HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-10-69ERRATA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 10, 1969
Thc following is a correction to thc minutes of the regularly
scheduled iaeeting of tile Planning Commission oil February
10, 1969.
Public Hearing No. 7 omitted.
UP-69-288 - WES'i~i'~PLN i"tLANCHISt': DEVI:LOPNI'iNT CO!{PORAT]iON FOR
~ilALE ELECTRON 1CS
To permit a free-standing pole sign in required
setback area with a total sign area of 250 sq. ft.
Mr. Supin~er stated the site. fronts 125 ft. on the northwest
side of Newport Avenue approximately 170 ft. southwest
of the centerline of Walnut Avenue. He f~rther said that
since this was fi]ed as a use permit, the area of'the sign
should not really be a part of this consideration. This
Was advertised as it was submitted but the Commission would
not ~ave the authority to grant a variance if one were re-
quested. The staff recommends approval of this application
to locate a sign in the setback area.
Chairman Halus opened and closed the public portion of the
hearing.
Moved by Mr. Larnard, seconded by Mr. Webster, that Resolution
No. 1047 be adopted approving UP-69-288 for the following
reasons:
The Co~nission 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 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 mihutes and evidence intro-
duced at the hearing are included by reference and made
a part of the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
M]NU']~].:S Ot.' A RI.i£;UI,Alt I.~E].','i'i~G
TUST1N P]JANN1NG CO:.I~.iXSSiON
February 10, ]969
CALL TO
ORDI';I{
I I.
PL}':DGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
III.
ROI,I,
CALL
APPROVAL
OF
MINUTI':S'
VI.
OLI)
.BUSINESS
(OUT OF
ORDER)
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by
Chairman Ha]us.
Led by Conuuissioner Mahoney.
Present: Conzmissioners: Oster, Sharp, Halus, Ludwig,
Mahoney, Larnard, Webster
Absent: CommJ. ssJ. oners: None
Others Present:
Harry E. Gill~ City Administrate3:
· James G. Rourke, City Attorney
James L. Supinger, Planning DJ. rector
Jo Ann Turner, P].anning' Secretary
It was moved b'y Mr. Shar_p.: second~d_bv~..Mr. Oster,
that th.e_.__m.~:r_~.u.t~.e_.~i__o_f._..J_anu~ry 27, 1969, be a.~pro\:ed
as submitted. Motion carried 7-0.
It was mov.e¢.]_...b_y_Mr. ~?e.b_p_.t__e_.r..,__s_e...c_o3~.c~]e_d by_.M__r_:_._L__a_.r_n_gr_d-
that the rules be sus?ended to co~sider the ite:n
under 0].¢~, Business (Tustin CJ. ty Study) out of order.
R%-(:i-~'~ - c-~-~'[ i-6~-'--£-%.
TUSTIN CiTY APd:;A
Mr. SupJnger stated that a report has been subn]itted
by the Staff which has been derived as a result of a
recent workshop between the City Council and the
Planning Co~mn]ission January 16, 1969. He stated that
a list of standards has been drafted that could be
applied to the new applicatJ, ons that have been sub-
mitted in the Tustin City Area. He felt that it
was important to clarify that any zoning applied
to the property, because of previous hearing notices
that have been sent out on this matter, would have to
be at ].east as restrictive as the standards which
apply in the R-3 District. The standards that have been
derived involve the PC (Planned Community) approach
which would permit both single family and mu].tip].e family
uses within the area w~th new construction permitted
only. There would be no conversion of existing
structures. A use permit would be required for multiple
family residential along with archJ, tectura] review.
Density would be one unit for every 1,750 square feet
of net lot area, which would amount to 24 dwelling
units per acre maximum.
Minimum Dwel].in~ Unit Area
Bachelor & ]. bedroom units
2 bedroom units
3 bedroom units
700 sq. ft.
1,000 sq. ft.
1,300 sq. ft.
* Average minimum area of ali. dwe]].Jng units on
a single property shall not be less than 1,000
square feet.
Maximum BuildJn~ Coverage
50% (Bui]d.~ng Coverage includes covered parking).
PC M]NUTI':S - February ]0, ]969
Setback s
Front:
Rear
Interior Side:
15 ft.
10 ft.
7.5 ft.
Street Side:
10 ft.
Mail] Building Separati_o_]j.
One Story: 10 ft.
~o or More Stories: ].5 ft.
Entrances Facing: 30 ft.
From Accessory Bull. ding not ali. owed:
10 ft.
Maximum Heiq_h_t_ 3 stories
Minimum Lot Area 15,000 sq. ft.
R-i-~-i-~-6 ~ -1~ 6{ - ~ ~-6~- t- a g e 100 ft.
Minimu]{{"0'ff-Street Pa.rk~ ng
Bache]or Units
1 Bedroo5~
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
space/unit
spaces/unit
spaces/unit
spaces/unit
* Minimum of 1 covered space/unit.
Mr. Supinger stated that he disagrees with these
standards and Stands on his recoiJ~nend~ltion for
R-2 zoning for the area, feeling that it would not
solve the problems ~ny better than Higher Density Mu].tiple
Fami].y, but felt that it would be more con~patible
with the existing and future development.
Mr. Webster stat. ed that it was his understanding that the
intent of getting into this study was to provide a
flexible administrative way to control any developn~ent
that may occur in this general area, and to provide at
the same time possible incentives to potential developers
to do a better job or to give more amenities in any
development that they may wish to construct on any dis-
agreeable properties. He stated that the present
ordinance did not seem to create the effect that was
desk. red and some alternative is needed. He opined that
the second problem in his thinking is the physical
layout and nature of the subdivisions that have created
a problem because of their narrow widths and extreme
depth, water sewerage, etc. There is fear that rezoning
the property to a higher use would immediately create
artificial rise in land values which would not be
related to construction or any change J.n the area. He
felt that the prime concern was to alleviate in
some way, the dislocation or discomfort associated
with the development and not cause a hardship with the
people that want to remain in a single family develop-
ment.
He felt that a more flexible ordinance should be
drafted which creates incentives for increased densities
or,her types of incentives if the developer would do
certain things that would be beneficial ~the develop-
ment. He felt that the difficulty of this particular
recommendation is that it doesn't accomplish a good
criteria. Mr. Webster stated that he disagrees with
the proposal for R-2 (Duplex). Because of circum-
stances involved, it could end up in undesirable slums.
- 2 -
PC Minutes - I, cbruary 10, ]969
tie fc].t that the burden ~.s on the Con'uttiss~on ancl li;UC]l
more time and research should be allo',.:od before lttaki~g
a decision.
Mr. Oal:er concurred with Mr. Wcb.,~tcr, stating ti~at he
~'~i'J.-C-t'he staff's suggest'.J.o]~ - PC-TC is, in effect,
giving R-3-1750 to the w]~olc area without any co]~trol
by the Co~raaJssion. }.lc felt that thc CommJ. s~;Jon should
have control to protect the people in the area that
want to remain Single t.'amily Residence and give certain
incentJ, vcs to the developer who wi. II. want to work with
the City for certain standards.
Mr. Webster stated that at this point and time, thor(:
i--~---n'~) cons~naus of opinion that any standard.~ could be
developed. }lc felt that views should be solicited of
developers, property owners and anyone that is interested
to help and develop a method of approach. }Ie did not
fee]. that this should be set for a public hearing until
there was something to discuss.
Mr. Oster stated that he. wou3d like to avoid end]ess
workshops and reminded thc Commission that. J.t has been
indicated to Nr. G. l,. Lewis that a decision would be
made this evening on his application.
Chairman }lalus agreed with Mr. Wet~-~:ter' and stated that
~'~-'-i-,~i'-~'l~a-d-~'~' for the deve].opcrs or concerned and
informed people to 'assist with the creatJ.vity that is
needed for some standards and a flexible ordinance.
tle felt that as a City, we have an obligation to the
people that ]J. ve in thc subject a].'e[~s, and yet the
TustJn City Area needs upgrading and a planned approach
to integr~te it into t.l~e surrounding area, which J.s
upgraded and growing much more than the Town Center.
tie felt that creativity is a]moat J. mpo.~sJ.b]e to
]egis].ate and to a large degree, we have to look to
the proposed developer to provide the uniqueness that
the City can work with this developer.
Mr. Oster stated that he felt that the City Council has
referred this matter back to the Planning Commission
asking us to take action, not to put a freeze on the
area, and try and work out the best solution that they
can at the present time and keep it moving. He felt
that a lot of workshop sessions, until a set of standards
is derived, would in effect put a freeze on the area.
Mr.__._S_..u_p_i_~.g_e_r_ explained that he feels the Corn=mission has
the authority to cstab]is~ Planned Community (PC)
zoning for the three applicatJ.ons that are before the
Commission this evening, as long as the standards
app].ied to that Planned Community zoning are at ].east
as restrictive as those in the R-3 district. He
continued to say that he does not think that it is
desirable to take this type of action - he felt that
the solution to the area-wide problem shou].d come before
decisJ, ons are made on specific requests withJ, n the
area. }Ie exp].aincd that he does not feel that any
app].icant shou]d be given zoning within the TustJn
City Area unless the Commission is prepared to give
that same' zoning to any other property owner within
the area who is going to apply. He felt that the
standards in the overall area should be established
before any individua.] decisions are made within that
area.
- 3 -
PC Minutes - February 10, 1909
Chairman ]~a]us stated that he thought, b~sed on the
discus~';~)]{' ~'~'~ co~:~;nent, s thus far, that t]].~s parLic~u].ar
item is not ready for adoption at this time. tlc
suggested tl~at it may be approi~riate action to table
this item and return J t to the staff and ask for iurtl~er
study a~]d apply the ramiiicatJo]~s of this dJ scussJ, on
to the three applicatio]~s this evening.
Mr. Webst¢:r felt that a workshop should be slated for
a near future date. Mr. Oster felt that a public hearing
should be :;et to amend the Genera]. Plan for the rqarch
10th meetJ, ng.
Mr. Larnard fe].t that f.lr. Oster's suggestion was a
good idea, and felt that it should be set as a goal.
for the Colmaissioners.
It was moved by Mr. Larnard, seconded by Mr. Oster that
_(_M_.fl_r._c_ !]_ . ]:.0 ., ].969) to a~::end thc: General Plan and that a
date be set i~.--~{~:.'~rkst~oD Dr.']-~-r-to the-'n'ext reou].ar]v
scheduled ])lannJng Co=,~:~J :;s] on meet:'.z._n_~, of_~'.ebruary- 24,
i-9-6-91 ..........
Mrs. Ludwig asked the staff to obtain and present to
~he CommissJ.on members, a copy o'f the Costa Mesa
ordinance for their perusal, relative to this matter
before the next workshop meeting.
Mr. Gill pointed out that one 6f the reasons that the
precise planning ha.g, not been considered at this time
is that J t is the feeling that there J s lack of good
data Jn order to bui].d this. One of the studies ~n
progress now is the Economic Base Study and he
envisions that after the results of this study there will
be better information than we have today relative to the
need in this area or ].ack of need for certain type of
residential land uses. He stated that to go into a
blanket General Plan revisJ, on for precise planning
prior to th(; conclusion of this study may be something
you should seriously consider. He stated that the
attempt of this particular PC-TC zoning draft ~s a
result of meetings to develop a zone that could be
applicable to the applications before the Commission
now, whJ. ch through Council direction, has been requested
to be resolved as soon as possible and is not an attempt
to blanket the who'l. 6 area at this time.
Chairman Halus stated that the items before the
Commission have been carried forward for approximately
six months, stating that it has been confusing for the
peop].e in the area and the ~nability for the applicant
to pi. an and felt that it was unfair to keep continuing
these items.
Mr. Gill stated that it would be a matter of five or
six more months before the Economic Base Study is
completed and is a ].ittle premature to make a blanket
recommendation at this time to consider amending the
General Plan.
Mr. Rourke commented that in order to give proper
~-6~i~ to any interested partJ, es relative to the
hearing of' the above motion, it should be stated that
it is PC Mu].tJp]e Family Residential District that
is to be considered.
Mr. Sharp. asked the staff about the street width, water
service end sev;ers in the area, feeling this ~s a very
important part of land deve].opment. He did not fee]
that the PC-TC plan really elaborated on tho'.se items.
tie also asked if Jt would be possible to zone the area
PC with an additional tag of Multiple Family Residential.
or some sJ. milar zoning and then set some min.4mum
- 4 -
I'C Ninutcs
l'ol;ru..'tzy ]0, ]969
PUBI,IC
}lEAR] NGS
stanc]ar(].~; without cai]trig J.t. PC-TC zolie, but.
similar to .,o.~....,' ",' of. thc .~;[.andard.~; sc.t f¢)r[.l~ J.n
the present: PC--'J'C rc'co,n:.,tcir, datJ.on.
Mr._..._ .S.,.t_~.l_','_i!.!gc_~r stated that rc].a,t, i ve to sewers, v:atc:r
and skrcc:t.~; in tile 'l'u~;tJn CJ. ty Al-ca, tl~j.s was
comnKmted on in thc: TustJ. n CJ. ty Area report, and
these items arc an area-wide problem and .~;hould be
so].vcd on an area-wide basis rather than on a specific
parcel consJ, der ation.
lie furLhcr indicated i. hat t':c did riot fee] that the
PC de.qJgnah.~on could be applied to solve lhe sewer,
water and st..reef problems, tle stated that i. he PI. angled
CommunJiy (PC) under %he existing zones wi. th standards
as restrictive as the R--3 zones could be app].Jed.
Mr. SupJnger si. atcd that ~i. was not advJ. sa.L~]c: to ntakc
zoning ar. lcndmcnt, s contrary to tile General Plan until
the Genera]. Plan is amended and standards are set
under such an amendme',%t.
Mr. Larnard stated that J.n view of thc additional
l-~J~.]~'tJon presented by Mr. GJ ] ]. and Mr. Supingcr,
~_.?{j~!qr.9_vi_~!~.~L_R~?X~.~p~._~:)p~i~.~l~. Nr. Oster, the
second of the motion, concurred.
that a five mJ'nute recess be d¢,,c:].ared.. Motion
..................................
Meeting reconvened at 8:45 P.bl.
The abpy_cL_r, Lq.~.f_.o_~2__c_a.r_rj:.e. .d.._u.n_e.{!i?}p_u_.E.]._y.
ZC 68--].83 - G. I,. I,EWIS I.:NTJ'iJIPt[]]S}']S, ]'NC.
For rezoning of approximately 0.77 acres of
].and from the R-]. (Single Fami].y Res~aenuia].)
District to the R-3 (Multiple Fmni]y ReaJdential)
District.
Mr. Su. pin.g_e_r stated the site fronts 150 feet on the
east side of Mountain View Drive, approximately 300
feet north of the centerline of First Street. }le
further stated this was not: a new application; this
hearing was referred back'to the Planning Con'~ission
by the City Council.
Mr. Websi.er stated he would be abstaining from any.
dJ. scussJon or voting in this matter.
Chairman }la].us reopened the pub].ic portion of the
hearing and stated discussion would be limited to
anything new or unusual.
Mr. G. I,. Lewis, 550 East Chapman, Orange, applicant,
~ate~i--ft-e-~;]'.]~e'd to subn:Jt some new i nfolzmation.
The staff had received a letter iron', Dr. Peele who is
a resident in the area which adds to the previous
list of people who support the rezoning of this
property. AdditJona]ly, he stated that J.n speaking
to the Council previously, they felt that some
comprom.ise should be reached as to the den,~;Jty and
he is submittin9' that this be zoned R-3--].500 as
- 5 -
PC I, iJnutes -- February ]0, ].969
opposed to the previou¢;].y reque.~.;tcd R--3--1250. }lc
further suggested t]~at a condOr, ion be e~tab]ished
when this matter is approved tl]at a precise planned
process similar to what has previously been discussed
be J.nitJ. ated Jn this one application. He stated
that his J.s a different co~dJ, tion tl~¢~n the other
two applications before the Comn';issJon. lie asked that
his app].Jcation be considered on its own ]~erits and
not swayed one way or another by the Attebery or the
Kruppe at~p]icatj.ons.
Chair. man I!a].us stat. ed that the C¢;im~,]J. ssioners had
~-~-i~-~-s-s~-J'-tt[e-"matter and ail were in agreen',ent that the
three applications were separate and distinct and a].]
would be considered on their own merits.
Chairman Ua]us closed the public portion of the
- ............
Mr. Oster shared he had, this past week, seen some
o--~-"the work that G. L. I,ewJs Ent(?rpr~ses had done
and he had no doubt that they would put something on
this property that the City could be proud of. However
he £'e]t thai. i. he Comm~ssio,~ dj.(] not have the~n' forn,~.~-~"~].on
as yet that would change their 6riginal feeling on
the matter.
Mr. Oster moved that P~,so],~ iii'ion No. _]._0_~2_,~ ].eco~..,.lel.a].n9, , ~ ' ' ,
~-e~-J~a-]--6-{ ~d~-6~-i-j[~.'.3_'[:'"}i'~ ~d'0~'['6'd']- Se_c.p_n_d_q.d_..by._!,j~..
Ludwi g.
Vote by roil call. Ayes: Mahoney, Larnard, Sharp,
Oster, ],udwJg, Halus. Noes: None. Motion carried
6-0. Mr. Webster abstained.
2. ZC-68--18d - T. V. ATT}':B},RY
On behalf of 16 property owners for rezoning of
approximately 4.5 acres of land from the R-1
(Single Family Residential) District to the R-3
(Multiple Family Residential) DistrJ. ct.
Mr. Supinger stated the property comprises a majority
~f the-~lock bounded by First, Pacific, Third, and
Myrtle Streets. He said this is not a new application;
this .hearing was referred back to the Planning Commission
by the City Council.
Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing
~nd requested that comment, s be limited to anything new
which has not been mentioned previously.
Hearing and seeing no one with any new information,
Chair~nan Halus closed the public portion of the hca'ring.
M_r:_...O_s_ii_e.L__m_ 9.v.e_..d.__t!!_a_t_.R_e_.s_o_l.u_'_c_i.o_.n.._~!0..-._ ..1_0. ~. }.,._ _r_97_ 0..nD_e_._n_d_i_n_g_
.to._t?}.e_ .C~..t_y__C.'..o_~!.n.c..}_l.__t.!?t ZC 68-] 84 be den.~ ed, be
adopted. Seconded by Mr.__Shar~.
Vote by roll cai].. Ayes: Sharp, Oster, Ludwig,
Mahoney, Larnard, Webster, Halus. Noes: None.
carried 7-0.
Motion
M o v e d_ .b~'_...~J r._ _. _0_~_t? .r ;... s_e.._c_o n d_.c..d_. __b~v.___~! r- .__~.~_r__n. a_r._d. _,__ fr.h_ .a_.t_ __t_ .h_ c_',.
order of... b_.u.~i~l_e.~_s_'__bg.._gl_~a__~_.~_e_d_..32.n~,___! t:_.e~__?~o. 5 be cons ~ d-
_e r_(~ d_. .a t t.hi_~?__.pg..i.[}.._t__a_n.d time. ~C_a.r.r_J_.e.d....}j_n_a_ni___~t. 9.~lsily_.
- 6 -
PC blJnu['c-q - l.'ebruary ]0, ]969
ZC 69-].90 - R](:t;)~I',I) A.":]) }l].Y,J,.~].: ~[].[UJ~}>];
1,'or rt.:zoning c')£ an a[)pro>:i]aate 0.83 acre parcel
to the PC (P].anncd Co:~,:',m~J ('y-;.iu] t:.J.l~] e }.'a~nJ ly)
I)J sErJ c:~.
.M_r..- ~J)?.i~?g?_r st:at-ed tt~c: site fronts 109.]6 feet on tl:e
SOUth S3C,~.~ of I,l~lJn St/'¢.et, apl)ro×J::~ato].y 227 feet
east. of th(: c:entc~r].Jn(: o£ ])acJ. fJ.c Ave:hue. He said
the apl)Ii, cent's ju[;tifJcatio]l J s as follow.-';:
].. O,..;nor residencc and income.
2. TustJn propc:r ]acks adequate quality aFartnic~nt.s
for profcssJ, on~l or career-minded pcop]e.
3. P.A.C. (Planned Adult Com~:tunit. y) wi]] not disturb
the i:ranquJ ] J t.y that prc~;oni'].y surroun(l~-; thc
i ]mmedJ. a i.c neig]~borl~ood.
4. Subject property J.s part of the 1~ block area tl~at
J.s presently bordered on three sides by PD,
and R- 3.
5. This parcel .has adequate power, water, sewer and
street width a~aJ].sb].e.
~_?_._.__._Su[~Jz.ng.e..r_ ,,;tat. ed that the st'afl rccon::]:cr.d.'-; that you
recoim':icnd to i.he City CouncJ.] the denial of ZC--69-190
for thc fei]owing reasons:
1. The Genera] Plan, wl~Jc]l s}iows subject area as
Medium I)ensily Residential (4 d.u./acrc) should
be amended pr Jar to rezoning for muli. Jp!e fam./ly
llSC?.
2. The City presently is con.qJ, derJ. ng special standards
fo]: the TustJn Ci[.y Area which should be
estab].ished prior to rezonJng of specifJ, c parce].s.
3. As addJi:ional grounds, the ]ninutes and evidence
introduced at the hearing are J nc].uded by reference
and made a part of %he motion.
Chairraan Hal. us opened the public portiort of the hearing.
Paul Snow, 430 West Main Street, Tustin, stated he had
made a survey of the neighborhood and all those
signing the petition %.:ere requesting that t?:e propert-.y
remain R-]. He said they fee] that Main Street and
the surrounding area should remain Single Far.]J].y
Residential. This was the unanJ, mous decision of ail
the people contacted. }lc said the petition contained
34 signatures.
.R_J:.c.~.~[.c.l_ .K_r.u_p.p_e_, 12312 Newport Avenue, applicant, stated
he had no idea that so many people would s jean the
petition against this zone change becau.~;e there doesn'C
seem to be more than 30 J.n this genera], area who would
have anything to do wi. th this particular block. He
request:ed a copy of the names sub:aitted so that he may
know who to authenticate. Mr. Kruppe showed a map
on the projector of the property and commented on the
surrounding area. It was his opinion that the Council
should estab]J, sh a density for this area. He said that
several lots in the area have two houses on them. IIe
requested the matter be continued for 60 or 90 days.
- 7 -
F,a.~lu~.c:., - t.'ebrua:y 10, 19C9
Mr. Jack ];.].ocm~, 330 Ca].i£or~ia St~'ect, ']'ustin,
stated t]~at next. door to the property Js a Victoria]~
style building, next door on t]~c ot]~er side J.s a
~ery modern house, and t]~at, his property is }.;a~ly
American. Ilo would not lJkc t.o see a Si)anJsh style
apartment going in. Mr. Bloom said he signed the
petitJ, on opposing tltJ. s rezoning.
