HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-13-67MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
March 13, 1967
CALL
TO
ORDER
II.
ROLL
CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:36 P.M. by Chairman
Marsters.
Present: C~,,,,issioners: Brand, Bacon, Ha lus, Marsters, Hefner~
Sharp, Oster
Absent: Commissioners: None
Others Present:
James Rourke, City Attorney
James Supinger, Planning Director
3o Ann Turner, Planning Secretary
III.
APPROVAL
OF
MINUTES
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
It was moved bi.Er. He~ner? secopded by. Mr. Sharp, that the minutes
of the February 27, 1967 meeting be approved as mailed.
Notion carried.
1. UP-67-226 - Robert A. Schoeffler
To permit the construction of a 38 unit motel on property
located in a "U" (Unclassified) district.
Mr. Supinger presented the staff report and recommendations. The
staff felt that the request seemed reasonable as a good transitional
use between the commercial use along Newport and the single family
and apartment uses behind the property along Wasa Street. It was
suggested that no kitchens be permitted in the motel, except in the
managers apartment, because of the ease of conversion to apartments.
Should such conversion take place, the density and parking require-
ments of the ordinance would not be met.
The Tustin Fire Departmeng's recommendations were as follows:
1. All driveways should connect to tile driveway in the rear to
make all apartments more accessible for fire and rescue work.
2. Provide a minimum of 13 feet five inches (13'5") clearance
over the driveway for access of truck companies.
3. Provide additional five foot (5') radius for turning fire
trucks at driveway--rear of building. (northwest corner).
The Orange County Planning Commission recommended denial of UP-67-226
for the construction of the motel on Wasa Street. They did not feel
that a motel would be compatible to adjacent county zoning or land
use. They felt that a large motel would also tend to encourage further
commercial developments northerly along Newport Ave.
Correspondence from Mrs. H. H. Blanken, 1062 S. E. Wasa Street, Albert
Ne~lander, 12762 Elizabeth Way, gr. Ctlarles B. ]lill, Hil-Gan Develop-
ment Corporation, Mr. and }irs. Charles A. Hll~, 1051S.E. Wasa Street,
Elmer & Josephine Farnsworth, 1091S.E. !~ss Ave., and }Ir. Charles
Raymond, 1081 Wasa Street, Tustin was received in the Planning
Department wishing to go on record as opposing this application.
Copies of these letters were presented to the Co~,~ission for their
review.
-1o
Planning Coa~lssion Hinutes Page 2
March 13, 1967
Mr. Halus - Do you unde~Stand~th~t the apartment house is contiguous
to the motel? Hr. Supin~er - A complex is wholly under one ownership.
The fact that they have c~,u,,on owr, ership and have a common parking
area, this makes ica complex, lc would preclude any free standing
sign unless a variance was granted.
Chairman Harst~rs opened the hearing to the public at 7:43 P.M.
Mr. Bob Schoeffler, ~pllcant and o~mer of the proi;arty, presented
his reasons for desiring such an establishment. He mentioned that
he had done research on this project and found that there is a great
need for a new modern motel in this area. Reason being: 1. Families
that have sons at E1 Toro would have a place close by to stay while
visiting. 2. Since we live in Orange County we are always being
plagued by tourists and many of these vistors would stay if there was
a motel here.
This would be a three (5) -tory structure, very modern, elevator in it
with no clutter of signs around it. He stated that they were
after a pole sign or anything else and t.t would be mainly supported
by word-of-mouth. }ir. Schceffle~ stated that he was prepared to
answer any questions ii anycne had any. Hc went on to say that he
would like for it to be approved as was originally presented, because
it was necessary that ha build the motel as presented.
Mr. I~fner questioned Mr. Schoeffl~r about the Fire Department's recom~
mendattons and alno the kitchen ~ltuation.
Mr. Schoeffler stated shat there was no problem there, although in
his opinion, while doing research he came up with the fact that you
are seeking families. He felt that it was advantageous to him to
furnish a little kitchen for the people. He mentioaed that people do
not like to eat ail their meals out and if they ~:ere staying for any
length of time cna visit, sc'za may not be able to afford all their ma
meals in a restaurant.
Mr. Supin_F~_r- - the r.~int of clarification on the subject of "kitchen".
He did not feel that a a .~ll type hot-plate or bar-type refrigerator
could be considered a :tchen, but if a stove, large refrigerator,
and things of this ~att,~c were permitted "hen you would be getting
into kitchen require,-, '.~$.
Mr. Oster directed a :i,~c."-tion to Mr. Supinger asking if he considered
a bar, hot plate, sink sad electrical equipment a kitchen. Mr.
Supinger said no bec,usa the si.-.c of a refrigerator was important.
Mr. Hefner questioned the distance of the building to the property
line of single family residents.
Mr. Schoeffler said that the front part of the building comes within
15 feet of the prnper~y line. lhe remainder along the way is parking
and the building is set in there with an additional 45 feet of
property line.
Mr. Supinzer explaining further said that along the front of the
property on the east side would be the first floor and on the second
floor there would be a 45 ft. depth, 5 ft. from the east property
line and the rest of the property, there would be a 45 ft. setback
from the east property line.
Mr. Roy }{ill - Opposing the application - We have put in your file a
letter explaining opposition to this project ~nd a number of questions
come to mind. 1. How does this use adapt itself for the master plan
of Tustin. 2. How will it affect churches, schools and the surround-
ing neighborhoods. 3. How would people find this motel. Mr. Hill
felt that all of these questions should be considered before a decision
was made. He felt that further study should be mede and did not feel
that it would be a wastc of time.
Planning Cc~,.,ission l:inutes Page 3
March 13, 1967
Mr. Bob Schoeffler co]r~ented to Mr. Hill about the churches, schools,
etc; and said that Tlr. Hill had been endeavoring to build an apart-
ment complex and wanted to know how that was going to fit in.
There being no further comments or objections the hearing was declared
closed at 7:55 P.M.
Mr. Halus was concerned about the possibility of the motel evolving
into apartments and wanted to know what would be done if this was
the case.
Mr. Sci~oeffler explained that he was not developing it into a family
type apartment and he felt it would give a person claustrophobia to
live in such small quarters for a long length of time because the
rooms are not dzvided up for :his type of living.
}tr. IIalus then asked if it was economically feasible for it to be
2 stories and Mr. $choeffler answered him by saying" I can not get
enough space to make it feasible otherwise and I do need the two
stories for ground parking".
}ir. Bacon asked if there was any way you could set a time limit for
people staying there.
I.:r. Rourke said that there could be such a provision in the approval
but he would not advise it as it would be hard to enforce.
Mr. Sharp mentioned that after reading the letters that were received
opposing this, it seemed that their main concern was that of "flashing"
signs that would be irritating on the property.
Mr. Scboeffler commented that be did not need a large sign on the
premises and the sign w:ll not be any larser than 30 sq. ft. He
said his whole thought is to promote something like this Just by
word-of-mouth.
~:r. Hafner asked if there would be a directional sign directing
traffic to the motel ar.d :.ir. Supinger said there would not be.
Mr. Hafner mentioned to ;ir. Supinger the fact that the Orange County
Planning Com~nission wished to deny thf. s and wanted to know his
reaction to this.
Mr. Supin~er said he disagreed with the County's statement and felt
that it was the best transitional usc to go into the area. He said
when he heard thc background on how it was going to be used he had
to admit that he thought it sounded like a good idea because the
only other use for this area would be an apartment complex.
}ir. Hefner wanted to know if such a motel would be allowed without
a variance and Mr. Supinger said yes, a Use Permit would be all that
is required.
Mr. l{efner questioned the reason for this location next to a residential
area and wanted to know if there would be windows located in the build-
ing on the side of Wass Street. }ir. Supin~er said he personally felt
that it was a good design concept,
Mr. Schoeffler said that on the part of the building that was closest
to the residents there would be no windows at all on that side.
Mr. Bacon asked if there would be any objection to the builder putting
up a 6 ft. block fence separating the motel from the residents.
Mr. Sharp ~sked if it was normal to consider a mo~el in the density
of the ground area ~nvolving about one-half acre with 80 units per
acre.
Planning C~,,tssion Minutes Page 4
March 13, 1967
Mr. Sup%naer answered that it is not normal for there to be a
ground area limitation.~or.motels -there are parking, setbacks and
things of that nature to consider.
Mr. Sharp wanted to know h~ it compared with other motel develop-
ments and is it in the range. Mr. Supinger said yes, but not for
apartments.
Mr. Oster asked if it was a better use than apartments.
Mr. Sopinaer said chat he felt it is good practice for transitional
use wit}, residential and c~m~ercial and this is a use that has the
characteristics of residential and commercial uses. I feel that it
is just a mmttcr ~f t'.:,-' b..fure t~.a lc." to the east is developed with
additional apartments.
Mr. Oster asked Mr. Supinger if he would have any objections to
putting another motel next to this one and Mr. Supinger answered
n_~o if there was an adequate need for one.
Mr. Sharp said he wanted to pursue that this is a transitional use
or are you just considering this as a buffer or what are you taking
into consideration.
Mr. Supinger said "I would say that the building is less transitional
than the use.
Mr. Brand - At the present time it is a "U" District piece of prop-
erty and we haven't really dealt with "unclassified" to have it re-
main as such. Shouldn't we consider what the zoning should be along
the lines of certain restrictions? There will be differences in the
restrictions required.
Mr. Supinser agreed with Mr. Brand but stated that under the"U"
district any use is permitted subject to the granting of a Use Permit.
If the proposal is approved the property could be rezoned to R-3.
In many areas in the city there is a transition from C-1 to R-3 to
R-1. A motel is a permitted use in the R-3 district with a Use Permit.
If it is rezoned th~s is what we would recommend.
lqr. Brand stated that this did not seem to be good planning.
The Co~nission wanted to know how we stand in terms of the ':Town
Center Study".
Mr. Supinger - "We are not far enough along to have any land use
proposals yet but we will not be recommending commercial zoning
on the side streets there.
Mr. Schoeffler - "I believe the zone changed prior to Mr. Supinger's
coming to Tustin. When it came into the City of Tustin you did not
have a prezoning ordinance at that time. You could not rezone it
R-3at that t~,e so I zoned it "U" (unclassified).
Mr. Halus stated that he would like to consider this particular
problem a little more and asked if a delay of a reasonable period would
incur a hardship. Mr. Schoeffler told Mr. !!alus that it would, because
of money and if they did not get the approval, the money is going to
be gone and may become a loss.
Mr. Hefner felt that R-3 would be the logical zoning, but wanted to
know if this is R-3, would the height and overall thing be th~
same. Would they be allowed the particular edifice.
Mr. Supin~er stated that the setbacks as indicated on the plans would
meet the requirements in the R-3 district.
Planning Co~m~ission i.linutes Page 5
March 13, 1967
Mr. Brand said tile problem that he foresaw was the minimum 500 square
ft. per unit and it looked like a 10 ft. smtback and the zoning re-
quires 15 ft.
Mr. Sharp asked l.lr. Supinger how long would it be before he could
make a recommendation on the special study of the To~,m Center.
Mr. Supin[~e_r_ an.,~wered th,,t the-e will oe approval of the Town Center
by the end of the ye,"~, i think we ~ill be in a position to make
recommendations, from a £taff viewpoint, on it by this fall.
Possibly around Septemba:'.
Mr. Sharp asked Mr. Shoeifler, :.s a ban!'er, did he feel that this
will be a long range situatlo~' witi~ the availability of money. Mr.
Schoeffler stated that mona/ wi.l| begin to tighten up again in the
fall and that he must deed iO it. , to the City so he felt that
really he was settini~, back 25 feet from Wass Street.
A question arose from the audience as to what was located on the
property to the north and Mr. Supingar said it was vacant now, but
anticipated apartments going in there in the future.
}ir. Hill - There are no apartmm%t.~ there presently but we are pro-
posing some later. The County and City have put an extensive amount
of time on the Town Plan, and wanteu to '-~ow if there could be more
time for the study of this befo~'e a decision was made.
Mr. Sharp mentioned that he would like to consider a use like this
in the "U" zone and that the Planning Commission use every planning
tool available, lie stated that he recognized }ir. Schoeffler's
problem and was wondering if the staff would be encouraged to bring
their study along before m.~king a decision.
Mr. I.larsters felt tha~' the Planning Staff was pretty well overloaded
with work now and it might work a hardship for them.
Mr. Supinger commented th,-t with the normal day to day activities, the
staff only }las one person to spe.~d p,~rt of her time on the Town Center.
l, lr. Halus - in ali Cu; resp--'ct, I would like to request a two (2)
week postponement c.,.: ask the P/annmg Staff to prepare a report
for tile Commission oa ouh~r mot-',is in the area in R-3 zones. He
wanted to have the staff's opinion on that property.
Mr. Hefner felt that }ir. Halus's suggestion was a good one and that
we should concentrate harder on this before making a decision.
It was moved by Mr. Sharp~ secpnded by Mr. Brand that application
UP-67-226 be postponed for further study until March 27th PlanninK
Commission Meeting.
The above motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp,
Marsters, ||efner, Halus, Bacon, Brand. Noes: None. Absent:
Motion carried 7-0
None.
2, V~67-180 - Leo Sutliff and Walter Newell
To permit the construction of a nine (9) unit apartment building
on a 12,150 sq. f~. lot having a frontage of 50 feet. (The
Zoning Ordinance requires minimum lot width of 70 ft., in an
R-3 district).
Mr. Supinger presented the staff report along with the rec~,m~ndations
of the Fire Department and the Staff.
Planning Co~,iission Minutes Page 6
March 13, 1967
Fire Department recommendation is as follows:
\ttics sho,~ld be separated between each apartment. In
case of fire tn one apartment, the fire would not spread
to anothar apartment.
Staff Recommendations: It was recommendad that V-67-180 be approved
subject to approval of plans by the Arch£tectural Committee for the
following reasons:
Subject variance will be subject to such conditions as will
assrre that the aa.iuztment hereby authorized will not con=
stitute a grant of soecial privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district
in which sub leer property is located.
Because of special circumstances applicable to thc subject
property, development of all a~jacent properties, the strict
applicatio, of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive sub-
ject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity and under identical zone classification.
The Orange County Planning Commission had no comments regarding this
app£ication.
l.;r. Oster asked if the only variance they are requesting is lot size.
};r. Supinger answered yes..
Chairman Marsters opened the hearing to the public at 8:35 P.M.
l.;r. Walter Neweil - 1631 Laguna Road, Tustin, applicant - said with
the exception of the managers apartment, these are one (1) bedroom
apartments for adults - no children would be allowed.
Mr. Jack Hunter - 180 Pacific ftrect, Tustin - stated that with 9 units
on this p~ece of property, it was goirg to be pretty crowded. He
stated that the stree~ was residential and is zoned R-1.
F~r. Supin~er - It is R-3, in fac.' yo~, have Wi]limas Furniture Store
which i.~ R~[ and th,. next one south is zoned R-3. They are one (1)
s tory.
Mr. Hunter - stated to the Coum~ission that tile only reason that he
bro,ght th£s out was because living in the residential a~ea, a lot
of tile people have little children and this would tend to bring
more traffi, c into the area whici~ may be hazardous to the neighbor-
hood welfare and he wanted the feeling of people to be known.
[.:r. Hefner asked Mr. ltunter where his property was located in re-
spect to this, and Mr. Hunter told him about the fifth house down
the street.
1.ir. Supinger explained to Mr. Sutliff that the plans they have on
hand indic.gte parking designs that the staff will not recommend
for approval. The revised plans do not meet the approval of the
staff either. He went ahead to say that it will probably be neces-
sary to cut back on a n,mber of units before an adequate apartment
complex can be accomplished.
Mr. Neil Sutliff - Partner to >;r. Newell said he thought they could
furnish appropriate parking for nine (9) units, lie felt that if
they reduced the units ti~en they would be over priced and he thought
the project would be good for the neighborhood.
Mr. Erie Hurd - 200 Pacific Street, lives in the vicinity and said
he had no objec~ion to application V-67-180.
Plannin§ Co.,-,.tssion Minutes Page 7
March 13, 1967
There being no fur,kef conunents cr objections, tile hearing was
declared closed at 8:46 P.M.
i. lr. Halus mentioned that the floor plan for the second story showed
six (6) one (l) bedroom apartmen=s and that he noticed space contiguous
to the apartment ~ ~..ondered w~:aC Ghat would be used for. Fir. Sutliff
told him that sp.lce wo.,,ld be used for stairs. Fir. Halus then asked
if they were limited to 6 unito on tile second floor.
Fir. ilefner - The variance is based on thc fact it should require
70 ft., frontai;e and they only kave 50 feet.
Fir. Supi. nqer - I don't feel that is ,':decuare for parking but you
should concera yourself with the jug;,if ica,ion of development on
this ] or.
Fir. Marsters directed a question to Mr. Rourke stating that he
presuraned .'hat the other criteria would come later. Mr. SupinEer
explained that the Commission wouid not be approving the layout but
development on the substandard property. I feel you should strictly
make that point in the approval. Mr. Rourke asked Mr. Supinger to
clarify his statement.
Hr. Supine. er_ - The plot plan as s~:bmitted with revised parking
layout would not conform to the standards of the City and should
not be approved, l, lr. Rour':e concurred.
Fir. Oster - £ think it is presently zoned R-3 and they need a minimum
70 fi.., and the lot is only 50 ft. I think it could be considered a
hardship.
It was moved bv :.ir. Oster, seconded bv ;.ir. Brand that Resolution No.
877 for Apolication V-67-1F, O be ap.~row~d sub]ecg t? approval of plans
by the Architectural Committoe /or tile ~ollowir,.g reasons:
Snbj~'.ct variance will be subjec,: ~:o such co,;ditJons as will
assure that the adju3t..,nent i~ereby authorized will not constitute
a grant of specf~i pr.~vi]e~.,a?, inconsistent with the limitations
upon other ~:roperties in the vicinity and district ~n which
subject p'.'operty is located.
Because of sp.~caa-' ci~cum,;t'tnces ~,pplfcab]e to the subject
property, developuent of a]l adjacent prgperties, the strict
application of tile Zo,aing Cr¢',i:;a~cc is found to deprive subject
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity and under id~mkicul zone classification.
The approval of this variance is limited to the 50 ft. wide
lot and it is not to be construed to approve the plot plan
submitted with the application.
'fha above motion was voted by Roil Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp,
Hefner, Halus, Bacon, Brand. Noes: None. Abstained: Mars,ers.
}lotion carried 6-0.
Chairman Mars,ers abstained on comments or voting for Application
V-67-180 because of property he owns adjacent to subject applicatign.
3. ZC-67-152 - Elizabeth LaPointe
The reclassification of Lots 2 & 3, Tract 2187 from a C-1
Retail Commercial district to a C-2 Central Cc~m,mrcial
District.
Plnnning Commission Minutes Page 8
March 13, 1967
Mr. Supinger pre~ented the staff report and recommended approval
of ZC-67-152 because ~t is £a conformance with the General Plan. The
Oran~:e Cou:~tv Planning CommJssioa al~o recommended approval since it
wotJl(I. not be in conflict with existing co,tory zoning on the south
side of Mair Street and appear:, to he in conformance witl~ Tustin Area
General Plan.
M.r. Hefner asked the location of the 'property and wanted to know if
one of the office spaces would be occt,picd -Mr. Supinger told him
the locatic, n ,~nd said that ~,na oi' Lhe offices wot, Id be used.
Mr. lialu.~ asked if thc J.,tcc.:l~ was to rczon,', the ~utal piece of
property and .qg,~i[, i.:r. Su~,in~'~,' said i" w~.:;, and felt that there
is adequate justificaticn for (.-2 zon~'ng in this area.
Hr. Sharp - questxeaed the ~3~r:~,~.og and wonde,.'ed if the parking was
adequaLe in thio type o~ bu~inc~;:, or would ~t require on-street
parking.
Hr. Supin~er said that there was adequate par.t. Jng.
Chairman Harsters asked Mr. Supinger if he was familiar with the
other types of businesges in that shopping centar. Mr. Supinger
said i~e co, ld recall .? few off-hand, suci~ as insurancc~ and this
type.
t~r. Siw, rp wanted to know how many this made (second hand clothing
stores) in t'he City ".nd Mr. Supinger .~aid only two that he knew of.
Chairman Harsters opened the l~eari, ng ~o the public at 8:55 P.M.
Zlizabeth Lal~ointe -. 1302 $. duron, stated that there were two in
Tustin, ~iti~ough they :.:ere here first. She co,smeared that she
was under cbc impression tint they only needmd a busLness license
and then we were tolC tinct we would have to apply for ~ Use Pe~it
and tinct: i.r wm,l~ have Lo b(: ~zoned. ~e have ~ood quality clothing
and would liPe fez this zoning tc be approved.
l.:r. [:a!ter Frede:Ickso, ,- Owner of property in the area, commented
thut he h:~c: no ohject~on to thi:~ noage.
l.[r. Greenwood - 1601 "-.E ,eier':a Alta Dri;c, Santa Ana, stated that as
a businessman of t!m (Jla} of "~'ustJ.r., and a member of the Chamber of
Com. merce he was familfar with the situation, although he was not
representi[~g the Citamber of Cmnmerce, i%e checked the store and talked
with Ers. L0. Peinte and Miss Waits and felt that they are justified in
operating ['here and felt that this rezoming should be granted.
There being oo fcrthcr comments, the hearln& was declared closed at
9:00 P.M.
Mr. