yard setback. He went on to say that he has no objection to the rear yard setback. Mr. Sexton further stated that he strongly objected to removal of the wall for a common landscaped drive approach since he wanted to keep his parking private. Bob Gillman, 1786 West Lincoln, Anaheim, spoke on behalf of Sunset Builders, saying that the proposed structure would be of Spanish design andtbasically a single story building. He further pointed out that this plot plan is the one that the lending institution basically approved. Mr. Gillman stated that they preferred the Irvine access drive to that of "B" Street. Mr. Sharp inquired as to what the peculiar hardships would be to warrant a Variance. 9/28/7o -5- PC Minutes-September 28, 1970 Mr. Gillman replied that there was a problem of parking- coinciding lots together. He we~On to explain that the 5 foot in the rear is to be maintained for landscaping· He stated that the real hardship was that the lot was small, hard to handle-and put a building on and still come up with a nice looking approach to it. Mr. Edelstein inquired as to any financial difficulty being involved as far as the westerly setback is concerned. Mr. Gillman ~replied "no". The public portion of-the hearing was closed at ~:05 p.m. Moved ~ Mr. Mahoney, seconded ~y Mr. Edelstein, that Resolution No. 1182 be adopted approvin~ V-70~273 subject to: Compliance with the requirements of the Fire Code as stipulated by the Fire Chief. Installation of sidewalk and street trees on Irvine Boulevard, annexation to the T~stin Lighting District with the installation of one street light and underground condui% on the "B" Street frontage, and a maximum height of 3 feet withi~10 feet of the "B" Street property line on any wall constructed along the north property line if a drive access to "B" Street is provided in that area. e A minimum 5 foot structural setback being maintained along the front 40 feet of the west property line,. with said area to be adequately landscaped. Review and approval' of the final plans of development by the Development Preview Commission. It was noted that the location Of driveways would be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.... The above motion was vo~ed by roll call: AYES: Edelstein, Mahoney, Curtis NOES: Sharp ABSENT: Larnard MOTION CARRIED 3-1 ~-70-274 - LUCKY STORES, INc. - (uP-~0-352) Authority is requested to permit a 50 foot high, 520 square foot, free-standing sign exceeding the maximum Code permitted height and display area, and two wall signs for one business establishment. Location: Site fronts approximately 176 feet on the southeast side of Newport Avenue and approximately 308 feet on the northeast side of First Street. Mr. Brown stated that in conjunction with V-70-274, the applicants also sUbmitted a Use Permit (UP-70-352). The Variance request was to permit: A 50 foot high, 520 s~ua~e foot, double-faced display area, free-standing s~gn, to'be located in the approximate center of the Newport Avenue frontage. This free-standing. sign is also proposed to be a revolving one; consequently, UP-70-352 was also submitted in conjunction with this variance application for this same Planning Commission agenda. A 13 square foot "Liquor" wall sign to be located on the northern portion of ~the main structure wall, facing Newport Avenue, in addition to -6- PC Minutes-September 28, 1970 A 183 square foot "Lucky Discount Center" wall sign located in the approximate center of that same wall. Mr. Brown further stated that the Development Preview Commission had reviewed and as a. result of the large wall area of the structure and the small display area of the two wall signs involved that the request was warranted and recommended approval of this portion of the Variance application. The Development Preview Commission further stipulated that the Variances for the 50 foot height and the 520 square foot display area for the free-standing signs was not justified. Other signs presently existing in the vicinity are within Code perimeters. The Development Preview Commission also expressed concern about the revolving sign request feeling it was not justified and would only establish a precedent for future signing of this nature. Staff pointed out that a "flagging" demonstration was conducted on Friday, September 25, 1970, to determine what would be the most appropriate height for the sign. Mr. Brown stated that the applicants did not feel it necessary that the sign revolve, since it appeared in a stationary position, to have good visibility from both First and Newport Streets. The public portion of the hearing was opened at 9:30 p.m. Mr. Les Kranhold, 6565 Knott Avenue, Buena Park, represented Lucky Stores, Inc., and stated that they have reviewed the Staff Report and have decided that the revolving portion of the sign was not necessary and would withdraw the application for this particular portion. Mr. Jules Sherry, representin$ Q. R. S. Corporation, 1716 West ~ashi~gton Boulevard, Los ;%ngeles,.stated that there was a cleaner effect and more ~sthetically pleasing sign when it was higher owing to the fact that the Real Estate sign to the north and the Bank sign to the south constituted a trio that was blocking each other from almost every prospective. Mr. Sherry felt that there were substantial circumstances involved with the sign that he wished to consider: 1. Newport Avenue which is the principle frontage has corners cut out of the frontage for the real estate office and for the bank, consequently, the development of the site is relatively limited. In order to put a large development on the site, the buildings have to be set back so that the bu.ilding signs are not as effective as they would be with the bank or real estate office. Size and shape of the parcel justifying signs that would be visible. Mr. Ken Johnson, 1105' E~st First Street, Tustin, felt that there are established rules and regulations to a sign and they should be complied with. Mr. Peter Hollands, 13301 Charloma Drive, Tustin, expressed concern over one store b~ng iden~Yfied~ith' a'higher"sign, because of traffic, than another in the immediate area. 9/28/70 PC Min~m~September 28, 1970 Others opposing were: Mr. Charles Simon, 1171 East First Street, Tustin. Mrs. Dorothy Simon,. 1171 East First Street, Tustin. Mr. C. M. Sexton, 1197 East First Street, Tustin. · Mr. Robert J. Jacob',' 1121 East First Street, Tustln. Mr. Art Thom~sen, 12'25 East Fir'st Street, Tustin. The public portion of the hearing was closed at 10:00 p.m. Moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded b~ Mr. Edelstein, that Resolution No. 1183 be adopted approvin$ V-70-274 as it pertains to the two wall signs ("Liquor"and "LuCky Discount Center'') subject to: Review and approval of all signing for this shopping center by the Development Preview Commission and that v-70-274 be denied for such other deviations from the provisions of Ordinance No.438, Sign Ordinance, of the Tustin City Code. MOTION CARRIED 4-0 Moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. E~lstein, that Resolution No. 1184 be adopted den~in~ UP-70-'352 for a 'revolving si~n. MOTION CARRIED 4-0 A recess was declared at I0:05 p.m. at 10:10 p.m. The meeting was resumed NEW BUSINESS: PM-70-42-LARRY LECHMA~ To create Parcel one for development. Location: Southerly side of Laguna Road, 500 feet easterly of Newport Avenue. Mr. Flea~le stated that the proposed Parcel Map was a condition bf approval of Use Permit (UP-70-344~. There is a 12 foot easement to the east of the property which will be used as a driveway to service the car wash location. Moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that a minute Order be adopted approvin~ PM-70-42 subject to: Final approval by the City Engineer and recordation of the map. MOTION CARRIED 4-0 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OE%~NDERGROUNDING REQUIREMENT-DRIVE-IN CLEANERS- JOHN A. RICHARDSON Location: 15882 Pasadena Avenue Mr. Flea~le pointed out that this is the first such requested ~iver for a new construction~ The Building Official has no objection to the particular request. Mr. Fleagle went on to .~¥ ~hm~ ~hL~ ~ an ~4~ion ~o an &~il~ng ~hoppin~ cen~er. 9/28/70 -8- PC Minutes-September 28, 1970 Mr. John Richardson, 27 Blue Lagoon, LaQuna Beach, stated he has obtained an approximate bid as to what the cost would be for this undergrounding service. They had a firm bid of $1100.00. He stated this shopping center was started five years ago and ~t this time the poles are on private property in back of their alley. He felt that to finish out this shopping center, it was an unnecessary hardship to make this one structure go underground with the wiring. Moved by Mr. Edelstein, seconded by Mr. Sharp, that the Underground requirement for ~u~ect drive-in cleaners De approved subject to the underground work being d6ne"at the %kme an additional development is put in' that particular project. This ~s to be a matter of a covenant, which will b~ prepared by the City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED 3-1 AYES: Edelstein, Curtis, Sharp NOES: Mahoney ABSENT: Larnard ; COUNTY CASE ZC-69-46 - For rezoning from the R-1. "Single-Family Residential" District to the R-2(2200) "Group Dwellings" District. Location: The most southerly corner of Newport Avenue and La Colina Drive in the northeast Tustin area, approximately 1,650 feet northeast of the Tustin boundaries. Mr. Brown stated that this County Case was considered by the Orange County Planning Commission as a Use Variance to authorize the construction of a 64 unit two-story garden apartment complex. The present application is for a 50 unit development. The zone change would be in conflict with the general plan for the permitted density and would be in conflict with existing residential developments, especially for those properties on La Colina Drive. Moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that Staff send a letter of objection for..Count~ Case No. ZC-69-46, substantially a~ ~ecommended by Staff. MOTION CARRIED 4-0 Moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mrt Shar~ that the meetin~ ~e ~d~ourned t? Tuesday, October 13, 1970. MOTION CARRIED 4-0 There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. by Chairman Pro Tem ~urtis. ' PLANNING COMMISSION PRO TEM CHAIRMAN