Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-11-70 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING of the CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 11, 1970 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the llth day of May, 1970, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. of said day in the Council Chambers, 275 South "C" Street, Tustin, California. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Others Present: Edelstein, Curtis, Ludwig, Mahoney, Webster Halus - - arrived at 9:00 p.m. Larnard James G. Rourke, ~y Attorney R. Kenneth Fleagle, Ass't. City Administrator- Community Development Director D. L. "Pat" Brown, Ass't. Planning Director- Zoning Adminstrator Jeannine Lindsey, Planning Commission Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING APRIL 27, 1970 Moved b~ Mr. Mahone~, seconded b~ Mr. Curtis that. the minutes of April 27, 1970~ be a~roged as submitted. . V-70-267 - SANTIAGO COMMERCIAL BANK To permit the installation of two roof signs'in addition to an existing free-standing sign. Location: Property is located at the southeast corner of First Street and E1 Camino Real. Mr. Brown stated that subject property is presently zoned C-2-P. Plans submitted indicate the applicants propose to install two - 25 sq. ft. each, roof signs on either side of the artificial chimney structure projecting above the roof line of the bank. The signs would be installed within existing niches used for signing purposes by the previous'tenants (Shell Oil). The color scheme would be consistent with existing free-standing sign. The street dimension of this property would permit up to 300 sq. ft. of signing in addition to wall signs. The total area of the existing free-standing sign and the two proposed roof signs would be 210 feet, well within the maximum sign area permitted on the site. It was further stated by Mr. BroWn that a Use'Permit is normally required for roof signs in-'lieu 6f free-standing signs, however, in this case where they are asking for roof signs in addition to an existing sign, a Variance was necessary. The proposed signing was tastefully designed to blend with existing building and did not appear to present any undesir'able effects to the immediate area. -1- 5/11/70 PC Minutes.'- 5/11/70 The Development Preview Committee concurred with the opinion of the Staff and in addition stated that they felt the applicant was requesting a sign use enjoyed by the previous tenants. Chairman Webster opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:40 p. m. Mr. John Watz, President of Santiago Commercial Bank, stated that with the two drive-up facilities plus the building, there appear to be a stationary color. He also pointed out that the roof sign, was designed to blend in with the free-standing sign. He felt that the building would be "dressed-up" considerably 'without causing any adverse effect upon the building. Mr. Frank Greinke, 10~1 Lacuna Road, Tustin, President of the Tustin Chamber of Commerce, spoke on behalf of the Chamber, recommending approval of the proposed signs. Chairman Webster declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 7:50 p.m. Moved by Mr. Mg~oney, seconded ~y. Mr. Edelstein that Resolution No. 1157 be adopted approving application v-70-267 as follows: The Commission finds that the proposed installation of two free-standing signs is compatible with other permitted and existing uses in the area; would not have an adverse effect upon the adjoining properties; is bascially a request to replace previously permitted signs of the same size and in the same location. Chairman Webster stated that he felt the lighting on the site could be revised as so stated by the Development Preview Committee. Moved by Chairman Webster, seconded b~. Mr. Edelstein and made a part of the o~.i~inal' moti6n as an amendment that': The approval of this condition be a change of the lighting fixtures in accordance with the Development Preview Committee's recommendation and subject to their approval. The above amendment was voted by roll call: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Edelstein, Curtis, Ludwig, Mahoney, Webster None Larnard MOTION CARRIED 5-0 The full motion was then voted upon. MOTION CARRIED 5-0 UP-70-341 - PALOS VERDES PENINSULA TENNIS CLUB ON BEHALF OF RALPH SCHENCK. To establish a swim school and swim club. Location: Property is located on the west side of Elizabeth Street approximately 318' north of the centerline of Irvine Boulevard. Mr. Fleagle stated that this application was initially submitted by the applicant to comprise 50' of subject property to be developed in stages. He further pointed out that the matter has been re-advertised for a public hearing on May 25, 1970 for a complete development package. He.mentioned that the applicant would not present his case this evening. -2- PC Minutes - 5/11/70 Chairman Webster stated that uP-70-341 would be continued as re-advertised to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on May 25, 1970. ZC-70-212-ANDREWS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ON BEHALF OF FIRST WESTERN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY To request a zone change from E-4 to PR (Professional District) for the southerly. ~ 200' consisting of 4.4 acres and PC Residential for the remaining 6.7 acre northerly portion. Location: Approximately 970'feet on the north side of Irvine Boulevard, apprOximately 500' on the east side of north "B" street and ~ 500' on the west side of Prospect Avenue, generally described as a 11.2 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Irvine Boulevard and Prospect. M~5 Flea~le stated the property ~.s presently surrounded by an orange grove