Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-14-69CALL TO _.ORDER £I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III · ROLL CALL MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION · JULY 14, 1969 The me~in~ was called to order at 7:30 P.M., by Chairman Halus. Led by Chairman Halus. Present: Commissioners.: Mr. Oster, Mr. Halus, Mr. Larnard, Mr. Webster, Mrs. Ludwig Mr. Mahoney Absent: Commissioners: None Others Present: Harry'E. Gill, City Administrator James G. Rourke,'City Attorney James L. Supinger, Planning Director Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES PUBLIC HEARINGS It was mgved b~ Mr. Larnard, seconded by Mr. Oster, that the minutes of June 23, 1969, be approved as submitted. Carried 6-0. 1. PZ-69-118 - SOMMERVILLE-CONZELMAN COMPANY - (Continued June 9, 1969) For prezoning of a 5.11 acre parcel to the R-3 (1800) Multiple Family Residential - 1800 sq. ft. of lot area per dwelling unit District. Location: Site fronts approximately 665 ft. on the south- east side of Utt Drive and 335 ft. on the northeast side of Mitchell Avenue. Mr. Sommerville submitted a letter requesting continuance of subject hearing to July 28, 1969. Mr. Robert McClure, 14121 Utt Drive, Tustin, was in attendance representing homeowners in the surrounding area. It was moved by Mr. Os.ter, seconded by Mr. Larnard that Application No. PZ-69-118, be continued to the n.ext regu- lar.ly scheduled meeting 9f July 28, 1969. Carried 6-0. 2. UP-69-302 - SANTIAGO ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF LA~IN SQUARE To permit a temporary building for use as a banking facility with drive-thru facilities. Location: Newport Avenue, First Street and Centennial Way (H Street) Larwin Square Shopping Center. Mr. 8upin~er presented the staff report stating that the intention is to eventually construct permanent facilities and the proposed' temporary facility will permit the conduct of operations prior to, and ~uring, construction of the permanent facilities. " ?C Minutes - July 14, ].969 Mr. Rex Waldo, Building Official, suggested that a Type IV structure be approved, which would not require a time limit and would comply with Fire Zone I. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing ak 7:36 P.M. Those representing subject application and verballY speaking were M~[ James En~barth, 1866 Southeast Alitia Lane, Santa Ana and Mr.A1 Selkin, 7150 Fenwick Lane, Westminister. They did not feel that this would present a fire hazard since %he building would be free-standing and not particularly close to the other businesses in the contiguous area. They felt that a metal type structure would not be the most appropriate material to use, aesthetically. He stated that the length of time needed to utilize the temporary structure would be one and a half (1%) to ~ V~,~rs, but no longer than that. Economically, it was felt ti~at ti~c Froposed material for the temporary build- ing was better suited for ibis purpose, since it could be readily assembled and taken down and stored for a later time and use. There being no further discussion from the audience, Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 7:45 P.M. Mr. Larnard - voiced concern as to what was within the Com- mission's purview to make a decision, feeling that the type of structure was another code or different law. Mr. Gill stated that this area is designated Fire Zone I, which tends to restrict the type of building. He commented that the ordinance does provide that a similar type can be permitted, but would limit the time for the applicant which could run into problems if the applicant wanted this for longer than 6 months. He stated that there was no restriction of square footage, but the size of the building dictates the type of construction in Fire Zone I. The Commission discussed what stipulations and conditions were permissable in Fire Zone I, materials to be utilized, size of the structure, time limit, whether extensions for the use could be applied for and the overall problems that might occur. -Mr. Gill felt that the Building Director could answer these questions and would request that he attend the next meeting if it did not present a hardship to the applicant to postpone subject hearing to July 28, 1969. Mr. Selkin stated that he had talked to Mr. Waldo and felt that his main concern was to take preventive measures to make sure that the "temporary" building did not become "permanent.~ It was moved by'M~. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Larnard that Application No. UP-69-302 be continued to the next regularly scheduled meetin~ of Ju~ '28, 1969. Motion carried 5-0. Abstained: Mr. Oster. 