Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-12-69MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12, 1969 The meeting was called to order at.7:30 P.M. by ~airman Halus, Led by Mr. Mahoney. Present: Con~issioners: Mahoney,'Larnard, Webster, Halus, Ludwig, Oster. Absent.: Commissioners: Sharp Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney James' L. Supinger, Plann{ng Director Doreen Henson, Acting Secretary Moved by Mr. Oster,_ seconded by Mr'. Mahonev that the minutes of April 28~ 1969~. ~ approved as submitted. Carried unanimously. 1. V-69-241 - Ro K. ELLIOTT 'COMPANY ON ~EILALF OF PARKR.IDGE tlOMES. CO. To permit construction of single family dwellings with less than the 25 foot required rear yard on 14 lots and with less than the 20 foot required front yard on 2 of the above mentioned 14 lots in Tract No. 5849. Location: Tract No.. 5849 (Proposed) fronts 660 feet on the southeast side of Mitchell Avenue approximately 330 feet northwest of the centerline of Browning Avenue. ~r. Supin~e~ presented the staff report stating that this matter was continued from April 28', 1969 meeting. The application is for construction of single family homes in the R-4 (Suburban Residential) District with rear yards complying with R-1 District requirements and with front yards of less than R-1 District require- ments. The applicant's Justification: We propose a singl9 family (R-l) Subdivision with less density than that of the present R-4 zone, and are requesting the same rear yard setback requirement as allowed in the R-1 zone. ~r. Supin~er recommended that V-69-241 be granted and also recommended that the Commission initiate rezoning of Tract No. 5849 from the R-4 District to the R-1 District to agree with the proposed land ~SC, Chairman tlalu§ opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:35 P.M. Mr. R. K. Elliott, representing Parkridge Homes, 903 South Newhope, Santa Ana, stated the reason they had pnt this application through as a variance and not a zone change was because a variance takes less time and they are about ready to start construction. Chairman llalus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 7:38 P.M. Moved by Mr.. Oster, _s_econded by Mrs. Ludwiz, that Resolution No. 1079 be adopt-ed ~rantin~ V-69-2.4~ for thc fol. lowi_n~, reasons and further to the R-1 District: P.C. Minutes $/12/6v Pg. Reasons for approval are: That the adjush~eht 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. That because of special, ctrctmmtances 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 ~ntroduced at the hearing are included by reference and made a part of the motion. AYES: }t~HONEY, LARNARD, HALUS, LUDWIG, OSTER NOES: NONE ' ABSENT: SI51RP ABSTAINED: WEBSTER Motion carried 5-0. 2. ZC-69-194 - STF, VEN SANBERG ON BEIIALF OF MAURICE LEBANOFF For rezoning of a 0.41 acre portion of a 1.05 acre parcel from tile R-1 (Single Family Residential) District to the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) District. Location: Fronts 90 feet on the west side of Pasadena Avenue and extends along the east .~ide of the Newport Freeway from the abandoned right-of-way of Second Street to Main Street. Mr. Su~ presented the staff report, stating that this matter had also been continued from the April 28, 1969 meeting. The reason for the continuance was so that the applicant could submit proposed plans for the development. Mr. Supinger stated that the reason for the application is that ,Section 3.3 of Zoning Ordinance states: "If a district boundary line divides or splits a lot, the lot shall be deemed to be included within the district which is the more restrictive". Because of this provision, subject property is considered totally R-1 unless the R-1 portion is rezoned to R-3. The staff reconmmnds denial of ZC-69-194. Chairman tlalus opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:40 P.M. Maurice Lebanoff, 15500 Tustin Village Way, Tustin, stated the purpose of his request for rezoning is to allow him to develop the property basically fn accordance with the Zoning Map of the City of Tustin. t~ said the R-3 that is there has been zoned R-3 since 1961 and he had bought tile property under that assumption. }lis real purpose is not to rezone to get more units but to have a better use of what is already zoned R-3. Mr. Lebanoff then showed some slides of the area. Mr. Charles. Beck, Architect, 996 Persidio Drive, Costa Mesa, Stated this is a very difficult parcel to develop. They have attempted to do something fr~, the planning standpoint that would be above R-3 quality; something that would enhance the &~O&, ~!~ s&~d ~he pro~er~ywould be undesirable developed R-1 from tile sales standpOtht, The units are 1 and 2 bedroom with P.C. Minutes 5/12/69 Pg. patios, balconies and walkways. In anwer to questioning by Mr. Mahou, y, Mr. Beck stated the northerly portion of the parcel would be used mostly for recreational area, possibly a swimming pool and some green area. Chairman Halus closed the public portion of the hearing at 8:00 P.M. In answer to questioning by Mr. Mahoney, ~r. Supinger stated he did not know whether the fire access would be adequate or not and would, therefore, caution the Commission about relying too heavily on preliminary plans such as this because"of the need of access to emergency vehicles. In answer to questioning by Mr. Oster, ~r.. Rourke said that because of the advertising of the hearing, he did not feel they could go to a PC zone. Mr. Lebanoff requested a continuance until the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Moved by Mr. Os~er., seconded _by Mr. Mahone¥. that this matter be continued to the next reKu!ar' mc,tinK of the PlanninR Comm~issio.n, .~5/26/69. Mr. Webster stated he would prefer to consider the matter under a PC application. He felt the only zone on the books that'could possibly solve the problem is PC. He felt that the request for a zone change should be denied. Mr. Oster stated that with the con§ent.of the second he would like to withdraw his motion to continue the matter. The second, Mr. Mahoney agreed· Moved by Mr. ~a~na~d, seepnded by Mr. Webster that Resolution No. ~0~0 be adoptgd' r9coM~9Ddin8 denial of ZC-69-194 for the following reasons. ~. The proposed zoning would permit a maximum density of 34 dwelling units per acre which is more than eight times the density proposed by the.Tustin Area General Plan. The property is within the "Tustin City Area"which will be the subject of a detailed study by D~velopment Research Associates as part of an economic study currently underway. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by reference and made a part of the motion. ~r. Webster, in commenting on the motion, stated that after, the study of the Tustin City Area is completed it would be, in fact, proper for the City to initiate rezoning to conform with a more specific plan for that specific area. AYES: M~dlON~Y, LARNARD, WEBSTER, HALUS~ L~DWIG, OSTER NOES: NON~ Motion carried 6-0. P.C. Minutes' 5/12/69 Pg. 4 3. PROPOSED ORDINANCE CREATING A DEVEI.OII~EN*f PREVIEW CO~IITTEE ~r. Supinger prescntdd the staff report stating that the public hearing on this matter was continued from April 14, 1969, to permit the compilation of additional information by the staff and further study of information by Co~missioners. Since the April 14 meeting the staff has conducted a suryey of 14 California cities to ascertain some of the functional aspects of the design review process in the cities. The attached table summarizes the responses received from 11 of the 14 cities. Several conclusions can be made from the responses: ~11 of the respondents (except San Marino which does not have a formal process) felt that the design review process functioned well and was having an effect on c~nmunity design. " 2. Seven of the 11 cities have members of the design professions as members of the design review body. 3. Only four of the 11 cities included Planning Commissioners or City Councilmen on'the design review body. 4. Only three cities compensate members of the design review body. e In seven of the 11 cities the action of the design review is final unless appealed to' either the Planning Commission or the City Council. It is felt that several.of.~he conmmnts made at the public hearing are valid and can be resolved by minoC chm~ges in the proposed ordinance. This is particularly true relative to the qualifications of members of the committee. The survey bears out the fact that the membership of the c~aittee shoulR include persons having design training such as architects, building designers, landscape architects, artists, etc. This change would, we feel, dispel mmny of the fears expressed at the public hearing. The question of c~npensation should be further considered. Although, it would be good to eliminate the expense of compensation,' it may be necessary to offer compensation to secure a sufficient number of qualified persons to serve on the conm~ittee. Though the AIA report recommends that the design review body be a recommending body, the survey indicates that a majority of the respondent cities make the design review decision final unless appealed. It is our opinion that the decision should be final unless appealed to the City Council. This would keep the process short and would eliminat~ the possibility of two appeals which would be repetitious. Rec~,endation: That Draft III (4/1/69) be changed as follows: Section 5.240 APPOIN'iP~q']h~ OF DEVELOi~EWi' PREVIEW CO~ITTEE The City Council shall appoint a DeveloMnent Preview Co~mnittee which shall consist of five (5) members, of whom two (2) shall be either licensed architects or building design%ers, one (1) shall be a landscape architect and two (2) shall be persons havin~ e P.C. Minutes 5/1 /69 Pg. 5 a demonstrated knowledbe of, or experience in, the visual arts. Alternate me~ers of shnilar qualifications shall be appointed to serve, in the absence of regular men, ers. Committee members shall be appointed for two (2) year staggered remus. Of the first men~ers appointed, two (2) members shall be appointed for a one (1) year tetnn and three (3) members shall be appointed for a two (2) year term. Thereafter each member shall be appointed for a two (2) year term. pection 5.270 APPLICATION & ACTION Applications for Development Preview shall be made on forms provided by the Planning Department, together with two (2) sets of plans, at least one (1) day prior to the ~ay of the meeting at which said plans are to be considered. The decision of the Development Preview Con~nittee shall be final unless appealed, in writing, stating the reasons for said appeal, to the City Council, within fifteen (!5) calender'days of the date of the action taken by the Committee. Mr. S~pointed out that the two major changes made in Draft III are the make-up of the committee and the appeal procedure. Chairn~n Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:15 P.M. Mr. Nick Barletta, 105 South pro'spect, Tustin, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated tile Board of Directors of the Chamber had not had an opportunity to meet and c~ne up with a recc~m~,endation. He asked how much deviation from the Architectural Commfttee is there in the Development Preview Committee and was advised by Chairman ]lalus that the point of emphasis was on the word "Preview" in an attempt to ge~ the' developer to come to the committee at a very early stage of development~ ~r. Supinger advised that the proposai would include basically the functions which are currently excercised by the Architectural Committee° There would be some changes; for instance, signs would be reviewed - they are not currently reviewed. Mr. Barletta commented on the make-up of the Conanittee, stating the Chamber would reccam~end that there.be at least one businessman, preferably from the Chamber. Mro Barletta requested that this matter be continued to the May 26, 1969 meeting. Mr. Gered Smith, 2043 Westcliff Drive, Newport Beach, c~]m~ended the staff for their work and their research on this ordinance with respect to other communities. He said one thing he felt should be included for review by this con~ittee is R-1 residential units. tlc felt if there 'wa~ going'to be architectural control on structures within the City, they should be on all structures; that 75% of the property in Tustin is 'R-1. Mr. Smith felt that the ultimate decision concerning architectural control should be made by the City Council. Mr. Robert l~al!, 370 West Fourth Street, Tustin, asked if public buildings such as schools and City buildings would be included within the Jurisdiction of this committee. Chairman llalns advised that the co~mnittee would review commercial, multiple residential and professional buildings. P.C. tlinutes 5/12/69 Pg. 6 Mr. llall comnented c.onccruing the make-up of the c~,mittee. lie said he was a lover of tile arts, but many artists and some architects, not including Mr. Smith, are not always in tune with the economic realities. He would hate to be put in a position to satisfy them just to get a building permit. It is discouraging to try to do something nice architecturally, be requested to add some more to it, then drive down the s~reet and see something just completed that does not seem to be in the same league. He agreed with Mr. Smith's opinion that R-1 should be included in the conm~ittee's