Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-12-68MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION February 12, 1968 CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III, APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M~, by Chairm'an Marsters. Present: Commissioners: Oster, Webster, Ludwig, Marsters, Halus, Larnard, Bacon. Absent: Commissioners: Non~. Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney Harry E. Gill, City Administrator James ~. Supinger, Planning Director Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mrs. Ludwig, that the minutes of January 22:1968 be approved as mailed t Carried 7-0. 1, UP-67-~37 - SE%VICE STATION - Paul Lerner (Continued from the January 22, 1968 meeting). Locatio____.__~n: West side of '~" Street at the north-bound entrance of the Santa Ana, Freeway M~._~ping~r stated that after inspection of the premises of subject application by Mr. Fred Brook, Building Director, it had been reported that the Lerner Oil Company has met all the requirements of the Architectural Committee and asked that revocation of the Use Permit not be recommended to City Council. %t was ~oved by Mr, Oster, seconded by Mr. Larnard, that no further action be taken on UP-67.-237~.Lerner Oil Company. Motion carried unanimously. 2. UP-68-250 - COIN-OPERATED CAR WASH - ~.;ayne Mullin To permit the construction of a coin operated car wash in a C-2 District. ~oc~tion: Fronts 103 feet on the north side of First Street at the intersection with "D" Street. ~r. SupinR~ presented the staff report recommending conditional approval as follows: That the building be oriented so that the long sides of the building run in a north-south direction. That a Parcel Map be file'd separating subject property from parcel to the east including a common driveway easement. 3. That architectural plans be submitted to the Architectural Committee. 4. That the solid masonry wall at the north boundary of the subject parcel be 6'8" high. 5. That lights 06 the property be oriented away from the residential properties to the north. 6. That business hours be limited to between a.m. and p.m. Chairman }:arsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:40 P.M. PC Minutes - February 12, 1968 Mr. Luther Hunter, 7334 W. 91st Street, Los Angeles, representative, explained the operation of the car wash, comnenting on the noise, the aesthetic value, the limiting of the hours it would be avail- able and the orientation of the structure. Mr. Hunter explained that it would not be likely that it would develop into a hang-out for teenagers, because there are no vending machines or facilities of this nature to attract them to linger. The orientation of the building north and south would certainly cause a problem due to cars not having enough room to work without being backed into the street and that the banana lights would be placed so as not to be a nuisance to the adjacent properties. He felt that the 24 hour operation was necessary to accommodate businesses and people that would not have access to the car wash in the day time. Mr. Hunter stated that the noise would be minimal because machines such as blowers, heavy brushes, etc., that were used in.the standard type car washes would not be available. There being no other comments from the audience, Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 7:55 P.M. The Coranission discussed all the aspects that Mr. Hunter explained in the above paragraph. Mr. Halus asked, since there has been no correspondence opposing the operation, if it would be possible to grant the "24 hour" operation and at a later date take action on a time limit if there were complaints from adjacent neighbors. Mr. Rourke stated that this would be difficult and unreasonable after installation has been established and might cause problems. It was moved by Mr. Oster~ seconded by. Mrs. Ludwig~ that Resolution No. 938 be adopted for conditional approval of UP-68-250 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 detri- mental to the property and improvem'ents in the neighbor- hood or the general welfare of the City. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing be included by reference and made a part of the motion. Conditions of approval are: 1. That a Parcel Map be filed separating subject property from parcel to the east including a con~mon driveway easement. That architectural plans.be submitted to the Architectural Committee and that the Architectural Committee be particularly directed to the landscaping on the front portion of the property. 3. That the solid masonry wall at the north boundary of the subject parcel be 6'8" high. 4. That lights on the property be oriented away from the residential properties to the north. 5. That business hours be limited to between 7:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. The above motion was amended by Mr. Larnard and seconded by Mr. Halus, that the time limit be between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 ,p.,m. -2- PC Minutes - February 12, 1968 The amended motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Ludwig, Halus, Bacon, Larnard. Noes: Oster, Webster, Marsters. Carried 4-3. The original motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, %~ebster, Ludwig, I1alus, Bagon, Larnard, Marsters. Noes: None. Carried 7-0. 3. V-68-203 - POLE SIGN - Wayne Mullin To permit A pole sign for an individual business %~ich is a part of a commercial complex. The above mentioned sign to be located within the front setback. Location: Fronts 103 feet on the north side of First Street at the intersection with '~" Street. Mr. Su~inger presented the staff report recommending denial for the following reasons: That there are not exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property which, because of the strict application of the Ordinance, would deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.and under identical circumstances. That the granting of the requested Variance would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limita- tions upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is located. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:10 P.M. Mr. Hunter stated that they would like to have a sign 8' X 8' approximately 14 or 15 feet in the air. Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:12 P.M. Mr. Oster opined that because the two parcels are sharing a common driveway, he could not see that as a reason for denying the variance. Mr. Supinger stated that it should be made'clear in the action that is taken~ that this does not include the height of the sign, because subject application does not conform to the Sign Ordinance. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Bacon, ~bat Resolution No. 941 be adopted for conditionally. 8rant%ng V-68-203 for the following teas ohs: That the adjustment hereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with thc 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 of surroundings the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance will deprive subject property and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifi- cations. 3. That the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing be included by reference and made a part of the motion. -3- PC Minutes - February 12, 1968 Condition of approval: That the granting of this variance shall not be deemed to be nor is it an approval of thc plans submitted with the application and that any sign erected on the premises and pursuant to this variance, shall comply with the Sign Ordinance with the City of Tustin in all respects. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: O;tcr, ¥~ebster, Ludwig, Halus, Marsters, Bacon, Larnard. Noes: None. Carried 7-0, 4.' 1fP-68-251 -MINIATURE GOLF COURSE - Earl .K. Magrath, Jr. To permit construction and alterations on an existing 36-hole miniature golf course. Location: Fronts 200 feet on the north side of First Street approximately 420 feet west of Yorba Street. Chairman Marsters turned the gavel over to Chaimnan Pro-tem. Halus to conduct the hearing on subject application since he abstained from com~nenting or voting on the application due to his affiliation with the bank that is the lessee of the property. M!. Supin~gr presented the staff report recommending conditional approval explaining that the proposed construction involves re- furbishing the existing golf course and adding concrete animals for highlights. He explained that the animals will be constructed of concrete placed over a steel framework and will be inspected by the Building Department. Chairman Pro-tem Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:20 P.M. Mr. Edward Ha~is, 13324 Manhatten Pl., Gardena - employed by Union Bank, head of the Real Estate Sales Department, stated that they are the present owner of the lease-hold interest on the present property, which they are selling to Mr. Magrath. He stated that he was in favor of the application. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Pro-tem Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:22 P.M. Mr. Oster commented that he felt it would be advantageous to the business climate on First Street and felt that it would be an asset to the City. It was moved >y M~. Oster, seconded by Mr. Larnard~ that Resolution No. ~42, for. pP-68-251,.be adopted conditionally~pproving subject ~pplication for the following reasons: The Cot:mission 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 pro- posed usc and it will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in thc neighborhood or the general welfare of thc City. 2. The proposed improvements will be advantageous to the business climate in thc area. As additional grounds, the mim,tes and evidence introduced at the hearing arc included by reference and made a part of the mot ion. Condition of approval is that the ultimate right-of-way on First Street from l,:yrtle to the westerly boundary of the subject parcel be dedicated. PC Minutes - February 12, 1968 Mrs. Ludwig stated that she did not consider this as beautification along First Street as they had stated in the justification. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Bacon, Halus, Bacon. Noes: Ludwig, Abstained: Carried 5-1. Oster, Larnard, marsters. Chairman Pro-tem Halus turned the gavel over to Chairman Marsters to continue with the meeting. 5. UP-68-252 - SKY SLIDES I~fERNATIONAL To permit the construction of a private, outdoor recreation facility (a 15 lane sky slide) in a C-2 district. Location: Southeast side of Ne~ort. Avenue with 196 feet frontage beginning at the Santa Aha Freeway and the Ne~.~ort Avenue overpass. Site is approximately 185 feet from the centerline of Laguna Road. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report recommending conditional approval as follows: 1, That the permit shall be for one year. That the structural design be such as to have a wind velocity resistance of 100 miles per hour or 40 pounds per square foot. 3. That plans be submitted to the Architectural Committee for approval. 4. That the 64 proposed parking spaces be assumed to meet the parking requirements for such a facility. 5. That street trees be installed per the Master Street Tree Plan. 6. That loudspeakers be used for paging only. Mr! Larnard asked Mr. Supinger if he has discussed the one year limitation for this Operation with the applicant. Mr. Su~inger explained that the applicant has a 5 year lease and indica£ed that he would not like it limited for less than that period of time. Mr. Halus brought up the subject of height of the structure and ~explained that the allowable height in the C-2 district would be 50 feet, so there would not be a problem if the high end was constructed on the C-2 property. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:30 P.M. Mr. William D. Wilbur - Suite 11, 2736 W. Orangethorpe Ave., Fullerton, Real Estate Broker, stated that the reason they have asked for a 5 year permit was that it is the only way it would be economically feasible, stating that for one year's use, it would run in excess of $65,000.00. He co~mnented that the parking would not be a problem. He explained that the game arcade would be for vending machines, ice cream, soft drinks, etc. The operation would not be open later than 10:00 P.M. but the daytime hours would vary depending upon the day of the week. Mrs. Ludwig expressed concern over the proposed freeway off-ramp in that particular area, wanting to know if that would conflict with the 5 year lease. -5- PC Minutes - February 12, 1968 Mr. Gill stated that there would be a public hearing before the State Highway Commission, February 15th for an appeal on it but as of yet has not been approved. He stated that if it is approved the location for the off-ramp will be in the general area of the parking lot of subject application. He commented tl~at even if it is approved, thc actual construction of the off-ramp would probably not get under way within the 5 year lease period that Sky-Slides is requesting. Mr. l-.~ilbur stated that he felt this would be a reasonable use for the property in the meantime, because even if unavoidable circum- stances should arise causing them to relinquish the requested act- ivit~, the Sky-Slide is completely removable and no buildings woul8 be constructed on the property. He felt that this type of oper- ation would give the City more flexibility and freedom. Mr. George Argyros, 415 ~.Test Fourth Street, Tustin - spoke, stating that he felt that a 5 year period for such an operation would give Sky-Slide an opportunity to earn back their investment and to give them plenty of time before the off-ramp would be constructed if approved. Mr~ D. Frapk, 415 West Fourth Street, Tustin - gave a brief talk on . the "family fun" type project this is intended to bo. Mr~ D~n Hill, General Salesman for Sky-Slides, 4401 San Fernando Rd., Glendale, stated that the parking area of 30 to 35 spaces have proven to be adequate. He also mentioned that this type of oper- ation doesn't seem to attract the teenage crowd. He requested that the parking be cut to 35 to 37 spaces rather than the alloted 64 shown on the present plot plan. He felt that the one (1) year con- dition would be impossible relative to the economical feasibility. He explained the safety precautions that were of concern and ex- plained that there would be a 6 ft., fence with an additional 1½ ft., of barbed wire attached making it impossible for children to climb over during off-hours. Chairman Marsters expressed concern over the visibility of the scaffolding being an eye-sore to the cormnunity. Mr. Hill explained that an attractive alumintnn wiring or some other design such as shrubbery or hanging planters can be placed to cover it and stated that the structure does comply with the Uniform Build- ing Code relative to the wind velocity requirements. There being no other co,.~r,~ents from the audience, Chairman Marsters Reclared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:55 P.M. It was moved by Mr. Oster~ seconded by.M~. Halus~ that Resolution No. 943 be adopted for conditional approval of UP-68-252, for the ~ollowing 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 detri- mental 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 mr, included by reference and made a part of the motion. -6- PC Minutes - February 12, 1968 Conditions of UP-68-252 are: 1. The Use Permit shall be for a period of 5 years. That the structural design be such as to have a wind velocity.resistance df 100 miles per hour or 40'pounds per square foot and shall comply with the Uniform Build- ing Code. That plans be submitted to the Architectural Committee for approval and that the Architectural Committee be particularly directed to the area of shrubbery and aluminum facing for the scaffolding in accordance with the statements made by the applicant's representative. That the 64 parking spaces as shown on the plot plan be the required number of parking spaces for the granting of a Use Permit. That street trees be installed per the Master Street Tree Plan. 6. If loudspeakers are installed, that they be used for paging only. 7. That any structures constructed shall conform to the Tustin Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Marsters stressed again, that the aesthetic value was of concern to him and the distraction from the freeway that it might cause. Mrs. Ludwi~ concurred. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Halus, Bacon, Larnard. Noes: Ludwig, Webster, Marsters. Carried 4-3. 6. V-68-200 - TRANS-RO?LES CORP. - !.~alter P. Gribben To permit the continued use of four (4) existing non-conforming tract and directional signs. Location: (a) Eight (8) ft., by twelve (12) ft., double faced, at the northwest corner of Seventeenth and Yorba. (b) Twelve (12) ft., by twenty-nine (29) ft., double faced, on Marshall Street adjacent to the Ne%~ort freeway and approximately 500 ft., north of Laurie Lane. (c) Eight (8) ft., by twelve (12) ft., single faced, on the south side of Santa Clara at Carroll Way. (d) Nine (9) ft., by four (4) ft., single faced, at the northwest corner of Laurie Lane and Yorba. Mr. SupinKer presented the stnff report with the recommendation as follows: That V-68-200 be conditionally approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the permit is limited tb six (6) months. 2. That the signs within the rights-of-way be relocated to areas acceptable to the Planning Director. That building pern~its ~.nd removal bonds are required for signs "b", "c", and "d" and that the removal bond on the sign at location "a" be con.~inued. -7- PC Minutes - February 12, 1968 Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 9:04 P.M. Mr. Walter Gribb.e.n, 3053 Lakeview, Fullerton, representative for Trans-Robles, stated that they need another 6 months to help promote the sales for the tract of homes. He mentioned that thc street im- provements with paved street~ will enhance the tract and hopefully will help to initiate the sale Of the homes. He requested the 6 month period ~or the tract signs be granted.. Onalee Elliot,, 13631 Yorba Street, property owner to adjacent projec opposed the approval of the signs, stating that it was unsightly and a nuisance to the conm~uni~y. She stated that she has appealed to City Hall for recognition of the problem and felt that thc signs were indeed a detriment to the neighborhood. There being no further comments from the. audience, Chairman Marsters declared the hearing closed at 9:10 P.M. Mr, Halus stated that he shared Miss Elliott's feeling on the matter and mentioned that at the last hearing on subject application that it had been indicated that the situation would be corrected, especially at Yorba and Laurie Lane. He felt that because the applicant did not apply for an extension at the time his grant of approval expired and had to be reminded by the City, that he was not working in good faith nor cooperating with the City. He felt that the City has been generous in their actions towards this matter, lie opined that it would be in the best interest of the City to have this fully occupied and the signs removed but felt that it was time that sincere and honest efforts by the applicant be made. Mr, 1..~ebster opined that he too, shared Miss Elliott's views and stated that there is an existing problem, but by taking down all the s~g. ns would not end thc problem and that it could get worse if such action was taken, tie stated that his only concern was to clean the situation up as expeditiously as possible but did not feel that by ignoring the situation would be of any benefit for the City. Mr. Oster, shared Mr. Halus's feeling on the subject application becoming a problem that was not being worked out satisfactorily and that problems existed after the granting of the Variance.. He felt that the rights of the neighboring property owners were also to be considered and that the continuation of extending the variance could go on indefinitely. ~Mr~_ SuD.inger explained that they would be permitted two (2) on-site signs and ~ off-site signs on major highways for one (1) year or until the first sale of homes was completed and when that time has run out, they would be permitted one (1) six (6) month extension granted by the Building Director for the off-site signs and further extensions would have to be approved by the Planning Commission. The last provision of Resolution No. 894 approved June 26, 1967, stated that the applicant may by letter apply to the Planning Com- mission for a maximum extension of the abobe granted uses of six months, provided such application is made prior to the expiration of six months from the date of this' action which would have been December 26, 1967... Mr~ Oster stated that he was in favor of helping them. Mr. Halus concurred with Mr. Oster but stated that he wanted it stressed strongly that al.1 signs at this time exceed the Sign Ordinance limitations and felt that in'the best interest of the City that we should help them get the situation cleared up. Mr. Bacon and Mrs. Lqdwig felt that the only way to get the homes sold was to permit the signs under certain conditions or a worse situation would be created. -8- PC Minutes - February 12, 1968 Chairman Marsters stated that he concurred with Mr. Halus and Mr. Oster, feeling sympathetic with the problem, but also felt that if the variance was granted, that it be more in conformance with the Sign Ordinance. It was moved by Mr, 0ster~ seconded by Mr.. Bacon,.that Resolution No. 948 for V-68-200 - Trans-Robles be adopted wi. th the following conditions: 1. At location "a" permitting the existing sign. 2. At location "c" permitting the existing sign to remain but not in the right-of-way. At location "d" permitting the existing sign provided, however, that said sign be anchored in a manner that is suitable both the Architectural Con~ittee and thc Planning Commission, the Building Director and the Planning Director. 4. That each of these three (3) signs be permitted for a period of 6 months. 6~ That a bond in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney be given by the applicant to insure the removal of the signs at the end of the six (6) month period. That the sign located at position '%" be removed' and not replaced in any other area and said removal take place within 45 days of this date except that an ex- tension not to exceed 6 month from this date be granted by the City Administrator and the City Attorney in the event street improvements are not accomplished within the 45 day period. That a removal bond be given by the applicant to the City with respect also to sign '%" to be removed with- in 45 days. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes:Oster, Bacon, Larnard, Marsters, Noes! Webster, Ludwig, Halus. Carried 4-3. Mr. Webste___~_r expressed his feelings that he would like to see some major signs on the major highways and preferred to see a forced conformance on the part of the other two signs, particularly the one at Yorba and Laurie Lane. Chairman Marsters called a 5 minute recess and the meeting recon- vened at 1~:10 P.M, 7. V-68-201 - I.~STPORT DEVELOI~ENT C~PANY To permit: A four (4) unit apartment building on a building site of less than 70 feet frontage. Five of the six proposed building sites in the development would have less than the required frontage. The frontages would be 59 ft., 60 ft., 59 ft., 62 ft., and 49 ft., respectively. A zero (0) ft. interior side yard on each of six (6) proposed lots. Two four unit buildings have.been con- structed on each of three lots and are structurally con- nected by roof and walkways. (Zoning Ordinance requires a five (5) ft. side yard setback.) A reduction of the amount of required parking for two of the six lots. (Zoning Ordinance requires seven (7) spaces for each of t~ four-unit buildings.) -9- PC Minutes - February 12, 1968 Location: Fronts 334 feet on the northwest side of Ne~7ort between Sycamore and Myrtle. Mr. Supin~er presented the staff report recommending denial. Chairman Marsters opened the'public portion of the hearing at 10:15 P.M. Mrs. Susan Ne~ler, 19906 Bushard, Huntington Beach, representative for Westport Development, stated that this particular piece of property was set aside for commercial use, in which later they did apply for this and were turned There being no other comments from the audience, Chairman l, larsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 10:17 P.M. After a brief discussion among the Commission, it was agreed upon that there was no real justification for such a request. It was moved by Mr. Webster~ seconded by Mr. Larnard that Application No. V-68-201 be denied for the following reasons: That the adjustment applied for will constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the property is situated. The special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings are self created and do not, because of the strict appli- cation ofthe Zoning Ordinance, deprive the 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 reference and made a part of the motion. The above motion was voted by roll callo Ayes: Oster, Webster, Ludwig, Halus, Bacon, Marsters, Larnard. Noes: None. Carried 7-0. 8. V-68-202 - POLE SIGN - Ronald E. Price To permit: a® A pole sign for an individual business which is a oart of a con~nercial complex. (Ordinance permits one pole sign per complex. Said sign must identify the complex rather than an individual business within the complex.) b. A pole sign within the required setback area as stated above. Location: On the south side of McFadden at the intersection with Ne~.~ort. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report, recon~nending denial. Chairman }~arsters opened the public portion of the hcar~:ng at 10:25 P.M. Mr. George Argyros and Dudley Frank; 415 ~...~cst Fo~,rth Street, Tustin stated that the intended lessee is deprived of a sign exposing his business to the publi, c. Tl~ey felt that because of the location (adjace,~t to county pro:-.~.rty) and the shape of the parcel, that this should be taken into consideration in granting the request. They felt that the individual business needed more identification to en- courage business andthat this would also help the other businesses in the complex. .~ -I0- PC Minutes - February 12, 1968 Mr. Ronald Priqe, 1327 Antigua Way, Ne~ort Beach, stated that if the Newport Plaza Center is to succeed, more identification to the individual tenant has to be exposed, stating that he would be the second largest tenant in the Center. Chairmad Marsters declared the public .portion of the hearing closed at 10:30 P.M. Mr. Halus reminded the commission of his sensitivity regarding signs, but also felt that this is a unique situation due to the location of the complex and felt there is no significant identi- fication for the complex. He mentioned that they have tried for two years without success and that they have a very valid point of needing better identification for the tenants. Mr. Oster pointed out that the Center received its beautification award when the former tenant (U-Tote-b~) sign was established, although it was non-conforming and did not see where this was a detriment to the aesthetic look of the complex. He stated that he felt there is justification for granting the variance. Mr. Larnard concurred. It was moved by Mr. Larnard~ seconded by Mr. Oster that Resolution ~o. 949 be approved for V-68-202 - Pole SiEn for the follow~n~ reasons: The Commission has ~ound exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property which, due to the strict application of the Ordinance, would deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical circumstances. 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. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing be included by reference and made a part of the motion. Chairman Marsters voiced sympathetic feelings with the Builder and Developer and felt that he could See justification for an additional complex sign but not specifically identifying a certain tenant, thinking this may open Pandora's Box with the subsequent lessees, opposing the motion. Mrs. Ludwig concurred with Chairman Marsters, feeling that additional sign exposure is needed at that particular area for the complex, but not for one individual fearing a problem might be caused in the future. Mr. Uebster expr~.ssed his feeling on the matter, feeling that the geographical location and topography of the land is quite a unique situation and expressed approval. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Vebster, Halus, Bacon, Larnard. Noes: Ludwig, Marsters. Carried 5-2. 9. ZC-68-166 - Caroline H. Borchard~ Inc. For rezoning from U (Unclassified) DisCrict to R-3(Multiple Family Residential) District property fronting 470 feet on the west side of Williams Street approximately 1,000 feet south of Main Street. PC Minutes - February 12, 1968 MK- ~u~inser presented the staff report reconm~ending that subject application be reconm~ended to City Council for approval of ZC-68-166 and the adoption of an Ordinance rezoning subject property from U to R-3. Chairman Marsters opehed the public portion of the hnring at 10:45 P~i. Mr. Paul Borchard, 17471 Village Drive, Tustin, applicant stated that they have been farming the property for many years, but like so many others farming in that area, the cost is quite prohibitive. He felt that it was hard to maintain the farming area with the developing of the land being established with mobilchomes, families and children and in general causing a nuisance problem. Basically he felt that it was no longer economical to farm the land. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 10:45 P.M. Mr. Oster felt that through a study of the land in the past few months, it has resulted in the opinion that the area does conform with the General Plan and felt that it was appropriate to recon~end approval of the requested application to the City Council. It was moved by Mr. O~ter, .~econd~ by Mr. l.~ebster, that Resolution No. 950 for ZC-68-166 be recommended to the City Council f9r approval and the adoption of an Ordinance rezoning subject proDerty..from U ~Unclassified) to R-3 for the following reasons: 1. It conforms to the General Plan. 2. That said rezoning will be in conformity witt: the adjacent development and surrounding zoning. A~ additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at tile hearing be included by reference and made a part of the motion. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, 17ebster, Ludwig, Halus, Bacon, Larnard, Marsters. Noes: None. Carried 7-0. 10. ZC-68-167 - CHRISTESON DEVELOP}~NT COMPANY To rezone a portion of property zoned 100-C-1-P 10,000 (Combined Parking and Retail Commercial) District to R-3 (Multiple Residential) District located 330 ft., north of the centerline of Walnut Avenue and 660 ft. east of tile centerline of Newport Avenue. Location: Northeast corner of the intersection of Walnut and Ne~7ort Avenue. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report, recormnending denial for the following reasons: 1. The proposed zoning would permit a maximin density of 2.4 times that suggested by the General Plan. The City is presently studying tile South Tustin Area to develop a more detailed General Plan relative to land use, public facilities, circulation, etc. 3. If the subject rezoning were approved it would set a precedent which would affect large areas in the South Tustin Area. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 10:49 P.M. PC ~tnutes - February 12, 1968 Mr. Don Christespn, Christeson Development Co., 14401 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, spoke briefly describing the adjacent properties and o~.a~ers. He explained that the economic survival of the land is being rejuvinated and that a great deal of this development is to take place. He stated that an economic dilemma is in existence now over the land because of the. lack of people and the buying power in the general area. }~ felt that the proposed plan that they have for the property will also help the City, tax wise, school wise and aesthetically. He emded by saying that they would not only like to entice people into Tustin, but would like to entice them into a first class project. Mr. Alan Stutsman, 21041 Canada Rd - Owner of subject property, stated that he wanted to coma~ent on the study that was in progress now relative to the subject property. He wanted to know if the study would cause a delayed action on this particular case as it is presented now and what the reasons would be. He felt that a development as proposed would help the adjacent commercial businesses. Mr. Bill Madspn, 2676 Bishop Place, Altadena - Supervisor for Pantry Market across the street from subject property stated that five (5) shops in the Shopping Center have never been rented because of the amount of traffic in the area. He approved the proposed plans feel- ing that if this zone change was granted it would help make the shopping center become more successful and serve the community much better. Mr. George Ar~yros stated that he was strongly in favor of the proposed use on the property. He felt that it would be a great asset to the immediate area. A letter was read from the owner of the property located at the southeast corner of Newport and Walnut~ that was unable to attend the meeting. It stated that the property offers major shopping convenience in the South Tustin Area and wanted to go on record as strongly favoring this application. Signed: Roy }~. Chickasawa. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Marsters declared the hearing closed at 11:00 P.M. Chairman Marsters brought to the Commission's attention, the corre- spondence that was in favor of the rezoning from Mr. Albert Green. He asked }ir. Supinger how the study was progressing in the South Tustin Area. Mr. Supinger answered by saying, it was slow because of the abundance of day-to-day activities. He stated that at the time the General Plan was adopted, there was an indication by both the Planning Com- mission and the City Council that a very large area is designated for a multiple family use and the reason for the study is to come up with a more detailed General Plan in the South Tustin Area. Mr. Halus commented that it seems that the appropriate zone change would be R-4 rather than R-3 according to information that was in the staff report. Mr. S~pinser stated that if the rezone was recommended, the staff would suggest that the entire property be rezoned. The General Plan calls for a shopping center at this intersection, however, there are already two shopping centers there. He did not feel that there would be adequate market in the nea~ future for another shopping center even of five (5) acres at that location. Mr. Christeson stated that he would be favorable to a 2 week delay and would cooperate with the City, if this would give them more time for the study on the proposed project. Chairman Marsters stated that he was personally in agreement with the Zone Cha,~ge to Multiple Family Residential, but was not partic- ularly sure of the density. .- -13- PC Minutes - February 12, 1968 OLD BUSINESS VI. NBI.I BUSINESS ~lr. Argyros requested that the public hearing be reopened if the subject application is continued. It was moved by 14r. Halus that ZC-68-167 be recommended for denial to the City Council for the following reasons:( 1. The proposed zoning would permit a maximt~ density of 2.4 times that suggested by the General Plan. The City is presently studying the South Tustin Area to develop a more detailed General Plan relative to land use, public facilities, circulation, etc. If the subject rezoning were approved it would set a precedent which would affect large areas in thc South Tustin Area. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by reference and made a part of the motion. Motion died for lack of second. Mr. Oster felt that the entire parcel should be considered for rezoning. It was moved by Mr._Oster, seconded by Mr. Larnard that khe public hearing for ZC-68-167 be continued to the n~t regularly scheduled meetin~ and that the Plannin~ Director explore with ~be applicant and any interested party, the possibility of Commission instituted rezoning of the five (5) acres on the ~orBer or applicant instituted rezoning to be included in the entire parcel. After discussion among the Commissioners on subject property Mr. Oster and Mr. Larnard withdrew the previous motion. It was moved by Mr. YYebster, seconded by Mr. B~con,. that ZC-68-167 be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting (February 26, ~968) and that the Con~ission direct the staff to initiate rezoning of that parcel on the northeast corner of Ne%~ort and Walnut Avenue from its present 100-C-I-PrlO,000 to R-3 1750. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, l.Tebster, Ludwig, Bacon, Larnard, Marsters. Noes: Halus. Carried 6-1. NO~ 1. p~_XRCEL MAP ~ L. R. Mars tcrs Chairman Marsters turned the gavel over to Chairman Pro-tern Halus, excusing himself from the chair and abstaining from commenting or voting on subject map. To d~vide the property for purposes of sale. Location: Fronts 79 ft., on First Street approximately 349 ft., east of the centerline of Pacific Street and front:s 30 ft., on the north side of Second Street. ~ presented a brief staff report and map for the Com- mission's review. It was moved by Mr..Os.t..e~, seconded by Mr. Larnard that a minute order be adopted approv_ing the Parcel Map subject to the following conditions: - 14- PC Minutes - February 12, 1968 1. Final approval by the City Engineer and recordation. 2. Dedication of 17 feet of frontage along the First Street frontage for street widening purposes. Revision of Map t5 show R-3 District depth as 100 feet. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Webster Ludwig, Halus, Bacon, Larnard. Noes: None. Abstained: Marsters Carried 6-0. Chairman Pro-tern Halus returned the gavel to Chairman Marsters to continue the meeting. 2. PARCEL MAP - Canyon Company To divide parcel for purposes of sale. Location: McFadden, llalnut and Ne~ort ~presented a brief staff report and map for the Com- mission's review. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Larnard that a minute order be adopted approving thc Parcel Map._~pbject.tO fipa~ approval by the City Engineer and recordation. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Webster, Ludwig, Marsters, Bacon, Halus, Larnard. Carried 7-0.' PARCEL 5b~P - Tustin Meadows Park Area Mr. Supin~er presented the staff report stating that this parcel map creates the neighborhood park for the Tustin Meadows development. Subject park will be in the center of the development ~ich is located at the southeast corner of Red Hill and Walnut. It was moved by Mr._Halus, seconded by Mr. Larnard, that a minute 9rder be adopted..approving the Parcel MaD for the Neighborhood Park in the Tustin Meadows development subject to final approval of the City Engineer and recordation of the map. Motion carried 7-0. 