Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-24-67MINUTES OF .% REGULtR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION April 24% 1967 ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. PUBLIC The meeting was called to order at 7:36 P.M. by Chairman Marsters, Present: Commissioners: Bacon, Marsters, Hefn~r, Sharp, Oster Absent: Commissioners: Brand, Halus Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney James L. Supinger, Planning Director Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary Mr. Bacon stated that he would like a correction of the April 10, 1967 Planning C~,u,isston Minutes, recording his vote.on the Amend- ment of Zoning Ordinance No. 157 (Small Animal Hospitals and Veterinary Clinics). On page four (4) of the April 10th Planning Commission Meeting minutes, Mr. Bacon's vote was not recorded. His vote was affirmative. It was moved by Mr. Bacon~ seconded by Mr. Hefner~ that the minute~ of April 10~ 1967 meetin~ be approved as corrected. Motion carried. 1. ZC6~-15~ KAL-SOUTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION _ (Continued from April 10, 1967 meeting.) To reclassify approximately 7.52 acres from PD (Planned Development) District to PD-2700 (2,700 sq. ft. of lot area per dwelling unit.) As requested by the Planning Coi~ission at the last regular Planning Ccam~ission meeting, April 10, 1967, a report of supple- mental information was presented to the Co~nisston including: A map showing the overall development in the We~t Tustin Area as related to the development proposed by the applicant. (The applicant~ revised plan was shown on the map.) Statistical information comparing the major developments indicated by letters "A" through "F" including: a. Name of development. b. Zoning. c.. Type of development (apartments or condominium). d. Site area. e. Number of units. f. Density. g. Lot coverage. h. Vacancy Percentage (for completed developments). 3. Vacancy Percentages for apartment developments in other parts of the City. The Planning Department recon~ended approval of ZC-67-153 subject to later approval of specific plans for the following reasons: The proposed rezoning conforms to the Tustin Area General Plan relative to land use and proposes a considerably lower density than is suggested by the Plan. 2. The density of the proposed development is comparable to the dens£ty of other pro~ects in the area. 3. Vacancy rates in the area are very low. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the %pril 10 and April 26 Planning C~,,,ission meetings are made a part of the motion, including the reco~mmndatfons of the Fire Department. PC Hinutes Page -2- April 24, 1967 Chairman Marsters stated that this hearing was closed, however, if anyone had anything to add, they could identify themselves and be questioned by the Commissioners. Mr. John Weiler, Chairman of the Architectural Ccnranittee of the Board of Directors for Tustin Village II, withdrew their opposition, due to their review of the "Apartment Survey" conducted by the Planning Staff and stating that they now have a different feeling on the matter. The Planning Department was commended for their precise and thorough re- port and the Planning Co~,miisston mentioned that it has helped everyone make their decision easier. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded, by Mr. Sharp, that Resolq~ion No. 887 for ZC-67-153 be recommended to City Council for approval~.sub.]ect to later approval of specific plans for the following reasons: The proposed rezoning conforms to the Tustin Area General Plan relative to land use and proposes a considerably lower density than is suggested by the Plan. 2. The density of the proposed development is comparable to the density of other projects in the area. 3. Vacancy rates in the area are very low. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the April 10 and April 24 Planning Co~mnission meetings are made a part of the motion, including the recommendations of the Fire Department. The above motion was voted by Roll Call. Marsters, Bacon. Noes: None. Absent: 5-0. Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Hafner, Brand, Ha lus. Motion carried V-67-183 - UNITED CALIFORNIA BANK To permit the erection of a pole sign in addition to th~ existing sign identifying a co,,,,~rcial complex. Mr. Supinger presented a brief staff report stating that the applicant has not shown a hardship and in addition the proposed sign exceeds by 110 sq. ft. the total area permitted on the site. The Planning Depart- ment rec~iu,mnded denial of the subject application for the following reasons: The circtanstances applicable to the subject property do not deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical circumstances. The adjustment requested would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other prop- erties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is located. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are ineluded by reference and made a part of the motion. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:00 P.M. Mr. Don.Sin~lair, Assistant Vice President of United California Bank, spoke briefly stating that they want to present a very handsome building that Tustin can be proud of and would even reduce the size of the sign if this would be considered. He did not feel that the sign would affect the looks of the building and asked the Cui,.,,ission to consider this application. PC Hinutes Page -3- · April 2/+, 1967 Mrs. Wolf, one of the owners of Tusttn Height Shopping Center, stated that she was under the impression that before the Sign Ordinance was adopted, it had been made cle~.tha~.p~rmission would be given for a tower sign, although the building was not under construction at that time. Mr. Bob Schoeffler, 1411 Blair ~'ne, Tustin, opposing the application, stated that he had conformed to the newly adopted Sign Ordinance and all other organizations coming into Tustin should do the same. lie mentioned that due to thc signs that they were permitted to obtain, they had not hindered the looks of the building nor the business. Hr. Sharp voiced his opinion as to the submittal of a proposed sign when elevations of the building are submitted, lie felt that this was the most opportune and best time. Mr. He fner was under the impression that Mrs. Wolf had been promised certain privileges before the Sign Ordinance came into existance and now was being denied her privtleges as had been stated earlier. Mrs. Wolf explained that she had no promises made to her definitely on the matter and apologized if she had left this impression. Mr. Oster stated that at the meeting Mrs. Wolf was referring to, as far as he could remember, there had been no definite promises made but felt that as a Co~unission they are required to show or to find that there is a hardship shown which deprives this property of the rights of subject properties and that this would not grant a special privilege. He did not feel that there was a sufficient showing of hardship by this appli- cant. Mr. Sharp and Mr. Hefner concurred. It was moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Bacon~ that V-67-183 be denied for the followin~ reasons: The circt~stances applicable to the subject property do not deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical circtm~stances. e The adjustment requested would constitute a grant o[ special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is located. The above motion was voted by Roll Call. Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Hefner, Marsters, Bacon. Motion carried 5-0. Absent: Brand, Halus. Noes: None ~r: Supinger reminded the applicant that if the action by the C~m,ission was not appealed to the City Council within five (5) calendar days, said action by the Co~aission shall be final. 3. V-67-182 - TIIONER and BIRMINGHAM To permit: a) The construction of accessory buildings (carports) on the front one-half of the lot which do not meet the required setbacks for main buildings and which are not attached to main buildings, b) A zero foot side yard setback for carports along the southerly property line (Zoning Ordinance) requires one (1) ft. set- back. Mr. Supin~er presented the staff report with the following recou.,,endatious: That the adjustment hereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which tile subject property is situated. PC blinutes April 24, 1967 Page -4- 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. 3. \s addilinnal grounds the minut(~s and evidence introduced al. the i)ear[ng are included by reference and made a part of the motion. Chairman Harsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:17 P.M. ~;r. Garrett Smith, 2043 Westchester, Newport Beach, agent for the applicant stated that they could meet Lhe requirements of the Ordinance of the City, however, this would necessitate moving the garages and it would make con- siderable distance for walking for the people using the carports and they felt that the overall planning dictates the plan ~ich they have shown of the carports on the front portion of the propeYty. Mr. Oster asked Mr. Smith if he saw the recoum,endatlons of the Fire Department and asked if they were satisfactory. Mr. Smith replied yes. Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the meeting closed at 8:18 P.M. Mr. llefner stated that he did not "take too kindly" to variances, but felt it would be doing an injustice not to grant approval for this application, when so many others similar to th~s had been approved. };r. Hefner indicated to the Planning Commission, that something should be done to get this into an open type discussion between the departments and the Commission to elimina~:e this as a variance and have it as a regular tool for a use permit. He stated that he felt it had been indicated that it should not be a variance but part of the City Ordinance. It was moved by Mr. Hefner~ seconded, kY Mr. Bacon that Resolution No. 888 f~r Application V-67-182 be 8ranted subject to Architectural Review and the suRRestions of the Fire Depa..'tment for the followin8 reasons: That the adjustment hereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special 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 a size, shape, topography, location or sur- roundings, 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. 3. 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 Call: Marsters, Bacon. Noes: None. Absent: 5-0 Ayes: Oster, Sharp, l~fner, Brand, Halus. Motion carried 4. ZC-67-154 - Fred De lorio Rezoning of Lots l and 2 of Tract 3994 from C1 to R-3. Subject property fronts 160 feet on the south side of Second Street and 140 feet on the west side of "H" Street. Mr. Supinger presented a brief staff report, stating that because the Town Center Plan has not been completed it is not possible to give a recommendation on the rezoning of this property. Ne rec~,,,ended that if the applicant would agree, that the application be continued for six (6) months. If he would not agree to the continuance, l~ is recommended that the application he denied. 1'~ ~i~u~as ~a~e -~- April 24, 1967 OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS Chairman ~;arsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:26 P.M. \fret much discussion among Mr. Rowland, 1000 West LaPalma, Anaheim, Mr. Garrett Smith, 2043 Westchester, Newport Beach, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. De Iorio and the Commission, it was decided that something should be done other than the staff's rec~,,,,endation. Since Mr. De Iorio has waited in good faith for a year, the C~m,,ission felt that a shorter period of time should be considered as soon as a more complete and con- cise staff report was submitted to them for their review. Mr. He fner felt that we had an obligation to Mr. De Iorto, but also, that we had to take into consideration the Civic Center and the Town Center Plan and what would be most appropriate after final plans had been completed. He felt that ~:r. Supinger and the Planning Staff were being forced to give an answer in a month or two weeks which he did not seem to think feasible. His opinion based on the April 24th staff report, led him to believe that the application should be denied. It was moved by Mr. Hefner that Application ZC-67-154 should be denied ~sed on the staff's findings. Motion died for'lack of second. Mr. Supin~er opined that he hated to see the application denied but wanted extended time of approximately six (6) months before making a decision, feeling that by this time all plans on the Civic Center and Town Center study would be more complete. He stated that he thought it would be to Mr. De Iorio's benefit if he would wait. It was moved by Mr. Sharp, ~econded by };r. Oster~ that Application No. ZC-67-154 for Fred De Iorio be continued to the May 22nd Plannin8 Com- mission meeting. Mr. Oster informed the Commission, audience and Mr. Supinger that the only reason he went along with Mr. Sharp's motion was due to the staff report not being a complete enough report and he wanted some kind of report to go by even if it indicated that R-3 would not be proper at that location. H~ felt that he could at least have the benefit of their expertise to help him make his decision. The above motion was voted by Roll Call. Ayes: Oster, Sharp, D~rsters. Noes: Hefner, Bacon. Absent: Brand, Halus. Motion carried 3-2. 1. Work Pro~ram Mr. SupinRer called to the attention of the Cou~uission, that a meeting would be held following the City Council Meeting, }~y 1, 1967 at the Tustin Youth Center, to discuss "The Work Program" with Mr. Adsit, Mr. Gill, the Co~ission and himself, regarding this ~tter for the upcoming year. 2. Requirements for .krchitectural Approval Mr. Supinger presented the Co~m, ission with a copy of "information" that should be submitted along with plans for the Architectural Committee's approval. He felt that this is worthy of consideration for inclusion in the Council Policy Memo and stated that if the C~=,lssion felt this draft was appropriate, then the staff would proceed to get a policy memo ready for the next regular Planning Commission meeting for review. Mr. Sharp stated that he has had an opportunity to review this prior to this evening's meeting and he heartily endorses it, although he felt that they should be given another two (2) weeks for review, but wanted to see it expedited as soon as possible and bring it up for some kind of action at the next meeting (M~y 8, 1967). t~ felt that the Architectural C~,~,ittee works hard on problems that a policy like the one they had received at the meeting would minimize. Chairman M arsters concurred with Mr. Sharp and also wanted a couple of weeks to look it over. PC blinutes Apr[! 24, 1967 VII. CORRES- NONE PONDENCE Page -6- VITI. OTHER NONE BUSINESS IX. ~JOURN- Mlg~ It was moved by Mr. Bacon, seconded by Mr. Sharp, that the meeting be ad tourned. Motion carried. There being no other business before the Planning Co,~ission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:26 P.M. SECR~ARY OF Tttg PI~/NNING -CO[84ISS ION ~..~ CMAIP,14AN OI~THE PLANNING COI~I~SION