HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-14-68MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
.October 14, 1968
',L TO
II.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
III.
ROLL
CALL
IV.
APPROV~,
OF MINUTES
VII.
NEW
BUSINESS
(o~rr o:?
O~)
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 E,I by Chairman llalus
Led by Chairman lIalus
Present: Conzmis s ioncrs:
Absent: None
Others Present:
Mahoncy, Larnard, Webster, Halus, Ludwig,
Oster, Sharp
James G. Rourke, City Attorney
James L. Supinger, Planning Director
Doreen E. l{enson, Acting Secretary
It ~.~as moved by Mr. Mahoney. and seconded bY }irs. Ludwig thai: the
minutes of the September 23, 1968 n'.aetinf, be ,approved as submitted.
Carried unanimous 15::
Mr. Webster moved that the rules be suspended to consider an item of
New Business out of order. Se~_onded by l,;.r_. ShalE.
Chairman }Iai.us advised that this motion would require a two-thirds
vote and the vote would be by roll call. Ayes: Mahoney, Larnard,
Ludwig, Oster, Sharp, Webster, Halus. Noes: none. Motion carried
ynanimously.
Mr. Webster stated the matter he wished to bring up at this time
is concerning the area bounded by Fourth Street on the north,
Santa Ana Freeway on the south, Newport Freeway on the west, and
the area designated as the Town Center in the General Plan on the
east. He said they had witnessed in the recent past a growing
trend for requests for rezoning for heavy and high density residential
in this area. He felt it was general knowledge that this area is
fairly ripe for re-.development° He also felt it was generally
accepted that this area, being th6 older part of to~.m with some
unusual physical aspects, has the potential of creating intense
problems for the City of Tustin in re-develo~v, mnt. Because it is
unique -- the lot widths and depths, street widths and the utilities
that are in existence -- there are a ntm~ber of problems. Specifically,
the staff in one of the public hearings this evening, sets forth
nine areas that they are concerned with, as follows:
Site Area Street Width
Lot Frontage Water Service
Parking Sewer Service
Building }leight Setbacks'
Block Zoning vs. Individual Lot Zoning
Mr. Webster continued by saying that what he was going to propose
was that the Co:.._-nission request the City Council to freeze all
zoning in this area'. Further, that the staff be instructed to
ccnupile reconnmndations on these nine areas of concern which they
had brought' out and any other areas of concern which were not stated;
that the reco~.?.endations be report'ed to the Cormission within thirty
days of Council action. He stated he would then urge the Cot~=nission
to review the rcco:,'.umndations posthaste and to pass a reco:u~.:andation
to the City. Council. t!e said thc intent of this was to establish
criteria on th?se ite,n.; to une as a guide in judging individual
applicatiou~. It is not sug~,.,stcd that this stu~y of the require-
ments and criteria for high residential zoning is a reco.'r?ndation
PC Minutes -October 14, 1968
for land use; it is not.
}Ir. Webst'cr moved ti:at the Pl,am.n., C~.;.u...,.:,~.~n ¢: the C~,., o..
Tustin rcco::'.:'.~md to ~he C~'y Com'c~l ti'at il,ay fr,,eze
on the s~t~.l~_?~j~.Zj~r~ Frcewav on the west~, and thc, area
as the Town Conger in thc Ocneral Plan on the east.. Tibet the
..........................................
Oouncil direct the staff to e~api].e rcco".-"e~',dat'ions on t~,e fol].o'.~in~
................................ ~. ~%....'_%_ :__~'~ .........
nine areas of criteria as sot forth t~y~!~9__stC.~]?D- site
~ot Zonipl%~ S~l~t Widttb. Water Scrvice~ Sewers~. Setbacks. Tha~
this rei~ort be sent back to the Plmmin~.~j?7~fij}jo][
daS~.~93U!9~J:.~Xo]b?v~.~. That the Cut, nell consider this action
at their next re~]~!>]~x~xh~il~J, cd meetinli~ctober 21~ 1968 and
their rcco:mnendations be forwarded to thc C~xission for its next
re_p_gl.u_larl, y__s.c_l?_d_q~...cd mg_e_[ii~:~., October 28~ 1968. Th_a .ZOL~ing freeze
would be confined to higher dmmity residential uses. Seconded b_l!
}Ir. Larnard.
Vote by roll call. Ayes: Mahoncy, Im, rnard, Webster, Sharp, Oster,
Ludwig, Halus. Noes: none. Motion carried unanimously.
Chairman }Ialus requested that a transcript of the cor, anen~s be
included to the Council' as further background on this particular
action.
PUBLIC
IiEARINGS
ZC-68-183 - G. I,. LEWIS E,N~7ER}?RISES
For rezonlng of approximately 0.77 acres from the R-1 (Single
Family Residential) Di:~tric't to thc R-3 (Multiple Family Residential)
District. Site fronts 150 feet on the east side of }lountain View
Drive, approximately 300 feet north of the centerline of First Street.
.}ir. Supin,~,r stated that the applicant had previously submitted
the application and it was reco;,z.,.endcd by tile Planning Cor:~z~ission
that it be denied. At the City Council meeting September 16, 1968,
the applicant reqt,.ested that this be referred back to the Co;r.,:~ission
for re-consideration based upon revised density and configuration.
}ir. Webster stated he would be abstaining front any discussion and
voting in this matter.
Mr. Oster asked Mr. Supinger if there had been any revised plot
plans or any revised density studies submitted in. this case by tile
applicant. Mr. Sui~ replied that the staff had not received
any. .
Chaitv, mn Halus opened tile public portion of the hearing.
}irs. A%n.es B~_c.o:.!, 140 Mountain View Drive, askcd if the motion
made previously this evening would not do away with any action
on this matter for now.
Mr. Oster stated the he felt in view of tile prior action i~dicating
they were going to refer to the Council and request direction, he
would request that rather than close the public portion of the
hearing, it be left open.
Dick Kr?.o_p_!!, 12312 Newport Avenue, Tustin: stated that he has a
piece of property on }Fain Street in this District. tie said he
had previously spoken with Mr. Supinger about rezoning on this
property and that several other people in this area would like
to have rezoning. He asked Mr. Oster if there was any particular
reason for his being against this rezoning other than possibly
there were not adeq%:atc facilities to tal~e care of the area.
}Ir. Oster replied that those were his reasm:s and he felt tile
study would show if there would be problems. }lc stated
General Plan does not she',.; this area as high density and the
study is needed to sllow whether or not th~s should be revised.
-2-
PC Mc, e. ting - October 1!~, 1968
.}ir. Krupp c~mnanted that 1.1r. Oster scc~::ed to have a fixed
opinion.
}tr. Oster stated that at this point he did; that he felt the
study was needed.
Mr. KrL!pp asked if there was any partic~:lar part of this area
that Mr. Oster felt there would not be adequate parking for?
Would it be on the part where his property is located? Was
there any reason why Mr.. Oster felt his property would not go
high density?
Chairman Halus stated he understood Mr. Krupp's concern, but the
discussion had to be kept to the particular property involved in
this public hearing.
Mr. G. L. Lewis%, 550 E. Chapman, Orange, stated that he was the
applicant in this mm. tter. He said that after the matter was
heard before the Pla~n~ing Commission and then went before the
City Council, he requested it be referred back to the Planning
Con,mission because some of the residents in the area who had
opposed the zone change were now in favor of it.
Mr. Su.pj.n~,!~er- advised Chairman Halus that Mr. Lewis had not been
present .in the audience when the motion was made tc freeze zoning
in this area.
Chairman }~alus told }~r. Lewis that the Co:remission, this evening,
had voted unanimously on a motion recall.sending to the City Council
a freeze on all zoning in the area with the stipulation that the
staff be directed to n~ke a study report on criteria; that this
matter be brought to the Council's attention one week from tonight
and Council's reaction to the reco~mnendations when the Co~,nission
meets again in two weeks. If the City Council is in accord with
the Conunission's recom, mendati6n, the study would be completed
in thirty days. If the Council. is not in accord, Mr. Lewis'
application would be heard at the C~nnission's next regularly
scheduled meeting.
Lewis requested that his application be continueg until the
Conzmission has the benefit of the Council's decision.
Mr. Imrnard moved that the public portion of the hear~.ng in this
matter be left open to the next scheduled n,~.eting of the Planning
Commission. Seconded by l, Irs. Ludwig. Motion carried 6-0. Mr.
Webster abstained.
ZC-68-184 - T. V. ATTEBERY ON BEIL\LF OF SIXTEEN PROPER'I~f
For rezoning of approx~?.ately 4.5 acres from the R-1 (Single
Family Residential) District to the R-3 (}[ultiple Family Residential)
District.
~L.i.n_f?r stated that the site fronts on Myrtle, Pacific and
Third Streets; that a more complete description is on file in the
?lanning Department office.
Chairman Halus stated that as in the prior hearing, the public
portion of the hearing was now open.
Mr. lq~ox:as Atteb~!',v_, 155 Myrtle, Tustin, stated he was speaking
for sixteen property owners on Myrtle and Pacific; ['hat he had
a chart to she',: the Cc:n:,.ission,indicating the people who are
interested in this zone change. He said that since thc hearing
had been put off for two weeks, he had nothing f~:r,her to say at
this t in:e.
-3-
'1 .~ 10 ~ r~
PC !-linu.."c:s 1.1~m'..tcs - Ozto.~r ].-'~, ~u:~
B_o__b B__l_a_y_l_9.i!L~, 675 Wcst.'lhird Street, '±\turin, stated tie had a
list of thirty-three nem~es of property owners iu this viciuity
who are direly oppo.~:c.d to this variance change, lie' said th~s
was the third t';,.:te this had come up in the last few years. He
said most of the residents had iix'ed in that area for fifteen
to twenty years and they did not want high-rise ~:~u].tiplc~ family
residences there.
R.~_.Kn~__=.gh_t, 165 S. Myrt].e, Tustin, stated that ho felt the Co:,n~ission's
action was exactly what sl,ould bt done. lie said he understood the
problem; that he has property in the area which is nearly 250 feet
deep, and he agreed with what is beiug done.
}Ir. Os ter moved that th~_pub lic fl!o. fr.. [_'.ipA_q_f'__th__e._h_~..a.r.i_pg_o. ll~_C_L~_8--1_._84'
· ' Co ..... is o ion,
be continued to th~ next sche¢!uled mcet'~.ng, of the Planning -'.'~' '~'
Seconded bk' idr, i.laho~.e¥, Carried unanin:ously.,
V-68-220 - SO,".,~,~ B. COLI,INS
For a variance to permit the encroactunent of a proposed addition
to an existing single family residence to within 14 ft. of the rear
property line in the E-4 (Resideutial Estates) Distr~ct. (Ordinance
requires rear setback of 20% of the lot depth, in this case
22.6 ft.).
l'I['. Supi~_L.)%c__r stated that the site fronts on the west side of Flint
Drive and is tile site of existing residence ~ltrnber 13522 Flint
Drive, Thc applicant's justification is that tile present fami].y
bedroom is too small, lq~e staff recoum~.ends that V-68-220 be
approved for the follo¥:ing reasons:
That the adjustment heresy authorized will not constitute
a grant of spatial privilege inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which
the subject property is situated.
That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance
will deprive subject property of privileges' enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity and under identical zoue classification.
As additional grotmds, the minutes and evidence introduced
at the hearing are included by reference and made a part of
the motion.
Chairman }Ialus asked if there had been any correspondence received
from adjoining property o',mers in this matter. Mr. Supin.qe__r
advised that the staff had received none.
Mr. Oster asked if Public Hearing Notices had been sent out to
property owners in this ~:~atter and Mr. Supinger replied in thc
affirmer ive.
Chaimnan Hal.us opened and closed thc public portion of the hearfng.
}ir. Oster ,..oved that Resolution 1015 b~dop_t?_d...g~r_a~__~t_iv~ V-68-220
for the reasons as set forth in the staff report. Secor.:led bv
}ir. Webster° '~.[ot"~.on' carried unauimously_..
zc- 6s - lS6 - _c: L,.. A;_DL:'yj3,_O.?_d_~::_y~: _C_C_-:.iSU_,~i_ o.'-,!A~T/!...%i,!'i._O]L!~!.Q:?~) cA?
BA~,5(
For rezonfng of an 0.33 acre portion of a 4.0:~ acre parcel fro..'u
the R-3 (Multiple Fan~].y Residentfal) DJstrict to the C-1 (Retail
Co;m~:~rc~a] ) 1)i.,stric[:.
t)C 1.1inures - Otto, bet 14, 1965
}Ir. Stm~wer stat.¢;d the site fronts 292 feet on the north side
of First Street and ~-s' occupied by Shakcy's Pizza. R~zonzno
runs the full %,:idth of tl)e propert'y for a depth of approxi,nately
55 feet starting at thc northerly edge of the Shakey's building.
The applicant's justif.ication is that this will allow tlmm to make
better, use of the overall property. The staff recoau,.~ends that
ZC-68-186 be reco:_mnendcd for approval and adoption of an ordinance
rezoning snbject property C-1 for the following reasons:
1. Request is in conformance with the General Plan.
2. Request will make more usable conn~ercial lots (145' X 180').
3. As additional grounds, the mim,tes and evidence introdnced at-
the hearing is included by reference and made a part of the
mo t ion.
Chair.nan Ha!us opened the public portion of the hearing.
}Iargaret .Bj.r_jd_, 158 North "B" Street, Tustin, asked what ~.:as
going to be done with the proper~;y.
}ir. Sup~n~e__r stated that the parking for Shakey's Pizza was to be
moved to the rear portion of the lot and a private street would
go in the center of the parcel to serve the apartments.
}{rs..Byrd asked if they were still planning on those apartments
back there and Mr. Supinger told her that: they very definitely
Mrs. Gertrude Jo_yce, 135 North "B" Street, Tustin, asked if it was
the intention to put stores in the front of the apartments next
to Shakey's and ~[r.. Suping,.e_~r advised her that would be the intention.
Mrs. Jo)Lc_e~ con'~nented that she hoped there would not be anything
noisy in there.
Chairman Halus closed the public portiou of the hearing.
Mr. Sharp moved that Resolution No. 10].6 be adopted reco::a',end_i_n_~.
approval of ZC-68-186 and adoption of an ordinance rezoning subject_
]!roperty _C-1 fo_______r the following reasons:
1. Reques~ is in conformance with the General Plan.
2. Request will make more us. able co~..-~.'.ercial lots (145' X 180').
3. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at
the hearing is included by reference and made a part of the
motion.
Seconded by_ Mrs. Ludwi_~. Motion carried nnauimously.
V-68-219 - TRIANGLE IN~q.]SR~IEN)I' COI4pAN~Y
For a variance to permit the modification of an existing nonconfoz~ing
pole sign identifying the Newport Plaza Shopping Center. Modification
involves an increase of sign area by 216 sq. ft. and ~.:ould exceed
the permit:ted height of 20 ft. 6 in. by 9 ft. 6 in. Sit'e fronts
approximately 300 ft. on the south side of McFadden Street and
approximately 500 ft. on the northwest side of Newport Avcuue.
Mr. Sup. in~,,er stated the staff had a request front the applicant
in this case that this r.:atter be continu.,-:d to the next regularly
scheduled t~ceting of the C~.m. mission.
Chairman ]l:',lu.,! Opened and closed the 'public po~'tion of the hearing
Mr. Shatil!._r.._;o,__i,'ec~_tJ.13t_V_-_6_g_-Jl_?o_b_e contim,.'d t:o the next scheduled
_me_e_t_~:Di_9_f_m.t:_!:_9._t;lo.n_i~!2' qgFj?..i;%.%~p.,.!. Secg_n_d_e_d._bv. ~j_r_._..j.:zl_h_o_!',:~'..
-5-
I"C MJ. nutc!;- October 14, 1965
VI.
OLD
BUS1NiJSS
VIII.
CORRES-
PONDENCE
IX.
OTHER
BUSINESS
NONF.
COUNI'Y CASE l~-3018 Al, IA DENA ~,~...~,~
To permit a transfer dock and retail dairy outlet plus a service
station on the. CC (Co:~,,.:unity Co:::..-.:ercial) District. Site is
located on the, northwest side of Newport Avenue approxi,'.:ately
123 ft. northeast of 14itchell (adjacent to Texaco Station).
Mr. Sulhi_.nji~..r- stated that this application is identical to that
proposed un¢ler I/V-6045~ but is nov: p~rmittcd under a Use Perr:~it
because of the rezonlng to CC. It is felt that it would not do
any good to object further on this matte, r. It is recon~nended
by the staff tl!at the County be inforr.:..cd that we have no objections.
Nro Oster stated that in view of the Cor.'a~ission's prior action
in this matter, he felt that no letter or reco;m:':endation should
be sent to the County in this case.
Mr. Oster moved that no letter or reco:.~_nandation be sent to the
Cou. nty. in this ease. Seconded b~: Mrs. Ludwig._
Mr.. Sharp stated that he was going to suggest that correspondence
be sent to the County, indicating the Cor. unission's strong dislike
for this kind of devaloi~:',ent, lie felt that even though they had
been ignored in the past, they should stand by their decision.
}fr. Oster stated that he was suggesting that n__o letter be sent to
the Connty.
Chairman Hal.us stated the intent of the motion and the second was
that no com:~'.cnt be sent to the County.
Mr. Larnard co.~%::entcd that it would scem~ under the circ~unstanccs,
since the County }:ad rezoned this property, any com.'~ent would be
superfluous, and he agreed with the motion.
Mr. Sharp. stated that in the staff's letter to ~hc County on
3/27/68, it was pointed out that pne of the objections to this
kind of development was because it did not confozun to the General
Plan. Mr. Sharp asked Mr. Supinger if his position regarding the
General Plan had changed and Y,r. Suping?? replied that it had not.
Vote by roll call. Ayes: Mahoney, Larm~rd, Oster, Ludwig. Noes:
Webster, Sharp, tlalus. Motion carried 4-3.
REPOXT RE: PARliING RI']GU],ATIOi;S FOR APAR%~.U'..,iS ST~)Y
Mr. Sup~n?e~.r_ stated the staff had a letter from the Cha:::Ser of
Conu:mrce, requesting that the C~.:~:~ission pez~nit soma additional
t~m~e for thcn~ to get set. ne conu::ants back rel. ative to the study
on Parking Regulations for Apartments. lie said there was so:.-:eone
in thc audience who wished to speak to the Conzuission regarding
this matter°
Nr. Cb. aries Cr,'-.eu:.:~o,:[, Chamber of Ccz.;:;.;~rce, Econo, mic Develop.:'.ent
Co'-.r~',ittee, stated ha wished to apologize for tho lack of cc~?...':':un~cation
somewhere along the line. They had just re, ce~vod the in for~:~, [: ~ on
regarding this study last: week and in'_'.'.adiate!y contacted :.b'.
Supingero l!.a said a survey would be nced('..d relative to the different
types of apnrtr.'.au!:s, parki~.g facilities available, etc. !I.,~ said
the Co:::,:'.:;.ttee ~:a~ very anxious to cook)crate and tl~ay would be doin5
the report witl:iu the next two weeks.
1)C t.;inu:'cs - 0rt'()bc, r l/;, 19C.°,
Re
ADJOURN-
}lENT
Chairman llalus asked Mr. Supingcr if his staff would conduct
the survey and };._r__._St:pin~(;_ti replied that i~ would.
Mr. Oster suggested that the Coa."..:ittec contact Chic. f Sissel
and Chief II}].ton for their points of view. He felt this
would be beneficial.
Chairman }la]._u.,s stated tile Planning Cea:hi}ssi. on has asked tile
Department }leads in kite City to appear about thirty minutes
prior to the regular pre-meeting and talk about problems they
face in thc area of planning. Chief Sissel had spo n to them
this evening and Chief tlilton is to speak at the next regularly
scheduled Coifed:ins}on meeting.
Mr. Mahouay moved that the n',eeti~_!g.b_c_adjo_tj_r3~ed:. Seconded by
Mr. Oster. Motion carried unanimousls_l%
Meeting was adjom'n6d at 8:30 1~,~.
O~IAIRI. b\N OF Tile Pi,ANNING CO.'..£.!ISSION
ACTING SECRETARY OF TIlE PLANNI?;G C(7..2,1ISSION
-7-