Chairn't~n l~,t].u.., closed the public portJ, on of the
...............
Mr. Mahon¢:y moved that ZC 69-190 be continued to
.............
Vote by roil call. Ayes: Wc:bsi. cr, Larnard, blahoncy,
I,udwig, Oster, Sharp, Hal. us. Noes: Nor;e. Motion
carrJ¢.,d 7-0.
3. V-69-229 - I)ONA!m,D P.
For a Variance to permit:
'A.
One (]) 'pole sign having an area of 160
sq. ft. eac]~ side, 320 sq. ft. total area,
a height of 28'3" and within the front
setback area (Sign Ordinance permits only
one (].) pole sign per ce.rap!ex,, maxi. mum areas
for pern'tJ, tted pole signs of 150 sq. ft. each
side and 300 sq. ft. total area, and maximum
height of 2'4'6".)
B. One (1) wall sign having an area of 102 sq. ft.
Total sign area on the site of 422 sq. ft.
(Maximum permitted area is ].22 sq. ft. or
two times the width of the bull.ding occupied
by the business).
Mr. SupJnger stated this matter was continued from the
banu-[[r~' ~-7-~"-].969, meeting and the staff recommends
approval for two signs as follows:
A pole sign in the front setback area, height
24 ft. 6 in. x 8 ft., 48 sq. ft. each side,
total area 96 sq. ft., non-rotating.
e
A wa]]. sign to be located on the facia of the
canopy in front of the part of the building
occupied by Tippy's, l0 ft. X 2 ft., total area
20 sq. ft.
Reasons for approval are:
That the adjustment hereby authorized wi].], not
constitute a grant of special privilege incon-
sistent with th(: limitations upon other properties
in the vicinity and District in whJ. ch the subject
property is situated.
That because of special circumstances applicable
to the subject property, including s]ze, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict
application of the Zoning Ordinance wi]] deprive
subject property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicJ. nity and under identical.
zone classifJ, cation.
- 8 -
PC Hinu~c..., -. t'cb]'ua]'y ]0, 1969
j.nt'roc]uced at. the h¢;arJ]~9 arc Jnc]u¢'[,,~d by
refcrcnc:c and made: a part of t.l~e moL Jori.
Chairman Iia]m.; opc.~]~c:d t]~e pubJic port]em o£ thc
t~,'a¥']'n'~j. ' ........
Thc public porkion of t.l~e hearing was declared
c].oscd.
Mr. Wc:]):;tcr moved t. ha['.
s t a f ~ r e Pr? ~ ._~] ~ ~'.._f~.~l..~]'Lq. ~!? 9 >: q. r~ a.~f:.~.~;.....S~ J .Y ?.P...J .P.
~[-[~"~(t. aFf report.. Seconded by }.:z. Nahor,.ey.
~l~.~.J? ~L_c.9 ?~ J.?~..?3
UP-69--284 -- WARRI;N t.']N],EY ON B];IiAL}.' OF
CANYON CO~,iP/\N Y
For a U.c;e Perm]% to permit a 99 bed c. xi:ended
cato facJ.].ity (Conw~,].escent }IospJ. ta].).
Mr. SupJng..e..r' si'at'ed the site fronts 200 ft. on tt~e
northwesl: s.].dc: of Nev:b~ort Avenue, approxin!ate].y
305 feet northeast of :,;yrt].c: Avenue:. The staff
recommends approval, subject to the fo]lowing tc.n
cond.] tions:
1. Preliminary discussior,$ with t]~e Bureau of
}los I)J. i:a ]. :;.
2. Selecting general area.
3. Purchasing properly.
4. Selecting architect.
5. SupervisJn9' the drawing of thc plans and
spec] fJ. c:a LJ oils.
6. Observing that ail local, State and Federal
].aws arc: compiled with in order to receive, ali
necesnary pormJ, ts.
7. Obtaining bid£; for the construction of thc
improvemcn t. s.
8. Selecting the general contractor.
9. Obtaining financing.
10. Constructing %he improve:aents.
Chairman tlalus opened and closed (-.he public port]on
Mr. Oster moved that Reso].utJon No. ].045 be adopted,
Motion car~:~_d__unanJ mous].y.
UP-69-287 - WESTERN I"RANCiIJSE DI',VELOI,.I]'.,~i COI'iP
FOR WtlA],}': };]',t';CTRONYCS
For a Usc Permit to permit a take-out food
establishment (Minnie Pear].'s Fried Chicken)
in a C-1 (Retail Comm~ercia]. District).
Mr._.._,.~__u_i.2J.._n_gc_!..r- stated the site front:3 ].25 feel: on the
northwc:,,;t side of Newport Avenue, appro×Jr,.ac(,].y
].70 feet southwest:er].y from the ini:ersecl:Jon of
Wa]nut and Newport Avenues. }Ie said the app] J cant's
- 9 -
PC 1.linu~.es - Feb. .ary 10, 3969
justification was that this and surrounding prol~crtics
are zoned commercial. This use and building will be
an asset to Tu.~;tJ.n and wi].l meet the growing demand
for fast food.
Mr. Supinger stated the staff ' ' conditiona].
recoltu~,encts
~7'6~7~-f'-'fo~' the following reasons and subject to the
following conditions:
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 heali, h,
safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of
the persons residing or working in the neighborhood
of the proposed use and it w~].l not be injurious
or detrimental to the property and improvements
in the neighborhood or the genera], we]fare 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 are:
]. That the street, right-of-wa~ be granted in
accordance with the Master Plan of Arterial
}lighways.
That asphaltic concrete pavement, curb, sidewalk
and street trees be ~nstal]ed.
3. That street lights be installed.
That plans be submitted to the Architectural
Committee for review.
Chairman Halus opened and closed the public portion
'of the hearing.
Mr. Larnard moved that Resolution No. 1046 be adopted
conditionally approving Ut~--6~-287 for ~ following
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 genera], welfare of
the persons residing .or working in the neighborhood
of %he proposed use and 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 minutes and evidence
introduced at the hearing are included by reference
and made a part of the motion.
Conditions of approval are as set forth in the staff
~epor%.
Seconded b~ Mr. Webster· Motion carried unanimously.
8. V-69-230 - H. E. MOHNIKE
Mr. Supinger stated the site is located at the northwest
corner of WillJams Street and McFadden Street, fronting
150 feet and 160 feet respectively. (Abandoned Shell Oil.
gas station). The proposal is for the following:
10
~C t.lJ.~,u, to:; -- I.'cbruary ]0, ]969
A) ]'o].e sign: 72 sq. fL.
B) Roof :;J. gn: 40 sq. ft.
C) Wall. sign: 28 -';q. ft.
Total area: 140 sq. ft.
Total. area permJ, tcd by Sign Ord:i. nancc is 300 sq. f'[..
Mr. SupJ. nger stated the applicant's justification
is as fo].].ows: The original pole and roo£ s.,.'cdns were
well designed and are aesthct.ica].ly correct in proportic..
to thc buJ.].dJ.]~g and property. We would be frugal
utilizing existing ecuJpment and structure. The
staff recommends that V-69-230 bc conditJo;:a].].y
approved t.o permit:
Either a 6 ft. by 6 ft, 20 ft. high double sided,
stationary po].e sign J n the setback area or a
5 ft. by 4 ft. doul)]e sided roof sJ. gn. Only one
of the two above mention¢:d signs shall be per-
mitted.
Wail signs, not excecd.~ng one (].) per .w~:]],
whose tot~l area when combined with the permitted
s5. gn above shall not exceed a total, area of 300
sq. ft. on the site an¢]. shall .com[!!y with all
provisions of the S~gn Ordinance:.
Reasons for approval are:
That the adjustment hereby authorized ;:~11 riot
constitute a grant of s[.~ecia] privilege inconsJ.:;i, ent
wJth the ]imJtatJona upon ot]ler propert_~es in the
vicinJ, ty and district Jn which the subject property
is situated.
That because of special circumstances ai:p]icab].e
to the subject property, inc].udJng size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict
app]icatJ, on of the Zoning Ordinance wJ].l deprJve
subject property of privilege-"; enjoyed by other
properties in the vicJ. nity and under identical
zone classification.
e
As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence
introduced at the hearing are included by reference
and made a part of the motion.
Conditions of approval are:
Insta].].atJon of three (3) approved street trees,
a street light and grantJng of street right-of-
way for McFadden Street in accorda~ce with the
Master Plan of Arterial }lJghways.
If a roof sign Js not erected as permitted above,
the space designated for saJd s.~gn on the false
chinlney shall be covered with a material acceptable
to the Architectural Committee.
Chairman tialus opened the pub]Jc portJon of the
h e ~'lzi'~'~' .' ........
Ronald Price, ].527 Antigo Way, Newpori'. Beach,
~{p'~c-~g,-e]i-~'in~ Mr. MohnJke in this affair, stated
this site is the location of the abandoned She]].
station at Williams and ~icFaddcn. They %.:ere proposing
- ]] -
VII.
NEW
BUS]
VI]']'.
CO Rlik: S PON DI:; N C}.;
a building tl~at would g]-(:atly i]..tl~ro\'c the appearance
of the proper[-.y as it now st..and~;, tlc sa~d t.t~e
property had been an eycsoyc for two yc:~a]:~ and what
they were proposing would be a very nj ce building;
%hat they were requesting Lo use the ex.ist. J.ng poi·
sign that ~i; on the pr'oper[y.
b._e .~}_1.]...o.v.~__c!~_ f__o~.L_..th_c2...r.c!_a.?p_n..?...a:!.d._~!u..b_j.e_c_:.~:...t, o_~._!}.(L .a.bg.y. 9'
c_o..n__d!:.~..~_o.n..~2 _c~._..ttdF.._s_t.~.Lf_f_-'_.r~4?.o_L_~. . SecoL~(~?.c.1._bD,_._:.&r..
Ost. er.
Vote by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Nahoney, Larnard,
Webster. Noes: Sharp, I.udwJg, t]a]u:.;. Motion carrJ, ed
4-3.
FINAl, TIUiCT I,.~A]' NO. 6473 - FO!t API~i~OVAI,
· · ......... ;';,'F :; ...... W-z-&:;- ~' , --' ' ~ ..............
~-'. W. KI,UG D}.',~].LO] ,,u'.;~] CC). , INC.
Mr. Sup_i_n.~e:.:r. stated this is a trJangu].ar shaped
piece of property 5.75 acres located at the wester].y
end of River Ford Ro,-~d, approxin',atc'ly 800 feet west
of Bro;.JnJng Ave:hue.
The City Engineer recommc, nd.¢; approval subject to
approval by the City CouncJ. 1 and the C~.t.y Eng_~:':eer.
· ' -, . 64
Mr Larnard moved that final. ~r,,cL bla,o No 73
b_9_._a, pj~3.l?.q_d_. _Se__c_o.~)_c?d__k_3.y_.b_!r..;__O_s_.t:.s.r_m. ~_I_9_.t.'_i.on carried
6-]..
COUN'J'Y C)k,.q}'; UV-6].98 - ti. T. LUCAS CO×STRUCT]O.N
INC. FOR ZACIIARY ']'. Pl.;D]'C].N1
M.r_...__St_~l.i_..n,.c:j_e_r stated the site fronts 744 feet on the
northwest side of Red }Ii].]. between Mitche].]. and
Nisson Road (includes all frontage except the Union
Oil Station)·
To permit:
Reduction of required parking from 8 spaces/
1/000 sq. ft. of gross floor area to 5 spaces/
1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. 456 spaces
required, 290 spaces proposed.
Be
Rec'.'.uctJon of required .rear setback from 20 feet
to 5 feet.
Two-way traffic on 20 foot drives (24 feet
width required by Ordinance for two-way traffic).
The staff recommends that the County be informed
that the Commission has no objection Co the approval
of UV-6198. That the County also be informed that the
City requirements 'are as fei. lows:
For retail sales establishments - one parking
space for each 200 sq. ft.. of gross floor area
(5/1000) .
For service stations - six spaces.
Total required spaces for this proposal - 287
Rear yard setback for C-1 abutting an 'R'
District- 5 feet.
Driveway width for 60 degree angle parking (as
shown) - ].8 feet, no prohibition on two-;,:ay
traffic.
PC r.;Jn~it,c:; -- ]:'(fiJJ'uary ]0, 1969
].X.
OTIIt:;I~
BUS~ .~, ,
,,],SS
~[r._...S_..U]'?.i.]jSj_~[..r' rcporLed that informatJo:l b. aa boc~x
received abou~ a program puL: on by the Orange County
Forum of Town }ia].]., Ca].J. forl~J.a, t'o bc held at thc
Disney]and Eot:cl., Monday, February ].7, ]969, at
]2:00 Noon. t.'oros~ I)ickason, %ho Country P].an~Jng
I)J fcc Lc>r, wJ ] ]. speak on tho sul)joct "Oz.'a~g<~ Co~t;~ty
1980 - 25 Indc'pe]tdcnt CJtJ. cs or a l'lm~ncd Region"
Chairman lla]u:; announced thz':L the AincrJcan Society
~-o~"PU}3]i"6-~%di(inJst. rat.ion is having a ]unc_heon mac, ting
on Thursday, February 20, ].969, and hc felt this
would be; most'. ...... ' .
v. or d~,.l~.t lc
Mr. GJ]]. announcc, d that a bus; v:ou3d be: going i-.o
~6~;{~"~n t.'ebruary 20, 1969 for the hearing on thc
Freeway of~--]a,..p.
Chai]-m~t]] }ia]l~S announced it joint lacetJng w'it.h the
~l~{l~-s~J~"'}{nd CJ. ty Council thc evening of February 20,
].969.
ChaJzman }la]us announced thd]-e wou].d be a short
~f-6i{i'f. Eci"a'~if].--Co!i,lt!J'i:tee mcctJ, nga fter adj ournn,c~:'..t.
SECR!{TARY