Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-28-69MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 28, 1969 CALL TO O~ER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Th~ meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by Chairman }Ialus. Led by Chairman Halus Present: Commissioners: Oster, Halus, Webster, Mahoney. Mr. Larnard joined the Commissioners at 10:00 P.M. Absent: Conmlissioners: Sharp, Ludwig Others Present: Mr. James G. Rourke, City Attorney Mr. James L. Suping~r, Planning Director Jo Ann Turner, 'Planning Secretary It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, that the minutes of April 1.4, 1969 be approved as"submitted. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS me PZ-69-115 - DR. DUAYNE CHRISTENSON For prezoning of a 3.07 acre parcel to the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) District. Location: Site fronts approximately 314 ft. on the northwest side of "B" Street, approximately 30 ft. northeast of the centerline of McFadden Street'. .Mr. Supinger presented th~ staff report stating that the pro- posal is to prezone the subject property for R-3 development prior to annexation to the City, which would permit a maximum density of 34 d.u./acre. He recommended conditional approval. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:35 P.M. Mr. Davis M. Arick, 15702 California Street, Tustin, asked what was proposed for the site and wanted to know if there would be two or three story apartments where the tenants would be looking down in the backyards of the surrounding properties. He stated that he was not opposing the appli- cation but just concerned as to what would be constructed. Mr. Roger H. k¢.nyon, with Tustin Associates, representing Dr. Chr~,tc]~on, stated that he could not answer Mr. Arick's question spedifically, but that they are trying to put the land to a better use than what it is now. Mr. Supinger stated that R-3 density, as requested by the applicant permits 34 d.u./acre and permits structures up to 40 feet in height, but at ~e present time, with all of the R-3 developments in the city, there have not been any three story apartments. He commented that he has recommended R-3 (1750) which would permit 24 d.u./acre. Halus declared the public portion of the hearing qlosed at 7:40 P.M. PC ~lillutcs - A['lJ.] 2l~ .9(,9 ]'a,~ ~ 2. It Was move.(_] by_ Mt. Oster,. seconde~c_]o_l_~.y Mr. Webt;t'e.r, that Resolution No. 1071 be 'adoPted aq~provin¢! PZ-69-115 and recommendin, g' to City Council, the adoption of an ordinance for prezoning to the R-3 (].750) (Mu].ti.ple Family. Residential 1 d.u./ 1750 sq. ft. of net lot area) District for the fol- .lowin~ reasons: 1... The ~ustin Area General Plan calls for the subject property to be in the high density residential area (12 d.u./acre) and in the heavy density residential (25 d.u./acre). The proposed density would be a good compro- mise between the heaviest density proposed by the applicant and the lesser densities surrounding the property. The proposed zoning will permit the develop- ment of a very unusual shaped parcel of property. ' As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by refer- ence .and made a part of the .motion. Condition of approval: 1. Dedication of ten (10) ft. of additional right- of-way for "B" Street. Construction of full street improvements in- cluding street trees. The above motion was voted,. ..... AYES: OSTER, HALUS, WEBSTER, MAHONEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: SHARP, LUDWIG, LARNARD MOTION CARRIED 4-0 2. V-69-243 - ANGEL-MOCK & ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF PIONEER CHICKEN - To Permit: 1. A take-out food establishment in the C-2 .(Central Commercial) District. · 2. Reduction in the required off-street park- ing spaces from twenty-five (25) spaces to nineteen (19) spaces. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that the staff has no objection to this type of use for the subject locatibn, but, because of the size and shape of the property, problems do arise in attempting to provide adequate parking for the proposed use. Additional problems of site utiliza- .......... -~cion occur with this property because of building setback requirements o~ 15 feet from the right-of-way of both E1 Camino Real and Lagqna Road. Mr. Supinger stated that the proposed plans showed'very little 'landscaping and no provision for trash storage. He recommended denial for subject application. ~ha~rman Ilalus opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:45 P.M. Those speaking in favor of the establishment were: Mr. Robert Johnson, 2930 W. Imperial Highway, Inglewood,. Architect. Mr. Steven Jones, 8833 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, repre- senting the Buyer of. the property. PC Minutes - April 2~, 