HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-27-67MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
March 27, 1967
CALL
TO
ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:37 P.M. by Chairman
Marsters.
II.
ROLL
C~LL
Present: Commissioners: Bacon, fLlus, Mars ters, Hefner,
Sharp, Oster.
Absent: Cc,,mLiss loners: Brand
Others Present:
Kenneth A. Bryant, Assistant City Attorney
Harry E. Gill, City Administrator
James L. Supinger, Planning Director
Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary
III.
APPROVAL
OF
MINUTES
IV.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
Chairman Marsters asked that it go on record that he was in
accord with Mr. ga lus's statement on Page 16, March 13th, 1967
minutes, that he did not feel the City needed another service
station at this time - (UP-67-227) application of Kenneth Ninsvark.
It was moved by Mr. Sharpl seconded by Mr. Oster that the minutes
of March 13~ 1967 me,rinse.be approved as amended. Motion carried.
l. UP-67-226 - Robert A. Schoeffler - (Continued from March 13,
1967.meeting)
To permit the construction of a 38 unit motel on property
located in a "U" (Unclassified) district.
Mr. Supinser said this Particular hearing was closed at the last
regular Planning Commission meeting with the request that it he
extended to the meeting this evening for a further report.
Mr. Supinger stated that tile proposal conforms to our R-3 require-
ments with the following exceptions:
The balconies along the Wass Street frontage project
four (4) feet into the front yard setback, whereas the
ordinance permits only a three (3) foot projection into
the required 15 foot setback.
The R-3 regulations require a minimum of 500 sq. ft. of
lot area per dwelling unit and the proposal only has
498 sq. ft. of lot area per dwelling unit.
In the staff report Mr. Supinger commented that it is the staff's
feeling that the appropriate zoning for this property is R-3 which
would make a transition (going east from Newport) of C-1 to R-3 to
R-4 to R-l, and stated that the Planning Commission should initiate
such R-3 zoning.
The Planning Department reconwended approval of UP-67-226 for the
following reasons:
The subject motel use which has both co~mercial and residential
characteristics, will be a good transitional use between com-
mercial uses fronting on Newport Avenue and residential uses
fronting on Wass Street.
2. The subject use will conform to the General Plan.
Planning Cc,~,,tssion biinutes
March 27, 1967
Page -2-
~le Commission finds that tile establishment, maintenance and
operation of the use applied for will not, uoder the circum-
stances 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 detrimental to the property
and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare
of the City.
It was further recom~mnded that the approval be subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the development plans be subject to the approval of the
Fire Chief prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. That the building plans and plans for any signs be approved by
the Architectural Committee.
That kitchen equipment be limited to one hot plate and one re-
frigerator, of no more than six (6) square feet, per unit provided,
however, that a full kitchen shall be permitted in the manager's
apartment.
Mr. Supinger called to the Commissioner's attention that more corres-
pondence had been received in the mail regarding this matter and should
they want to include these letters in the records, it would require re-
opening the public portion of the meeting.
It was moved by Mr. Oster? seconded by Mr. Bacon that the public
portion of this hearin~ UP-67-226 be reopened~ for any additional
letters or comments to be heard. Motion carried.
Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:40 P.M.
Letters opposing this application were sent in by Prizio, 12842
Elizabeth Way, Tustin, Mr. Coulson Tough, President of the Foothills
Home Owners' Association, Inc~, Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Jeffery, 12822
Charloma Drive, Tustin.
Mr. Robert Schoeffler - Applicant, stated that he clairified most of
his positions the other week and the only thing that he wanted to add
again was that his surveys proved this to be a feasible project. He
wanted a clarification on the kitchen equipment pertaining to the
motels that the Planning Con~ission has recommended. He asked Mr.
Supinger if he was stating in the recommendation that he did not want
a kitchen sink in any kitchen.
Mr. Supin~er stated that he did not feel that it would be appropriate
to eliminate a sink from any kitchen equipment and did not think that
the provision of a kitchen sink would have anything to do with a
possible conversion at a later time to apartment usage. He stated
that he did feel that the cooking facilities and the cold storage
facilities would be critical in this respect.
Mr. Schoeffler -"I thought it was clarified that a unit that is in a
lot of motels, which is about a six (6) foot unit meeds a sink, stove
without an oven and a refrigerator - Is that unit acceptable?"
};r. Supinser stated that he was not familiar with this particular unit
and would rather reserve any comments.
Mr. Schoeffler commented that he Just asks that the Planning Commission
consider his project as originally submitted because he felt it is a
feasible project and believed that the zoning in the area fits in very
compatibly.
Planning Commission Minutes Page -3-
Hatch 27, 1967
Mr. Roy Hill - President of Hil-Gan Development Corp., and o~mer of
the property directly across Wass Street to the north, mentioned that
at the last meeting there were only two indicating favor o~ the pro-
posed motel-apartment project. Mr. Hill called to the attention of
the Commissioners that at least six (6) letters from property owners
adjacent to the site were on f£1e opposing such a project and felt
that the concern of these property owners should be recognized. He
asked }ir. Supinger what the attitude was of the last correspondence,
negative or positive. Mr. Sup_~nger stated the names of the corres-
pondent's, both opposing the project.
Mr. Hill went on to say that he did hope a precedent would not be set
here tonight allowing motels on secondary residential streets. Mr.
Hill said that at the last nmeting, Mr. Schoeffler stated that it would
not be economically feasible if kitchen facilities were deleted. With-
out kitchen facilities he |las a motel which would not be feasible, if
dependent upon over-night occupancy. With kitchen facilities he has
all the necessities for long term occupancy thus becoming an apartment
complex. If an apartment complex is proposed, then shouldn't the
ordinance be called out for the purposes of the exercise.
Mr. Hill called to the attention of the Commission, the Kinny Shoe
Store being opened since the last meeting ans with the traffic generated
from this and the traffic generating from the thirty-eight (38) units
off the small parcel of property, I think that we can possibly foresees
traffic signal on Newport Avenue. lie did not feel that this density
is a complete necessity, thus not making a signal a necessity either.
Mr. l~lus stated that he thought the traffic situation very definitely
should be considered.
Mr. George D. Gebhart, 12402 Zig Zag Way, Tustin - People in this
area that have children going to the Sycamore Elementary School feel
very strongly about this. It is a walking school and we have no
busses to take our children to and from school and the application
signifies that it is transient co~mlercial business. We do not feel
that we would like to have our children passing down this street.
Secondly he stated that it is a local street and the density here is
eighty (80) units per acre which is not in accordance with the Tustin
Area General Plan.
Mr. Gebhart stated that he is a member of the Foothill Home Owners
Association and they [lad asked him to attend this meeting representing
them. lie stated that a letter had been written by Mr. Coulson Tough
and submitted to the Planning Co.,.ission and asked that it be read for
the benefit of the public. The letter was read from Mr. Tough, Presi-
dent of the Foothill Home Owners Association.
Mr. Gebhart went on to say that even the Orange County Planning Com-
mission requested that this application be denied.
Jeannette Batchlor, resident of the area, stated that she would like
to protest the motel at this area, which was primarily residential and
having four (4) children that go to the Sycamore School, did not feel
that they should be exposed to this type of transient occupancy.
Mrs. Raymond, 1081Wass Street, Tustin, expressed her opinion that she
thought this was very poor planning, due to the children [laving to walk
in the street, because there is no continuous sidewalks and due ~o the
Kinny Shoe Store opening which generated more traffic along with the
traffic coming from the other apartments in the area.
Mr. Frank Mqrris, architect for the project, felt ~l,at the site of the
motel should be pointed out in proximity to the ,chool site and where
the children are going to be ,~alking fr~n, Secondly, about the street
improvements that are going to be required. He did not think it wa0
~roper to say that this was an undesirable use. It is a permitted use
and if .t.t .Ss undesirable here then it should be undesirable anywhere on
that kind of
Planning C~.uission Minutes .....,.~ , .... Page -4-
Harch 27, 1967
Mr. Morris doubted very much that the children were going to be walking
from the general south direction and across that particular property,
normally he felt that they would be coming from the northwest.
Mr, Supin,~er pointed out on the map as to exactly where the schools
are located for the Commission and the public to view.
Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed
at 7:57 P.M.
Mr. Halus stated that be felt that he understood the co~urmnts and the
coml~rison that had been requested at the ].ast meeting, but in reiter-
ation, for the benefit of the audience, so they can be aware of this
comparison, it appeared to him that they had asked for a comparison
in the R-3 district and if he interpreted this correctly, the maximum
height allowable in the R-3 district is 40' and proposed is only 34',
the minimum lot width is 70 ' and we have hera a lot width of 110'.
The lot coverage allowed in an R-3 district is 757°, here you say a
coverage of 21"/o. Mr. Halus went ahead to explain other requirements
in the Zonin8 Compa.rison and said the comparison between the apart-
ments for R-3 district and number of units permitted for apartments
which is in the neighborhood of fifteen (15). There seems to be some
disagreement as to what the General Plan is and stipulates for this
area. The information that he had stated that it would allow a high
density of twelve (12) units per acre or perhaps a heavy densi:y of
twenty-five (25) units per acre. He a~ked i.;r. Supin.ger to clarify
this.
Mr. Supin8er mentioned that this is always one of the problems that
arises when you come to the boundary as deliueated on a General Plan.
He stated that he felt confident that the General Plan indicates the
subject area as part of the Town Center. The Tow,% Center Area was in-
tended to be a combination of commercial, office and residential uses.
Normally surrounding such an area you have high density residential.
The plan shows the area to the north of the To~.m Center, the small
area land extending along thc southeast side of Newport, as high density
residential. There can be some disagreement over the interpretation of
lines, but this area, when we prepared it was intended to include all
of the commercial area pl~ .~ small amount around that, but it is
meant only as a general plan and I don't think that we can interpret
it right down to the gnat's eyebrow.
Mr. Hafner - stated that he was still at a loss as to why the City
of Tustin's Planning Department feels that this is in keeping with
the General Plan when the County says to deny this application. He
asked }:r. Supinger his feeling on the County's co~m,ent about not
feeling that it was in keeping with the General Plan.
Mr. Supinger - stated that it was very difficult for him to interpret
the County's thinking, but stated that he still feels very strongly
that as far as a transional use is concerned, between the commercial
and residential uses, this is a good project, lie commented that we
have a situation in this particular case w~re we have co~mmercial
along Newport Avenue and then one lot that is zoned for single family
residence, then we have apartments dove% the street plus we have an
inter-mixture of single family uses on the other side of the street.
"I think this is one of the difficulties arising over the history of
development of that area. I don't think that the house adjacent to
the property will remain single family for very long, and it is dif-
ficult for anyone to say that someone in the single family residential
should have a motel go up next to them. I don't ~hink it is practical
to say anything different in this case because of the development that
has taken place in that area.
Mr. llefner - said to this he could agree to, but when an R-3 apartment
district allows motels, then he wondered if this is a good transitional
uae. 1~ stated that he did agree with the Planning Department that this
probably should be an R-3 district, but did not feel that a motel should
Planning Commission Minutes Page -5-
March 27, 1967
be allowed in this manner because of the density involved, the traffic
and that primarily that close proximity to the sidle family residents.
I feel that this mote], would be detrimental and harmful to the area.
Mr. Sharp asked to see a larger floor plan of the proposal and
Mr. Morris submitted one for the Commission's review.
