Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-13-69MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 13, 1969 CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL iV. PUBLIC HEARINGS The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M., by Chairman Halus. Led by Mrs. Ludwig. Present: Commissioners; Mr. Curtis, Mr. Oster, M~. Halus, Mr. Larnard, Mr. Webster, Mr. Mahoney, Mrs. Ludwig. Absent: Commissioners: NONE Others Present: Dan Blankenship, Assist. City Administrator James G. Rourke, City Attorney James L. Supinger, Planning Director Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary V-69-254 - Chari~:s A. Miles on behalf of Nellie E. Miles '(~onti'~ued from 9/22/'69 To permit: The rental of a portion of an existing non-conformin~f structure for an art shop for which off-street par]<- ing does not exist. (235 W. First Snreet) be To permit the rental of a small studio apartment (non-conform',ng) as a residence. (123 "B" Street) ~cca:~,.,~: Site fronus approximately 80 feet on the north side of ~irst Street and 120 feet on the easu side of North "B" Street. ;,.:'.. S_.up.inger t~resenu,.;d the staff report stating that this ~:,atte~- was contin'uc~ to allow the Co~missioners to view the existing condiuions on the site in detail. >:r. Oster asked if the request is approved, would the Build- ~ng Coue standards still have to be met regarding the resi- dential structure. 3.~. Suo~nger replie~ that the Planning Commission has no a'aunoritv to waive any Building Code conditions and the ,.?l)licant would have to bring the building in conformity .,,J. tl~ ~' ·, 3uilding Code. C~:~. ~ n.a~ ~ialu:: op~;ned the public i)~ .,',~: of the hearing au 7:35 P.~'... There being no comments .~;:r. the audience, Chair:.'.?.: '".ialus declared the public portion o.. %ne hearing closed at 7:36 P.M. 2..~. Oster stated that the property and structures had been viewed and had no objection to the front use for an art shop. lie state~ that he boliuved if the rental structure was brought up to code from a building standpoint,he could see no :'~J ~q.I_IIULC:.., - O~Jk. ObCl. J_J, It was moved by .~__i_.~...!]~l~_%~econ¢ied by_. Mrs. J:u_~!;~.!i~[, that Resolution No. 1104 be adopted, aj?.Prov'..ng ;q,plicat'i. on No. V-69-254 (Charles A. Miles)for That the adjustment hereby authorized will .Hct constitute a grant of special privilege incon- sistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated. e That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance will deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence at the hearing of the September 22, 1969 and October 13, 1969 Planning Commission Meeting are included by reference and made a part of the motion. The above motion was ~oted by roll call. AYES: Curtis, Oster, Ludwig, Mahoney, Halus NOES: Webster, Larnard MOTION CARRIED 5-2. 2. ZC-69-195 - Wilf.red Taylor & Robert Hall For rezoning of a 1.52 acre parcel from tke R-1 (Single Family Residential) District to the R-3 (2800) (Multiple Family Residential - 2800 sq. ft. of lot area per dwelling unit) District. Location: Site fronts 220 feet on the south side of Third Street, 300 feet on the west side of Pacific and 220 feet on the north side of Main Street. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that the request was revised by applicant from R-3 (1500) to R-3 (2800) at the City Council meeting September 15, 1969 and then referred back to the Planning Commission for study. 1,2. Supinger stated that the recommendation of the Planning Department remains consistent and such individual rezonin~s should not take place until the Economic Study is completed and a recommendation made by the TNT Committee for the Tustin City Area, and until the Tustin Area General Plan has been amended. Denial was' recommended because the pro- posed zoning is for residential density of 15 d.u./acre, nearly four times the 4 dwelling units per acre suggested by the Tustin Area General Plan. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:37 P.M. Those in opposition are as follows: Mrs. Barbara Torres, 225 South b~rtle Avenue Mr. Michael V. Cervin, 685 W. Third Mr. J. C. Iiall, 430 West Third Arthur L. Witten, 245 Pacific Street PC Minutes - October 13, 1969 The opposition seem t.o fee]. that this would not be attr~ctiv~ or beneficial to the Cit,. ;~] would only cause traffic congestion. along with it becoming a transient like area. They were concerned with possible parking problems, noise and most of all wanted to keep the existing R-1 zoning as is. Those speaking in favor of subject request are listed below: Mr. C. T.' Gilbreath, 315 S. "A" Street Mr. C. D. Martin, 660 W. 3rd Street Mr. Bob llall 17452 Irvine Blvd. Mr. Hall felt that this addition to the City would be an asset and he stressed the high quality type of apartments that are proposed. He explained that it is proposed for single families, with no children, parking lots will be provided and a fence will be constructed around the structures to maintain the privacy of the surrounding homeowners. Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:12 P.M. Chairman IIalus stated that he finds Mr. Hall's second approach %c the problem more desirable than the first consideration, but shares the same concern that the citizens in the neighborhood have. He did not feel that if the land remains R-1 it would cause deterio- ration in that particular area. He felt that before any rezone should be considered, the General Plan should be changed and modi- fied. Mr. Webster asked Mr. Supinger if the plan was modified to a PC (Planned Community) type zone with a requirement for a Use Permi for a specific plan, could it be approached in this manner. Mr. Su~in~er answered yes. Mr. Oster asked when more information would be available regarding this particular area. Mro Supin~er explained that the TNT Committee is now working on the Town Center Area but could not give a specific time as to when this Study will be completed or a recommendation will be available from this Committee. Mr. Supinge~ continued to say that it was indicated in the Town Center Area Study that this justifies R-2 zoning. Mr. Oster stated that if going into General Plan hearings would resolve some of the problems regarding sewers, water, etc., relative to the zone change, then he would rather go that route, but in view of Mr. Supinger's feeling of problems that might be created, and the homeowners desires, he did not want to create another monster. I,~r. Su~i~.ger stated that he did nqt feel this would resolve the problems at this time. lie felt that the overall City interest outweigh any interest of an individual property owner, in cases such as this. lie explained that one of the prime reasons the Ci went into the Economic Study, wich is currently ~nderway is to c c up with specific information and recommendations relative to the Town Center Area and the Tustin City Area. He felt that it would be unwise to make decisions that would possibly be contrary to the -3- Mr.__~".ter stated that it appears that we are no ~urther a].on~ ~q~a-~ w' e we----~e when we started, lle stated that his personal feel- ing was that the last time this application was before the Com- mission, that he was n~.i~'~~ to grant any R-3 zoning of any typical density in the South Tustin Area and some other ar~ernative to keep it more in character with the housing in the area; both on curb appeal and densities would have to be taken. He stated that he felt the applicants have done this and is in favor of it, but only if the City can guarantee that it is accomplished in the manner, in which it is proposed. He stated that the R-3 would be unaccept- able, but some type of Planned Community zoning would have to be considered where there are specific requirements and plans that would be presented with standards for approval. Mr. Supinger stated that the reason the other departments find no problems is because they are forced by the nature of the application to look at the. area on a piece-meal basis, but there are improvements that would be necessary should higher densities be permitted. He explained that when areas are looked at, on a piece-meal basis, there may not be problems individually, but when you take them altogether, there are problems that need to be solved. Mr. Larnard stated that he felt the applicant has certainly made an improved request over the last application, however, he felt that they have not gone far enough. He felt that the proposed density of 4 times the General Plan density would create many problems and was not in favor of the request. It was moved by Mr. Larnard~ seconded by Mr. Halus, that Resolution No. 1105 be adopted, recommending denial of Applicqtion No. ZC-69- 195~ to the City Council_fqr..the following, reasons: The proposed zoning is for residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre, nearly four times the 4 dwelling units per acre suggested by the Tustin Area General Plan. The City is presently studying the Tustin City Area, of which the subject property is a part, to determine if a change should be made in the General Plan and zoning designations for the area. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by reference and made a part 6f the motion. It was moved by Mr. Oster ~at the motion be amended to include t2~e statement that there was insufficient evidence and facts presented to the Commissioq to warrant a..c~aqge of zone at this ~ime. The maker of the motion and the second concurred. Mr. Oster made a motion to move th~ ~uestion. Carried 7-0. The above motion was voted by roll call. AYES: NOES: Larnard, Ludwig, Oster, Curtis, Halus Webster, Mahoney CARRIED 5-2 3. V-69-255 - ROBERT HALL To permit the projection of eaves to within two (2) feet of the side property lines. Location: Site fronts approximately 230 ft. on the south side ~f Irvine Blvd. (4th St.), approximately 187 ft. on the west side of Mt. View Drive and approximately 187 ft. on the east side of Yorba St. i'C :,li:~ut.c:.; - Ocl~,l~']: 13, 1969 Mr. Supinge____r~ stated, that the Planning Department recommends ~enial ior the two usual reasons and three additional reasons as follows: 3. This is a self-imposed hardship imposed by the particular design proposal which has been chosen. 4. The design solution is an attempt to put too much building area on the property which results in parking areas being less than typical City standards. 5. The proposed two story building would result in an imposing visual wall very close to the street and with less setback than any other buildings along Mt. View Drive and Yorba Street. ~ir. Oster questioned item 4. of the recommended denial. blr. S~pin~er stated that there is no need for a parking variance, in answer to Mr. Oster's question, relative to the design stand- ards. He explained that there are certain standards for the size of a parking space, stating that those have not been met. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:37 P.M. Mr. Bob Hall, 17452 Irvine Blvd. stated that this application is strictly for aesthetics only and it is not detrimental to anyone in any way. Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:45 P.M. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Webster, that Resolution No. 1106 be adopted, approving Application No. V-69-255, for the following reasons: 1. That the adjustment hereby authorized will not con- stitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated. 2. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance will deprive subject property of privi- leges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifAcation. 3. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence intro- duced at the hearing are included by reference and made a part of the motion. Motion was made by Mr. Oster to mo~e the ~revious question. ~y Mr. Webster. Carried 7-0. Seconded The above motion was voted by roll call. AYES: NOES: CURTIS, OSTER, LUDWIG, WEBSTER bD~!ONEY, I{ALUS, LA,NARD MOTION CARRIED 4-3. 4. V-69-256 - TACO BELL & ALFIE'S FISH & CHIPS ON BEHALF OF C. D. INVESTM~ENT COMPANY To permit: Re A Taco Bell take-out food operation with 13 off-street parking spaces. An Alfie's Fish & Chips take-out food operation with PC Minutes 1969 Mr. Supinger presented the staff report recommending deniaI ~ue to the lack of sufficient justification for approval of a variance. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:48 P.M. Mr. Gary Graham, 20251 Van Owen, Canoga Park, Taco Bell repre- sentative, stated that a new plot plan has been revised to remove the outdoor seating plan for Taco Bell. tie stated that apparently the shortage of parking stalls is predicated on the interpretation of the Alfie's operation. He stated that they have been classified as a "take-out" type of establishment, which requires additional seating. He explained that Taco Bell based on a 400 ft. take-out is required to have 21 spaces, which they show 22 and Alfie's has the .required eight (8) plus one (1) extra, which is interpreted as being a restaurant. Mr. Bill Stits from Alfie's is here to discuss this and, Mr. Graham felt that this was the crux of the variance question. Mr. Bill Stits, 224 Fourth Street, Manhatten Beach, representing Alfie's Fish & Chips, presented photographs to the Commission of the proposed use and explained the operation of the business. He stated that the building had been increased in size from a 32' X 40' unit to a 35' X 45' unit. He explained that the reason for the extra width'and depth was for the use of storage and to add one more table. He stated that the elevation plan shows only 6 tables but they have proposed 7. The stand-up counte~ has also been lowered to seat approximately 10 more people, which results in the seating of approximately 38 customers rather than the 24 as stated in the staff report. Mr. Stits stated that a free-standing business will attract a large number of people for the first 2 or 3 months and will then usually drop approximately 30% afterwards eliminating the parking problems. He stated that they would go back to the 32' X 40' unit building if forced too. Mr. Supinger stated that in view of the changes with the approxi- mate 38 seating capacity needed, would not meet the parking standards for a sit-down restaurant, if this is considered a sit- down type establishment. He explained that Taco Bell would not be permitted to have outside eating in a C-1 District, and 15 parking spaces would be needed for the proposed revised 38 seatin~ capacity of the Alfie's Fish & Chips application. Mr. Arthur Turner, 520 East Fourth Street, Tustin, realtor, stated that there is a hardship involved relative to the traffic on Newport and the people that owned that property had been put into a hardship because of that fact; the street had a 20 ft. dedication, which left them with a 86 ft. deep lot, which he felt was very difficult to develop. Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 9:00 P.M. Mr. Webster stated that it appears that the question is as to what type of restaurant Alfie's is classified and since there is one in Anaheim, he suggested that the Commission view the operation on site. It was moved by Mr. Webster, seconded by Mr. Larnard that AnDlication No. V-69-256 be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting. -6- .. .... t,~u., - October 13, 1969 _Mr- Mahone~ asked what factor was going to be used to determine whether it is a take-out or sit-down type operation, after view- ing the project.. Mr. Oster stated that he wasn't sure if this field trip was neces- sary. Mr. Webster's feeling was that this would give the staff a chance to uiew the operation and would help them to make a further deter- mination. Mrs. Ludwi~ asked if this type of 2 in 1 application has been before the Commission before and if so, what parking requirement determination has been used. Mr. Supinger that this is the first type of consideration that has been before the Commission regarding two take-out or sit-down businesses. The above motion carried unanimously. 5. UP-69-309 - ANGEL/MOCK & ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF GEORGE W. WILLIS To permit the establishment of a Pioneer Chicken Take-Out Food Establishment in the C-1 District. Location: Site fronts approximately 110 ft. on the southeast side of Newport Avenue, approximately 305 ft. northeast of the centerline of Mitchell Avenue. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report recommending conditional approval. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 9:15 P .. Mr. Paul Wilmouth, 1310 Echo Park Ave., Los Angeles, Pioneer Chicken representative, stated that they are in agreement with the con- ditions of the staff's report. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Halus declared the public portio~ of the hearing closed at 9:20 P.M. Mr. Oster asked if condition No. 9, in the staff report could be enforced, relative to the immediate discontinuation of the use if the ingress-egress easement is cancelled by Standard Oil Company. t4r. Rourke, stated that technically, the City does have the right to take steps to enforce the condition, if the need arises. ~..:r. Oster asked if the Commission c~uld require that this approval be recorded by the City Attorney. Mr. Rourke answered "yes". ~:r. Wilmouth stated that he does have a letter from Standard Oil permitting the use of this easement After a brief discussion amon~ the Commission, It was moved by Mr Oster, seconded by Mr. Larnard that Resolution No. 1107 be ado~t~ conditionally approving Application No. UP-69-309 for the foliowi reasons: 1. The Commission finds that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circums~anc~ of ~ho particular case b~ detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the pro- posed use and it will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. PC Minutes - October 13, 1969 As additional '~'~%'~'§7~'~the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by reference and made a part of the motion Recommended conditions of approval: 1. Installation of all street improvements including 8 foot sidewalk and street trees (per the Master Street Tree Plan.) 2. Relocation of any existing irrigation lines as neces- sary to permit street and on-site construction. 3. Installation of underground utility services to the building. 4. Provision of a minimum of one 10 pound ABC dry chemical fire extinguisher located inside the building near an exit. 5. Installation of an automatic fire extinguishing system in the kitchen exhaust hood. 6. Installation of a 6'8" solid masonry wall along the rear property line abutting the R-1 properties. 7. Provision of a minimum setback of five (5) feet from the rear property line. 8. Reduction of building size by 64 sq. ft. to comply with off-street parking requirements. 9. Immediate discontinuation of the use if the ingress- egress easement is cancelled by Standard Oil Company. 10. Signs, building elevations and site layout are not a part of the approval. 11. Submission and approval of a Parcel Map if development or lease is not in accordance with currently recognized parcel lines. 12. Ail exterior lighting shall be directed so as not to illuminate adjacent residential properties. 13. An agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney, be prepared and be recorded as he sees fit, regarding the above condition No. 9. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 6. U?-69-310 - SEABOARD ENGINEERING COMPANY ON BEIIALF OF GULF OIL CORPORATION To permit the reconstruction and modernization of an existing service station. Location: Site is at the northeast corner of the intersection at First Street and Tustin Avenue. Applicant requested continuance of this application to the October 27, 1969 Planning Commission Meeting. It was moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Larnard, that subject request be continued to the next regularly scheduled Plannin$ Com- mission meeting, October 27, 1969. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. -8- }.~C Minutes - October 13, 1969 7. V-69-257 -'TRANS ROBL~S CORPORATION To permit cave encroachment into the required three (3.)- ft. side yard setback on Lots 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 28, 29, 32, 33, 36, 56, 58 and 60 of Tract No. 5726. Location: Sites front on Marshall Lane, Carroll Way and Fairmont Way, sou~h of,.~Canta Clara Avenue. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report, stating that the appli- cant's justification is: resubdividing to correct lot lines has reduced lot sizes affecting some of the properties. The roof overhangs are an important architectural feature of these pre-sold homes and homeowners do not want to disturb them. The encroach- men~ occurs on one side only and in most instances the roof does not ~xtend within 7 feet of the neighboring structure. b:r. Supinger recommended denial due to the situation which has occurred being a self-created hardship. Mr. Webster stated that the violation seems to be with the Build- ing Code and asked if this is a Planning matter. ~r. Supinger stated that the Planning Commission has no authority to grant a variance relative to the Building Code violation, but in this case, it could affect the amount of variance that could be granted relative to the Zoning Code. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 9:25 P.M. Mr. Sterling Albert, 13561 Fairmont Way, Tustin, Trans Robles representative, stated that Lot 58 was in the framing stage when they were informed of the violation problem, which allowed them to modify the structure to correct the condition, so there is no violation on that particular building. Mr. Malus stated that he was concerned with the water run-off of the roof of a homeowner not being contained in his own yard, but going into the contiguous property. He suggested that gutters be installed where this problem exist. Those in opposition were: Mr. George Dean Fields, 13602 Carroll Way Mr.& Mrs. Robert M. Skamnes, 13542 Marshall Lane Mr. & Mrs. Frarfcis X. Sheldon, 13542 Carroll Way Mr. E. T. Hardesty, 13611 Carroll Way Mr. Lowell Ehrhardt, 13622 Carroll Way Mr. Robert McFarland, 13631 Carroll Way Mrs. Richard Wening, 13541 Carroll Way Mr. Edward Maseeh, 12912 Charloma Drive The protesting homeowners voiced concern relative to the eaves being trin~ed from their homes resulting in something less than what they bought. Discussion of permits being issued without proper inspection or approval was brought up. Other areas of concern were hazards of fire, water drainage, not being adequately informed of the problems, promises made by Trans Robles, and the overall aesthetic and economic value that would diminish as a result of the modification proposed. Mr. Skamnes stated that he would sue the City for approving the house design and construction through the framing, along with the Trans Robles Corporation for misrepresentation. Mr. Rosenberg, 14652 Carfax, Santa Ana, .(owner of lot 36), stated ~hat'he ~e~f the proper drainage was provided, there would be no objection to the architectural structure of the house as it exists. He suggested that the variance be granted for individuals, because the~e seems to b~ indtvi~ual ~robl~mm, --9-' PC Minutes - October 13, 1969 Mr. Albert, official spokesman for Trans Robles, stated that lots 23 & 40 were not listed i~.