functions. Chairm~n Halus closed the public portion of the hearing at 8:55 P.M. Moved by Mr. M~hon?y,~ seconded~by Mr. Oster that the proppsed ordinance creatin~ Day, lo?re,ut Preview Con~nit~-ee~be, .conti.nued to. May 26, 1969 at which tinge the puh].ic portion of the hearing, will be. r.eop~ene_d_; that the staff be instructed to broaden it to include R-1 and public buildings. Mr. Oster requested that the staff furnish the Chamber of Commerce, Mr. tlall, Mr. Smith and other interested parties, with the proposed revisions. Mr. Supinger requested that any additional cormments from the Chan~er or other interested parties be submitted to the Planning Department by noon on Friday, 5/23/69. AYES: MAHOk~Y, LARNARD, WEBSTER, HALUS, LUDWIG, OSTER NOES: NO~ ABSENT: S}LARP }iotion carried 6-0. 4. UP-69-300 - CA]R.~AN Bo & SARA J. BARN]iTT ON BEHALF OF A. R. AUNGER To permit an automobile repair sh~p and auto parts sales in the C-2-P District. Location: Existing building ~125 W. Main Street. Fronts 90 ft. on the north side of Main Street approximately 100 feet west of the centerline of E1 Camino Real. M~. Supinger presented the staff report, stating the applicant's justification is as follows: We need a larger building for our present repair shop located at 145 W. First Street, Tustin. This building is large enough to allow the entire repair work and storage of the vehicles to be done inside the building. A small portion of the front will be used for the auto parts sales. Repairs to the windows and doors and painting will be maintained to insure a good, clean appear~nc~ of the property. Mr. S~pinger recommended approval subject to the following conditions: That access rights, satisfactory to the City Engineer, be obtained prior to c~mnencement of the use for egress from the easterly parking lot to either the alley on the westerly side of the building or the alley at tile northerly side of tile property. That all parking areas be paved with an all-weather surface. 3. That.the Unform Fire Code be complied with. 4. ~at operations be conducted within an enclosed structure at all times. P.C. Minu~'6s 5/12/69 Pg. 7 In answer to questioning by Mr. Mahoney, Mr. Supinger stated that the parking lo,t just to the east is part of this application. Chairman llalus opened the public portion of the hearing at 9:02 P.M. Sara Barnett., 14201 Raleigh Place, Tustin, applicant, stated the parking area had been paved with a hard surface at.one time, but is now in need of repair, She said it will not have to be completely redone but a large portion of it needs to be resurfaced. Chairman Halus closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:05 P.M. In answer to questioning by Mr. La'rnard, Mr.. Supin~erstated that no correspondence had been received on this matter. Moved by Mr.. Larnar~ seconded byMr. Mahongy that Resolution ~o. 1081 be___~8.o_pted_a~R~p~o¥~3g ~P-69f3QO for the follow~4~g reasons and. subject to the following conditions: ReaS,OnS.: 1. The Commission finds that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circtunstances of the particular case be detr~nental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons resid{ng 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. 2. As additional grounds, the ~inubes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by reference and made a part of the motion. Conditions: That access rights, satisfactory to the City Engineer, be obtained prior to commencement of the use for egress from the easterly pgrking lot to.either the alley on the westerly side of the building or the alley at the northerly side of the property. 2. ~at all parking areas be paved With an all-weather surface. 3. That the UniformFire Code be complied with. 4. That operations be conducted within an enclosed structure at all times. AYES: MAHONEY, LARNAR~, WEBSTER, HALUS, LUDWIG, OSTER NOES: NOb~ ABSEW£: S }D~RP Motion carried 6-0. 5. V-69-245 - E. II. YRAMATEGIrl To permit the extension of an cave to within 2'6" of the side property line. Location: Site fronts 73 feet on the southwest side of Roanoke Avenue and is the site of existing residence 1952 Roanoke Avenue. P.C. Minutes 5/12/69 1'~. 8 ,fir,. Supinger presented the staff report and stated the staff rccon~ncnds denial of this application because there is not sufficient justification. In answer to Mr. Oster's question, .Mr. Su~_inger stated that no new correspondence had been received on this matter. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 9:08 P.M. Mr. E. H. Yramate~su._i., applicant, of 1952 Roanoke Avenue, Tustin, stated everything he had done had been done in good faith° fl, had talked with Mr. Supinger and Mr. Waldo and apparently there was some difference of opinion concerning the background in the case as sta~ed in the report from Mr. Waldo. He said there had been a sign-off inspaction made. He said the sign-off notice had been lost, but the inspector at that time did tell his wife that it was signed off. Chairman Halus closed the public portion of,the ~earing at 9:12 P.M. I~ answer to Mr. Mahoney's question, ,}ir.. Supinger stated that Mr. Waldo indicates there was not a final sign-off. He indicated in the discussion referred to .by Mr. Yrmnategui, that the inspector, Mr. fi, ss' statement was that the structure was structurally all right, but that an encroacl~ncnt did exist and he could not say what would happen in that regard. Mr. Waldo did go back and did not find a final sign-off on this particular structure. Mr. Webster stated he felt the City was ha~nful in signing off the framing inspection knowing the dncroaclunent was there, without the o~mer being notified in writing. Moved by Mr. Webster~. ,seconded by_ Mrs. Ludwig that Resolution No. 1082 be adopted ~r.ant.'in~ V-69-.245 for the following, reasons: 1. That the adjustment applied for will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the property is situated. That special circ~mtances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, do, because of the strict application of the zoning ordinance, deprive s~bject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. ® As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by reference and made a part of the motion. Mr. Maho.ney stated he would go along with Mr. Webster in this particular case, but he would not like to see a precedent set wherein both the contractor and owner know of the encroachment. Mr. Webster stated he did not feel the Building Department should sign off something with an encroachment. In this case he feels that tile procedure needs to be corrected. Mr. I,arnard stated that apparently the Building Department did not sign this off. AYES: MAIlONEY, WEBSTER, tlALUS, LUDWIG, OSTER NOES: L/~NA~D ABSElfI': SIIARP Motion carried 5-1. P.C. Minutes $/12/69 1,g. 9 6. V-69-246 - ALPIIA BETA AC'bUS MARInE[fSi,. INCORPORA%~.~D Location: Southwest corner at the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and Walnut Avenue and fronts approximately 620' on the northwest side of Red Hill Avenue and 400' on the southwes~ side of Walnut Avenue. To Permit: A second free-standing sign identifying a specific business within a commercial c~nplex. Said sign would have an area of 149 sq. ft. per side, a total area of 298 sq. ft., a height of 21 feet an& be located within thc required front setback. Three wall.signs on one wall including:., a. Alpha Beta Sign, 321 sq. ft. b. To~al Discount Sign, 16 sq. ft. c. Store Sign, 42 sq. ft. e Total Sign Area for an individual business in excess of that permitted by ordinance. Ordinance permits total area of 322 sq. ft. for Alpha Beta Market. Proposed sign area totals 676 sq. ft. Mr._$}~inge~ presented tile staff report, stating the applicant's Justification is as follows: This pylon sign is to identify the Shopping Center, Alpha Beta Tustin is to identify the store and the discount sign is to coincide with Alpha Beta advertising. The staff recommends that V-69-246 be conditionally granted to permit: .-' One (1) free,-standing sign within the required setback from Red llill Avenue with sign copy to identify the shopping complex. Maximum he~ght 21 feet, maximum area per side 149 sq. ft. and maximum area all sides 298 sq. ft. One (1) wall sign facing Red tltll Avenue, copy reading '%lpha Beta" having a maximum total area of 320 sq. ft. and located as shown on the plans submitted with the application. One (1) wall sign on the southwesterly side of the building to be occupied by AlPha'Beta, having copy reading '~lpha Beta Tustin" a maximum total area of 42 sq. ft. and the specific location subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Chairman llalus opened' tlm public portion of tile hearing at 9:40 P.M. Mr. Richard Cox, 1407 Russell Drive, Long Beach, representing Alpha Beta stated on the Alpha Beta free standing sign they would put Alpha Beta Center and eliminate '~fhe Best for Less." He said they would completely eliminate the Alpha Beta Tustin sign rather than move it to the southwesterly side. Chairman llalus closed the public portion of the hearing at 2 I,.M. I'.C. Minutes 5/12/69 Pg. 10 _}loved by Mr. Wcbst__c.}': seconded by. }ir. I,arnard that Resolution No. ].083 bc adopted condition, ally approvin$ V-69-246 to permit: 1. 1 free standing sign within the setback area fr~n Red Hill Avenue with thc copy "Alpha Beta Center" maximum height 21 feet, maximt~n area per side 149 sq. ft. and maximum area all sides 298 sq. ft. 1 wall sign facing Red IIill Avenue, copy reading '~lpha Beta" having a maxhnum total area of 320 sq. ft. and located as shown on the plans submitted with the application. Condition of approval: That the free standing sign described above be designed and cox~tructed so as to prevent the sign structure footing from interfering with the propose&,storm drain to be constructed in the area and tha~ the plans for the sign.be subject to t]~ approval of the City Engineer. Reasons_ for approval: 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. 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 cnjoy¢d p~ other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included b~ reference and made a part of the motion. In answer to }ir. Mahoney's question, }~. Supinger stated he believed the reason for eliminating the Alpha Beta Tustin sign was because the applicant had offered to do so rather than move the sign to another wall. Moved by }ir. Oster;: $.eao~d9d. by }ir. M~.~0j_ojl~v tO ~_nl~lld: the_ _to ~rant__the sj.~.n~ Set fp.r~th i~L_the pr%or mot~on and~n add.J~tion to include one wall sign on ~h.e. north.ca.s.t, side, pl..th.e, buildj.n?., _haying the cody ."Alpha Deta T~stin" J,n the lpc$.t%qn a~ ~hown on .t!]e plans submitted w.i.t_h the a.pplicat~o~. Vote on the amendment: AYES: MAIlOk~Y, LARNARD,' }b~LUS, LUDWIG, OSTER NOES: WEBSTER ABSENT: SHARP Amendment to the motion carried 5-1. Vote on the motion: AYES: MAIlONEY, LARNARD, LUDWIG, OSTER NOES: WEBSTER, ILAO, US ABSEN'£: SiIARP Motion carried 4-2. P.C. tiinutes 5/12/69 Pg. 11 7, ZG-69-195 - WILFRF.]) B. TAYLOR AND ROB]~RT ]]ALL For rczoning of ~ 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: At the northwest corner of the intersection of Pacific and Main. Fronts 220 feet on the north side of'Main, 300 feet on the west side of Pacific and 220 feet on the south side of Third Street. }ir. Supinge_r- presented the staff- rePort stating the applicant's Justification as follows: Property fronts on an 80 ft. primary street (Main Street) directly across the street from existing apartment use and is bound bye(2) 66 ft. streets on the east side and rear. The property is not feasible to be developed into 10 homes. Mr. Supinger recommended denial of ZC-69-195 for the following ~'eas on8: The proposed R-3 (1500) zoning would permit a maximum density of 29 d.u./acre which is more than seven times the 4 d.u./acre density of. the Medium Density Residential use as designated on the General Plan. e The General Plan should be amended, if multiple family use is intended for the area, prior to re~oning for multiple family. e One of the project impIementa'tion studies to be 'conducted during the Phase,~ portion of the Economic Study currently underway will analyze land ue~ n~eded in the Tustin City Area. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by reference and made a part of the motion. Mr. Supinger stated a letter and booklet had been received from Mr. Be¢~nan in which is a summary of Mr. Beckman's feelings, opposing the application. Chairman Hales opened the public portion'of the hearing at 9:55 P.M. Mr, Bob llall, 370 West 4th Street, Tustin, appearing as Mr~ Taylor's developer, stated that it is the intention of Mr. Taylor to retain ownership of the property if the zone change is allowed. Most zone changes are for a change in use; they are asking for the same basic type of use, residential. The General Plan should be amended if multiple.family, is reco~nded for this area. He said many zone changes 'have been granted ~ere the General Plan was not amended. Concerning .the Economic Base Study, he felt it is known at this point what the report is going to say and that is to increase the density in the older town area. If the Con~nission cannot see their way clear to approve this application before that study is in (August) they would be willing to continue until that t~ne. Ue said, however, that a zone change could be granted without a General Plan amendment and without the Economic Base Study. They are planning an adult eon~nunity with no children. One of the reasons zone changes are denied is that there is opposition in the area. t~ doesn't deny there is opposition in the area, but it is not total opposition. P.C. Minutes 5/12/69 Pg. The following people spoke in opposition to this zone change: Mr. Leroy Conle~, 17332 Roselcaf, Tustin Mr. C. B. Martin, 660 West 3rd Street, Tustin Mr. Charles Eels, 665 Main Street, Tustin Mr. Mike Cervin, 685 West 3rd Street, Tustin Mr. Leon Strahan, 670 West 3rd Street, Tustin Their reasons for opposition were parking problems, noise, traffic congestion, invasion of privacy. }tr. R~chard Kruppe, 12312 Newport, Tustin, spoke in favor of this zone change, stating that just because the homes in the area are older homes, that does not mean you cannot also have new apartments. He felt the .privacy of the people now living in the area would not be invaded. Mr. Wilfred Taylor, applicant, 10281 S.W. L'adera Senda, Santa Aha, stated he. is the owner of the property and had dealt with 8 contractors who made an honest effort to draw up plans for single family residences° Every one was shot down by the lender. If this zone change is denied, his only alternative is to put cheap, pre-built homes on the property° Chairman Halus closed the public portion of the hear.lng at 10:37 P.M. Mr. Oster stated in view of the prior action taken with respect. to other zone chans~s in .t. his area, he would move that this matter be continued to the August 11~ 1969 meetin5 for the reason that another hearinE has been set for that meeting in the same area and at that time the results of the Economic .Study should be available. Seconded by Mr. Larnard. AYES: MA]IONEY, LARNARD, WEBSTER, HALUS, 'LUDWIG, OSTER NOES: NONE ABSENT: SIlARP Motion carried 6-0. Chairman Halus declared a recess at 10:40 P.M. Meeting reconvened at 10:45. P.M. 8. PROPOSED A~)MENTS TO TI~ SIGN ORDINANCE }~r. Supinger stated the item under discussion is the 5th draft of the proposed changes in the Sign Ordinance as a result of meetings with the Chm~er of Commerce and the sign industry. He has asked for cormnents on thc matter and had received none to date. }la felt it fair to say that the ordinance would be a liberalization of the present ordinance, providing more leeway, providing fo~ more signs and sign area in some eases. Chairman llalus opened the public portion of the hearing at 16:47 P.M. Nr. Con Adams, President of the Chamber of Ccanmerce, stated this thing started a year and a half ago at which time the Chamber formed a blue ribbon task force which ccm~pleted 280 man hours on their study. At no time did this conm~ittee want cluttered signs, but they want good signs for the business people. Mr. Barl~tta stated that all the people involved in this, including all the City agencies, have worked very hard and should be eeanplimented, lie felt they were very close to agreeing on a Sign Ordinance, lie requested a joint meeting concerning one or P.C. Minnies 5/12./69 I'g. 13 two major items and about seven or eight minor items that perhaps just need a word chansed here and there, lie felt a joint session w~th all the persons, involved would be the best thing now. Mr. MahoncZ asked if Mr. Barletta was proposing a meeting with both the Council and the Co~nission. Mr. Barletta suggested meeting with the staff and as 'many people from the Chamber as possible, business people, etc., for a "sh ir ts leeve scs s ion." Chairman llalus closed the public portion of the hearing at 11:00 P.M. .Moved by Mr. Mahoney.~. seconded, by Mr. Larnard that this matter be continu~c..d., tp J.une 9, 1969 to study the Sign Ordinance and recommended that a workshop be ca.lled for the. people involyed.. AYES: MAIIO,NEY, LARNARD, WEBSTER, HALUS, LUDWIG, OSTER NOES: NONE ABSENT: SIL~d~:' Motion carried 6-0. NONE 1. PARCEL MAP .. M4-69-19 - FOODMAKER INCORPORATED ~pc~t~.~on: Northwest corner of 17th S[reet and Yorba Street. ~r. Su in~. presented the staff re'oCt stating the reason for the application is to divide the parcgl at zone line for purposes of sale and development. He said both parcel 1 and 2 of the property have recently been rezoned to C~2 and R-3 (1900) respectively, l%is Parcel Map is necessary to separate the zoning districts and create the parcels for development. Ail street improvements have been constructed on both parcels. The staff reconmends approval subject to final approval by the City Engineer and recordation of the map. Moved by, Mr. WebsteE~ s~condp~ bM }irs. Ludwig that a minute order ~eadopted approving Pbi-69-19 subject to final approval by the City Engineer and recordation of the map. AYES: MAHON~Y, LARNARD, WEBSTER, HALUS LUDWIG, OSTER NOES: NO~ ABSEb~f: SIIAR]? Motion carried 6~b. ' 1. COUN'fY CASE ZC-68-56 - R. T. FRENCH DEVq~LOI~5~f For rezoning from thc 100-E4 (Small Estates) District to the CN (C~,mnercial, Neighborhood) District. Location: Tile northwest corner of the intersection of 17th St. and Newport Avenue. }fr. SI,pinE. er. presented the staff report stating his recon~nendation that the County be infoz~ned of the Commission's opposition to this P.C. Minutes 5/12/69 Pg. 14 proposed zone change for the following reasons: The proposed commercial zoning conflicts with the Tustin Area General Plan which designates the subject property fo~ Medium Low Density Residential use (2.5 dwelling u~lits/acre). 2. Adequate justification has not been made for modification of the General Plan. The City of Tustin is conducting an Economic Study which will analyze land use needs. It would seem appropriate that no rezoning in conflict with the General Plan should take place until the analysis is available. Chairman Halus declared a short recess to change the tape on the tape recorder at 11:02 P.M. - Meeting reconvened at 11:05 P.M. I6 answer to Mr. Mahoney's question, Mr. S.upinger stated that no correspondence, had been received from residents in the area. Chairv~an ]]alus stated although ~his was not a public hea~ing, the Commissioners would hear anyone in the audience who wished to speak. Mr., .Ro.be~t..S. Ba.r~netJ~., attorney, Newport Beach, representing the applicant, stated that Richard's Market and shopping center is the proposal for this property. He said the City has an excellent opportunity at this' ti~ne to insure the highest possible and best use of that area with the adjacent residential and con~nercial areas. There will be no signs vis ib le. Mr. Jo.hn. J.a.m. ieson, 445 South "D" Street, Tustin, stated he lives near this proposed'pYoject an~ is' not in any way involved in the French development. Not too ldng' ago he was approached about the same property on the development of E-4 which means exactly the way it's zoned. It was impossible to come up with a program, with the influence of high-rise financing, that would sell for anything less than $50,000 to $65,000 per house. In his opinion this is not a place for residential development. Moved by Mr. Webster, seconded ,by Mr. Larnard that the County receive a letter from the Commission indicating that it 0~ppose. s the requested rezonin5 in .applica.tion Z,C~.68..56 for the followin8 reasons: The proposed conmercial zoning conflicts with the Tustin Area General Plan which designates the subject property for Median Low Density Residential use (2.5 dwelling units/acre). The City of Tustin is conducting an Econo,mic Study which will analyz~ land use' needs. It would seem appropriate that no rezoning, in conflict with the General Plan should take place until the'analysis is available. 3. Adequate justification has not been made for modification of the General Plan. 4. At this point and time there appears to be no justification for additional comnmrcial zoning in tile Tustin Area. AYES: MAIlOkqY, LARNARD, WEBSTER, lh~LUS, LUDWIG, OSTER NOES: NONE. · ABSENT: SlbkRP Motion carried 6-0. P.C. Minutes 5/1 -/69 :IIER ;SINESS PRE-MEETING Cbairm~n llalus stated there had been some discussion among the Commissioners to eliminate the pre-meeting and go r.ight into the meeting. .Moved by Mr. Oster,. seconded by Mr. Mahoney. t!3at, the pre-meetings be dispensed with and the reEnlar meetings beEin..with the Public Hearings at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Webster stated that the intended purpose of th~ pre-meeting is for technical discussion and it is very difficult to maintai~ that attitude of strictly technical discussion. AYES: MAIIONEY, LARNARD, WEBSTER, HALUS, LUDWIG, OSTER NOES: NONCE AB SE N~f: S I LA~,P Motion carried 6-0. )JOUR~fi~I~ Moved by Mr._Mahoney, seConded by Mrs. Ludwig that the meetin~ be adjourned. Motion carried 6-0 (Mr. Sharp absent). There being no further business before the Co~mtlssfon, Chairman ~.lus declared the meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION kCTING SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION