Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-11-69MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 11, 1969 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M., by Chairman Halus. Led by Commissioner Mahoney. Present: Commissioners: Mr. Curtis, Mr. Oster, Mr. Larnard, Mr. Webster, Mr. Mahoney, Mrs. Ludwig. Absent: Commissioners: None Others Present:, Mr. Dan Blankenship, Assistant City Admin.. Mr. J~mes G. Rourke, City Attorney Mr. James L'. Supinger, Planning Director Jo Ann Turner, Planning secretary It was moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Larnard, that the minutes of July 28, 1969, be approved as submitted. Carried unanimously. 1. ZC-69-190 - RICHARD & BILLIE KRUPPE (Continued from 4/14/69) For rezoning of an approximate 0.83 acre parcel from R-1 (Single Family Residential) District to the PC (Planned Community Residential) District. Location: Site fronts 109.16 ft. on the south side of Main Street, approximately 227 ft. east of the centerline of Pacific Avenue. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that there was no more information available at this time than was avail- able at the April 14th hearing, relative to the Economic Study an~ the General Plan for the "Tustin City" Area. Mr. Supin~er recommended that this matter be deleted from the calendar pending completion of the portions of the studies. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:34 P.M. Mr. Richard Krupp,, applicant, 12312 Newport Avenue, Tustin, submitted a letter to the Commission from a real estate broker, Mr. Joseph C. Stewa~t,.stating that he has a client who is interested in Mr.Kruppd's property that would be interested in building R3-1750 or R3-1850 garden style apartments that would blend in %¢ith the surrounding area and meet the require- ments as specified by the Council and Planning Commission. Mr.Krupp9 stated that he needed to develop the property for several reasons and one of tl]e main reasons is to derive an income from this property and did not feel that the General Plan should have to be amended, before permitting a zone change. lie felt that the Planning Comn~ission could make a decision now but if not, then submit the problem to the City Council and ask the represent.~tives that are making the survey to furnish some suggestions or answers to resolve the situation. Mr.Krul,p¢: stated that lie desired a continuation rather than to delete tl~o hearing from the agenda. stating t'.]laL J.t would bt: ~lctr.im~ll:~tl to Lhc tranqu.L.li ty of tile neighborllood, cre;iting moro traffic, moro l~aop].a and <':l'f(:ct tile charm of thc "old" noig]~borhood, lie stated that he ]~ad ma(lc a door-to-door survey.in the neighborhood and 30 out of 34 people were opposed to the zone .change. There being no further discussion from the audience, Chairman tlalus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 7:~5 P.M. Commissioner Mahoney inquired as to the time when a decision could be made. Mr. Supinger stated that this is a difficult question to answer because he felt that the Economic Study is only one phase of coming to a conclusion on this problem, lie explained that once the Economic Study is completed, that it should be utilized for a plan for the area and then the plan should be adopted by the City and is only the first of three phases feeling that it should be done in three phases rather than in a piece-meal plan. He stated that he could not give an ~nswer as to when the Study will be completed. Chairman Halus asked what avenue could be taken to keep from incurring additional expense to the applicant rather than de- lete the application from the agenda. Mr. Supinger explained that it was the intention of the Plan- ning Department to delete it from the agenda until the Studies have been completed and then put it back on the calendar at an. appropriate time.with no additional expense to the applicant. Mr. Rourke, City Attorney, stated that unless the applicant agrees to have it deleted from the calendar, the Commission is deemed to approve the a~licatio~ if they have not acted on it within 90 days. Commissioner Larnard asked Mr. Kruppe if he understood the City Attorney's statement and what was his decision relative to the continuance or deletion of his application. Mr. Krup_~ stated that he would rather have it continued and ~sked that Mr. Supinger try to find out when the Planning C6mmission would be in a position to-make a decision relative to the completed studies. Mr. Supinger stated that it is up to the TNT Committee as to When the consultant starts on the Phase III studies and felt that the Tustin City Area would take top priorty but could not state if enough information would be available within 60 to 90 days. Commissioner Ludwiq.asked if there is a limit to the number of continuances allowed. M~. Rourke answered "no." It was moved bv Mrs.