1969 'Page 3 Mr. Paul Wi].man, ].3]0 Echo Park Avenue, Los Angeles, Vice ~r6-~-l~-~ of Pioneer Take-ou~ establishment. Mr. Jerr.y~Murr_ay_, representing First Western Bank, 548 South Spr~ng Street, Los Angeles Mr. Bill C~az, representing Mr. George Royer, owner of adjacent motel, asked that a 6'8" block wall be constructed on the easterly and southerly border of the property, if subject request is approved. He stated that the owner of the motel would cooperate with the applicant to make this possible so that their privacy would not be infringed upon. The applicant's representatives stated that the trash storage and landscaping requirements could be met and that they felt the 19 parking spaces would be adequate. They described the facility and ~le amount of time that customers would be on the premises, the number of employees, the request made by Mr. Gray and the desirability of the location fo~ such an operation. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman llalus declared.the public portion of ~he hearing closed at 8:00 P.M. The Commissioners voiced concern relative to the parking and the reduction of the spaces, feeling that it may constitute parking on the street, which might cause a hazardous situation. They discussed the number of people working for the establish- ment, landscaping, trash situation and traffic problems. The~ did not feel that there was justification enough to grant the reduction of the parking spaces. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Webster, that Application No. V-69-243 - Pioneer Chicken, be denied for ........... ~he follow~n~ reasons: That the a~justment applied for will constitute a grant of special Drivilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the propert~ is situated. That special circumstances applicable to the sub- ject property, including size, shape, topography location or surroundings, do not, because of the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance, de- prive subject property oT privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identi- cal zone classification. As additional grounds, {he minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by refer- ence and made a part of the motion. The above motion was voted. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: OSTER, :WEBSTER, HALUS F~AIIONEY SIlARP, LUDWIG, LARNARD MOTION CARRIED 3-1 V-69-241 - R. K. ELLIOTT COMPANY ON BEHALF OF PARKRIDGE IIOME$ COMPANY - To permit: The construction of single family dwellings with less than the required rear yard. less than the required front yard depth on lots 10 and 24 of Tentative Tract 5849. PC Minutes - April 28. 1969 Location: Proposed tract number 5849 fronts 660 ft. on the 'southwest side of Mitchell Avenue, approximately 330 ft. northwest of the centerlin- of Browning. Chairman tIalus gtated that Mr. Webster would be abstaining from voting on subject application, leaving them without a quorum for acting on the hearing. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, that due to the lack of quorum, this hearing be continued to ~he ~ay 12, 1969 Plannin~ Commission me~t~'n~. The above motion was vo~e~ AYES: OSTER, HALUS, MAHONEY NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: WEBSTER ABSENT: LARNARD, LUDWIG,"SIIARP MOTION CARRIED 3-0 4. V-69-244 - TRANS ROBLES CORPORATION To permit the continued use of double sided tract identification sign with a total area of 696 sq. ft. for a period of six (6) months. Location: Lots 6 and 7 of Tract No. 5726 (Tustin North) on the east side of Marshall Lane, approximately 630 ft. north of the centerline of Laurie Lane. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that this request is for continued use of an existing 12' X 29' double sided tract identification sign to advertise the Tustin North development. He'stated that the applicant informed the staff that there are only four homes to be sold and that there have'been no complaints regarding bootleg signs since the last variance was granted in September, 1968. Mr. Supin~er recommended conditional approval. Chairman Halus opened the publi9 portion of the hea~ing at 8:12 P.M. Mr. John Perry, 1282 La Colina, Tustin, representative for Trans Robles, stated that there are only four (4) homes left for sale, although eleven (11) more lots are under construction now and asked that if a stipulation is made, that it be for fifteen homes rather than four (4). At this time there are four vacant homes and two of these are the original homes. Miss Onna Elliott, 13631 Yorba, stated that Trans Robles has not complied with the law requested by the Planning Commission approximately 6 mo~ths ago, stating that the signs are still situated at 17th and Yorba, Yorba and LaUrie and stated that a new sign appeared at Laurie and Yorba on the 5th of April. Miss Elliott stated that she has observed "bootleg" signs on Grand Avenue, Santa Clara, Tustin Avenue and Fairhaven. She voiced opposition to subject application. ~r. Perr~ stated that' he had made an agreement with the City of Tustin, and to the best of his ability, has complied with the requirements. He stated that he has not made an agreement with the City of Santa Ana for the same conditions, where these o~her signs are located. PC Minutes - April 25. 1969 Page 5 There being no further comments from the audie]lce, Chairman }Ialus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:20 P.M. Mr. Webster painted out that the signs on Laurie Lane & Yorba and the ones on 17th and Yorba are not in question and not in- cluded in this particular application. He asked if there were any conditions that have not been complied with. Mr. Rourke, City Attorney, stated that the ~eveloper has an agreement with the City relative to his participation and certain cost of the development of a park which he has not performed that obligation yet and recommended that if the Commission grants approval of this variance that they make a condition that the applicant complete his performance of this obligation to the satisfaction of his office or the office of the City Administrator within 30 days. Mr. Perry concurred with Mr. Rourke's request. Mr. Webster voiced concern relative to the two other signs that were not included in this application. He stated that he appreciated Miss Elliott's concern of the signs, but felt that the problem is with the unsold homes, and pointed out tha~ the sign that is closest to her property will be eliminated shortly. It was moved by Mr. Webster, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, that Resolution No. 1072 be adopted, conditionally 9ppr~vin~ ¥-69-244 for the following reasons: That the adjustment hereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special privilege incon- .sistent with the limitations upon other properties in 'the .vic~.nity and district in which the subject property is situat~d~ That because of special cirqumstances 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 introduced at the hearing are included by refer- ence and made a part of the motion. Conditions of approval are: That the permit shall expire upon the completion of the first sale of the remaining unsold homes and/or lots in the tract or six (6) months, which- ever occurs first. 2. That within thirty (30) days, the applicant will, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney or the City Administrato~ comply with a prior agreement regarding the participation of cost in the park. 3. That any and all existing signs not covered by this application in the city limits of the City of Tustin be rem~vm~ within seven (7) days. Mr~ Oster asked what could be done about "bootleg" signs. PC Minutes - April .8, 1969 Mr. Rourke stated t]~at the Cit~ could undertake prosecution ~'f'-~][e person t]~at has' placed the sign or the Commission could set a hearing for revocation of the total variance upon the condition that the applicant is maintaining Such other signs. , The revious motzon was amended, with the a~.reement of the maker of the mot. ion and t]~e second, that at any time in this application the Sign Ordinance of the City of Tustin is violated upon not~ce of hearing._b_y the Plannin~ Commission the use of the sign for which .this variance, is granted, may be immediately terminated after the hearing. The above motion was voted by roll call. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: OSTER., HALUS, WEBSTER, MAHONEY NONE SHARP, LUDWIG~ LARNARD MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 5. UP-69-296 - LONA L. FARRELL ON BEHALF OF C. T. GILBREATH To permit the sale. of new and used clothing and antiques in the C-2 (Central Commercial) District. Location: 528 E1 Camino Real at the southwest corner of Jamestown Village Shopping Center. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that the applicant proposed to open a shop for the sale of new and used clothing and antiques at a different location, but in the same shopping center. A Use Permit is required for "second hand sales" in the 'C-2 District. Approval was recom- mended. .. Chairman IIalus opened the public 'portion of the hearing at 8:30 P.M. There being no comments from the audience, Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:31 P.M. It was moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Oster, 'that Resolution No. 1073 be adopted, approvin~ Aj~plication No. .UP-69-296 for the following reasons: The Commission finds that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use and it will not be injurious or detrimental to the prop- erty and ia}provements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by refer- ence and made a part of the motion. The above motion was ~oted, AY ~..' S: NOES: OSTER, HALUS, WEBSTER~ MAHONEY NONE ABSENT: SHARP~ LUDWIG, LAR~,~RD .M. OTION' CARRIED 4-9. PC Minutes - Apr4.~ 28, PagE: 7 : 6. PZ-69-].17 - (GEORGE L. ARGYRO$ For prczoning of a 3.5 acre parcel as PC (PlanD¢:d Community - Commerci4tl) District and PC (Planned Community - Professional Offices) District for an · automobile service station and professional offices. Location: At the northwest corner of the intersection of Fourth and Yorba Streets. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that a previous application by Atlantic Richfield for a service station at the intersection of Fourth and Yorb~, surrounded by co~nercial and with multiple family along the north boundary was denied by City Council in October 1968. The new proposal is for a service station fronting on Fourth adjacent to the freeway with the remainder of the parcel utilized for professional offices. Mr. Suping~r stated that new stations should be encouraged at freeway interchanges with the hope that additional money, over and above that spent at the stations, will be spent at other business locations. He felt ~hat this would help the business community as well as the City revenues through sales tax. He felt that attention should be given to the location of service stations and the development of a "cut- throat" situation, such as exists along Newport Avenue and should be discouraged. He stated that the proposal for professional offices is a good solution'to much of the criticism against previous plans for this property and recom- mended conditional approval because the proposed zoning com- plies with the Tustin Area General Plan. The Engineering Department submitted comments stating that ~he proposed annexation and development of the parcel at the north west corner of Fourth Street and Yorba presents several problems from the engineering standpoint. Some of these prob- lems mentioned were; restriction of south bound traffic on Yorba to one lane, hazardous entr~ of vehicles from the devel- opment directly into the traffic lanes of Yorba, trees in unorthodox locations being struck by vehicles, poor condition of trees and the location of the southerly driveway onto Yorba. All of the above problems relate to keeping the tre~s. Chairman Halus asked Mr. Rourke to explain the legality of the consideration or the proper procedure for a use permit ' for this particular application. Mr. Rourke explained that the PC zone provides that you can rezone property to the PC zone and make it subject to any one or all of three provisions: That you'approve the complete developmental standards of the property. 2. 'That you.incorporate by reference all the restrictions of some other particular zone t~ this property. That you require the issuance of a conditional use permit at a later date for the actual proposed de- velopment. Chairman Ilalus opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:37 P.M. Mr. qeo___r.~e .Arg~r__o_s., 415 West Fourth Street, applicant, pre- sented slides of the proposed development explaining each phase of the consi:ructi~n. He stated that the p. roject would materzals that will be used, thc patio, the center courtyard and stated that the p'arking space is proposed for more than what is needed, lie discussed the square footage involved, PC h~nu[~:,, - Apri 1!)69 ingress and egress of the..pro, p~r.t,y, landscaping, block walls surrounding certain portions of the property, screening the project from residential areas and stated that he did not find any problems wit]] the staff report's recommendation and conditions. 'He described the service station location and the plans for landscaping, 'installing a block wall and the %3eneral plan of what is proposed. He stated that "item 4.. under conditions, relative to in- stallation of a cross gutter across Yorba Street to resolve the drainage problem, could be worked out and He would work with the City to resolve any problems. Mr. ~rgyros stated that it is the intention of the oil company to apply for a freeway sign at a limited height, at a later date. Mr. Andy Hedblom, 12601 Browning Avenue, Santa Ana, stated that he has wor~ed with Mr. Argyros on the plans for service stations and feels that they have accomplished well-planned structures with a spanish motif that ties in beautifully with the proposed structures surrounding it. Mr. Ed. Driscoll, 17372 Roseleaf Avenue, Tustin, stated that residents from the area of Fourth and Yorba protested the application of Atlantic Richfield last year during the months of July through October of their proposed service station at the corner. He stated that the application had been denied twice by the Planning Commission and by the City Council October 7, 1968, and it was their understanding at that time, it would go on. record to the Orange County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, that the City of Tustin did not want a gas station at its Fourth Street entrance. He stated that the development plans for professional offices are not objectionable, but fe=l that the.location for a gas station is not in keeping with the previ6us desires of the City Council. It was suggested that if the application is approved, this will open the door for any applicants to also request gas station sites on undeveloped property in the immediate area, thereby, completely distracting from.the professional build- ings that have been completed or planned. Mr. Driscoll stated that the residents in that area are highly opposed to the approval of a gas station, ~ut if it is granted, that they strongly recommend that the developers adhere to the' Service Station Minimum Site Development Guide and that the deodar trees be completely removed and the street widened. They felt that traffic control bumps should be placed in the parking lot at strategic locations. He recommended that a service station sign not exceed 25 ft in height. He concluded by saying that if the application is approved and annexed to the City of Tustin that a resolution be prepared for absolutely no more gas stations to be permitted in ~is area. He stated that he was speaking for the homeowners in the area that were in attendance at the meeting. (Approximately. 12 in attendance) Mr. Robert Hall, 370 West Fourth Street, Tustin, stated that after the service station application was denied last fall, he entered into escrow to purchase the southeasterly corner of Yorba and Fourth Street to construct office buildings. He stated that he did not feel that a gas station on that corner is desirable and voiced opposition to the service station on Fourth Street. He did not feel that a gas station is compat- ~1~ with ~ha p~ofam#io~al bu~ldings and that it is the en- trance to Tustin and felt that something other than a gas station should be constructed at that particular area. He suggested that other uses would be more compatible'and"that a well-designed restaurant type complex would be acceptable. Mr. Gilbert Thomas_, ]4713. Formosa Lane, voiced concern over any--'p-~}~'~osed freeway sign pertaining to the service station. Chairman IIalus ekplaincd that there are no plans submitted at 't']~Ts--~i~-~c for a sign, but they will be required to apply for signs and come before, the Planning Commission before they will be permitted' to install them. There being no further discussion from the audience, Chairman }Ialus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 9:30 P.M. The Commissioners disucssed the signs for identifying the service station, the nu]~er of signs along with the height expected to be applied for, compliance with the Sign Ordi- nance and County standards. Mr. Oster asked Mr. Argyros if they intend to ask for a sign not to exceed the height of 35 ft. along the freeway. Mr. Argyros stated at this time, that they will not request a height over 35 ft., because if a 35 ft. sign does not do the job then they would not have any .sign'for freeway identi- fication. Mr. Oster mentioned the Orange County Planning Department's comments relative to the height of the freeway identification sign. Mr. Su~inger explained that the'County does not object to the service station but that they did recommend the height of the sign not to exceed 35 ft. He also mentioned' that these com- ments are from the Planning Department and not the Plann~n~ Commission. The Commission discussed Phase I, which will include the service station and the front office building, Phase II of the project, which ~ill' include, the office building located at the rear of the property, par~i~g, aesthetics, setbacks, elevations, screening from residential properties, the con- cern of the people represented by Mr. Driscoll, the service station signs, other uses for the property, driveway approaches, ingress and egress to the facilities, traffic flow and left and right hand turns from the property onto Yorba and Fourth Streets. Also discussed were thc deodar trees, called out in the En- gineering report, the Orange County Planning Department's letter, &he operation of the service station and the maintenance of the project. Mr. Webster felt that a block wall and screening around the residential area should be included in conditions for the approval, also that trees with a height of 15 ft. should be installed at the time of the proposed development's con- struction. Mr. S~3i.pqer stated that specific plans would require approval at a later date and when these plans are submitted, a more precise evaluation and study of the intricate details can be stipulated. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded b~f Mr. Webster, that Resolution No. 1074 bo adopted, r. ecommending 9p~r~oval of PZ-69-117 and the adoption of an ordinance pr.ezon.%n_~ sub- ~ect prok3e_.r_t.~__P_C (Planned Commun~ty - Service Station) and PC (Planned Communit~v - Professional Offices) Dist'ri'ct for _the fQ~llowing_ reasons I Area Genera]. Plan. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at .the hearing are inoluded by refer- ence and made a part of the motion. PC Minutes~"A~"~l 28, 1969 Conditions of approvalt" a0 The approval of Specific Plans under the Use Permit procedure for Plot Plan, Elevations and Signs. Dedication of' street right-of-way in accordance with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, and installation of full street improvements and' street trees in a standard street section in accordance with City of Tustin Standards. Installation of street lighting with all util- ities placed underground. d. Installation of a cross gutter across Yorba Street or the development of other satisfactory means to resolve the drainage problem at this location. e. Acceptance of the appli6ant's offer to install .planter median islands in Fourth Street subject to approval of plans by the City Engineer. fe Ail street improvements for the total parcel be completed before occupancy of any part of Phase I. The installation of a block wall, 6'8" in height along the northerly property line in accordance with the representations of the developer. h. That trees be installed along the noztherly property line and along Yorba Street, with said trees.having a minimum height of 15 feet at time of installation, ~n. order to screen the develop- ment from residential areas. i. This approval is' not an approval of the Plot Plan and Elevations submitted with the application. That a freeway identification sign, if approved by the Planning Co~nission, shall be located along the freeway side of the property, not in excess of 145 ft. in depth north from Fourth Street and have a maximum height of 35 feet. The above motion was voted by roll call. AYES: OSTER, WEBSTER, tlALUS NOES: MAHONEY ABSENT: SHARP, LARNARD~ LUDWIG MOTION CARRI.ED 3-1 7. PZ-69-].16 -' FIRST WEST MORTGAGE.COMPANY For pr, zoning of a 8.3 acre parcel to the R-3 (1750) District. Location: Site fronts 550 ft. on the southwest side of Mitchell Avenue, appro×imately 660 ft. southeast of the centerline of Newport A~enue and is the site of existing 118 unit apartment complex under construction. M_r_~__S~up..~ng___e]~ presented the staff report requesting approval and recon~ending that the City Council adopt an ordinance prezoning subject property R-3 (1900)· " PC Minutes - AprJ- 28, ].969 Page 11 The original. 80 unit condomi, nium development wa:~ approved in 1963. The project has lain dormant and incomplete for years tnltil the recent purchase by First West Mortgage. They received approval from tile County, no objections by Tustin, to split: 4 and 5 bedroom units into smaller units creating a total ~f 118 units in the project. The developers are now interested in increasing the total number of units in the project to a maximum of 180 units. Cha~.rman Halus opened tile public portion of the hearing at 11:00 P.M. Mr. Floyd_Anglin, representing First West Mortgage Company, stated that Van Nuys Savings and the previous builders started construction on this property approximately four (4) years ago. Last Fall they made a proposal to the County and it was granted on a certain density - First West Mortage took over the project in December of 1968 and felt that the property was not economically feasible to build with the nun~3er of units proposed and stated that they did not have time to expedite .zoning and negotiat, e with the County when it had just been presented by V~n Nuys Savings in Noven~uer of 1968. He stated that they did apply for a variance with the County, which allowed them to start the project. He stated that it was decided that it would be best to annex to Tustin and get the prezoning and requested consideration of their application to allow them to build a maximum of 174 units. He felt that this Would allow them to meet all the parking requirements. There being no further comments or discussion from the audience, Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 11:05 PM. After a very brief discussion among the Commissioners relative to density of the contiguous area, It was moved b~ Mr. Larnard seconded by Mr. Mahone~, that ~esoluti-~n---~-.~075 be adopted, a_pjproving PZ-69-116, recommendin~ to the City Council the ~doption of an Ordinance prezgnin~ subject propprty R-3~900_)_ for the following reasons: The density increase of 9 units per acre over the 12 units per acre suggested by the General Plan is justified because of previously authorized R-3 (1750) zoning (permitting 24 d.u./acre) in the immediate vicinity. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by refer- ence and made a part of the motion. The above motion was voted by roll call. AYES: NOES: OSTER, HALUS, WEBSTER, LARNARD, F~%IIONEY NONE ABSENT: SHARP, LUDWIG MOTION CARRIED 5-0 8. ZC-69-194 - STEVEN SANBERG ~N BEHALF OF MAURICE LEBANOFF For rezoning of a 0.41 acre portion of a 1.05 acre parcel from the R-1 (Single Family Residential) District to the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) District. Location: Fron~s 90 feet on the west ~ide of Pasadena Freuway from the abandoned right-of-way of Second Street to Main Street. PC Minutes - Apri~ 28, 1969 Page 12 Mr. Su]?inger proselyted the staff report, Stating that ~-he subject parcel, zoned~.R=.3~. and R.-1, was created by the construction of the Newport Freeway· It was sold as excess right-of-way, resulting in the unusual shape. ~r. S__upinf~ sthted that the staff does not feel that the parcel is suitable for multiple family development, and commented that the area involved is being studied along with the Town Center and Tustin City areas with the economic study Currently underway. Denial was recommended. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 11:10 P.M. Mr. Maurice Lebanoff, 15500 Tustin Village Way, stated that possibly his motive was misinterpreted as to what he was proposing. He stated that he wanted on~y.six (6) garage spaces and would landscape the remalnlng area or develop it into recreational area, stating that it was dead space now and could not bq used for anything. His intent was not to rezone the area R-3 to allow more units.on the property but wanted the 6 parking spaces so he could adequately design a 20 unit complex, which does conform to the R-3 zone and give the adequate turn- around space that the Fire Depgrtment may need. He asked that this be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting to allow time for submittal of plans to show exactly what he is proposing with adequate specifications. He stated that in his original application, he had only applied for a small portion of the property to be re- zoned R-3, but that the Planning Staff suggested that he apply for the entire portion to be rezoned R-3. He, again, stressed .t.hat his only intent was to get that portion of the property rezoned ~o allow him the 6 needed garage spaces. There being no further discussion or comments from the audience, Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 11:15 P.M. The'Commission discussed the pros and cons of the prop- posed rezoning and asked Mr. Supinger what he would · recommend for the property. Mr. Supinger stated that two (2) single family dwellings could be constructed on the site. It was moved by Mr. Mahoney{ seconded by Mr. Larnard~ that ZC-69-194 be denied for the followin9 reasons: The proposed zoning would permit a maximum density of 34 dwelling units per acre which is more than ~ight.tim~s 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 Develop Research Associates as part of an economic study currently underway. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by refer- ence and made a part of the motion. Mr. Webster stated that he ~ould like to give'Mr. Lebanoff a chance to come in with some precise plans as to what he is proposing, lie felt that if the land sliver could be improved with ].andscaping or some other method, he would be interested in reviewing the plans. PC Minutes - Dpri- 28, 1969 P~ge 13 The above motion was voted by roll call. AYF. S: MAIIONI.iY NOES: IIALUS, I~].,4Si]..R, LARNARD, OSTER ABSENT: S)IARP, LUDWIG MOTION FAILED 4-1 It was mo3ed by ~_i~. Webster, seconded by Mr. Larnard, that Application No. ZC-69-194 be continued to the May 12~ %969 ~.lanning Commissio~j. meet_~g, to allow time for Mr. Lebanoff to submit a precise set of plans for his proposal. The above motion was voted by roll call. AYES: HALUS, OSTER, WEBSTER, LARNARD NOES: MAHONEY ABSENT: SHARP~ LUDWIG MOTION CARRIED 4-1 9. UP-69-298 - SEABOARD ENGINEERING ON'~EIIALF OF GULF OIL COMPANY To permit the construction of a flag pole exceeding the maximum h~ight permitted in the.C-2 District. Location: At the northeast corner of the intersection of First Street and Tustin Avenue. (102 North Tustin Avenue) 5~. ~upi__nger presented the staff report stating that a Building Permit request for 75 foot flag pole could not be granted because of 50 foot height limit in C-2 District. Conditional approval was recommended. Condition is that the installation of two street trees per the Master Street Tree Plan be complied with. Chairman tlalus opened the public portion of the hearing at 11:25 P.M. There being no comments from the audience, the hearing was declared closed at 11:26 P.M. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconde~ by Mr. Larnard, that A_pplication No. UP-69-298 be approved for the construction of a 75 foot fla9 pole. · The above motion was voted by roll. call. AYES: OSTER, LA,NARD NOES: WEBSTER, HALUS, MAHONEY ABSENT: SHARP, LUDWIG MOTION FAILED 3-2 It was moved by Mr. Webster, seconded by Mr. Halus, that ~pplication No. UP-69-298 be denied due %o lack of ~usti- f%cat~on of a 75'foot height. The above motion was voted by roll call. AYES: WEBSTER, I1ALUS NOES: OS'£ER, LARNARD, MAHONEY ABSENT: SIIARP, LUDWIG MOTION FAILED 3-2 It was moved .b_y_~Mr~ Oster, that Application NO. ~P-69-298 MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF S}.:~OND It was moved by Mr. Oster that the meeting be ~djourned. MOTT¢~N I)TED FO..,2 I.~C' .~i" SECOND PC Minutes - Apri~ 28, 1969 Page 14 It was mo_v.e.._d._~lf. Mr. Mahon._ey.., seconded by~ Mr. Oster, ~hat Rcsolut/.on No. 1076 be adopted, ap3?j_:o_v_~:ng.l__A.j~plication No. UP-69-298 with a hei.g_ht limit of 65 feet for the followi-ng 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 neigh- borhood of the proposed use and it will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by refer- ence and made a part of the.motion. The above motion was voted by roll call. AYES: OSTER, LA~qARD, MAHONEY NOES: HALUS, WEBSTER ABSENT: SHARP, LUDWIG MOTION CARRIED 3-2 10. UP-69-299 - IIARRY E. GILL ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN To permit the use of an existing orange grove and single family residence for a corporation yard and City offices in the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) District and C-1 (Central. Commercial) District. Mr. Supinger stated, that this property has been purchased as a Civic Center site and the proposal is to use the existing single family residence for offi6es 'and an area behind the residence for a corporation yard and vehicle storage. He stated that this use will ultimately be moved to property being purchased for a corporation yard at Red Hill and the Santa Fe Railroad Tracks. He recommended approval subject to the ~nstallation of street improvements as suggested by .the City Engineer. The Engineering Department submit.ted comments stating that approval is recommended subject to the installation of curb, gutters, sidewalk, street trees and paving on the Main Street and Centennial Way frontages. The Commissioners discussed the street improvements as out- lined by the Engineering Department, feeling that this is a very necessary action and a block wall being constructed at property lines adjacent to residential areas. Chairman Ilalus ~p~ned the public portion of the hearing at 11:35 P.M. There being no comments from the audience, the meeting was declared closed at 11:36 P.M. It was moved by Mr. Larnard, seconded by Mr. Webster, that Resolution No. 1077 b'e adopted, conditionally ap_provin~ Application No. UP-69-299 for the following reasons: The Commission finds that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances o~ the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use and it will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements tn the neighborhood or ~he general welfare of the Ctt~, PC Minutes - Aprl_ 28, 1969 Page 15 BUSINESS · NEW INESS RESPONDENCE ER INESS As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by reference and made a part of the motion· Condition of approval: The installation of curb, gutters., sidewalk, street trees and paving on the Main Street and Centennial Way frontages. The above motioh was Voted by roll call. AYES: NOES: OSTER~ HALUS, WEBSTER~ LARNARD~ MAHONEY NONE ABSENT: SHARP~ LUDWIG MOTION CARRIED 5-0. NONE NONE NONE 1. ABANDONED SERVICE STATION LAND Mr. Webster requested that a proposed ordinance be drafted by the Planning Department relative to returning to the natural state,any land occupied by abandoned service stations. 2. CONDITIONAL USE'PERMITS ~E: SERVICE STATION Mr. Webster asked an opinion of the Planning Conhmission re- lative to a condition to require automatic removal of any service station, if it is vacated for a certain period of time. He felt that when a service station is in an unfruitful area, there should be some attempt made to return the land to its natural condition, so other uses'may be allowed. 3. Southern California Planning Congress Meeting Chairman Halus commented that he would be attending the meeting and would like for the other Commissioners to attend if possible. The topic is "Is There a Price Tag on Zoning?", and is being held at Lakewood, May 8, 1969. OURN¥~NT It was moved by M}. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Oster, that the meeting be adjourned· There being no further business before the Commission, Chairman Halus declared the meeting adjourned at 11:45 P.M. ~IRMAN O~ THE P~.ANNING COMMISSIO~N~/~ SECTARY OF T~iE PLANNING CbMMISSIOi~