Mr. Oster - directed a ~tatament to Mr. Supinger saying that be had
not answered Mr. llefner's question regarding the County's opinion and
asked him if there had been any discussion with the County as to their
thinking on this or did .~e ~u~t receive the County reco~endation.
f:r. Supine, er answered Mr. Oster say~ng that they had not had any
discussion with the County on this specific case.
Mr. Oster - "I noticed in your Zoning Comparison that the Schoeffler
proposal is thiryt-eight (38) units and the motel in a R-3 district
is £hirty-seven (37) units. Are we in effect getting a Use Permit in
excess of the number of units required or permitted?
Mr. Supinger said he did not think so, the "U" district permits any
use with no stipulations other than the fact it requires an issuance
of a Use Permit. He stated that they ~y wish to compare this with
the R-3 and limit it to the R-3 standards if they so desire. There
are no specific standards set forth in the "U" district.
Chairman Marsters stated to blt. Supinger that in the Staff Report
dated 14arch 10th, 1967, he noticed that it had been recc~nmended that
the driveway along the northwest side be extended to the northwest
corner if feasible and that 13'5" building clearance be provided over
all driveways. }[e asked if this was part .of the revised report dated
March 23, 1967.
Mr. Supinger answered by saying that the revised report would require
the approval of the Fire Chief prior to approval of the building per-
mit and the Fire Chief was tba one that made this proposal. He stated
that the applicant expressed some doubts about this requirement but I
feel that I can trust the Fire' Chief to provide adequate safety measures
in the approval of the plans.
Chairman Marsters - stated that he felt some~%at like Mr. Hefner and
"that I deeply feel that this is a misplaced improvement and I am
primarily concerned with the success in the project as the County.
object to it for various reasons; I feel that it is located on a sec-
ondary residential street and I feel that congestion will mount, also
that it is removed from a ~in thoroughf~re and fr'c' ~,s. I am con-
cerned with the conversion to apartments if the motel is not success-
full. I do not like the 3 story aspect, and think th~s will be the
first 3 story building in Tustin, and I don't particularly relish it.
I don't feel kindly towards the kitchen facilities, that would have to
be included in this. I am also concerned with the possibility of
future commercial signs, although the applicant states that there would
be minimum signs requested at this time, but if it changes hands in the
future this could be a problem."
It ~s moved by Mr. Hefner that UP-67-226 be denied because of the
followin~ findings of the Co~ission.
That the establishment, m,~intenance or operation of the t,se
applied for wlll, 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 be injurious
or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighbor-
hood or to the general welfare of the City.
~iotion died for lack of second,
Mr}.Oster stated that he ~,~}ld ~cbnd the previous motion.
Planning Commission Minutes Page -6-
March 27, 1967 '"' .... ' '~
Mr. Hefner stated that he would restate the same motion~ it was
officially seconded by Mr. Oster.
The above motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Hefuer,
Marsters. Noes: Halus. Abstained: Bacon. Absent: Brand.
Motion carried 4-1.
2. UP-67=231 = C~rcus - Larwin Square
This application was withdrawn due to lack of information.
3. UP-67-230 - Roof and Pole Sisn - Roger McCune
To permit the construction of a pole sign within the required
setback area and a roof sign.
Mr. Supinger presented the staff report giving the recommendation of
the Engineering Department and Planning Department. The. Ensineerin8
Department recommended that ti~e free-standing pole sign be moved back
behind the property line to eliminate any possible conflict with the
recently installed traffic signals.
Staff recommendations were that the pole sign be approved subject to
moving the location to the north so that it does not overhang the
right-of-way, and that the roof sign be denied because of the previous
approval of the pole sign and also because it is not an architectural
part and feature of the building.
~;r. Hefner asked if this was actually for both the pole sign and the
roof sign. Mr. Supinger clarified this by stating that this appli-
cation was for both signs.
Mr. Halus asked if he was correct in assuming that from the elevation
sketch that this would be a higher bay for that type of automotive
establishment. Mr. Supinger concurred. Then Mr. Halus asked if the
location was facing south at "D" Street, again Mr. Supinger concurred.
Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:22 P.M.
Mr. Carl Sherbondv, 378 South Wheeler, Orange, representing the applicant,
stated that the application was requesting approval for a pole sign
and an identification sign ~ndicating the name of the company and the
type of business on the front of the building. The elevation plan has
been arrived at by many conferences w~th the City staff and in compli-
ance with the ordinance restricting us to maximum square footage as
allowed in your ordinance, this has required us to eliminate better
than 75~ of the signs that now exists on the five (5) stores that we
presently have in our operation and if they elimilla~e the roof sign
on the canopy, this would put us in a position of being unable to
identify the name of our company as well as what we are serving for
the customer. I feel that this rec~,,.endation of the staff is really
unbelievable due to the fact that we have complied with the square foot-
age requirements which is very restrictive by comparison. As far as
the Firestone sign and the pole sign, the restriction of encroachment
over the sidewalk, if this as the Public Works Director stated inter-
feres with the street sign we wouldn't want it there either. It's
there for identification of the customer's traveling if it is a matter
of height, too low or too high, that could be worked out. He referred
to the staff report pointing out that the recommendation to deny it
because it is not an architectural part and feature of the building,
not being an architect "I can't really take a professional view on that
point, however, this was drawn by an architect, and our entire concept
was eliminated and it is a part and a feature on the front."
There being no other comments or objections, Chairman Marsters declared
the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:26 P.M.
Planning Cor.,'mission Minutes
Mnrch 27, 1967
Page -7-
Hr. Oster asked Mr. Supinger if the sign on the canopy dropped
lower, would this be satisfactory or is it the fact that it's on
the canopy that makes it become a roof sign. Then he asked if it
was dropped lower would it still be a roof sign.
Mr. Sup~n~er explained the Sign Ordinance provides that any sign fully
upon or above a roof or canopy or similar structure is a roof sign. The
avenue remaining to the applicant should you wish identification coming
from "D" Street would be that he construct a wall sign on the southerly
wall. ~is also causes certain problems with the doors as they are in-
dicated on the plan. It is the staff's feeling that the appearance of
passers-by and people traveling up "D" Street would be tremendously
improved if the entrance to the service b~ys were moved to the rear of
the structure, thus providing a wall along the front of the building
which would be uninterrupted by service doors and wou£d consequently
leave adequate room for identification of the business.
Mr. Oster asked if this has been discussed with the applic~nt.
Mr. Supinger replied that it has not.
Mr. Oster then asked if the building was raised to 18 ft. high and this
was dropped down as a overhang or below a canopy, then would it be a
wall sign.
Mr. Supin8er stated that not being an attorney that he would only go
as far as to say that if it is wholly upon or above the canopy, in
other words if It is constructed upon the canopy it ~ his understanding
that it would be a roof sign. He stated that this had been considerably
discussed with the City Attorney and thought it would still be considered
a roof sign even if it was lowered and constructed under the canopy.
Hr. Oster wanted to know if the sign was on the the wall under the
canopy, would it be satisfactory. Mr. Supinger said yes.
Mr. Hefner was in accord with Mr. Supinger and did not feel that this
canopy sign was designed to be at all a part of the structure and it
is not ~at we are trying to aghieve in the way of the Sign Ordinance
of the City, so therefore he would not be in favor of granting the
canopy sign.
Hr. [~lus - "I am not sure of the appropriate vehicle, but I would like
very much to have Mr. Supinger's suggestion pursued in terms o~ not
having the bays open in the southerly direction. It has been a concen-
trated effort on the part of the City to upgrade the part of the
Central Down Town area and I think every effo~should be made to try
and increase the integrity of this area architecturally."
Hr. Oster asked Chairman Marsters if there was a possibility of taking
a recess so Mr. Supinger and the applicant could discuss information
that had just come up during the meeting.
A five minute recess was called by Chairman Marsters.
The Planning Commission meeting reconvened at 8:50 P.M.
Mr. Oster asked l. lr. Supinger if he had discussed with the applicant
the possibility of putting the sign under the canopy along the side
of the building, directly below where the sign is located now.
}ir. Supin~er said not that specifically, although we have discussed
generally the wall sign sitt~ation, now whether he would agree or
disagree he didn't know.
Mr. Oster - "A wall sign that is lighted, directly under the canopy
on the wall of the building would be permitted - Is that correct?"
Mr. Supinger said yes.
Planning Commission Hinutes Page -8-
March 27, 1967
Mr. Sherbondy - opined that several of ti~e conm~ents from tile Planning
Department came os a complete surpri.~;e to him and had never been dis-
cussed previously, it was their understanding that tile sign, eleva-
tions and the plot plan as revised met all the requirements of the
City ordinance. In answer to the comr~nts to the Planning Director
which were brought up for the first time this evening, that they re-
verse their building and have the automobiles entering from the rear
was ~nconceivable to ilia as a man in bvsiness who knows that uothing
happens until something is sold and that this would completely give
them a bankruptcy situation because of tile fact that any type of service
in their business being very highly competitive in the tire business,
people have to do business with an organization that appears to be
active and something going on. The Planning Director, he pointed o~at,
suggested that they make a glass front o~,t of this and have the people to
come in irt~m the back. This is an u,d~liew'~blc~. suggestion for our type
of business, lie stated that he did not know very many businesses that
ask their custom,ers to go around the back to enter a place of business.
He respectfully st,ggested that the Commission approve these two reql,ests
and stated that he believed that they are in keeping with the ordinance.
He said architecturally they are flexible anti would do anything that
they could do. Tile building would have to be entirely redesigned for
the sign to be lowered and could not be done, because the sign would
not be seen.
Mr. Oster asked tim Assistant City Attorney, Mr. Bryant if he knew of
n change or proposal for a change of tile Sign Ordinance.
Hr. Supin~er answered Mr. Oster's question by stating that there were
numerovs changes being considered for the Sign Ordinance for reasons
of clarific~tio, and the particular thing in qvestion, although he did
not feel at this ti,.~, tile staff had come to an opinion that he could
state here as to how they will recommend that it be changed.
It was moved by Hr. llalus, seconded by Hr. Hefner that Application
UP-67-230, Resolution No. 880 for the pole si~n be approved sub~ect
to movin~ the location to the north so that it does not overhang the
ri~ht-of-way and that the rodf sign be denied.
Tile above motion was voted by Roil Call: Ayes: Si~arp, Hefner, Halus
Marsters. Noes: Oster, Bacon. Absent: Brand. Motion carried 4-2
Mr. Oster stated that he would ]ike to know at this time, for himself
and his fellow commissioners what are tile changes for the canopy signs
if there are any in the wind now. lie felt that ~f an applicant comes
before the City and is given some indication that there are changes
for it, he wo,]d like to know in what sections there are supposed to
be proposed changes.
[.ir. Gill commented that there wa:; a meeting held last week with the
City Attorney, Department Heads and himself relative to this one area
on a cle.~r definition of a roof sign and what constitutes a roof sign,
whether above or below a canopy is ft, lly a roof sign. There is ~o~e
differences of opinion within tile staff and we ore trying ~'o bring to-
gether a proposal that will be very specific to the Planning Commission
and eventually to the City Council. Sommthing we will do in this is
possibly to recommend in the Sign Ordinance, a series of drawings in-
dicating exactly what is or is not a roof sign.
4. V-67-[81 - Fredrlck~ DeveloM,ent Corp.
To perm£t (a) carports (accessory structure) on the front half
of the lot which are not attached to a main building and do not
meet the setback requirements for a main building. (b) a zero
foot side yard setback for carport (accessory structure) along
the south-westerly property line.
Planning Co[,.~ission Minutes Page
M.~rch 27, 1967
Mr. Supinger presented the staff report along with the recommendations.
Recommendations are as follows:
That the adjustment hereby authorized will not constitute
a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limita-
tions 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, inch;ding 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.
B.r. Russell Becket - representing Fredricks Corp. - commented that the
main reason, other than what Mr. Supinger explained, in regards to the
handicaps here, there is one other aspect that he wanted to point out.
He stated that the elevation plan that the Commission had before them
would probably show more details as to the south entry of this partic-
ular project. He mentioned that due to cite fact of the depth of the
lot they are trying to maintain a more aesthetic value to the main
building by taking the carports away from the building.
Tqtere being no further discussion, Chairman delcared the public portion
of the hearing closed ac 9:05 P.M.
Fir. Hefner - "On the southwest side where the applicant's request is
for a zero setback, is that all commercial?" Fir. Supinger answered
yes. Mr. Hefner then asked if it was partially developed or is it all
developed. Mr. Supinger mentioned that there is one house on the
corner of McFadden and Newport .... Mr. Hefner went on to ask if the
zero setback itt respect to the carports would not interfere in the
occupation that is now being carried on. Mr. Supinger answered "no".
It was moved by Mr. Oster, s.econded by Mr. Halus that V-67-181, Resol.utiom
No. 881~ be approved subiect to the conditions set forth by the Fire
D~partment as follows:
1. A six inch (6) water main around area to connect at two
different locations on Newport Avenue.
Four (4) James Jones hydrants (or equivalent) spaced 300
feet apart on the exterior road.
Reaeons for approval are:
That the adjustmen~ 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 size, shape, topography, lo-
cation or surroundings, the strict application of the
Zoning Ordinance will deprive subject property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under ident-
ical zone classification.
The above motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Hefner,Bacon,
Halus, ~rster$. Noes: ~one. Absemt: '~ra~d. Motion carried 6-0.
5. UP-67-229 - Manufacturing - ~rry Hull
To permit the establishment of a non-conforming use including the
manufacturing of plastic grapes and candles fr~ polyester resim
and rental of trailer space~.
Planning Ca,,,ission Minutes Page
March 27, 1967
Mr. Supinger presented the staff report recommending:
That all manufacturing and storage of manufacturing materials
be conducted within enclosed structures complying with all
applicable City Ordinances.
That no manufacturing shall be conducted until all applicable
building and safety provisions have been met as determined by
the Fire Chief and the Building Director.
3. That the outdoor storage of motor and recreational vehicles
comply with all provisions of applicable City Ordinances.
4. That no repair or maintenance of motor or recreational vehicles
shall be permitted.
5. That all business operations shall be conducted within the
hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M.
That the area for storage of motor and recreational vehicles
8hall be covered with an all weather surface prior to such use
to the satisfaction of the Building Director.
The Orange County Planning Commission's comment was that it is an
excellent idea to make this lot productive again and gave the two
following suggestions:
Stipulate conditions for granting the Use Permit that the
premises be completely cleared of materials and trash left
by tl~e previous occupants; recondition the badly rutted areas
of the paved surface; and repair any sagging portions of the
chain link fence or screening.
Stipulate that the applicant should not store a trailer, boat
or motor vehicle any closer than 50 feet from the front fence
and 25 feet from the rear fence. This should help make it
look as though the trailers and boats were not cramed into
the lot and perhaps not make it look so obvious.
Chairman Marsters stated that he would not vote on this application
due to his owning property contiguous to this property.
Chairman }~raters opened the public portion of this hearing at 9:12 P.M.
Mr. Warren Finley - representing Larry Hull, gave a brief summary on
the property that was bought by Hr. l~rrold Finley in 1946. In 1961
the property was zoned in such a manner that the trucking operation
was a non-conforming use and Mr. Finley was granted the non-conforming
rights. Since the death of Mr. Finley, the United California Bank has
trustee of his last will and testament leased the property to the Lang
and Green trucking operation. Mr. Finley read excerpts from letters
sent in by residents stating their feelings on the Lang and Green
trucking operation, opposing the noise and other irritating problems
that were caused by this operation.
The United California Bank canceled the lease and terminated the
right to conduct an operation of this sort with Lang and Green. He
wanted to point out that this was done voluntarily. However, the
United California Bank since then has attempted to find a tenant that
would be much more satisfactory to the neighbors and they have found
such a tenant, Mr. Larry Hull.
Hr. John CovinKton - representing the United California ~ank, stated
that as owners of this property and trust for the beneficiary, they
are u,.der a duty to manage the property in a profitable method and
they realize that the neighbors have been inconvenienced by their pest
tenant, but now they sought to get a tenant that would operate between
the hours that would be compatible with the neighborhood and it was
their suggestion with anyone that they talked to, that they would have
Planning Commission Htnutes Page -Il-
March 27, 1967
a specific clause in the lease that it would limit the operation
from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Hr. Covington stated that they do have
a continuing obligation to pay taxes on this property, approximately
$2,200.00 per year and they felt that it is only fair to the estate
to give them an oppertunity to put someone in there that can carry on
some type of use that is compatible to the neighborhood and if tha tme
would not be compatible there would be a clause in the lease that if
the use got outside of thc terms of the lease, they could cancel the
lease at any time. They wanted to cooperate with the neighborhood and
want them to be happy with tha use that they have in there.
Mr. Finley introduced Mr. Larry Hull and stated that he would demonstrate
the use of the operation.
Mr. Larry Hull commented that the operation that they are planning does
have a certain amount of flammable materials, and the most highly
flammable material that will be used is acetone, which will be in a
very minor amount, possibly 2~ gallons in an absolute fire-proof con-
tainer. This is used to cleanse spoons and told the C~m, ission that
he would like to demonstrate how it will be used.
Mr. liull stated that the processing of this was done by the retarded
children in Santa Aha. tle said that no smoking was permitted in the
plant, because they were just as interested in not burning dow~ the
plant as the neighbors were.
Chairman b~rsters was concerned about any noxious odors to the em-
ployees. Mr. Hull stated that there were probably a few, but not to
the extent that they would be overcome by fumes. He stated that they
like to pull the fumes from the floor with a high mounted fan and
this was both for fire hazards and the health of the employees.
He mentioned that the size of the building was an ideal place to carxy
on this type of operation which is about 1500 feet. He stated that it
would be cleaned and with the trailers stored on this and kept to a
minimum, would make for a better neighborhood and not look like a
"junk-hole".
Mr. Ken Nelson, associated with Nelson & Nelson General Contractors
has been operating in the Tustin area for about 12 years in developing
residential and commercial buildings, stated that he was familiar with
the terms of the construction business and the term""structural alter-
ation': does not pertain to this particular application where they are
applying two (2) sheets of dry wall on the inside of the wall or out-
side of a wall to make it come up to the fire code. In the Uniform
Building Code Section 1702, that the structural frame shall be con-
sidered to be the columns and girders, beams, trusses and sprindals
having direct connections with the columns and all other members
which are essential to the stability to the building as a whole. In
his opinion this application did not pertain to a structural alteration.
Alerts Traister - employee for Mr. Hull, stated that every safety
measure that can be used is used and all the women employees are well
aware of the particular items that have to be watched and they are
very careful with everything being kept neat and clean. She stated
that most of the equipment is throw-away and that they use every pre-
caution to prevent any accidents.
Mr. Halus had a few comments pertaining to the Building Code and things
of this nature, stating that he was very much in favor of the consider-
ation of developing this site, cleaning it up and enhancing it in some
manner for the benefit both to the City and the obvious benefit to the
estate, He commented that he does appreciate the fact that the estate
and the bank took the action that they did with doing away with the
~ang and Green Dperatton that they had there before, Mr. Halus felt
that this particular use, when properly established in accordance with
the extstin$ criteria and the existing codes could indeed be an asset
~o the community. He stated~ ~h~t h~ ~lh c~rt~in;y encourage Hr, Hull
tO consider the matfltenn,,c~ ,~ ~1~ ." ~ ~r~. l~ndscaptng and items of
Planntr~ Co~nission Minutes Page
March O] 1967
this consideration which might be more appropriate to discuss with
the Architectural Committee.
Mr. Hefner asked what tile size of the trailers would be and were
mobilehomes included and the general nature of the types of trailers
that would be allowed storage.
Mr. Finley calling the attention of the ordinance that was adopted
restricting the parking of trailers in front and side yards, stated
that this had created somewhat of a problem, although it came in very
nicely for them because it created a demand for a place to park the
trailers. The trailers and vehicles that the ordinance is directed,
will now have to find a place to locate.
Mr. Supinger said that the Co~nission is the one that has to find that
this is at least~ not more intense than the previous non-conforming use.
The staff finds that it is less intense than the previous uses based
upon the Commissions' discussion on the previous uses.
Mr. Supinger said it is the prerogative of the Commission to review
the non-conforming nse, but the ordinance does not provide for the
elimination of non-conforming uses other than by non-use for one year.
Mr. llefner wanted a clarification on the comment made by Mr. Brook,
the Building Director in his statement in the last paragraph of the
staff report, page 3.
Mr. Gill opined that he believed tilts was in reference to song of the
structural matter brought up by Mr. Finley and stated that the Build-
ing Board of Appeals rules on matters of instructions and so forth and
this would be relative to his comment thac they get an opinion, although
this is not required. The Planning Commission can go along with this
without presenting it to the Board of Appeals.
Mr. Hafner asked if anything has been done specifically or discussed
in regards to some face-lift~ng on First Street.
Mr. Supinser stated that it bad not been discussed specifically
relative to improving the outside appearance. He felt if they could,
at least, be encouraged to some improvement by either landscaping or
better fence screening of the area, it would certainly be an improve-
ment and some portions of the fence were badly in need of repair.
Mr. Oster asked, after noting Mr. Brook's comments, if he was worried
about whether the addition of the safety features would amount to a
structural alteration rather than tile safety of the building.
Mr. Supinser stated that he was worried about both aspects. He is con-
cerned about making the building conform to the Building Code to make
it meet the safety requirements. He is also concerned whether those
improvements would constitute a structural change.
Mr. Oster - "If we conditioned our Use Permit upon the approval of the
Building Director, then it would be a matter between the applicant and
the Building Director - is that correct?"
Mr. Supinser - "I don't think the Building Director could determine
whether it was a structural change, I think this is probably a legal
matter, the City Attorney would probably get involved. I think that
the conditions that are proposed by the staff's reco~m,endations would
adequately handle this."
Mr. Oster commented that personally, he felt as Mr. Nelson did on the
structural matter, but felt that tile City Attorney would have to determine
this eventually.
PC Minutes - 3/27/67 Page -13-
Mr. Gill interjected a point, stating that one of the purposes of the Building
Board of Appeals, is that the applicant could appeal to them if there has been
a structural change in the opinion of the Building Director and if the applicant
does not agree with the opinion.
}ir. Sharp - "Would this use on the subject property have any effect on the fire
insurance of adjacent residential properties. Would it be conceivable that their
fire insurance would go up because the %nsurance companies may consider this a
hazardous operation?"
Mr. Gill stated that he did not believe it would be effected by any adjacent use.
Mr. Sharp was concerned with tile existing gasoline pumps that are now on the
property and Mr. i~ll c~,mmnted that they could be taken out because they were
of no use to him.
Mr. Hefner expressed concern about children having access to the property which
may be hazardous.
Mr. Halus wanted to know if the area in which tile trailers and vehicles were
stored, would be completely fenced and would it be lighted at night. Mr. Hull
answered that it would be dimly lit, but not enough to disturb the neighbors.
He stated that it would not be a flood light.
It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by }ir. Halus that UP-67-229~ Resolution No.
882 be approved subiect to the followin~ conditions:
~at all manufacturing and storage of manufacturing materials be
conducted within enclosed structures complying with all applicable
City Ordinances.
That no manufacturing shall be conducted until all applicable building
and safety provisions have been met as determined by the Fire Chief and
Building Director.
3. That the outdoor storage of motor and recreational vehicles comply with
all provisions of applicable City Ordinances.
4. That no repair or maintenance of motor or recreational vehicles shall
be permitted.
5. That all business operations shall be conducted between the hours of
7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M.
That the urea for storage of motor and recreational vehicles shall be
covered with an all weather surface prior to such use to the satis-
facttoa of the Building Director.
7. Thqt no hook-up for utilities shall be provided for any trailers or
recreational vehicles.
8. That a six (6) foot fence shall be provided along tile perimeter of the
property to the approval of the Building Department.
That the premises shall be completely cleared of materials and trash
left by previous occupants and badly rutted areas of the paved surface
shall be reconditioned and existing sagging portions of the chain-link
fence and screening shall be repaired.
10. ~%at the applicant should not store a trailer, boat or motor vehicle any
closer than 50 feet from the front fence and 25 feet from the rear fence.
11.
That the Planning Commission review the non-conforming use in this
particular case two (2) years from now to establish that it will
not 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 detrimental to the property
and improvements in the neighborhood or the general w~lfnre of the
City at this time.
Planning Co,,,ission M£nutes Page -14-
March 27, 1967
The above motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp,
Hefner, Halus, Bacon. Abstained: Chairman Marsters. Noes: none.
Absent: Brand. blotion carried 5-0.
6. UP-67=228 - Trailer Sales - Adriane A. Forester
To permit the sale and installation of camper and trailer
accessories, outdoor sale of new and used campers and trailers,
outdoor repairs and installations.
Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that the staff
suggests that the driveway south of the Beauty Saloon of the same
property be utilized only for ingress, because of the danger of
sidewalk traffic to pedestrian if it is used for egress. He suggested
that the dimgonial parking be re-oriented accordingly.
It was reco,,~,,ended that UP-67-228 be conditionally approved subject
to the suggestions of the Fire and Planning Departments for the
following reasons:
The Commission finds that the establishment, maintenance and
operation of the use applied for will not, under the circum-
stances 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 detrimental to the property
and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare
of the City.
Chairman Marsters opened the portion of the public hearing at
10:05 P.M.
Jean Adams - representing the applicant - expressed her appreciation
to Mr. Supinger and Mrs. Danielsson for their courteous and helpful
suggestions regarding the applicant and for their time that they
spent on the project.
Mrs. Adams stated that the trailers that would be on the lot would
be small travel trailers and campers and there would be no mobile-
homes. The repairs and installations would primarily be done in the
existing mobile trailer parks. She stated that the repairs and in-
stallations that would be done on the premises, would be small; in-
stalling trailer hitches, and wiring tra~ler lights and installing
intercoms. She indicated that the trailer hitches can be installed
with minimum tools. }!rs. Adams said that there were no plans to do
any spraying on the premises, although the applicant understands he
must comply with any and all fire codes, that would apply to the
operation. There is ample parking, but would prefer that the drive-
way to the south not be limited to ingress only because that partic-
ular driveway is used very little.
Mr. Jack B. Smothers - 1822 Theodore Drive, Tustin, mentioned that he
had known the applicant for a number of years and opined that he felt
Mr. and Mrs. Forester would be an asset to the community and that their
proposed business would be compatible with the existing neighborhood.
There being no further discussion, Chairman f:arsters declared the
public portion of the hearing closed at 10:10 P.M.
In answer to Mr. Oster's question about Mr. Supinger's feeling on the
"ingress" and "egress" of the drive, Mr. Supinser stated that the
Public Works Director, }~r. Wheelock, had thought it wouldb~ more de-
sirable to limit it to "ingress" use since the sidewalk in front of
the building was used and should s~neone be coming out of the drive-
way and not being ~rticularly cautious, it could present a safety
problem as to pedestrians coming from the northern direction.
Planning Co~mission Minutes Page
[larch 27, 1967
OLD
BUSINESS
VI.
NEW
BUSINESS
VII.
CORRES-
PONDENCE
Mr. l~fner stated that he did not think the driveway is, or would
create a problem since ii, ere is not that much pedestrian traffic
and saw no reason for limiting it to "ingress".
Mr. Halus asked the applicant if she felt that there was adequate
space to store the quantity of trailers and campers that were not
being used, as well as the ones being repaired.
Mrs. Adams stated that they only plan to keep two trailers at a time,
but if they have more they would provide more space for the storage.
}Ir. Sharp's question regarding the request for a sign for this
particular business, was answered by Mr. Supinger. He stated that
there had been no direct conversation, although }me had indicated
to Mrs. Forester that she should look into tlme sign ordinance and
be aware of the restrictions.
It was moved by Mr. Hefn~r~ seconded by Mr. Bacon that Resolution
No. 883, recommendlnR UP-67-228 be approved subiect to the sugRestions
of the Fire and Planning Departments for the following reasons:
The Commission finds that time 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 detrimental to the property
and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of
the City.
The above motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes:
Halus, Bacon, Marsters. Noes: None. Absent:
Oster, Sharp, Hefner,
Brand. Motion carried
NONE
1. County Case No. CP-~242 - Aldersgate Methodist Church
To permit the elimination of requirements under the conditions
of approval No. 5 in connection with the construction of add-
itions to an existing church fn the Ri Single Family Residence
District.
Mr. Supinger presented the staff report and recommended conditional
approval subject to the suggestions of the Fublic Works and Planning
Departments.
After a brief discussion on the safety hazards regarding this appli-
cation, a motion was made to this effect:
It was moved by Mr. Oster~ seconded by Mr. Hefner~ that the Plannin~
Director be directed to draft a letter to the County PlanninK Department
9pposinK the request to permit the elimination of the conditions of
CP-1242, as sought by the applicant for the following reasons.
1. The existing open ditch is a severe safety hazard which
also collects unsightly debris.
2. The City has received numerous complaints from residents
of the area wanting to know why the ditch is not covered.
The CommissJ0n further noted that ~he portions of the ditch which are
wit}{tn tt~o ~m'v are alron,lv .covere~! and ~.t,'".}"- ~'~at this may ~ a~
. ,~.' · ' %,,_~ I ~. "rnve~t~ tO
Planning Co~nission M£nutes
Hatch 27, 1967
Page -16-
2. ~ounty Tentative Map - Tract 4983
Mr. Supinger stated that the City Departments have no objections
relative to this proposed subdivision, and presented the map for
the Comraission's review.
It was moved by Mr. Haht£~ ~econded by Mr. Oster~ that the Planning
Staff prepare a letter to the County recommendin~ approval of County
Tentative Map - Tract 4983. Motion carried 6-0.
3. Letter front Tustin Elementary School District
For tentative approval of an Elementary School, Intermediate
School, Warehouse, Corporation Yards and Fire Station at Red
Hill and Sycamore.
Mr. Supin~er presented a brief staff report stating that this type
of forethought should be fostered and that those participating should
be congratulated for this work.
Mr. Supinger felt that the uses proposed for the area are appropriate
and that tentative approw]l of such facilities at this location should
be approved by minute order.
Fir. Archie Currie, Assistant Superintendent of Tustin School District,
stated that titis lsy-out is a lay-out that they are working with the
Irvine Company, City of Tustin and the State Department of Education
and any other governmental agency who is involved. Mr. Currie stated
that att approval like this is different with the City than it is in
the County. lie mentioned that they do have the approval in the County
for the Elementary School Site, which they already own. They also
went to tile County Planning Coe~ission for approval of the Intermediate
School approximately one (1) year ago at the corner of Walnut and Red
Hill, which is right in the middle of the Irvine Company's newly planned
residential development, therefore, they would be anticipating moving
the plans for that site down to the present site that has been presented
to the Tustin Planning Commission.
In ans,.mr to Mr. Hefner's question on clarification of the approval,
Mr. Supinger said that they are looking for approval for these types
of uses in this area, namely the elementary school, intermediate
school, fire sta~'ion, corporation yards and some warehousing area.
Mr. Supinger explained that the property is zoned mainly R-4.
showed the zoni~lg on the maps.
Mr. Hefner - opined that this appeared to be an exccllent location,
based on the development of the Irvine Company. He expressed his
appreciation that the school district had presented the facts and
information to the Planning Commission in this manner and thought
it was very appropriate.
Fir. Halus wondered if it was the intent that the south end of Carfax
to be cul-de-sac, where it would become contiguous to the warehouse
area if that should develop that way. lie stated that his concern was
due to continuous traffic flow through a single family residential
area,
Mr. Gill stated that the intention at the present time, would be for
Carfax to be a cul-de-sac. There would be a service road to eliminate
any heavy traffic for schools or residential streets.
Mr. Halus wanted to take this oppertunity to prevail upon Mr. Currie
and others to properly consider the traffic flow of the school, egress
and ingress as they do go through their precise development p!a,. He
stated that he was in accord with Mr. llefner and also appreciated the
oppertunity to see the preliminary plans.
Planning Coum~ission Minutes Page -17-
March 27, 1967
It was moved by Mr. iialus~ seconded b.v Mr. l!efner~ ['hat the Planning
Commission reco~,:mend that a minute order be directed supportin~ t. his
particular preliminary site at this time showin8 the confidence of
the Planning Commission. Motion carried 6-0.
VIII.
OTRER
BUSINESS
4. V-65-156 - First Churq.h of Christ, Scientist,
A request for a one (l) year extension
Mr. Supinger presented a brief staff report stating that the
original application had been approved April 12, 1965, to permit
a three (3) lot subdivision with a 25 ft. private drive. Ail
proposed parcels exceeded 8500 square feet in area.
It was suggested that a final six month extension be granted to
permit additional time for development of the property.
Mr. Sharp's question was - "What seems to be the problem to pulling
this development together?"
Mr. Supin~er stated that they are trying to sell the property.
It was moved by Mr. Sharp~. seconded by Mr. Hefner, that V-65-156
be extended for a final additional six (6) month period.
Motion carried.
blt. Hefner's resignation from the Tustin Plannin8 Commission
Mr. IIalus stated that due to Mr. Hefner moving out of the City
limits, the City Council has accepted his resignation for his
position as Planning Co~nissioner and recommended that Resolution
No. 884 be prepared in appreciation of Mr. Hefner's years of
services for both a Corm~issioner and Chairman of the Commission.
};r. Halus stated that he felt that Mr. Hefner has set a high example
for the Commission to follow in his wisdom and services that he has
provided. Chairman Marsters concurred.
IX.
AD JOUI~N -
MENT
It was moved by Mr. Bacon~ seconded by Mr. Oster that the meeting be
adjourned. Motion carried
There being no other business before the Planning Coum,ission, the
meeting adjourned at 10:28 P.M.
SECRETARY