__Lu_dwi.qI, seconded by Mr. Larnard, that Application No. ZC-69-190 be continued to the finest rec~ularly scheduled meeting in November, 1969. Conunir.,sioner Mahon~y stated that the time scheduled for the hearing was more than 90 calendar days. The above motion wa:~ amended by Mrr,._I.,ud%___c_!._Q_q _and .Mr. Larnard to .,chedu].(. tl~o meetin¢! for Octob(;r 27, 1!)69. Mr. Kruppe a~jr_lc,..e¢l____t}? i:lia continuance. Tho al)eve II~)l, JoII r',;l~l'l~,ll..'i-~, M,~tlt)~'r), Ont~:~ & Wol)nl:L:r ab:~tain,'~1- C()mmi:;'.:i()n(,r ('urt i:: :;t',ll,'.~! tl),tt: 1~('. would ]ik,~ l'<) :;(,,'.' I],i,'; '< · mov¢,(l a.lo,~¢T ;~:; ([uickly ,~:; l~O.';:;ibl(~· by Lht: TN'L' Commi. i:L(,c. Ilo quet~tocl thc'. staff 1:¢) :;tlI)luig i.l letter to tile Cou]~cJ.] stating the need fo): more information. Chairman llalus al.~,~o asked that the CJty Council. be made aware of the urgency ~,nd concern on the' part of the applicant and that we are in a position of continuing'.matters due to lack. of information ZC-69-195 - WILFRED TAYLOR & ROBERT HALL - (Continued from 5/12/69) ,. For rezoning of a 1.52 acre parcel from the R-1 (Single Family Residential) District to the R-3 (1500) (Multiple' Family Residential - 1500 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. Supin~er presented t~e staff report stating that this is in th'e same general area and was also continued, in anticipation of information from the Economic Study. He recommended that this matter also be taken off calendar until the studies have been comp].eted. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:00 P.M. Mr. Bob Hall, 17452 Irvine Blvd., Tustin, representing Mr. Taylor showed slides of the property, explaining the surrounding areas and the proposed plan of the intended development. He stated that Mr. Taylor has not been able to find anyone to buy the property or a developer that is willing to develop it. He ex- plained that the proper.ty has been kept in good condition and that it just isn't economically ~ea~ible to leave it undeveloped. Mr. Paul Snow, 430 W. Main, representing home owners in the surrounding area, opposed Subject zone change for the same reasons in the previous hearing, feeling that it would destroy the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Kruppe, 12312 Newport Blvd., Tustin, stated that he felt M~. Hall and Mr. Taylor's intent was-the same as his regarding the trees that are on the property and that is. to keep the trees wherever possible and they would not be destroyed as Mr. Snow anticipated. He stated that to take the trees out would only incur additional expense regarding landscaping. Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:18 P.M. In answer to Mr. Oster's question, Mr. Supinqer stated that he would prefer that t~e ~pplicant would agree to take his request off calendar until the studies are completed. He felt that no zone changes should be approved until that time. Mr. Oster asked Mr. Hall if he preferred to have the action taken on this matter at this time or take it off calendar, until October 27, 1969. Mr. Hall stated that he would like to have an answer now. Mr. Oster stated that after listening to Mr. IIall's comments on tile ~H)p].ication, he agreed that there are certain risks thaL have to be taken, I)u~ fe].t that the studies have not progressed enoug]~ to m,~ke a deci~;ion at tlkib time of grani. Jng R-3 zoning for LhJ:; particu].,~l' area. the exiski, ng zoning Lhak i~; witl~i.n ehe to the type of development that would be requirt~d in thc area. lle explained to Mr. llall that he felt the requested R-3 zone forces a certain type of improvement, which gets to be repe- titious relative to parking standards, coverage, height, etc, which can be seen in the southern portion of Tustin and did not feel that an extension of this type would be beneficial in the downtown area. lie felt that he could not agree to zoning the requested area a straight R-3, but as a suggestion, something with a lesser density and more conformity with single family view from the street or curb appeal with more of a semi-garden type or something with less coverage ~an a typical R-3 with more se~acks and a more open appearance. He. stated that he was not in favor of a straight R-3 but would be in favor of voting for a different type of zoning on subject property that would be more restrictive. The above motion cgrried 6-1. Mr. Webster voted "no." 3. UP-69-302 - SANTIAGO ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF LARWIN SQUARE To permit a temporary building for use as a banking facility with drive-through facilities. Location: Site is in Larwin Square Shopping Center at the approximate mid-point of the Newport Avenue frontage. Mr. Oster stated for the record that he would abstain from commenting and voting on subject application. Mr. Supin~er presented the staff report stating that subject ~pPli'Cation was continued from th~'July 14th meeting for clari- fication of Building Code requirements for the building and was continued again from the July 28th meeting due to a lack of quorum to consider the matter. He stated that in the interim, an agreement is being prepared between the applicant and the City which will permit the utilization of the proposed build- ing. The staff recommended conditional approval eliminating Building Code requirements. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:23 P.M. Mr. A1 Selkin, 7150 Fenwick Lane, Westminster, representing the applicant, was in attendance and offered to answer any questions that the Planning Commission might have. There being no other discussion from the audience, Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:27 P.M. · After a brieF.' discussion, I~ was moved by Mr. Webster, seconded by Mr. Larnard that Resolution No. 1094~_be adopted, approvin~ Application No. UP-69-302 for the following! reasons: The Commission finds that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use applied. for will not, under the cit-cumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neigh- borho~)d of kho l)ropo~;ed u~;e ;tnd it will not be injurious ~r d~trim~ntal to ti~(~ prol'~e~yty and welfare of tho City. ..® introduced /11' tl~_, ht.,nring nrc in¢.luded by refer- once illld lll;lde a part o£ the motion. Conditions of approval are: That th? permit be limited to a period of six (6) months with the provision that extensions for six (6) month periods may be granted by the Planning Commission for up to a total of two (2) ycars upon application by the applicants for a Use Pormig ~o extend the time limit prior to the expiration of an effective Use Permit. That the water line be connected between First Street and Newport Avenue. InstallatiOn of one (1) on-site fire hydrant approximately 100 feet west of the building. Approval of building, landscaping and on-site traffic circulation plans by the Architectural (Development Preview)' Committee. The above ~otion carried 6-0. Mr. Oster abstained. 4. V-69-252 - NANCY LaSIIELLE & ROBERT ASHWORTH ' To permit the location of a private school in the R-1 (Single Wamily Residential) District. Location: Site fronts approximately 400 feet on the west ~ide of Yorba. Street running northerly from a point approxi- mately 200 ft. north of Jacaranda Avenue. Mr. Supinger pre~ented the staff report stating that a previous request Dy the sam~ ~pplican~s 'on adjacent property to the south was denied by the City Council July 7, 1969 and that the present application attempts to eliminate at'least part of the objections to the previous application by moving the site to the north and further from Enderle Gardens homes. Mr. Supinger suggested conditional approval feeling that the proposed use is excellent for this narrow parcel. Mr. Oster asked for a clarification as to why the same request is coming in as a variance when it was a zone change application prior to this and why the request wasn't considered a variance . in the beginning'. Mr. Supinger explained that the applicant was 'trying to sell the positive aspects of the ~pplication and felt that the most forthright way to do it was to go through a complete zone change to submit himself to the most restrictive zoned planned com- munity that the City has by the City Council. Mr. Supinger said it was his under~tandihg that there were time problems with the present operation on ~orba Street and it was impossible for him to submit to the complete rezoning process again, consequently he is applying for a variance and too, this is a more negative approach to approval of U~e application because you must find a hardship in relationship to the property concerned. Mr. Oster asked again, the reason for the request being submitted in a dii£erent guise. Mr. :;~i~.:i}~_Q_o._r. exp]nined thnt the npl~licant wan trying to alleviate? tho tl~i.~.l'~; tl~tt w(:r¢.: objecl:io~ble in tho previ, ou:; apl~lication. Tll,' C~)mm[:::;'i,,n~,r..; dJ:;cu::::cd thc ]~ro::.im{Ly ¢)£ t'llo .q(:h~ol iii re- lation:;lJ il, wi.i, li tl~t'~ Jla,i:.c':;t hl),no:; and :;ul'ri)unil.i~lg prtq)orLy. CiiaJrm:~;i ll:,]t,:; ol)t:nctl ti{t: l)ul~].J.o /)()rti. l,,~'o'£ t'.lti' ]{(:arinU itt ' ?Yf-i ...... ~.].'[.t..].{!~l)½.'".~. _~.!:],w~,rt Il, 1 4 115 I ¥o~'l~;t ~] I'.l:t'~'l., '['u:;I.i n, ;Ipl~l i st,l['c~l tJiat I.IIc ]'(,,l:;(~li t. ll~,y ,l=;k~(l for i.l V{Ir],lll['(~ ()11 ill,' nort:hcrly p,trl: of I.h(~ pr(q)crty wa:; not- to ~tft'r()~lt: tl~o Ci Uy CoIlllCi]. - he COll]lnClll.(](] tllat 11(~ has I:al]:oCi with the M,~y()r and Mayor Coco asked ilim to have this recor(]ed ill tllt~ l~lillutes. Mr. A~:hworl:}l stated ti]at the reason for the requested variance rather tlian a zone ~hange is because of time. lie stated that at.ti%is time he would like to have the appli- cation continued for a two week period due to circumstances arising with the owner of the property and he is not sure if he will be able to purchase or lease the property. Mr. & Mrs. H. Waqner, 17331 Jacaranda opposed the request stating that they did not feel a school should be permitted at this location. There being no further discussion from the audience, Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:2~ P.M. It was moved by Mr. Mahone¥, seconded by Mrs. Ludwig, that V-69-252 be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting, August 25, 1969. Motion carried unanimously. 5. V-69-250 - U. S. ESCROWS, INC. ON BEHALF OF ROBERT HALL To permit an individual tenant identification sign with an area of four (4) sq. ft. in the Pr (Professional) District. (Ordinance permits maximum area of 2 sq. ft. per tenant.) Location: Site fronts approximately 200 feet on the north side of Irvine Blvd., (Fourth Street) at the intersection of Irvine Blvd. and North "A" Street. Mr. Supinger presented the staff'report recommending denial because of the self-created hardship. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:42 PoM. Mr. Bob Ilall, 17452 Irvine Blvd., Tustin, applicant, stated that the sign is in good taste and is the only sign on the b~ilding, lie stated that there are seven affiliated corpora- tions occupying a total of approximately 5,000 sq. ft. in the building. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at '8:46 P.M. Commissioner Curtis stated that we have no assurance that Mr. llall will not come back in the future and try to place additional signs for ~]e remaining tenants and exceed his total by setting the precedent on the one sign. lie did not feel that the Commission should deviate at U~is time and allow a precedent to be set that might spread up and down the street. Commissioner Ludwig stated that approximately 2 doors down from this operation, there is a sign the same size or larger and did not feel that this request is unreasonable. Mr.. Sup_~in_g.e_r.. explained that the sign Mrs. Ludwig was referring to wa:; ercctt:d, al. cng wit]] the building before the adoption of the ,qiqn Ordkuance~ Comm:l:;::i.~}~or M.fl~(m,'y_ ;t:;kod if this apl~lication could be con- ;l'i~-iSi'~,'~.L.l~ll~,'l,'i'i~i%h :;tat.i.~,,.~ that no further signing wou].d be permitted on ~;ul~jt,ct l)u.i.:lding. Mi'. l{()ui'l,.~., Cil.y Al't()t'llcy, ;;.ii.(1 Lll;It. :it. (.:ot~l(1, .i.J' yf)t~ I'f.i~(l.,, 't~l~-c--li~t]'~l:';ll'il.) Lll',~t .i.'; inv()lve(l, },eI'()~'(; you new Sign OrdLn;Jnce, till(]ct tile :;(.'cILJ.()l~ of [-.]l(t l)evel()j)l~i(,ult l.'r(_'- view Commitko(:, whicl~ will al:;~ revi(.,w :;]uns - the intent was; wi%ere si(3ning was not abusive and in fact by its imp]¢:mentation that hopefully it could be worked out even if by some measure of adjustment over the ordinance by amendment of tl]e committee. J{e stated that he had rather have one (1) sign of 4 sq. ft. than 7 signs of 2 sq. ft. lie felt that the one in question is not back lighted or garish and is in good taste. Mr. Larnard asked ~.~r. Supinger, if this is the type of sign that could be granted by the Development Preview Committee, under the new Sign Ordinance. Mr. Supinger stated that it is his understanding that the Com- mittee wouId have the authority to permit moderate deviations from the ordinance. He felt that this was more than a moderate change and felt that the ordinance should be amended rather than the variance. He stated that he felt '~he ordinance should be amended to permit, where there are large tenants in a pro- fessional office building of a certain size to allow them to have more sign area than would normally be allowed for a single tenant - he suggested that some formula be set up. Mr. Larnard asked if this requested sign could be granted under the new Sign Ordinance and Committee. Mr. Rourke stated that it would be a matter of discreticn, left to the Committee to decide whether there is some minor or mod- erate variation, but the Committee does have the power to make a moderate change. Mr. Webster stated that he assumed that the city is capable in this action to enter in~ an agre~ement with the property owner, basically saying that in lieu of the°14 sq. ft. of sign that the company would be allowed to have, no more than four (4) and all would be named under one sign. In answer to Mrs. Ludwig's question, Mr. Hall stated that they occupy 5000 sq. ft. of the 13800 sq. ft. of building. M~. Oster asked Mr. Hall if he would be willing to enter into an agreement that the sign that now exists on the building, would be sufficient. Mr. Hall stated that he would agree to only one sign for the seven (7) companies; the one now existing, and would not allow anymore to be erected. In answer to Mr. Oster's question as to the hardship involved, Mr. Hall stated that it does create a hardship trying to identify th~ Corporation with sign sizes of 2 sq. ft. It was moved by Mr. Lhrnard, 'seconded by Mrs. Ludwig, that Resolution No. 1095 be ado.pted, approving AD~.lication No. V-69-250 (U.S. Escrows, Inc.) for the followinq reasons: That the adjustment hereby authorized will not 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. That because of special circumstances applicable to the :;ubject pr()l)erty, inc]u(lin¢l size, shape, topog- r~]pl~y, ].(~c~ti. on or survoun~ling:~, the strict appli- cat.ion ()f tl~(~ Zoning O]-dJ.n~(:~ wi. Il del~rivo subject l)rOl,(,r~y of; i)riv.i.](.~ges (~nj()y(?(i l)y oth(~r 1)r()p~r~ics in tl~(, v.~.c~.ity and tlll(It,r ].~l(.~t. ic~t] zone. I!icat ],,,'~ ,':i !j?~?_.i_! {3. ;_'.)Ld.'2TM ol' Condition of ;~pi~roval is: TI]aL Mr. Ilall enters into an agreement with the City satisfactory with the City Attorney that no further signs be posted on this building. Mr. Mahoney stated that he feels that the Sign Ordinance creates a hardship in that there is no ratio to the size of a building as to the size of sign identification. He felt that this particular building is 160 ft. wide and a building with only 50 ft. width could still have the same size, yet in ratio, he would have a larger sign because he has a smaller building. The above motion carried 7-0. Mr. Webster stated that he would like to see the staff pre- pare a proposal that would attempt to create some inequity in signing. He stated that it seems to him,, in this area, that less attention was given to this ~roblem than was deserved and requested that the staff prepare a proposal as to ratio to size of structure and also to percentage of occupancy by single tentants in this class of zoning. Mr. Larnard stated that he felt that the Development'Preview Committee, with their power and the new Sign Ordinance, should resolve this type of problem that exists in the subject request. 6. V-69-251 - T}IE M~ETZ CO:~PANY ON BEHALF OF TANDY CORPORATION A pole sign within the required setback area with a height of 35 feet, an area of 88 sq. ft. each side, total ~rea of 176 sq. ft. both sides and with a revolving mechanism. b. Total sign area for subject business of 224 sq. ft. Location: Fronts 90 feet on the southeast side of Newport Avenue approximately 120 feet southwest of the centerline of Old Irvine Boulevard. (13024 Newport Avenue) M~. Supinger presented the staff report stating that although economic success is, traditionally, not justification for the approval of a variance, the figures in a letter submitted by Mr. Elfman add support to the argument that the business does not have adequate exposure. He explained that the visual con- fusion is caused by the proliferation of free-standing signs in the area. Based upon the site problems, the'Planning Staff favored per- mitting a free-standing sign to advertise the business, however, the requested height, .area and revolving mechanism was felt to be more than was needed for adequate identification. Recom- mendation was for a stationary sign with maximum height of 21.5 feet and maximum area of 88 sq. ft. all sides. Choirman llalus opened the public portion of the hearing at 9:15 P.M. Mr. Bernio. l.'.3fman, Advertising Manager, 7340 Lampson, Garden Grove, repre.';entin~] tl~e Radio Shack, stated that the proposed sign is one that is used throu~lhout all their bu:;incr;ses and the prosenL facia siqn dot~s vt:t:y little to l(~cat~ th~.~ store since .ii' is not visible from t'~nouglt d.[.rectio~s. Jle staJ'ed that Mt;. l::l~jm,.~l~ ::t'~l[~,d i.l~;tl: cl~t~: l:o jack oF flood :~.~l~i i.~l~.~l:jl~'i.~aLion, ............. , . ~ '~*.~,~' grand ol~oning r;;i].c. }l(~ s~aLcd ~h,~l: for a norm,'l~ week, wl~ic]~ sl~ouJd bri~g in ~pl:rOximaCc].y ~1,800 to 3,000, Cl~e score only grossed 0830.00 for their first week. Mr. Stevenson, rep];esenting The Metz Company, 250 No. Brigg$, Costa Mesa, stated that because of the physical makeup of the property, it is impossible to locate this business if you are not familiar with the location, lie stated that the higher the sign is in the air the smaller it becomes or appears and this is the reason for requesting the height and dimensions in the application. He presented photographs of surrounding busines- ses and their signs, stating that it appears to indicate a privilege enjoyed by others that is being deprived the subject business. Photographs of Food Giant, Builders Emporium and Sav-on Drug Store signs were reviewed. Chairman Halus declared a 5 minute recess after closing the public portion of the hearing at 9:25 P.M. Meeting reconvened at 9:30 P.M. The commissioners discussed the height limit, the property location, the proposed and existing signs and what could be allowed under the new Sign Ordinance. Mr. Elfman opposed the recommended condition by the City En- gineer of installing sidewalk on the Newport Avenue frontage. Mrs. Ludwi~ suggested a continuance to allow more"time and study on the matter. Mr. Elfman stated that he would be willing to wait for a de- cision if it would help him get the sign as requested, but in the meantime it would cause the business mgre loss due to not having the proper ~entification. It was moved by Mr. Mahone¥, seconded by Mr. Oster, that Resolution No. 1096 be adopted approvin~ V-69-251 (Radio Shack) to permit: a. Total sign area for subject business of 148 sq. ft. One (1) stationary free standing sign within the required setback having a maximum height of 21.5 ft. and maximum total area. (all'sides) of 100 sq. ft. Reasons for a~proval are: Because of exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property the strict application of the Ordinance is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under similar circumstances. The variance :is subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustments hereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special privileges incon- sistent with the limitations upon other properties. in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is located. As add.~tional grounds, the minutes and evidence in- troduced at tho hearing are in¢:luded by reference and ,,~a¢]e a part of.' the motion. M¢;:;:;r:;. Wcl,;;t~']- a~l 1,nr,~;,rd f!(;].t that I:]{~ Ci. ty 1..'ngi. no,,r ].'-r~-~-'-~'~'~l.'[~'l'.]~'"'.i~[~li'(~.[t'[~'~]-"~",",I~{'i'i:,,~'~l: of I'1~¢: :;.i.d~w,~l.k and that tl~c.y concur. M~:. Curti:; (.lU(~:;l:ion(~d ti~(: par]:Ln,.l :;:Ltua~i.o,~ r(:l.at:Lve ~o the .~,[~LiY,~:k-"f~r tJl(: :;Jdewa].k tl~,~t wou.Ld be rcqtlircd, ']'he motion was amen¢l¢:d l)~ Mr. T,arnard, seconded ]3.y__Mr. Web.qter to .i. ncJ. u<l~~. tile instL~.LJ, ation o1! sidcwa].k on tho N(;wport Avenue frontage. The above amendment was voted by roll call. AYES: LARNARD, WEBSTER, CURTIS, LUDWIG. NOES: OSTER, IIALUS, ~IONEY CARRIED 4-3. It was moved by. Mr. Oster, seconded by. Mr. Larnard that, in the event the applicant should desire, he would be ~ermitted: a. One stationary free standing sign with a height of 35 ft. and maximum total area of 176 sq. ft. b. One (1) wall sign with an area bf 148 sq. ft. The above motion was voted by roll call. AYES: LARNARD, OSTER NOES: WEBSTER, HALUS, LUDWIG, CURTIS, MA}IONEY MOTION DENIED 5-2 It was moved by Mr. Oster, that the applic_ant be requ. ire.d to complete the street impr0vem.ent., and be permitted: ac Total sign area for subject business of 176 sq. ft. b. One (1) statio.na.ry, free standing sign within the re- quired setback having a maxim.um height of 30 ft. and maximum total area of 148 sq. ft. c. No revolving or rotating sign permitted. Motion died for lack of second. It was moved by Mr. Mahoney and seconded, bY Mr. Oster, amended by ~_r. Larnard, seconded by Mr. Webster, ti]at Resolution No. .10.96 b.e a'dopted, a~provin~ V-69-251 (R'adio Shack) to permit: a. Total sign area for subject business of 148 sq. ft. b. One (1) stationary free standing sign within the required setback having a maximum height of 21.5 ft. and maximum total area (all sides) of 100 sq. ft. Condition of approval is: 1. Installation of'' sideQalk on the Newport Avenue frontage. The above motion was voted by roll call. . AYES: LAr~NARD, WEBSTER, CURTIS, LUDWIG NOES: ' OST].'.R, IIALU.~], MAIIONEY Motion carried 4-3. Mr. I.llfm. ln st'.,~tcd tli,'~t lie wa:; coml)]('t(']y confu~;ed and aft. or U1'-69-..~11,1 - R. II. (;ItArl'l' I~I.;VI;I,¢)I'I".N, 'IN(?. To ])(~;"miL thc, c()nIo'JII'LI~'(I m~t~rj, al st:or~tl~ yard ~md contt%tct()]:~; o[[.i.c(~ for a six (6) montl~ l)er.iod. Locat.i()n: Sit:(; fronts 300 ft. on the nortl~wo:;t side of Red ~-~-l--~A'v'~';'nuo extending northeasterly from the Atchison Topeka and Santa l.'e Rail'road traces and the Orange County Flood Con- trol Channel. Mr. SuiLing9~ presented the staff report stating that the original application was approved December 23, 1968 and ex- pired July 28, 1969. The current request is for continuance of the use for an additional six months. He stated that the main probelms which have occurred with the use during its operation have been as follows: Ail materials have not been stored within the fenced area. The paving on Red Hill Avenue has been extensively damaged by dirt-hauling operati99s. The appearance of the area, a main entrance to the City; has not been enhanced by the existence of the yard. Mr. Supinger stated that these problems should be resolved as a Condi~on of the approval, if the extension is granted. Chairman tlalus opened the public portion of the hearing at ~0:"10 P.M. Mr. Mike Padilla, representative, did not concur with con- ~it'ions 3 & 6 of the staff report and ask that they be ex- cluded from the recommendations. H~ said that screehing~the property for a temporary use is quite difficult, inasmuch as you can not plant shrubs, trees or landscape to the extent of screening the view from the surrounding properties· IIe stated that the damage created by hauling dirt was done in the process of transporting it to the City property on the northwest side of their con- struction, which they had debated. Mr. Padilla said that it was his understanding that there had · been an agreement with Mr. Ben Wheelock to put the dirt at that location at the City's request and the Grant Company's expense or a donation of $5,000.00 to the City. M~s. Ludwig voiced concern regarding the 3 new conditions set forth and asked for clarification. Mr. Supinger explained that the damage was done at the time of the first permit and should be corrected. The Co~nissioners d~scuss~d the screening of the area, hard- ships involved, the requiring cash or a surety bond to guaran- tee replacement of the paving in Red Hill Avenue, and any agreements made prior to this request. It was moved b~: Mr. Oster, seconded by Mrs. Ludwi?, that Reso].u~i¢)n No. 1097 ~-~ ,.~-~6pted, ap.r)rovin~.~ Ap~)lication No. UP-69-304 for tho follqwing reasons: Tile Conunission finds that the establishment, maintenance and operation of tile use applied for will not, under thc circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to ~. healt:]~, safety, moraln, comfort and genera], welfare of tl . p(3rs();is r(,:.;i(li, lig or w()r];iil(i J.n tile n(:iuhbo.vho()d of thc pro],o:.;(~(l uz;c~ illl(] it wi. il. Boll 1)(~ ilijliJ?iotif; or (l(3trilll('llt/ll general wo.l f,~re of l:l~e Cigy. ' A:; add~.tJona]. (lr()u~(ls, the m[.nute:; and ~n~ro(luccd at th~ hearing nrc; £ncluded by ref. ez~;nce and made a par~ o£ th(, mo~ion. Conditions of app~.'oval: That the permit is granted for a six (6) month period. b. That the entire area utilized be fenced at all times. That the yard be screened from view to the satisfaction of the Development Preview Committee or Architectural Committee. That no part of the use be permitted within 70 ft. of the centerline of Red Hill Avenue. fo That paved access be provided from the curb line of Red Hill to the storage area. That a cash or surety bond in the amount of $1,000 be posted with the City to guarantee replacement of the paving in Red Itill Avenue which has been extensively damaged by dirt hauling operations across Red Hill at the site subject to review by the City Administrator and the City Attorney. If the damage was done at the City's request for the dirt hauling, the bond requirement may be deleted as a condition. That the use shall be removed if this parcel is purchased by the City prior to expiration of the permit. h. Compliance with conditions 2, 3 and 6 within 14 days after approval, o~the, permit. The above motion carried ~nanim~usly - 7-0. NONE PARCEL MAP PM-69-26 - RINKER-DIVERSIFIED SHOPPING CENTERS, INC. To divide parcel for purposes of sale, lease and deve lopme nt. Location: Southerly Side of Walnut Avenue from Red Hill to 900 feet westerly of Red Hill Avenue. Mr. Myers, City Engineer, submitted a report stating that ~arc~'¥ ~ ~s currently zoned R-3 1750 and Parcels 2 and 3 are zoned C-2. lie stated that it should be clarified that the conditions of ResolutiOn 10~1, approving Parcels 2 & 3 should also apply to this request.. Mr. Myers recommended the adoption of a minute order approvin~ the parcel map subject to the following conditions on Parcel 1: Granting of additional street right-of-way for Walnut Avenue in accordance %,ith the Master Plan of Arterial llighways. Granting of a 10' storm drain easement along the north~r].y line of thc parcel parallel to Walnut nVei~ii{; 0 : and Con::truct full st].-e(:t: iml)rovcment.'~ on Walnut Avenue,. to City standards and approwtl by thc City Engineer. Ail public ptilities shall be installed underground in conformance with accepted standards of the utility companies. Street trees shall be provided and planted in accord- ance with City ordinances. Construct storm drain facilities along the Walnut frontage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Those segments of existing irrigation lines con- flicting with or endangered by any proposed con- struction shall be removed and relocated or col- lapsed and backfilled, or otherwise made to conform to the specifications of the City of Tustin Building Code or to the satisfaction of the.,City Engineer and the irrigation line owner. Final ~pproval by the City Engineer and recordation of the map. After a brief discussion among ~%e Commissioners, It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Webster, that a minute order be adopted, approving Parcel Map PM-69-26 subject to the conditions set forth b~ the City Engineer. Motion carried unanimously. 1. COUNTY CASE NO. ZC-69-22 - JOSEPII M. EMERSON Proposed to chang~ f~bm the L002E4 "Small Estates" District to the 100-E4-20,000 "Small Estates" District. Location: Located along the northwesterly side of Arroyo Drive from a point 565 ft. northeast to a point 590 ft. southwest of Chadwick Street in the northeast Tustin area. Mr. Supinqer presented the staff report stating that the proposal conforms to the Tustin Area General Plan and to existing develop- meht, recommending no opposition. It was moved by Fir. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Curtis that the County be informed that there are no objections to subject application. Carried ungnimously - 7-0. 2. COUNTY CASE NO..UV-6284 - ANTONIO G. TAP~BORRELLI To permit the reduction, in the number of required off. street parking spaces in connection with the establish- ment of a restaurant in the 100-Cl-10,000 "Local Business" District. Location: On the east side of Tustin Avenue approximately 400 ft. nortl~ of S(;vent(;enth S~reet, in the nortl~east Santa Ana area. M~-. :;,~j~i n~.l.~:r lU-t':;~'nte, d tll(~ .~;taf..f rc,})ort stati nil tllat our l:('~.itii l't']l~,lll [ ~)~' W,~] 1.~-~I) and I';~)=,:-Out: fc~,cl ~'r;t'.,~l~] .i :;]~m,'~t.s t.o 100 :;(l. J't. o1? g]'():;~; floor area an(l COUNTY CARE l']O, 111~-30';4 - ROI',]':]{'.I' A,~;IIWOI{TII To p(;].'mit tl~(: e:;tabl~:;hm(~nt of a private school in the 100-E4 ",';mall F~.%tat(;s" District. Location: On thc west side of Prospect approximately 460 ft. north of Seventeenth Street. Mr. SuD~nqer presented the :.;taff report stating that the staff has no objections to the application and felt tl'~at the location is very good since an elementary school and a church are across the street from the site. lie did suggest that a minimum of 22 parking and loading spaces be provided on the site. ,It was. m. oved b.y. Mrs. Ludwig, seconded by Mr." Oster, that the County be informed of the 22 pa.rkin.q and loadin¢,~ spaces needed as stated in the staff report, recommending a~proval. Carried unanimously. 4. COUNTY CASE NO. UP-3055 - THE PETRO WASH CORPORATION To permit the establishment of a self service, drive through car wash in connection with a gasoline and auto accessory sales business in the 100-Ci-10,000 "Local Business" District. Location: Most sourtherly corner of the intersection of Newport and Walnut Avenues. (Pantry Shopping Center.) Mr. Supinqer presented the staff report stating that the CitY 6P~o~&s the approval of su~.~e'ct application for the following reasons: The City of Tustin Zoning Ordinance permits Car Washes in the C-2 District, but not the C-1 District. 2. Parking spaces are not adequate in number. Subject site is too small to provide adequate space for off-street storage of vehicles waiting in line to use the facility. Mr. James C. Bro¥;nlee, Manager of The Petro-Wash Corp., explained the type of development stating that it would be the same as a service station except there would be two (2) automatic car washes, fully attended at all times. Afte]? a brief discussion among thc Commissioners, It was moved' _b~_?~r. Web:~'q]-, seconded by ~.lr. I,arnard that the Cq.t~ty be in- forine(] of n(~ comm(~nt~.; re~ar(linq UP-3055. Motion carried 6-1. Mr. 'Mahoney voting NO. Mrs. Ludw.i~.~. st:;ttcd that she would be on w~cation for 4 or 5 week:;