3. UP-69-303 - GERTRUDE HARRIS ON BEHALF OF BLANCHE WOLFE To permit the use of two (2) existing non-conforming structures for the sale of antiques, used furniture and decorators items. LocatiDn: ~ite fronts approximately 180 fe~t on the southeast of the centerline o~ ~ne Boulevard and is ~he site of ~existing building formerly used as a packing house. (13122 Newport Avonue.) PC Minutes - July 14, 1969 Mr. Supinger presented the staff report sta~ing that this property was formerly utilized as a packing house fox agri- cultural products and that a-temporary Use Permit was issued for period of June 20 to July .20, 1969, for sale of used furniture. He stated that materials have been moved into the rear building, but sales have not been conducted because a Business License.has not been issued. Mr. Supin~er recom- meded denial due to it becoming a fire hazard and the increase in traffic flow. Mr. Supinger - This property requires a Use Permit in order ~o use the buildi'ng because it is non-conforming under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance because of the lack of'standard street right-of-way and improvements. Also, the buildings do not com- ply with the Building and Fire Codes and adequate parking is not provided. This property was formerly utilized as a packing house and several months ago it was sold to Mrs. Wolfe, who is now proposing to rent the property to Mrs.'Harris. Chairman Halus - In making my investigation and analysis in this particular case before tonight's meeting, I noticed that the use is not only in existence but the.business is in oper- ation. In making inquiries to this 'regard, I understand that a temporary Use Permit was issued and subsequently a business license. I'm surprised at the temporary use permit - my analysis of the ordinance and the information I was able to obtain is that this body grant use permits and that the Planning Depart- ment on approval of other City Departments may grant a permit for one month duration for such uses as, but not limitea to, fireworks stands and Christmas tree lots, which we all recognize as being a temporary use. It appears to me that in this case, though that a use permit was granted, not for a temporary use,' but to allow a permanent use to take effect prior to a formal hearing before this body. The reason that I'm concerned is that I'm very much concerned with the Fire Department and the Building Department reports and since we are charged with the concern of health,.welfare and safety of the community, I'm not sure that it is in the best interest of the City..to proceed in this manner - is my interpretatio~ of the temporary use permit appropriate? Mr. Rourke? Mr. Rourke - Well, I hadn't heard of this situation before you ~ust mentioned it, so I don't - what you have stated generally 'is accurate, that's for sure. Chairman Halus - But independent of any action that this body · might take this evening, are you saying that this business can continue to the. 20th of July? Based on actions that have al- ready occurred. Does that mean then, that independent of any action that this body might take this evening, that this business can continue to the 20th. of July? · Mr. Rourke - Yes, I would say that's true. Chairman Halus - O.K. - I for one, am very much concerned because I think that this particular use, the type of items, the environ- ment, the surroundihgs, the almost impossible traffic hazard created by ingress and egress to this property - creates a severe hazard situation, both in terms'.of traffic and potential fire hazard. The fact of nuisance, vandalism and any other difficul- ties that the City would face. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:07 P.M. Blanche Wolfe 7080 tIollywood Blvd., owner of the Tustin 'Heights ~hopping Center, Tustin. May I make one correction, please - '~t is not a permanent thing. I couldn't afford very well to ;~ut a building like that and have a permanent place for it. I. lid it for one reason - children were in there, it isn't a heavy ..raffic - there's one or two and they use the entrance to the · .'ustin Heights Shopping and I thought it would be safer this Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1969 way, to have someone in there, not for'the monetary purpose of it because that isn't anything, but she keeps the place clean, watches the'children - we have in the back there, a bunch of motocycles and they ride around, right into the property and do anything that they want and at present we are no% ready to take it down yet because there is other property we are acquiring. I thought it would be a safer thing to have them to c~ean the property up, keep the doors and aisles open and it's a temporary thing - I certainly couldn'~ put someone there permanently on that piece of property and it's only the back building and it's greatly improved to what it was. I think it is much less of a hazard than what it was. As far as traffice is'concerned, you can go by there anytime and there are cars parked there now that don't belong there and she only has about one or two cars that drive in a day - it is not a thriving business but people go in and out. I just did it for more or less a protec~ion.'of somebody being there and watching the buildings while they were empty - not for a great big business deal. Gertrude Harris - 4361 Salinwood Way, Irvine.- I am occupying the building at the present time on a temporary basis and I do feel that I can clean up the grounds and make it more presentable and do the type of business that I want to do in that building for as long as I can. It is the type of building that I've been looking for, the old barn type to sell old things and it just suits my needs and if I can just have it for a little while I'll be satisfied to do that. If I can I will do anything I. can to bring it into conformance.and it certainly will be more pre- sentable. The hours will be 12:00 noon to 5:00 P.M., 6 days a week. John Wirth, 16746 Redwood, Fountain. Valley - I'm just speaking as an interested person. As we talk about this building, a couple of things came to my mind - I worked for five years for Sunskist Packing House in Orange and I think of the other pack- ing houses that I use to frequent, some of them local and some of them not too local, Placentia Mutual, Villa Park, Santiago orange grove in Orange and then right out here we have Irvine. Those buildings, many of them still in operation are in the dame condition substantially as %his building is right now. Now the people that work in those buildings - you start up on the first floor and you'd have as many as 30 packers, 30 graders plus the foremen and those other fellows that keep the racks full of empty cartons there so that the total number of people nears to eighty (80) or maybe even to a hundred (100) people. In addition to the personnel that's there you have gas and you have petroleum lubricant, you have steam generators down there going and water heaters, all of which are or have open flaming somewhere and that creates fire hazards that has to be watched at all times. The Orange.Industry in Orange County is a dying industry and it's leaving behind, skeletons and those skeletons are these packing houses.- Tustin is not unique, Orange has them, Anaheim, Santa Ana- they all have the old packing .houses and are faced with the problem that you have now - what do you do with it? I think, in general, this business is a good busi- ness for Tustin - it generates a lot of good participation - if you could see the people come down there and shop, the wives all picking out their own little.projects and I'm certain you'd see the other business it generates - the purchasing of the material and chicken wire, the whole hardware industry does quite well. Thank you very much. Richard Grniset, 109 Ermabrook Rd, San Diego County, Fallbrook, We '~'ived--~n Tustin for many, many.years in agriculture on ad- joining property to the packing house. Packing houses have been basically in the same Condition for the last twenty years - they have not done much to improve it. I haven't seen in driving ~ by there.today that anything has been improved in the last 30 days, except possibly a couple of windows. The packing house, I feel, i~ a detriment to the' business property and to the com- munity. I know of other communties that do stipulate when a particu].ar property sells, even though the business is going on, · that upon sale of the property, 'the business is terminated and the property is cleared and thus improved. I realize that to clear the property is, at this particular time or any time, an expensive proposition, but the packing house, when i't owned it realized this and they did make investigations of cost to have it cleared and the property brought up to re-buildable condition. Vandalism is bad in that area - we can not keep people off of it, no matter how much we complain - how many signs you post, the signs are gone. You run the children off the property and as soon as you drive out they're back. .There are problems every where, not just in the City of Tustin but packing houses n0tori- o- ously have been traps the minute they are closed down and per- sonally, I feel that they should be removed as soon as pos- sible because of this. Unless there is a good use for them in their original condition and most buildings, I really don't feel are good for that property. I think everyone, even the owners and the people useing them - The man mentioned about pack- houses being in the area for many years and that the condition and operation and the people, etc. - he forgot to mention that most packing houses have a fantasic amount of water running thr9ugh them while they are in operation - they are cleaned daily, they don't have furniture stacked around, the boxes are . washed and also stored in an outside area. In this particular .packing house, the boilers and steam plants were in an outside building and piped 'in.~ this type.of thing, so I think some of these things should be considered.. I would like to see the building removed as soon as possible - I think it would help Tustin, help the shopping center and all the surrounding ter- ritory in the area. I can certainly understand the thought of putting it into some use until they are destroyed, but I think they should just be destroyed and not used at all. Martha Grienke, 19622 Country Lane, North Tustin, customer of .the business spoke in favor of subject application. Gertrude Harris - The gentlemen that just spoke stated that only two windows have been replaced and nothing else done - this is true, I've done very little to the outside of the building because this would be quite a little expense that I didn't want to go through in case I didn't get the permit, but I certainly intend to clean everything up and shape it around. It's been really hard work getting this much done, but I wlll certainly go a lot further to better the property if I can have it for just. a little while. Thank you. Mr. Oster - What is a little while? Mrs. Harris - As long as I can have it but I would settle for six months. I'd like to have it as long as I could, be- cause it does really suit my needs. I really do think that occupancy of the building will stop the vandalism, because they have not bothered my building since'I started.putting things in there and I only have screen wire so they could get in easily, but they do continually go into the unoccupied building in front and I think that they are lookin~ for ad- venture in the empty building rather than for merchandise. I think someone being there would definitely help the property. PC Minutes - July 14, 1969 Mr. Mahoney - You are just interested in the rear building and .not the one that is on Newport? Mrs. Harris - For now Yes. Mrs. Wirth - 16746'Redwood Street, Fountain Valley, stated that tl%e~e were children in the buildings, smoking, breaking in creating things that would cause a fire. She stated that there was-'plenty of parking for the amount of customers that they have and would like for the Commissioners to approved the subject request. She stated that there would be no elec- tricity in the building, but there would be water and there was no vandalism at the present time. There being no 'furthe~ comments from the audience, Chairman Halus closed the public portion of the hearing at 8:30 P.M. Mr. Oster - Mr. Chairman, a few questions of Mr. Supinger. Jim, as far as the fire station goes, I know part of the reasons for your recommendation is the ultimate drive at Newport. Are there any plans for the. removal of the fire station? What is the time schedule. Mr. Gill - There are no plans by the county, at this point and time,.for either abandoning this station in the near future or the construction on a new station. There has been lot of discussion between the Community of fire service and the Chief of Administrative Officer and so forth in the City of Tustin in this very matter but nothing has been reviewed at this point. It looks like the station will be there for some period of time. Mr. Supinge~ - The intention of the staff report which has been reviewed by the Building Department is that if the use were to be granted for longer than 6 months or extended beyond 6 months- that alternative 2, as listed on page 7 of the staff report, would apply as to the conditions .as necessary to make the structure satisfy thq Building Department. Their intention was .that the minor improvements necessary for 6 months from that would be as set forth in alternate 1, but if they were to go beyond that period then there would be need for extensive im- provements . Mr. Oster - Have you read the staff report on this Mrs. Wolfe? Are you prepared, if we were to grant a more than 6 month use permit to go through what is required? Mrs. Wolfe - I couldn't very well afford to just have someone to sit in the back, .but I~'ve done it for one simple reason; I have the weeds clea~ed and the place cleaned and have the aisles cleaned and not have the.- I couldn't possibly have someone just sitting there and the building set i~y - it's just a little too expensive. As far as the widening of Newport, no I would have nothiqg to do with it, because it is the rear building and not the front building. If you are widenin~ Newport, you are talking about the front building. It's just a temporary thing to have someone there - we have the maintenance man on the property, but he can't go keep checking every few minutes in the day time. He checks in the evening once or twice but the police drive around to help and check, but it's just that they know that someone is there - that's all I want. As far as a permanent thing - you can realize that it is not economically Mr. Oster - Apparently there is no electricity in the building -~ Is there any at this time? That was a statment made by the applicant. If we were to grant a use permit for a 6 month period - would the applicant have .to come back in and go through the whole screening again? - 'C Minutes 7/14/69 Mr,..14ahoney- Jim, is there a possibility,, if thi.~,. was granted for a six month period, could the time limit be put into the motion - in other words, it would not be extended to a greater length` of time than six months? Mr. Oster - We could probably state that in the the motion. At least those men, ers in the CommissJ. on who are in favor of it. Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that basically, considering where the building is located and the fact that, I would imagine, there will have to be an attempt to acquire the fire station property. At this point, the use permit should be granted. I move that Resolution No. 1092 be adopted, 'approving Appli- pation No. UP-69-303 for...~he followin~ reasons: 1. The Commission finds that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use applied for.will not, under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 2. 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: a. Limit use to a maximum of six (6) months. Provision of unobstructed aisles and cross aisles, with a minimum width of 42 inches, to provide access to exits and any other required Fire Department access doors. Provision of an adequate number of fire extinguishers in conspicuous-locations and rear exits to the satis- faction of the Fire Department. Removal of scrap wood, weeds, dry vegation and other combustible waste matter from the premises. Provision of metal containers with metal lids for the temporary storage of combustible waste matter. fo That exits be installed and maintained in accordance with'the Building Code. There .will be no electricity connected or used within the building. Mrs. Ludwi~ - I'll second, Chairman }Ialus - Thank you Mr. Oster and Mrs. Ludwig. there any discussion of the motion? TS Mr. Webster - I ;just ~ant to express my feeling that as you mentioned before the hearing was opened - I feel some concern on the procedure that has been followed to this point and time in this particular matter - I feel like I have been put between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The City has more or less told them to go ahead and then put in a position of maybe saying "no." I viewed the operation on two different occasions, today and last Friday - I would say, in comment to. some of the applicants, there were quite a few people when I was there, at least a dozen. There is some traffic, Mrs. Wolfe, there were at least 12 or 14 cars parked outside. Mrs. Wolfe - There's four or five cars that park there all ttie %~me. I don't know who ~hey belong to. PC Minutes - July 14, i9~9 Mr. Webster - Only on the condition that this use, in my opinion and I'll make my point ~ery clear and not continue beyond six (6) months would I vote in favor of it at this time. Mr. Oster - It is my intent that it be for a six (6) month period and that there will be an understanding that we would not grant any further extension under the present situation. Mr. Mahone~ - I'd like to say that I'm not in sympathy with the use, but I do feel that we. have a moral obligation - I mean I would have rather seen a different avenue taken to come before us before anything was put in there - I feel that these people have gone to an expense in moving merchandise in there and partially cleaning up the location and I would certainly vote for it along that line - if we hadn't, it would be an entirely different story. Chairman tlalus - I think it was unfortunate that the Commis- sion was put in that position, Mr. M~honey, because we are charged with. being concerned with the health, safety and welfare of the community and look at apartments to the south- west of this structure - I feel that there is a major hazard in the particular building. Hours 12 to 5, six (6) days a week do not indicate to me, a major detriment to vandalism. I think our police records indicate that most of our vandalism takes place in the night time'hours. Unfortunately I just don't think that this is a good use in that location. I agree with Mrs. Gre~.nke, that indeed we probably need something like this in Tustin, but where we need it is in a place that is safe and is not a fire hazard, that is sound - where we don't run the risk of someone going through a Water soaked floor, because the roof leaks or where you have over-stuffed furniture sitting outside or.stacked up inside or someone that does not obey a "no smoking" sign and if they happen to drop a cigarette in the area we could have a major bonflagration in the area. I feel that it is not a good use in this particular building in this location, in all due respect to the fire station being next to it. Fire stations have burned down to. I feel that it is unfortunate in the way that this has progressed, because it's obvious in going through the building, as I have on two occasions, that a great deal of work has gone into it and there is a tremendous amount of merchandise inside this door and there is a great deal of effort that has certainly gone into moving it. I think the applicant has gone to a great deal of effort - I think, perhaps, in my opinion, I can not in all clear conscience, in the best interest of the City recognize extending this use beyond the current July 20 date. Mr. Larnard - I will vote in favor of the motion because' of the ~osition that the occupants have been put in, but I also would hate to see this use continuing beyond six (6) months and would hope that perhaps the occupants pay particular attention to the staff recommendation before the changes were made relative to adding ~ny new merchandise to that existing, although .... Chairman Halus - From the expression of the Commission that obviously you are prone to grant this particular use for a six (6) month period, can we then implement some control to insure that these criteria, some criteria that Mr. Oster stated in his motion are implemented in a most expeditious manner? Mr~...Oste.r ~ I would assume that it must be done before JulF Chairman Halus - Can that be a condition of the motion Mr. Rourke? PC Minutes - July 14, 1969 Mr. Oster - Their temporary permit expires and if they want the use permit then...it is my understanding, Mr. Rourke that it would be .... ill effoct, have to be accomplished ..... With ~le permission of the second, I move to amend the motion to include that the conditions be met on or before July 20~ 1969. ~rs. Ludwig, second, concurred. Mr. Webster - One further comment since we seem to be going towards approval. Mr. SuPinger , what is th~ status then if we. grant this for six (6) mon~]s effective July 20, 1969 re- garding the signing on the property that is currently there? It consist of brown.paper. Chairman Halus ' Mrs. Harris is indicating that that is tem- porary but we are discussing a temporary' use which is .... Mr. Webster - My concern.is that we have had a lot of temporary signs in the City that have been .temporary for ~our years. Would they need a separate application or could they do it with- in the Sign Ordinance? Mr. Supinger - I would just say that they would have to comply with the Sign Ordinance because there has. been no application for variation from that. Chairman Halus - In the existing Sign Ordinance discusses the temporary signs of 30 days. Motion carried 5-1. Mr: Halus .vo'tin~ No. BUSINESS NONE 2NESS 1. PARCEL MAP (PM-69-24) - DUDLEY FRANK To divide parcel for purposes of development. Location: Easterly side'of Newport Avenue north of the Santa Ana Freeway. Mr. Orville Myers, City Engineer, submitted a report, stating that this parcel was the subject of previous Planning Commis- sion action to approve construction of a Col. Sander's Roast Beef take-out food facility and that submission and approval of a parcel map to create the parcel was a condition of approval of the facility. Mr. M~ers, recommended that a minute order approving the parcel map subjeot to.final approval by the City Engineer and recordation 6f the map, be adopted. After a brief discussion among the Commissioners, it was moved by Mr. Larnard, seconded by Mr. Oster that a minute order be adopted, approving the parcel map subject ~o final approval by .the City Engineer and reco~d~tion of the ma~. Motion carried unanimously. 2. BOUTIQUE BUS - FORMAL FINDING 69-7 Request for delegation of authority to permit administrative approval for temporary sales establishments. PC Minutes - July 14, 1969 Mr. S9~!)j3p~ presented thc staff rcport stating that the City has received a request for a Business License to per- mit the operation of the "Boutique Bus" at various business locations. ~e bus is used for marketing mod fashions and unusual gift items. .lle stated that the staff does not have the au'thority under Ordinance No. 362 to grant permits for such tcs~porary uses. The Use Permit procedure, however, becaus~ of the time involved and the amount of different locations which would be intended for this use, is impractica and would preclude the operation of the business in Tustin. He felt that the solution would be to delegate authority to the Planning Department staff to issue permits for up to one week duration for the operation of such mobile businesses in Tustin and recommended that the proposed formal finding be adopted subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed location(s) are on private property and zoned for con~ercial use. 2. .Adequate parking spaces will be available for the permanent uses on the site. Fire, Building and Health Codes are complied with. Issuance of a Temporary Use Permit for a maximum period of seven (7) days by the Planning Director. Chairman IIalus stated tha~ he was somewhat confused by the staff's posit~on as not being able to issue this type of a temporary permit, when at an earlier hearing, they had done so or rather the City had taken such action. The Commission discussed any charges or fees that may be involved in temporary per~its, parking spaces, locations of such a use and if they are to be studied before permitting subject business to operate and time limitations. Mr. Supinge_r explained that the areas in which they would be permitted would be checked and would not be allowed if the parking spaces were not adequate. He ~ontinued to say that the seven (7) day stipulation would be allowed only for one location and after that period of time, they would have to relocate Mr. Oster stated that he would be in favor of limiting this type of finding for a one (1) year period and reviewing this at that time, approximately July 14, 1970. Mr. Gill commented that this could be reconsidered at the end 6f the one year period. It was moved by Mr..Oster, seconded by Mr. Larnard~ that Formal Findin$ FF 69-7 be adopte~ as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. ~III. ~ORRES- ?ONDENCE 1. COUNTY CASE - UP-69-3050 - EDWARD ARNOLD To permit the establishment of a nonrcommercial kennel in conjunction with an existing single family dwelling with attached garage in the 100-E4 "Small Estates" District. Location: Northerly side of ~ig Zag Way approximately 400 ft, northeasterly of La Colina Drive, in the Tustin .~ESS apl.~].ica ['.J on f¢)r a non-commc~c:[al ke~n¢,.1 wj.t'h a ma>:imum c)f six (6) dogs 'is a reasonable rcq]]e:3t and should be l)cr- mi~.~.ed if thc: dogs are kept inside: an enclosed structux'c during %1~c night to reduce the pc)ssible nuisance to neighbors. lle suggested that the County be informed of no objections to the ~2i.)proval. provided the dogs are kept within .an en- closed structure at night and that the applicant shall have a maximt~m of six dogs, over the age of four months, on the ---premises-.-after-three-.months from .the date-of..approval. .. Mr. Arnold, 12371 Zig Zag' way, gave a brief history of the origin of the dogs, the temperment of them, their physical "--l~oks"and stated tha~' they"'are'not-noisy or-vicious. In answer to Mr. Oster's question, Mr. Supin~er stated that it is not our policy to notify the surroundxng home owners, but Mr. Arnold has indicated that there were a few complaints · as to the amount of dogs being housed. Mr. Oster felt ~at due to the co~plaints, he did not feel any cements or statement was necessary to make Lo the County Planning Department. It %,sas moved by Mr. Oster,. seconded by Mr. Larnard, that no recommendation be. made to th9 Orange County Planning Department. Motion carried unanimously. " Chairman Halus brought to the attention of the Commission, the Orange County General'Planning Program and and stated that he would like to see.support of Tuskin exercised toward this. lie also stated that Planning For Orange County's Tomorrow, a one'day-conference, on the proposed General Plan- ning Program will be held S&turflay, July 26, 1969 at the UCI Campus and encouraged the Commissioners to attend. IL was moved b~ Mr. Oster, seconded b~ Mr. Webster that a minute order be ~d%~-~-.~' ~.~co.~~___~ ~-~c~0n by th~ City CouncJ. 1 on the Orange County G~.ne~al. ~].annin9 Program as follows: That the intent and objectives of the proposed Orange County Report, Part I dated June 3, 1969 be. approved and that the City of Tustin report to the Orange County League of Cities and to the Orange County Board of Supervisors that the City Council endorses the goals and recommendations as outlined in said Report Part I. Carried unanimously. )URNMENT It was moved by Mr. Larnard, seconded by Mr... Mahoney, that the m~etin9 be_adjourned. _C..arried unanimously. There being no f~rther business before the Commission, Chairman Halus declared the meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M.' ~ItAIRMAN PRO-TEM OF 'THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION.