HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-27-69CALL TO
ORDER
II.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
III.
ROLL CALL
IV.
APPROVAL
OF
MINUTES
PUBLIC
~EARINGS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUSTIN PLANNING COMM1SSION
JANUARY 27, 1969
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman
Halus.
Led by Co.~issioner Sharp.
Present:
Commissioners:
Oster, Sharp, Halus, Ludwig,
Mahoney, Larnard, Webster.
Absent: Commissioners: None
Others Present:
Mr. }larry E. Gill, City Administrator
Mr. James G. Rourke, City Attorney
Mr. James L. Supinger, Planning Director
Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary
It was moved by. Mrs. Ludwig, seconded by_Mr. Maho~y, that
the minutes of January 13, 1969, be approved as submitted.
Motion carried 7-0.
1. PZ-68-113 - RINKER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATI'O!{'
For prezoning to the PC (Planned Community - Com~.ercial)
District of a 1.86 acre parcel fronting 290' on the
northwest side of Red Hill Avenue and 2.~0' on the north-
east side of Irvine Blvd.
The proposed uses include an automobile service station,
restaurant and retail stores. Detailed plans are on
file in the Planning Department Office.
· Mr. Supinger presented the staff report recom_mending denial
for the following reasons:
The proposed use conflicts with the Tus%in Area
General Plan which designates the subject area
Medium Density Residential (4 d.u./acre.)
2. 'Need for additional commercial zoning and modifi-
cation of the General Plan has not been shown.
3. Within one-half (%) mile there are three existing
shopping centers including the proposed uses.
As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence
introduced at the hearing are included by reference
and made a part of the motion.
Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at
7:32 P.M. stating that this hearing was continued from the
December 23, 1968 Planning Commission meeting.
It was suggested by Mr. Rourke that the comments of the first
hearing be incorporated in the second hearing.
Those in favor and speaking for the request are as follows:
Mr. Roger Howell, attorney, representing Mr. Rinker,
Mr. Rinker, applicant, and Mr. James Stewart, Director of
Real Estate for Von's Grocery Company.
-1-
PC Minutes - January 27, 1969
Page 2
Mr. Howell stated that a legislative body may not zone
property into a land use classification and keep it in
that classification when it may not reasonably be used
in the land use classification in which it is zoned. He
stated that the property is a problem piece of property
that has been on the market for a long time and if it is
badly designed and developed, it will remain a disadvantage
to the R-1 developer.
Mr. Howell stated that before getting involved with this
request he made and examined a survey of the surrounding
properties and tracts with the Orange County Planning De-
partment, the Flood Control and the Road Department of the
problems in developing the intersection at Red Hill. and
Irvine and concluded that economically the properties could
not be developed for R-1 uses.
He felt that a well developed shopping center would be an
asset to the community.
Mr. }{a~ Rinker - Developer, stated that there are three
~asic requirements that must be met for a proper shopping
center; (1) a need (2) a proper location and (3) a quality
development, which is the most important to the neighborhood
and community.
Mr. James Stewart, 10150 Lorazusa Road, E1 Monte, shotted
renderings of the proposed development and explained the
future use with maps and plot plans. He stated ~%at Von's
Grocery Company has made an extensive economic analysis of
the Tustin area and felt that it has great potential and that
they would like to locate in Tustin.
The general discussion was relative to architecture, economic:
studies that have been made, benefits of the proposhd center
and their willingness to comply with standards of the City,
such as signs construction and landscaping.