in the E-'4 District. Professional offices are located westerly and the northerly property line is bounded by the rear lots of ten (10) E-4 single, family residences. Schools adjoin the property at the eastern and western extremity. The application of the Andrews Development Company proposed to develop two-story office buildings on Irvine Boulevard frontage property and d~velop the remaining portion of the property with single-storY duplexes with a common recreation area. Mr. Fleagle pointed out that the development of the front 200' was not a matter of dispute and is considered a desirable attribute. He further reiterated that the proposal for the remaining property provides for 23 structures housing 46 duplex units on 6.7 acres. The net development would equal one unit for 3,000 sq. ft. with remainder of area to be in common use. Mr. Flea~le further stated tha~ the Development Preview Committee h~s reviewed the submitted plans and they felt that minor adjustments should be made: 1. Alignment of. the Southerly alleyway. 2. Location of buildings in relation to property lines. 3. Turning radius. 4. Garage approaches~~ It was stated by Mr. Fleagle that if the application is approved, the applicant would need to file a subdivision map as a condition of improvement. This map would be presented to the Planning Commission, City Council and the. Development Preview Committee for final approval by each body, Mr. Fleagle stated letters of protest were received from Ruth Sheridan, 14721 Evanston Circle, Tustin, and signed by Don Rhoades, Joyce Rhoades, John King and Sue Anne King, Alberta Hainsworth and Fred Hainsworth, 'E. Hammond and Arthur Hammond, Ann Crommett and Jeanette M. Bov~e; David E. King and Audrey J. King, and a letter of opposition, which was withdrawn by Raymond A. Mathewson and changed to endorsing~the proposal. Chairman Webster declared the public portion of the hearing open at 8:00 p.m. 5/11/70 -3- PC Minutes - 5/11/70 Robert Galloway, consulting engineer for the applicant presented the plan: Distance from the rear yard. The plan is for single-story and the separation from the rear lot line is about 30', so it is providing more privacy for the people. The developer is planning an adult community - a two-bedroom unit, single-story which should ~esolve the problem of school children in the area. 3. Individual ownership rather than rentals. The developer would like to have residents adjacent to the property sit in at the final meeting to raise questions on any of the plans. Chairman Webster declared a rec~s at 8:10 p.m. to review the sketches ~u6~i~ted by Mr. Galloway. The meeting was resumed at 8:20 p.m. Speaking in opposition were: Mr. Walter J. Wands, 17692 ~estbury Lane briefly spoke of his opp~siti6n of the walls, access roads, trees, and the density. Mr. James E. Crommett, 17662 We~tbur~ Lane. Mr. Jack P. Zahn~ 17592 WestbU~y Lane. Chairman Webster declared the public portion o~ the hearing closed at 8:'30 p.m. In response to a question from Commissioner Mahoney, Mr. Jay Andrews, the developer of subject proposed site, stated he felt that strictly PR zoning would create some very deep buildings and all parking lots. He felt that a transition of the property to a slightly higher density would be preferrable and preserve the integrity of the neighborhood rather than to go PR or huge office buildings. He suggested that the 200' immediately north of Irvine Boulevard should go PR and be compatible with the way Irvine is presently being developed. Moved by Mr. Mahone~, seconded ~y. Mr. Edelstein that Resolution No.' l~58'be adopted approving' ZC-70-21'~ ~'ub~ect to the following: Recommend to City Council the approval of ZC-70-212 in accordance with plot plan and design plans referenced and a part of this application with the requirement for the submission and approval of building plans concurrent with required subdivision map. A representative of the homeowners be given notice of all hearings and an opportunity to appear at any discussion concerning this development. This motion was voted on by roll call: AYES. NOES: ABSENT: Mahoney, Curtis, Edelstein, Webster Ludwig Larnard MOTION CARRIED 4-1 5111/7o =4= PC Minutes - 5/11/70 ZC-70-211-WILLIAM ZINK ~ ~ . Zone change from R-4(3000) t° PC-R-3 (1800) to authorize 111 deluxe apartment units to be constructed on a 4.75 acre parcel. Location: Property is located on the east side of Red Hill Avenue approximately 300' southeasterly of Mitchell Avenue. Mr. Flea~le stated that the plan~as originally submitted provided for"67 - one bedroom units; 27 - two bedroom units; 8 - three bedroom units and 9 - bachelor units. When considered by the City Council, the plans were changed to 48 - one bedroom units; 40 - two bedroom units; 8 - three bedroom units and 15 - bachelor units. The City Council was concerned with two significant items: Amount of Parking ~.201 parking places for 111 Units. The City Council thought it should be at least 2 parking spaces for each unit. e Density - The original plan provided for 1 unit for 1800 sq. ft. of land area for a density of 24 units per acre. Mr. Flea~e further stated that the City Council has returned this action to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to achieve: 1. Greater number of parking spaces recommended a 2 to 1 ratio. 2. Reduction in density. A Transcript of the City Council's hearing on May 4, 1970, was furnished to the Commission. It was further pointed out by Mr. Fleagle that the plans have been changed by Mr. Zink which reflect the number of units being reduced to 104. A 2 to 1 ratio of parking has been achieved by Mr. Zink. There are now: 8 - bachelor units; 48 - one bedroom units; 40 - two bedroom units; 8 - three bedroom units; - totaling 104 units with 21 units per acre.- Mr. William Zink explained his revised plans as submitted. They have reduced the size of the front building and reduced the landscaping. The density was brought down to 21+ to the acre. Mr. Zink stated that as far as the economics were concerned, he couldn't take any more units out and still build the project. Mr. Curtis was concerned with the loss of the green area rather t~nan any Parking spaces. He felt the increased parking was not justified. Chairman Webster stated that he was present at the Council meeting and that it was stated that in all PC applications in the future for multi-family residences, the Council will require 2 to 1 parking ratio even though there is no parking ordinance in the City that now requires such a parking ratio in any established zone. Chairman Webster further went on to say that this requirement in a PC situation may discourage the submission of plans under the PC criteria. 5/11/70 PC Minutes - 5/11/70 Mr. Mahoney stated that he thought the original presentation was an unusually well designed development. He went on to say that the parking facilities were laid out where it would be feasible for people to use them. Mr. Curtis stated that he preferred that the developer go back to the 201 parking spaces and keep the jog in the northern driveway and preserve more green space in the area. Moved..by Mr. Halus, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that the Commission recommend to the City Council the approval of application ZC-70-211 as previously consiJered by th'e City Council. The ~ior plan for 211 ~nits was more desirable than the revised plan for 104 units due to the better alignment of the northerly driveway, greater area of open space, and more desirable landscaping. It being further considered of greater importance to gain the amenities of design than the reduction in density. Mr. Flea~le pointed out that if the City Council were asked to approve a zone change from R-~ to R-3, they would have to have strong reasons to justify the action. There will have to be some benefit to the City since this parcel is surrounded by developments of lesser density. Mrs. Ludwig stated that she agreed with the Council and thought the parking regulations should be more stringent. She further pointed out that a lot of the green area was lost but primarily in the northern corner. She stated the corner could be changed.. Density and parking were the main problems voiced by Mrs. Ludwig. She mentioned her non-agreement with the Council that a 2 to 1 ratio of parking is needed. Mrs. Ludwig did feel that there was a need to upgrade the two bedroom and three bedroom units. The motion was voted on by roll call: AYES: Edelstein, Curtis, Halus NOES: Webster, Ludwig, Mahoney ABSENT: Larnard MOTION TIED 3-3 Moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Webster that the Planning commiss-i6n has r~viewed the ne~ plan as s'u~mitted by Mr. Zink - and recommends the a~proval with 6onsideration beihg given to the o~i~inal ~lan submitted for ill-units b~sed on: 1. New plan reducing the green area and development amenities. e Requirement for increased number of parking spaces beyond the number required by ordiance for any other district. The above motion was voted on by roll call: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Webster, Edelstein, Curtis, Halus, Mahoney Ludwig Larnard MOTION CARRIED 5-1 Mr. Fleagle brought to view the Goals and Objectives submitted by the TNT Committee. He stated that the City Council has referred that portion of the document applicable to the Planning Commission as designated in the report of the City Attorney. 5/11/70 -6- PC Minutes - 5/11/70 Mr. Halus felt that it was appropriate to begin scheduling the it6ms for public hearings. Chairman Webster directed the staff to set the Goals and Objectives for public hearings in their entirety. PENDING AGENDA MATTERS: The following items are pending applications to come before the Planning Commission on May 25, 1970. 1. UP-70-342 - ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY Location: Northeast corner 17th Street and Carroll Way. 2. UP-70-343 - SHELL OIL COMPANY Location: Northwest corner Red Hill and Laguna Road. Mr. Flea~le pointed out to the ~mmissioners a study was made on parking standards which will be going to the City Council on May 18, 1970. Chairman Webster noted that Mayor Coco arrived in the audience after the conclusion of the Zink hearing. Chairman Webster addressed a question to the Mayor on the suSject of whether he would like to have the Chairman represent the Planning Commission before the Council on the matter of the Zink Zone Change (ZC-70-211) Application. Mayor Coco came to the microphone in response to this question, stating that in the past, the Council has preferred to rely on complete minutes and staff clarification, and when necessary at rare intervals has called on a Planning Commission Chairman if he happened to be in the audience. Commission members may attend as citizens, if they wish. On being informed that the vote on Zink was not unanimous, the Mayor indicated that the Council would be interested in reading the minority view. This, in combination with the prior record of the Planning Commission action and reliance on staff for additional insight into Commission rationale, should be sufficient. Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mrs. Ludwig that the meetin~ be adjourned. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. There being no further business, to come before the Commission, Chairman Webster declared the meeting closed at 10:50 P.M.. PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY 5/11/70