Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-22-67MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 22, 1967 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALl, III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. PUBLIC ILEARII~IS The meeting was called to order at 7:37 P.M., by Chairman Marsters. Present: Cou~,issioners: Bacon, Brand, ltalus, Marsters, Sharp Ludwig, Oster Absent: Commissioners: None Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney James L. Supinger, Planning Director Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary It was moved by Mr. !harp~ seconded by Mr. Oster~ that the minutes of Hay 8th, 1967 meetin~ be aooroved as mailed. Motion carried. 1. ZC-67-154 - FRED DE IORIO Rezoning of lots 1 and 2 Tract No. 3994 from C-1 to R-3. Mr. Supin~er presented a brief staff report along with a map showing nine (9) possible Civic Center site locations that was requested by the Commission at the meeting of April 24th. He felt that it would not be advisable to approve the request at this time and hopefully Mr. De Iorio would withdraw his appli- cation at the present time and keep in close contact with the Planning Department staff on the progress of the studies. After a brief discussion among the Cuum, ission and a few questions Chairman Marsters stated that this was a closed hearing but started the continuation of the L.atter at 7:45 P.M. Mr. Oster asked the applicant, Mr. De Iorio if he would prefer to have the action d-cid-4 mmv, er would he like to have the hearing continued. Mr. De Iorio stated that he would like some kind of final action Mr. Oster felt that personally, the property is proper property for R-3 zoning and because there were various proposed locations around the City for a Civic Center, this should not prevent or preclude thom from rezoning property in the area. In his opinion, if they were to use this as a reason for not rezoning, half the pieces of property in Tustin could not be considered. Mr. Bacon opined that he did not see any damage done for rezonin$ this to R-3, even if the Civic Center was proposed for this area. It was moved by Mr. Bacon, seconded by Mr. Oster that Resolution No. 889 for ZC-67-154 be recommended to City Council for.approval of th~s propgrty to.be rezoned to R-3. ~r. Sbarp asked Mr. Supinger what that area was designated, as far as land usage is'concerned in the General Plan, for the benefit of the audience as well as himself. ~r..Supin~er explained that the staff is working on the Town Center Plan of which this parcel is a part, which will be completed within this year, but have not as yet come to the point where land use determinations have been made. At this point that precise parcel is undefined. He went on to say that the Town Center includes commercial, offices, apartments, etc., high density residential. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Ludwig, Sharp, Harsters, Halus, Bacon, Brand. lloes: None. Motion carried 7-0. .PC-Minutes, May 22, 1967 Page -2- 2. ZC-67-155 - HENRY L. HUNT To rezone a 50' X 200' parcel of land from 100 C-1 lQ,000 (Retail Commercial, 100 ft. frontage 10,000 sq. ft. lot area) District to C-1 (Retail Commercial) District. Mr. Supinser presented the staff report, reco~nending denial for subject application for the following reason: Subject development would be detrimental to the surrounding properties and would hinder the development of the total parcel of ~Match it is a part. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:55 P.M. Mr. Roy Hubbard,'attorney, stated that he could not see what is incom- patible or harmful about the pharmacy in this particular area on this parcel of property. He said that as far as he knew, there had been no other objections except for the Planning Director. He felt that the purpose of this proceeding was to promote, not interfere, with the development of the remainder of the property. He introduced Mr. Simkins and Mr. Hunt and stated that the Commission could direct questions to them if they so desired. Mr. Bob Gillman spoke in favor of the project stating that he was representing the doctors who they are presently developing the Medical Center. He felt that the plans on developing the pharmacy would blend real well with the Spanish architecture. He explained that the Medical Center would be to the north side which would back up to the gas station carrying it back approximately about 275 ft., and the balance then would be to.put in a small convalescent home following the same Spanish architecture fbr the whole place. Mr.. Simkins - Realtor - spoke in favor explaining the parking situation was sufficient and the ingress and egress would not be a problem and would meet with the requirements of the City. He stated that this would be approximately an $80,000 and possibly $100,000 project before it is completed. Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:04 P.M. Questions that were of concern to the Commission were - What would happen to the rest of the property, the parking and circulation that would be required, was it going to be a Joint ownership, were there plans for the traffic flow between the present Medical Center and the new proposed Medical Center. Messrs. Marsters, Sharp and Halus were concerned about the "piece-meal" type of development and felt that they would be assured of better plan- ning if they could see some sort of a schematic long range planning development plan for the area. In response to this Mr. Oster felt that the matter at hand was only for this one particular parcel and an oppor- tunity would come later to view and concentrate on the other pieces of property as they were brought before the Planning C~,~ission. He went on to say that he wanted it stated clearly, that he did not want to get cornered later in respect to the rest of the property and let everyone cry "hardship". He felt that this should be indicated in the motion. It was moved by Mr. pster, seconded by~r. Sharp that Resolution No. 890 for ZC-67-155 be reco,~,ended to City Co~gcil for_approval for the fol~owin~ reasons: 1. That the proposed rezoning conforms to the Tustin Area General Plan. The Conanission goes on record stating that it will not later consider as hardship justification for variances on the re- mainder of the property, that this 50' X 200' parcel has re- duced the ability to effectively utilize said remainder of the property l~3Minu~s o May 22, 1967 Page As additional ground~"th~'minutes and evidence introduced aC ch. hearing are included by reference and made a parc of the motion. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Bacon, Brand. Noes: Ludwig, Marsters, Halus. Motion carried 3. UP-67-232 - SERVICE STAT..ON AND EXCLUSIVE SHOPPING CENTER (Mr. Melvin McReynolds) To permit the construction of an exclusive shopping center totaling 5.08 acres bounded By N¢%.poz't, Main and Bryan. Said shopping center is to include: 1. A service station at th6 intersection of Newport Avenue and l~ain and 2. Exclusive stores and shops on the remainder of the property, Mr. SupinKer presented a detailed staff report recuu~,,ending that the application be continued to the June 12th meeting to permit revision of plans, that the Planning Department had received late in the afC,r- noon and had been unable to analyze them. He pointed out that other items for the Com,%ission's consideration are: Six parking spaces shown are 8' X 18', City minimum is 9'X20'. This will probably require adjusting the adjacent driveway access. 2. Driveway between station and shopping center is not shown on service station plot plan. Maximum width would be 20 ft. 3. Since the service station is part of a complex, a service station pole sign is not permitted. 4. Proposed building would be of the style of the Gulf station located at Newport and McFadden. In the staff's opinion, a Use Permit for another service station in the subject location would not be in ch, interests of the residents of Tustin. It was recor.._mended that the service station request be denied. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the h~arin§ ac 8:15 P.M. Mr. Ed Golka, 17772 Whitney Drive, Santa Ana- Developer - stated why he felt this particular project is a unique function and suited for this area. He gave a brief description of the buildings and their uses. He felt that basically the entire development of the project hinges on this corner and ties in with the service station. Mr. Robert Jones - Designer - c~,m,ented that a new plot plan has been submitted to the Planning Department since they have received the staff report from Mr. Supinger. On the new proposed plan, he pointed out that changes had been made and all City standards have been complied with, including the Fire Department recommendations. Mr. Fred Westover - representing Gulf Oil - expressed his feeling on reversing the service station to face the interior of the Shopping Center rather that the street, as suggested by the Orange County Planning Department. He'said this had been encountered before and had not been successful, and did not feel it was feasible for this particular project. PC Minutes - May 22, 1967 Page -4- Mr. Schle~el, Santa Aha attorney, residing in Tustin, exHlalning the development plans for the entire area, stated that a commercial use on a co~nercial corner should be no more subject to a Conditional Use Permit, because it is a service station, than anything else. He felt he could not estimate a final completion date for the project, but all other available information had been submitted for the Planning Colm¥~ission's review upon request. He stated that they are asking for approval of the total plan, but it would entail the building of the service station first. He also mentioned that they were perfectly agreeable to meet With the staff and comply with all of the technical parking requirements and seek a variance relative to the proposed wall. Mr. Malkowski, 3737 Roberts Drive, Orange - speaking in behalf of his father-in-law, did not want to go on record opposing or in favor of the project, but wanted to know the location of the entrance and exit onto Bryan Street and where the fence would be built in connection with the project. He felt that it would be advan=ageous to the City to consider this very carefully as a part of the overall community project. Mr. Hickoxt l182.Letty Lgne, Tu~tiq, opposing the application, stated that the back of his house faces the property and could not foresee a drive-in cleaning plant on such an intersection. He opined that it would not be very picturesque and that a bar and restaurant would create more traffic that was not needed. Mr. Federwisch - owner of apartment houses at 13631 and 13647 Estro Circle - was neither for or against the project, but wanted to point out the water and drainage problem that should be taken into consideration on that particular corner. (He later stated, during the 5 minute recess, that he was in favor of it.) Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:50 P.M., calling a five (5) minute recess so the public and Couu~,ission could view the display of sketches and drawings of the Shopping Center submitted by the applicant. Chairman Marsters called the Planning Commission back to order at 9:05 P.M. The Commission complimented and commended the applicant a~d others involved with the project for their approach to this particular problem and the consideration that they are taking complying to City standards. There were mixed feelings among the Commission relative to permitting another gas station on Newport Blvd. Mr. Halus opined that Newport was becoming "service station way." Mr. Oster felt that if a Use Permit is complied with, that a service station should go in any location that is believed to be a proper location for one. He stated that if he voted in favor of the station, he would make a condition that street improvements would be for the entire parcel. Mr. Brand concurred and asked the applicant what would be the feasible timing of the second phase. He considered this to be a very important factor in the program. Mr. Halus felt that because of soma of the new various approaches that came before them during the meeting, it would be in order to postpone a decision, but felt that the applicant was entitled to some ground- rules or guidelines and thought that the Couu,isston could best serve its purpose by giving the applicant a feeling of their various concerns. Mr. Sharp directed several questions, primarily economic ones, to the applicant. M~. Bacon felt the same as the other cc,,.,issioners on the project being a favorable plan and stated that this was the only project that had come forward with any kind of plan for this parcel. It was moved by M~. Bacon~ seconded by.Mr. Ralus,. thag ghis application UP-67-232 be continued ;o the ne~t, Negular scheduled Plan~lrt~ C_o~nission meetinK of June 12th. .PC Minutes - }lay 22, 1967 Page -5- Mr. Charles Schlegel stated that they would like to prepare a small brochure outlining just how they intend to lease, who the prospective lessees are and get the information together and present to the Com- mision at a deferred hearing. He opined that the technical questions could be ironed out with the staff regarding parking requirements and various other data concerned with the staff and architect. They would clarify their position with the County of Orange, then they would sub- mit a package in getting the first and second phase operations of prospective lessees and their time schedule contemplation of the development. The Commission felt ~hat they would like to see keyed to the site plan of the street improvements, total street improvements in the first phase and would like to see keyed to the site plan which capital improvements are intended for the first phase and which are to be com- pleted in subsequent phases. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes Oster, Ludwig, Sharp, Halus, Bacon, Brand, Marsters. Noes: None. Motion carried 7-0 OLD BUSINESS PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 157 RELATIVE TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Mr. Supin~er presented the latest draft of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and pointed out the changes that have been made. The easement for maintenance purposes would have a width of 3 ft., if an easement for maintenance pruposes is not obtained, the minimum side and rear setback for the accessory be 3 ft. Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Supinger have discussed the proposal and Mr. Greenwood feels that one ft., is all that is necessary, Mr. Suptnger's belief is that 3 ft., is necessary. It was moved by. Mr. Qster, seconded by Mr. Halus that a public hearinK is scheduled for the proposed amendment of Zoning Ordinance No. 157, relative to Accessory Structures and requested that the Planning Staff afford Mr. Greenwood an ppportunity to review ~be propqs~d ordinance prior to the meeting and requests that he give us any comments since he has an interest in this matter. The above motion was carried unanimously - 7-0. VI. NEW BUSINESS None VII. COP, RES - PONDENCE 1. COUNTY CASE UV-5893 - ROLLING HILLS, RANCH INC. To permit the continued use of a temporary real estate sales office and 12 temporary signs in connection therewith for a period of 2 years in the R4-4000 Suburban Residential Planned Development District. ~r. SupinRer presented the staff report stating that, although the two large signs greatly exceed the size of our Ordinance, it is rec- ommended that their use be permitted for one year to help the sales program. He stated that it is rec~m,~nded that the 3' X 3' signs adjacent to the roadways be removed. Mr. A. Wa~nor - representing the owners of Tustin Greens stated that he felt that they had attempted to keep the project in good condition and keep the smaller signs spaced and painted so they would not be offensive. He appealed to the Con~ission stating that without signs they could not draw prospective buyers. After a brief discussion among the C~,issioners and the staff, It was moved by Mr. Bacon, seconded by Mr. Brand that a letter be written to the OranKe County PlanninK Department voicin~ no 9bJection to ~V-5~93 for the temproary sikhs for one year. Minutes - May 22, 1967 Page -6- Mr. Halus opined that he felt whenever we have an opportunity, we should strive to bring signs that are contiguous to the City, to meet the same standards that we strive for within the City. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Ludwig, Sharp, Bacon, Brand, Marsters. Noes: Halus. Motion carried 6-1. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS None IX. ~JO~N- It was moved by Mr. Bacon, seco'nded by Mr. Sharp, that.the meeting be ad.iourned. Motion carried unanimously There being no other business before the Planning Com,,ission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M. SE~i~TARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION C.A A.P ANN NG c iss oN