Mr. Ray Pett, representing the Red Hill Homeowners Association,
opposed subject application stating that he lives opposite the
proposed shopping center on the northeast corner. He stated
that the history of the Rinker Development began with the first
meeting March 30, 1968 at the Red Hill Lutheran Church - a second
meeting on April 27th, 1968, with Mr. Richards, Mr. Howell and
Mr. Rinker.in attendance, showing architectural drawings and
making a proposal to allow the people and representatives to se-
lect materials, layouts, plans and design of a shopping center
on these two corners. It was at that time voted against by a
large majority that were present. He continued to say that a
third invitation was sent out November 27, 1968 for a meeting
to occupants in the area and many of the homeowners, including
himself, were not aware of the meeting and did not attend. At
the 4th meeting, December 23, 1968, it was again voted dcwn,
against spot zoning. The result of the Council meeting was de-
ferred to the present meeting and stated that they still vote
against this request. He stated that the Orange County Planning
Department also recommended disapproval of spot zoning for th~
commercial use and requested that the Commission deny subject
request.
Mr. Pert asked if there was a need'for this shopping center as
proposed, feeling that the five major shopping centers within
a one mile radius are sufficient.
PC Minutes - January 27, 1969
P.age 3
Mr. Will, am IIarris, Kenne[h Drive, Tustin, representing the
homeowners of a tract on the northeast side of Kenneth Drive,
stated that they bitterly oppose the request and co~m~ended the
Planning Department on the service station report and the lack
of need for them in the Tustin area - stating that the denial
recommendations for this is proof that another one is not needed.
He did not feel that any more retail shopping centers are in de-
mand. The restaurant and cocktail lounge were also of concern
feeling that this is a detriment to the con~unity due to the
obnoxious odors emanating from such an establishment and the
hours incurred by a restaurant and cocktail lounge. He °adamantly,
stated that they do not want a con'~.~ercial shopping center in the
middle of their residential homes feeling that this would destroyI
what they have ali. worked to attain.
Mr. Harris stated that although no large unsightly signs have
been proposed, it is common knowledge that businesses cannot
operate effectively without advertising and this, perhaps would
be the next step taken in the development. He stated that
changes can be made after a project is approved. His main ob-
jection was spot zoning, stating that it is not desired by the
homeowners.
The trash problem was another concern. As slides were being
shown of the back areas of retail stores and service stations,
Mr. Harris explained that this problem has never really been
resolved because of overloaded trash bins, children playing an~
exploring in these areas', resulting in trash, brcken objects
and debris spilling out on the gr6und. He presented slides of
~everal shopping centers and service stations pcinting out the
offensive odors and unsightly picture that is not a desirable
situation for homeowners.
Mr. Gil Thomas, 1271 Garland Avenue, Tustin, residin~ next to
the Tustin Heights Shopping Center opposed subject request
stating that it can only cause trouble and problems. He stated
that he has a swim~ning pool which many times he has found bottles
and trash thrown across the fence into his pocl. He mentioned
· .that the summer months are not enjoyable for his family because
they cannot enjoy the comfort of their backyard that backs up
to the shopping center due to flies, odors, trash and trash
trucks causing a tremendous amount of noise as ~hey pick up the
debris. The insects coming from these establishments necessitate
extra preventive measures for the homeowners such as spraying the
walls seperating ~he stores from the homes. He stated ~hat "jazz
bands have been permitted in these shopping centers and the home-
owners have a right to R-1 protection, eliminating noise, odors,
health hazards and opposed strongly to approval of this appli-
cation.
Mr. James Hill, 1392 Garland Avenue, representing the homeowners
of the southwest section, reminded the Cor~ission that a petition
has been submitted to the Planning Department with a total of
434 names opposing subject application. Mr. Hill stated briefly
that it was not only the property owners that live backed up to
this project that are concerned, but the whole area and what
detrimental effects it would have on the entire community and
they strongly opposed this request. He asked for a show of hands
of those opposing and .those approving. There was no approval
indicated.
Mr. Stan Bernie, 13111 Charloma Drive, Tustin, opposed the appli-
cation for the same reasons as have already been stated. He
stated that children are careless with candy wrappers, trucks
hit the fence causing damage and causing a hardship on the
property owner trying to get the developer to repair any damage
that sometimes is never accomplished. He stated that this de-
creases the value of the homes in the neighborhood.
PC ~'~inutes - January 27, 1969
Mr. Bernie continued to say that he tried selling his home
and could not get a realtor to take the listing - that was
3 years ago and the house has not been sold yet.
Mr. Stan Brand, 13102 Wood].awn, was also in opposition of
the zone change.
There being no other comments from the audience, Chairman
Halus declared the hearing closed at 9:10 P.M. and called
a five minute recess.
Meeting reconvened at 9:15 P.M.
The Commissioners discussed the history of the property and
the pros and cons relative to all aspects of ~he proposed
zone change and shopping center.
Commissioner Webster stated that although the General Plan is
only a guide and tool, it is the basis of judgement with which
they have to work and they try to deal with indJvidua!'s
specific land uses as they arise, tie stated that this plan is
not intended to be a precise zoning map of the City, however,
in this case, because of the existence of unused cor~.ercial
zones within the City and alternative development
possibilities which might be possible for subject property, he
was opposed to subject application.
I~ was mo___v_e_d_ by. Mr. Webster, Seconded b .~,_r. Larn~.rd, that
Resolution No. 1036 be ador~ted, recommendinq, denial to the
City_ Council of A.pplication No. PZ-68-113 - Rinkar Jeveico--
ment for the following reasons:
The proposed use conflicts with the Tustln Area
General Plan which designates the subject area
Medium Density Residential (4 d.u./acre.)
Need for additional commercial zoning and mcdif~-
cation of the General Plan has not been sho%cn.
®
Within one-half (%) mile there are three existing
shopping centers including the proposed uses.
As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence
introduced at this hearing and all previous hear-
ings be included by reference and made a part of
the motion.
The above motion was voted by roll call.
AYES: Webster, Larnard, Mahoney, Ludwig, Halus, Oster, Sharp.
NOES: None.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
2. PZ-68-114 - RINKER DEVELOP~.~NT CORPORATION
For prezoning to the PC (Planned Community - Commercial)
District of a 4.34 acre parcel fronting 310' on the north-
west side of Red Hill Avenue and 610' on the southwest
side of Irvine Blvd.
The proposed uses include a market, satellite retail shops
and a bank. Detailed plans are on file in the Planning
Department Office.
Chairman Halus stated for the record, the discussion and com-
ments that took place in Hearing No. 1 (PZ-68-113) will also
be considered as having already been given in this hearing -
No. 2 (PZ-68-114).
PC ~.!inutes - January 27,
1969 Page 5
Mr. Supinger presenhed the staff report recoi~m'.ending denia~l
for the roll'owing reasons:
The proposed com_n~ercial use conflicts with the
Tustin Area General Plan which designates subject
area as ~:edium Density Residen[:ial (4 d.u./acre.)
Justification for additional co~.ercial zoning and
modification of the General Plan has not been shown.
Within one-half (%) mile there are three shopping
centers, each of which contain all or some of the
uses proposed.
As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence
introduced at the hearing are included by reference
and made a part of the motion.
Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at
9:30 P.M.
Mr. How·Il, attorney, representing Mr. Rinker, applicant,
stated that the testimony and evidence that were received
in the previous hearing can also be considered in this hear-
ing and stated that they would add nothing different to this
request.
Mr.. Hill stated that as a representative of some ef the property
owners he wished to express their appreciation for the co~ents
~ade by Comanissioner Webster and their opposition was to a com-
mercial development of this type.
Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing
closed at 9:32 P.M.
Mr. Oster stated that due to there being no furthcr evidence
added, he would move that Resolution No. 1037 be ado~c, recom-
~mendin~ denial to the City Council. of Apolicatic.. n I~o. PZ-68-114
for the following reasons:
The proposed com~,ercial use conflicts with the
Tustin Area General Plan which designates s~ubject
area as Medium Density Residential (4 d.u./acre.)
Justification for additional co~.ercial zoning and
modification of the General Plan has not been shown.
Within one-half (%) mile there are three shopping
centers, each of which contain all or some of the
uses proposed.
Se
The Commission finds that there is sufficient commercial
zoning presently unused in the general area.
As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence intro-
duced at this hearing and the previous hearings are
included by reference and made a part of the motion.
Motion was seconded by Mr. Sharp.
The above motion was voted by roll call.
AYES: Sharp, Oster, Ludwig, Halus, Webster, Larnard, Mahoney
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
Page 6
3. UP-69-282 - FAT~L~'.R JO."[~ t".
TO permit the temporary use of a trailer for school
purposes for a maximu:a of six (6) months.
Location:
Site fronts 330 ft. on.the northeast side of
Sycamore Avenue, approximately 650 ft. north-
west of the centerline of Red Hill Avenue.
Mr. Supine. er presented the staff report, recommending con-
ditional approval as follows:
That the trailer meet the requirements of.T~t]e ]9
of the California Administrative Code.
That the approximately six missing street trees be
planted along the Sycamore Avenue frontage.
Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at
9:36 P.M.
Father Salmon stated he did not have anything to add to the
staff report and that this request is to meet the need for
special classes in school curriculum that cannot be met
adequately with the existing structure.
There being no further discussion from the audience, Chairman
Halus dec].ared the public portion 'of' the'he- :
=~c closed at
9:40 P.M.
After a brief discussion among the Commissioners, It %;es moved
~e Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mrs. Ludwig, ._i~]_a..t .~es~.iu~_i._c_n ~c. 1038
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 detrimental to the property and
improvements in the neighborhood or the genera], wel-
fare of the City.
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:
That the trailer meet the requirements of Title 19
of the California Administrative Code.
That the approximately six (6) missing street
trees be planted along the Sycamore Avenue
frontage.
The above motion was voted by roll call.
AYES: OSTER, SIIARP, I,UDWIG, HAl, US, WEBSTER, LAP, NARD, bLAHONEY.
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED 7-0,
4. V-69-228 - PAUL E. AND LILLIAN C. KII,IAN
To permit:
Reduction of the requ~.red number of parking spaces
for a beer bar seating 40 to 50 persons. (Ordinance
requires 16 spaces for a bar seating 50 persons. Five
(5) spaces are proposed by applicant.)
b. Family typo entertainment in conjunction with sa~d bar.
PC M';_nutes - January 27, 1969
Page 7
Location:
335 E1 Camino Real ("D" Street) fronts 25 ft.
on the east side of E1 Camino Real.
Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that the
five off-street spaces are to the rear of the structure with
access from an unimproved 15 foot alley which is in poor con-
dition. Field inspection reveals that old appliances are
stored on the southerly portion which is designated for access
to the five spaces, thus making their utilization difficult.
He felt that it was questionable whether the Spaces would be
utilized by other than employees due to their being hidden
from view and the condition of the alley.
Mr. Supin9er stated that peak on-street parking ~ould, as
~uggested by the applicant, be during hours when other area
businesses are closed and felt that it would be desirable
to encourage the use of this structure. He recom~ended that
subject application be approved subject to compliance with
Title 19 as suggested by the Fire Department.
Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at
9:45 P.M.
Mr. Paul Kilian, applicant, described the type of entertain-
ment, the establishment and stated that he was willing to
comply with the staff report recommendations.
After a brief discussion among the Commissioner's, Xt was
moved by Mr. Oster, seconded bv Mr. Mahonev that Resolution
No. 1039 be adopted, conditiona]!y approvin~ Ap~'~=-~on No.
V-69-228 for the following reasons:
That the adjustment hereby authorized will nct
constitute a grant of special privilege incon-
sistent with the limitations upon other properties
in the vicinity and district in which the subject
property is situated.
That because of special circumstances applicable
to the 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.
Condition of approval:
1. Compliance with Title 19.
The above motion was voted by rbll call:
AYES: OSTER, SHARP, LUDWIG, HALUS, WEBSTER, 55kHONEY, LA'NARD
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
5. ZC-69-189 - PAUL B. TREAT
For rezoning of an approximate 12 acre parcel from the
PM (Planned Industrial) and M (Industrial) Districts to
the R-3 (1750) Multiple Residential, ]750 sq. ft. per
unit of lot area District.
Location:
Site fronts 480' on the southeast side of
Newport Avenue, approximately 700 ft. south-
west of the centerline of Sycamore Avenue.
/.D ,/
PC Minutes - January 27, 1969
Page $
Mr. Supin(,er presented the staff report statJnU tl~at the
proposed density is R-3 (1750) whic]~ would yield a ma>:J.n,um
density of 24 dwelling units per acre. The propo'.;ed density
is twice the 12 d.u./acre densi.hy of the tligh Density Resi-
dential shown on the General Plan.
tie felt that the present industrial zoning (M and P:.:) is not
appropriate for this location. The Genera]. Plan shows all
industrial uses south of the railroad tracks.
Mr. Sup:.in_g~_r: stated that of the seven rezoning cases invo].vJn.
multiple family zoning east of Newport Avenue which have take~.
place since the General PI. an was adopted, five have resulted
in R-3 (1750) zoning and two have resulted in R-4 zoning.
The two R-4 rezonings were in the 95 acre annexation east of
Red Hill.. tie felt that the subject property has every a~"~--o~.
fication for R-3 (1750) that the other five cases had. He
stated that it would not be good to place single family resi-
dences adjacent to the Flood Control Channel and the raain!ine
railroad tracks.
Approval was recom.m, ended for the following reasons:
The proposal would e].i. minatc industrially zoned
land from an area designated for multiple family
residential use.
e
The increase in density over that desf
the Genera]. Plan is justified by the proximity
to the Flood Control Channel and the mainline
tracks of the A. T. & S. F.
As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence
introduced at the hearing are i'ncluded bv reference
and made a part of the motion.
Recomm]ended Conditions:
That plans for water lines, fire hydrants, access
and fire extinguishers be subject to the approval
of the F~re Department.
Dedication of street right-of-way in accordance
with the Master Plan of Arterial Highway plus a
cul-de-sac at the end of Newport Avenue.
Grant sufficient right-of-way and construct street
improvements for a cul-de-sac at the end of Carfax
Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Access rights shall be given to the City and used
for emergency access o~ly.
Installation of asphalt pavement, curb, gutter and
sidewalk.
5. Installation of street trees and street lighting.
Installation o.f a drainage structure to direct
storm runoff to the Flood Control Channel.
Chairman Hal.us opened the public portion of the hearing at
9:57 P.M.
Mr. Paul B. Treat, applicant, 8].]. Dorothy Lane, Fullerton,
stated that he was a little confused as to the recommendation
of a cul-de-sac being required as called out in Item No. 2
in the staff report conditions.
I.'C ~.iirlutes - Janu-'-.ry 27, 1969 Page
It was explained that the idea of the cul-de-sac at the
end of Carfax would isolate the residential and school
community fro~;% the higher density development.
Mr. Gill explained that the thought was to deny any type of
~-e-~-vy vehicular traffic to Carfax Avenue and in the dis-
cussion with the school at the time, it was also thought
that if this property was rezoned from Industrial to some
· form of Multiple Residential that access would be denied
from the Multiple Residential into the. Single Fami].y Resi-
dential area. fie suggested that as far as the school
problem, he felt that a walkway could be made to ~he school
properties, although this should be taken up between the
school district and the applicant.
The Commissioners discussed the traffic, density, surrounding
properties and the detrimental effects that might be incurred
with this type of zoning.
Mr. Oster stated that he would like to avoid creating a hic~h
density area in a blocked-off section which has no co~.parable
high density in the neighboring area, voicing disapproval.
~t was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded b_y._~?.s_-....I,_.u_d?!.i.s_,_that
Resolution No. 1040 be adopted, recor2;'.endinc~ denial to the
~y_ Council of Application No. ZC-69-189 for the following
reasons:
Due to special circumstances of'Newport A,.:enue
being at this location, in the opinion of the
Planning Commission, the creaticn of R-3 (1750)
Multiple Residential density at this point would
lead to granting of R-3 (1750) Multiple Residential
of property across Newport and would lead to over-
crowding the area.
As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence
introduced at the hearing be included by reference
and made a part of the motion.
Chairman Halus asked the applicant if he would consider a
sta~_~ that he
lesser density and the applicant - ~=~ did not
feel that he could, due to the prpperty situation.
The above motion was voted by roll call.
AYES: LUDWIG, SHARP, OSTER, LA.NARD
NOES: MAHONEY, WEBSTER, HALUS
MOTION CARRIED 4-3.
6. UP-69-283 - DONALD P. PETERSON - TAKE-OUT FOOD ESTABLISHmeNT
To permit a take-out food establishment in the C-1
(Retail Commercial District)
Location:
Site fronts 100 ft. on the southwest side of
First Street, approximately 3].0 ft. southeast
of the centerline of Newport Avenue.
Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that the staff
recommends denial of subject application due to the parking
shortage, however, it has been discussed with the applicant
and he feels that the parking requirements can be provided so
there would be'no objection if the parking requirements are
complied with what is stipulated by the City.
Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at
~0:25 P.M.
Mr. Wj.]liam ~.!Jtche]]., 1012 Acacia, Pul]often, s[.atcd that
part of {'h~'"~-J.'ci].~' would bc used as an office. }ie then
described the facilJ, ty a~d answered questions of the Corn--
mission presenting picLures of the estab].ishment.
The Commission discussed the seating, parking requircn;ent, s,
take--out food require~?,ents, off,ce and parking relative to
this and all. other aspects pertaining to such an esLab]ishu~ent.
I t was move d by_ .~.:_r..._ _O_~.%.?_r_ .,__s...c_cp~j~_e.,.~_~_~y._~ ~!r__._..~.~.'.._n_o .n_e~._,_...t_'.h ~.t_
R_93°.]_..u_..t.'_J-.°_n__ ~ 9_'__.~-O~ ]_ b.c.!.._.a_ dj~}Lt...e..d_,_. ~jf_p ~_r_o_v_.n' .r)~q__ _A.~.~?_.]_._i.._(~?)_t_i_?.~ !..No.
u]'-69-283 for the following r¢:asons:
The Commission finds that the establishment,
maintenance and operation of the use applied for
will not, under the circumstances of the particular
case be detrJ.~t:enta] to the health, safety, n':orals,
comfort and genera], welfare of the persons residing
or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use
and it will not be detri:~.~en[.a! to the pro?erty and
improvements in the neighborhood or the general wel-
fare of the City.
e
As additional grounds the mi. ~'~-
, nu~ and evidence intro-
duced at the hearing are included by reference and
made a part of the motion.
The above motion was voted by roll. call.
AYES: LUDWIG, OSTER, LARNARD, ?LA_~]ONEY,.LEBS-.'.R, ~,::_ . , .
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
7. V-69-229 - DONALD P. PETERSON - SIGN - To per.?3, t:
One (1) pole sign having an area of 160 s~. ft.
each side, 320 sq. ft. total area, a he, glut of
28'3" and within the front setback area (Sign
Ordinance pcrn~its only (1) pole sign per como]ex,
maximum areas for permitted pole signs of !50 sq. ft.
each side and 300 sq. ft. total area and r.:axir.~um
height of 24'6".)
b. One (]) wall sign havi. ng an area of 102 sq. ft.
Ce
Total sign area on the site cr= ~22. sq. =~t. (maximum
permitted area is 122 sq. ft. or 2 X the width of
the building occupied by the business.)
Location:
Site fronts 100 ft. on the south%-rest side of
First Street, approximately 310 ft. southeast
of the centerline of Newport Avenue.
Mr. Supinger presented the staff report, recor~ending denial
for the fei. lowing reasons:
That the adjustment app].~ed for will constitute a grant
of special privilege inconsistent with the ]imitations
upon other properties in the v]cinJ, ty and district, in
which the property is situated.