~~lication because they were caught in the stage of construction'~ Whereby it was possible to correct.the problem in order to comply with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code. Ite stated that since the question had arisen on the fire hazards - the Fire Department more or less felt that if the building~ complied with the Building Code, with a minimum of 4 ft. between the overhangs, which exists in many situations, that this would be ade- quate for fire protection. He stated that gutters could adequately handle the drainage run-off, and felt that Trans Robles would be willing to rectify this problem on the 6 plan with no problem. Mr. Albert stated that he does have the authority to con%mit the Company to whatever action is agreed to this evening. He explained that the numbering used on the plot plan is technically incorrect - the original plot plan was broken down into 60 lots, ~hen a resub- division scaled down the lots so that a lot wouldn't be lost, and stated that there is no inaccuracy as far as the diminision of the lots. Mr. Waldo, Building Official, concurred. There being no further discussion from the audience, Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 11:17 P.M. Mr. Oster stated that he was prepared to take each lot individually and work out a solution or agreement with the property owners re- garding the zoning code. Chairman Halus asked Mr. Waldo to explain the situation that is now existing between the Building Code and the Zoning Code and what could be done to satisfy the building standards. Mr. Waldo, Building Official, stated that the Building Code would require that the eaves be cut back to a point no closer than 2 ft. from the property line. The Zoning Ordinance requires that they be 3 ft. from the property line. However, he explained, the Building Code could not be acted upon by the Planning Commission. He stated that if the variance is granted, some of the structures will still have to be cut back one (1) ft. It was moved by Mr. Oster~ that a variance be granted on Lot 2, to permit a roof overhang, side yard setback of within two (2) ft. of the property line, subject to compliance with the Buildin~ Code. Chairman Halus asked Mrs. Skamnes what her desire was for the grant- ing of the variance - whether whe wanted approval or denial. Mrs. Skamnes answered that she was not qualified to make the decision due to confusion over the whole situation. The above motion was withdrawn by Mr. Oster. His feeling was that a recess or continuance on the matter might be in order to allow ~ime for further research as to what lots would need gutters an~ permit Mr. Albert time to work something out for each individual lot with the owners. Mr. Mahoney asked if there was any possible avenue to obtain relax- ation from the Building Code, and if so, what was the procedure. Mr. Rourke stated that it is very unlikely that the Building Code setback requirements could be altered. He commented that whether they could be or not; it is the Planning Commission's obligation to begin and end with just deciding how much you are going to require under the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that it has to be understood that the Building Code requirements have to comply, therefore, if ~h~ Planning Commission i~ walling ~o waive the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, completely or in part, that it is within their jurisdiction and the Building Department would have to take it from there. -10- PC Minutes - October 13, 1969 It was moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, that Resolution No. 1108 be adopted, ~.~rantin(3 approval of Appli.-_ c'at'ion No. V-69-257 for the followin~ reasons: 1. That the adjustment hereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated. 2. That because of special, circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topog- raphy, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance will deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity ~.n,~ under identical zone c]nssification. 3. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by reference and made a part of the motion. Conditions of approval are: That no variance shall be granted on any lot for which the owner or purchaser advises the City, in writing, within five working days after receipt of notice from the City, that the owner or purchaser does not want the variance granted. That eave gutters, down-spouts and water runoff and disposal facilities satisfactory to the Building Official shall be installed on houses on lots for which a variance is granted. That all improvements shall be in conformity with the requirements of the Building Code of the City of Tustin. That Trans Robles Corporation will be responsible' for submitting a lis%, in the form of an affidavit, as to the status of each lot and the ownership,0to the City for notification of subject application. Mr. Supj~eE stated that it is essential that the homes should con,ply with the code or a variance be approved for future pro- tection, should the property owner wish to sell his home. The above motion carried unanimously. 7-0. 8. V-69-258 - TUSTIN MEDICAL ASSOCIATES To permit an underground parking structure with a maximum height of approximately four (4) f~. above grade, to be con- structed with a 0 ft. side setback in the professional office district and the use of a parcel of an adjacent parcel in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) District for automobile park- ing. Location: Site fronts approximately 130 ft. on the south side of Irvine Boulevard (4th Street) at the intersection of Irvine Boulevard and North "B" Street. Mr. Supin~er stated that a variance is necessary because of the required five foot setback to structures from the side property line. He further stated, that it is the opinion of the Planning ti'~(: ar(~;.~ and go the City, tllu:; justifying favorable action. He rccom:;.cnded conditional a~pl"ov..%l. PC Minutes - October 13, 1969 ~-~ 40 P.M. Mr._._James B. =Keisker'.Archi~c~-with,. ~ ~:~' ~..~? Morris & Lohrback, 4th Street, Tustln, br~e£1y described ~e p~6~ect stating that he would bb happy to answer any questions. Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing ~losed at 11:43 P.M. It was moved by Mr. Webster, seconded by Mr. Oster, that Resolution No. 1109 be adopted, conditionally approving Application No. V-69-258 for the following reasons: That the adjustment hereby authorized will not con- stitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject pr~.per~y is situated. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance will deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. e As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence intro- duced at the hearing are included by reference and made a part of the motion. Recommended conditions of approval are: Submission and approval of a Parcel Map creating one parcel from the present two lots. Dedication of right-of-way for that portion of "B" Street lying within the subject property in accordance with City of Tustin Precise Alignment No. 1. Construction of full street improvements on the west one-half of "B" Street. Installation of underground utility service con- nections to the building. Provision of one (1) ten pound ABC dry chemical fire extinguisher, at each level located in a conspicuous and accessible location. ("Break Glass" cabinets are recommended.) Installation of a six (6) inch water main and a fire hydrant. The hydrant shall be located to the southeast of the parking area and on the east side of "B" Street. Installation of street trees per the Master Street Tree Plan. Submission and approval of Plot Plan, Building Elevations, Landscaping Plan and Sign Plans by the the Development Preview Committee. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. -12- PC Mi:lutes - October 13, 1969 9. PZ-69-'120 - ZINK CONSTRUCTION INC. ON BEIIALF OF FIRST WESTI'.'RN llANK AND TRUST COMI'ANY For prezoning of a 4.25 acre parcel to the PC-R-i (260'0) (Planned Community - Multiple Family Residential - 2600 sq. ft. of lot area per dwelling unit) District. Location: Site fronts approximately 610 ft. on the southwest side of Irvine Boulevard and approximately 305 ft. on the northwest side of Red Ilill Avenue. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that the specific plans, submitted with the application for prezoning show a one-and two-story apartment~ complex of 70 dwelling units, lie ~[..~ .... ~,-~' ~eneral Plan designates the subject property aa ,.,~uzui,~ ~ciis~y Residential (4 dwelling units/acre.) The proposed density (16.75 d.u./net acre) is more than four times the suggested density on the General Plan. He stated that it is with great concern, then, that we view this proposal for spot zoning, which is surrounded by single family residential development and which conflicts with the General Plan. Mr. Supinger recommended denial of Application PZ-69-120. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at ~1:~5 P.M. Mr. Zink, applicant, explained the proposed plan, stating that these apartments will be large deluxe type with rents from $220 to $260 per month and no children. He stated that he felt R-1 development would be an uneasy task for this particular corner lot. Mr. Zink commented that he had conducted a survey with the surrounding area and did not find anyone objecting too seriously to the project, although they were not overly enthused. Those opposing subject application are as follows: Mr. Ralph Smith, 1532 Melvin Way, Tustin Mr. Frank Marcus, 1422 Garland Avenue Mr. Dan Gsprge, 13082 Reef Place Mrs. Irene Pelleritti, 1411 Garland Avenue Mr. Willfam Dean, 13422 La~rinda Way,Chairman of the Building/Planning Committee of the Baptist Church, located on Red Hill. Objections were relative to spot zoning, not consistent with the General Plan, creating excess traffic, and feeling that this particular parcel can be developed into R-1. Opposition strenuously objected to the proposed plan and asked that the Co~mission give careful consideration to this request, asking for denial. Mr. William Dean, Baptist Church representative, stated that they are interested in the land and if Mr. Zink is not grant( the request, they will be appearing before the Commission at a later date requesting approval of a variance to allow the construction of a church. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at ~2:00 midnight. PC Minutes '.~..ober 13, 1969 Mr. Larnard stated that he concurred with the staff r~ort and the information received from the Orange County Planning Department. It was moved by Mr. Larnard, seconded by Mrs. LudwiQ, that Resolution No. 1110 be adopted, recommending denial to the City Council, of Application No. PZ-69-120 for the followin~ reasons: The proposed zoning would permit a density of 16.75 d.u./acre, more than four times the Medium Residential (4 d.u./acre) suggested by the Tustin Area General Plan. The proposed rezoning would result in spot zoning of multiple family residential use surrounded by single family residential uses. The subject parcel can be developed under the existing R-1 zoning. e As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by refer- ence and made a part of the motion. Above motion carried unanimously (7-0) 10. UP-69-311 - SMITH PRINTERS & LITHOGRAPHERS To permit a free-standing sign with a height of 58'6", an area of 166 sq. ft. per side and total area of 332 sq. ft. Location: Site fronts 50 ft. on the south side of Sixth Street and is the location of existing structure numbered 426 W. Sixth Street. Mr. SuD___~inger presented the staff report stating that this request is to secure identification to freeway and local traffic for Smith Printers which is located on a separate parcel of land which is virtually surrounded by the Foster Art Service industrial complex. The sign would be located on a pole which would be set inside the walls of the build- ing and run through the roof. Mr. Supin~er commented that this proposal was flagged for men, ers of the Planning Commission on Saturday, October 4, 1969, and that this exercise substantiated the need for the proposed sign height due to buioldings and tree height in the area. Conditional approval was recommended, subject to removal of the existing roof sign. Chairman IIalus opened the public portion of the hearing at 12:04 A.M.. 5~r. Joe Moore, applicant, concurred with the staff's report. Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 12:05' A.M. It was moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Larnard, that kesolution No. 1111, be adopted, conditional'ly approving Application No. UP-69--311 for the following reasons: The Commission finds that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of the -14- PC Minutes - October 13, 1969 particular case be detrimental to the health safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the .'"' neighborhood of the proposed use and it will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included b~ refer- ence and made a part of the motion. Condition of approval: a. Removal of existing pole sign. Mr. Curtis commented that one of the problems that was noticed in the flagging, was that by raising the sign, it really was not going to be that beneficial to the south-bound traffic on the freeway. Mr. Larnard stated that he had also observed this, but felt that the identification that is requested, is not the type that would seek impulse buying necessarily from the freeway, and the identification that the south-bound traffic does re- ceive is warranted. Above motion carried 7-0. 11. V-69-259 - WORLD HANDICRAFT, INC. ON BEHALF OF TERPJ~NCE T. LINDSTROM To permit the operation of a retail business with less than the required off-street parking spaces required by the ordinance. (Zoning Ordinance requires nine (9) off- street parking spaces, application proposes six (6) off- street spaces.) Location: Site fronts 68 ft. on the southeast side of Newport Avenue approximately 240 ft. northeast of the centerline of Mitchell Avenue and is the location of existing structure numbered 14192 Newport Avenue. Mr. Supinger presented the staff.report stating that the appli- cant's justification is as follows: 2. 3. 4. Distressed property. Depriving owner of use of property for residential purposes. Depriving owner of use of property Commercial Se- cause of parking. Inadequate square foot lot for future development. Chairman Halus opened the public-portion of the hearing at 12:10 p.m. Mrs. Jean Adams, 181 E1 Camino Real, Saddleback Realty, repre- senting World llandicrafts, told the history of the property, stating that they are willing to bring this property up to code. She stated that the property has caused the owner hardship and could be considered in a state of danger or trouble. She stated that it has been vacant for over a year and the condition is un- sightly due to vandalism. She pointed out that the owner boug~t the p~op~rty in 19~ and spent a consiaerable amount of money in repairs to make it livable, and was then advised by the City that occupancy could not be permitted, because it is com- mercially zoned. PC Minutes - October 13, 1969 Mr. Robertson stated~.tha{~he"proposed use is a decorative service business involving lamp and table bases which are considered decorative accessories for the home, the same as a furniture store might sell. lie explained that many o'S the products are unfinished and their job is to help instruct the refinishing of these items. Mrs. Adams stated that the required parking for furniture stores is 500 sq. ft. of gross floor area which would only require 4 parking spaces, rather than 9 required for a re- tail store. She'stated that this business would only have 1 or 2 cars at a time and it is not the type of retail busi- ness that would have a large amount of cars parked on the premises. She repeated that they are willing to bring this property up to City Codes, including curbs, gutters and side- walks at World Handicrafts own expense. Mr. ~t'?-'~:'..~v asked ~.~hat provisions are made for loading and unloadi~'oC tn, products. Mr. Robertson stated that this is not expedited in the normal business hours, eliminating the problem. Normal working hours are between 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The parking spaces and dimensions were discussed by the appli- cant and the Commission. Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 12:40 P.M. Mr. Sumin~er explained that in his gross floor area computa- tion, the garage has not been included, only the building and the additional room that was added. Mr. Webster asked if it is possible to get 2 or 3 more spaces for parking by eliminating the rear building. Mr. Su~in~er explained that nothing would be gained by that, since the one space would be lost for the area beside of the building. Mr. Terry Lindstrom, President of the company,stated that the advertising is by word-of-mouth type and generally does not. create a large amount of customer traffic. Mr. Anthony Coppola, owner of the property, asked what the property could be used for, if not for this proposed request. He stated that he has owned the property for 2% years and he is not permitted to occupy the structure as a residence and has had it listed with realtors~ which no use could be found for it. He stated that it is land-locked and there must be an appropriate allowable use. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mrs. Ludwig, that Application No. V-69-259 be conditionally a~proved for the followin~ reasons: That the adjustment hereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special privilege incon- sistent with the limitations upon other properties in tile vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topog- raphy, location or surroundings, the strict applica- tion of the Zoning Ordinance will deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. Conditions of approval are: A 10 pound ABC dry chemical fire extinguisher shall be provided and located near an exit. PC Minutes - October 13, 1969 2. Ali dry vegetation and combustible waste matter on the premises shall be removed. 3. The building shall be made to conform to the re- quirements of the Building Department. 4. Installation of new electrical service. 5. Rewiring to commercial standards. Finishing interior of exterior walls to provide one hour fire wall. If garage Dortion i~ ~ ~ , ~ r,..~, harking of and buiium~,b ~ ~c ~u~u~re~ to De of one-hour construction with fire protected openings· Dedication of 20 feet of right-of-way for Newport Avenue widening in accordance with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Installation of all street improvements including 8 ft. sidewalk and street trees. 10. Relocation of any existing irrigation lines as necessary to permit street construction. Mr. Curtis stated that he wo~ld not like to see the property exist for a. number of years in its present condition. Mr. Halus stated that he was not convinced that this is the only use for the property in this particular area. Mr. Webster stated that this item has appeared before the Development Preview Committee on more or less of an open basis. The Development Preview Committee asked that they submit a proposal indicating the parking and it would be discussed. Mr. Webster stated that he would like a recommendation, views, conditions or some type of guideline for the Committee's review. He stated that it has been reviewed previously and if the action is for approval this evening, the Development Preview Committee will be reviewing it a second time and nothing has changed. He stated that the Committee will need a consideration of parking regulations, aesthetics, landscaping, etc. Mr. Halus stated that the parking arrangement plan that has been submitted and discussed, is not, he feels in the best interest of the City. He felt that the backing out on Newport could cause problems. ~r. Webster stated that he has no need to see the property set vacant, but the problems that have arisen in the past are the parking due to the layout of the lot and these are conditions that are imposed upon every developer that comes into the City. He asked that the Commission give some direction to the Develop- ment Preview Committee as to resolving the problem. Mr. Curtis stated that he would like to see the property devel¢ into a productive use, but did not feel that the subject requez, wa exactly the answer. Mr. Larnard concurred with Mr. Webster in that this has been'be- fore the Development Preview Committee and as was indicated in their letter of denial, the applicant did not submit a complete plan or design. He felt that such a plan should be presented to the Committee w~h ~ mor~ pre~ise ~lan of ~arking before any aotion should be considered. -]7- i~C M~inutcs - October 13, 1969 Mr. Su,~in~j?__r explained that the applicant:; took dimensions from the property and the submitted drawing wa:; the results, showing the location of .~..9 s.tructure on the property and then templates 9' X"~0'"'~'~'~ made. The Development Pr~- view Committee spent a great deal of time moving the tem- plates around, both with 6 and 9 s. paces required, and not only did they feel that they did not have a specific pro- posal on which to act, but they could not find a way to make the spaces fit. He stated that it is a real problem with the existing structure on the property. The above motion was voted by ~oll call. AYES: NOES: OSTER, LUDWIG MAHONEY, WEBSTER, HALUS, LARNARD, CURTIS MOTION FAILED 5-2. VI. OLD BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. CORRESPON- DE~.~CE IX. OTHER BUSINESS NONE 1. PARCEL MAP (PM-69-27) - DEVCOA INC. To divide parcel for purpose of development. Location: North side of First Street, west of Hall ~'ircle. Mr. Supin~e__r reported that Mr. Myers, City Engineer, submitted a report stating this parcel map is a redivision of Parcel 2 of PM -69-13 submitted by Robert Hall and approved September 23, 1968. Full street improvements have been guaranteed under PM-68-13 and are now under construction. Approval of a minute order subject to final approval by the City Engineer and recordation of the map was recommended. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Larnard, that a Minute Order be adop%ed approyin~ Parcel Map PM-69-27 subjec~ go final approval by the City E~ineer and recordation of the ma~. Motion carried 7-0. 2. FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 6617 - TUSTIN SAVINGS & LOAN For approval by Planning Commission Location: Between First Street and Irvine Blvd. (Fourth Street) west of Holt Avenue. Mr. Myers, City Engineer, submitted a report stating that subject map conforms to Tentative Map No. 6617, approved June 24, 1968 and extended to June 2, 1969. Approval of final map subject to final approval by the City Council and the City Engineer was recommended. It was moved by Mr. Larnard, seconded by Mr. Oster, that Final Tract Ma? No. 6617 be approved subject to final approval by the City Engineer and City Council. Motion carried 7-0.. NONE NONE A1)JOUlkN- b;EN T It w,'.~,'; mov(~d l)y M~:. M,nhouoy, so. cond(;d b~; Mr.. Mo~ion carried 7-0. '"' There being no further business before the Planning Commission Chairman llalus declared the meeting adjourned at 1:00 a.m. SEC~'k'ARY OF THE PLA~NNING COMMISSION