4. FORMAL FINDINGS - RE: 2QUIPM£NT RENTALS Rental business is not listed as a permitted use in any zoning district at present. _My._ Supi.nger presented a staff report indicating that there are two types of businesses which fall into the rental category: Those which store all merchandise within a building and rent "light" materials such as party supplies, household utensils, small household tools, medical equipment, etc. Those which store merchandise both inside and outside of a building and may rent both "light" and "heavy" materials. In addition to the item, s above, those rented might include trailers, tractors, skip load'ers, etc. The distinction between the above uses is quite obvious in practice and each, he felt, warrants quite different treatment in the Zoning Ordinance. The rental business which is conducted within a building can be compatible with the uses listed in the C-1 District. The business with storage outside of the building, l~owever, belong~ in the C-2 or Industrial Districts and should rcq~i'~'~-~. a U.~.e Pemit as is required for other outside uses. -15- PC Minutes - February 12, 1968 The formal finding was recommended for adoption by Mr. Supinger. Correspondence from United Rent-All requesting this formal finding is the reason for the initiation of said proposal. The Cormnission was in accord with the attached proposed formal finding. It was moved by Mr. Bacon:, seco3ded by Mr. Oster that the proposed formal finding be adopte~. Carried unanimously VII. CORRES- PONDENCE COUNTY CASE - UV-6012 - Lloyd C. Howard for Cecil Frodsham TJ permit a 70 unit garden apartment development at a density greater than permitted in the. R4(6000) PD(3300) District. Location: Northeast side of 17alnut a~proximately 1320 feet southeast of Red Hill. Mr. Supin~er presented the staff report recommending opposition to this application. It was moved by Mr. Oster seconded by Mr. 17ebster, thai: the Plan- ing Staff be directed to prepar~ a letter to the County Planning Commission voicing opposition of granting ~pproval to UV-6012 for the following reasons: 1. The proposal does not comply with the General Plan. 2. The conditions and justification for the granting of a variance do not exist. 3 3. Apparently that is not in keeping with the way the area is now developing in that area. Mr. Bob Kay, representing the R, H. Grant Development, concurred as far as the developmen'., of the property but objected to the County's philosophy of dumping water and allowing the development to continue. He did not think it was fair for the R. H. Grant Company to provide all of the drainage for the whole county above their development, lie felt that it was putting an economic burden on their company to provide their facilities for water. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, ~..."ebstcr, Ludwig, Marsters, Bacon, Halus, Larnard. Carried 7-0. 2. COUNTY CASE - UV-5926 - SIERRA DO!.~NS #3 To permit the continued use of a temporary sales office and four temporary signs. Location: On the southerly side of Nisson Road approximately 766 feet westerly of "B" Street, in the south Tustin area. Mr. Supinger presented a brief staff report, leaving the reco;r~.nendation to the Cotmnission. It was moved by Mr. Bacon, seconded by Mrs. Ludwig,..t.hat the County Planning Commission be informed of no ob.jections to UV-5926. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, !.:cbstcr, Ludwig, Marsters, Bacon, Larnard. Noes: Halus. Motion carried 6-1. -16- PC Minutes - February 12, 1968 COUNTY CASE - ZC-68-3 - E. E. Pankey This is proposed to change from the RP "Residential Professional" C1 "Local Business" and R4 "Suburban Residential" Districts to the R2 (1700) and R2 (1450)."Group D~elling" Districts, certain property located on the southwesterly side of San Juan Street approximately 420 feet southeast of Red Hill Avenue, in the' East Tustin Area. Mt.' Supinger presented the staff report recommending that the County delay action on the subject request until the results of a land use study of all of Mr. Pank~y's property is completed and reviewed. It was moved by Mr. Halus~ seconded by Mr. Bacon that the County be informed that they wish the request to be ~ontinued until the overall land use study, ~ich is bein~ prepared for Mr. Pank¥ is comoleted and reviewed. Motion carried unanimously. 4. COUNTY CASE - UV5975 - Dick Smith To permit the location of new models and relocation of dwellings on certain lots within a 52 unit single family dwelling develop- ment in the R4 (5000) PD (3800) "Suburban Residential Planned Development" District. Location: On the northerly side of ?falnut Avenue approximately 330 feet westerly of Red Hill Avenue, in the South Tustin Area. Hr. Sup~nger presented the staff report, recoranending that the Plan- ning Commission be informed of no objections. It was moved by Mrs. Ludwig, seconded by Mr. Oster that the'County Planning Co, m~ission be fnformed of no opposition for UV-5975. VIII. O~HER BUSINESS IX. ADJOURN- MENT 5. COUNTY CASE V-7062 - Union Oil Company - Ray'Stober To permit the establishm~ent of a sign of more than the permitted height in the 100-CI-iO,000 "Local Business" District Location: Southeast corner of the intersection of Red Hill and Nisson (frontage road). M~.. Supinger presented the staff report recon~ending opposition to the subject application. It was moved by Mr. Halus, seconded by Mr. Webster, that the Planning Director direct a letter to the County vigorously opposing the subject application. NONE It was moved by Mrs. Ludwig: seconded by Mr. Bacon~ that the meeting be adjourned. Carried unanimously. There being no further business before the Planning Co~u~ission, Chairman Marsters declared the meeting adjourned at 11:47 P.M. SF~4~ETARY OF THE PLANNING CO~XDIISSION CilAiRI'tAN OF THE PLANNINS"Cf~iISsIoN -17-