That special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including size, shape, topography location
or surroundings, do not, because of the strict appli-
cation of %he zoning ordinance, deprive subject property
of pri. vilcges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity
and under identical zone classification.
Mr. Supinger stated that the figures were calculated before
he understood that part of the structure would be used as an
office.
Chairman tlalus opened the public portion of the hearing at
10:55 P.M.
Mr. Mitche].l staled that he was not aware that the Kentucky
~J~-"d~°~[~'n, Union Oil Service Station and Tic Toc Market
were under the same ownership. He stated that they would be
willing to cut down the size and height of the existing sign
but did request that a sign be permitted across the front of
the building. He mentioned that he was not aware of the com-
p 1 ex_ s i 9 n rec~ ui r .e~2!~_n_t.'_.,!..
Chairman Ha]us declared the public portion of the hearing
~losed at 11:05 P.M.
The Co~umissioners discussed the size requirements, con;plex
stipu].ations, and other aspects of granting a variance.
Mr. Sharp. felt that from the discussion, the applicant should
~-~ aware of what they had in mind for the sign and the re-
quirements involved stating that as a courtesy to the appli-
cant, he should be given a copy of the Sign OrdSn_:.u,':ce and
permit him more time (2 weeks) to review the documents and
make an alternative proposal.
It was moved by_ Mr. Sharp, secondpdb_,v__bZr. Ost.e__r, that V-69-229_
be denied for the following reasons:
That the adjustment applied for will constitute
a grant of special privilege, inconsistent with'
the limitations upon other properties ~n the vicinity
and district J.n which the property is situated.
That.special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including size, shape, topograFhy location
or surroundings, do not, because of the strict appli-
cation of the zoning ordinance, deprive subject
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity and under identical zone classification.
Mr. Webster stated that if the application is denied, it will
incur -~-i-~ional fees to come in with a ne%.z plan. He felt
that a continuance would be a more appropriate alternative.
Mr. Shard concurred with ~. Webster, stating that if it is
~-0-~Jnue~, it is not to discuss the same things as were pre-
sented at this hearing, but a new set of plans or proposal.
~,~_D, seconded b~
The above motion was amended bz Mr.
Mr. Oster, to continue the hearino of Application No. V-69-229
VI.
OLD
USINESS
.II.
-NEW
BUSINESS
VIII.
CO R RE S -
PONDENC E
to the next regu].ar]y scheduled meeting on February 10, 1969.
The above motion was voted by ~oll ceil.
AYES: OSTER, SHARP, I,UDWIG, HALUS, WEBS?ER, LARNARD, MAHONEY
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIE[) 7-0.
NONE
NONE
NONE
Minutes - January 27, ]969
IX.
OTi! E R
BUSINESS
15 1)~1 T~q'' :l,'~'r1~
........... · ~,-,~ ].NCR_EASE IN TUST1N
Mrs. Lud%.:ig called attention to an arLic].e
Register on the increase of apartm, cnts in Tustin,
stating that there is 53.7% apartments in thJ. s
area.
2. SHOPPING CEXTERS - CLEAN UP
Chairman Halus stated that after revie;.;ing the ail. des tha'
were sho:.:n by some of the people earlier in the meeting o:
"trash" behind certain shoppinc3 centers, warranted inw,?stJ.--
gation and felt that steps shoui6 be taken to try and clean
up these areas. He mentioned the Tu~3tin He~ght. s Shcpping
Center as one of the areas that could be checked.
It was moved by Mrs. Ludwig, secondcd by ~,:r. Shar~), that the
.me e t i n_g._._b_e- a¢~.j.ourned.
Carried 7-0.
There being no further business before the Con?.~,ission, Chairman
Halus declared the meeting adjourned at 1].:25 P.M.
CHAll~,DAN OF THE PLAN:;iNG
SECR-E~ ~" RY
TH}", PLANNING COb~,iISSION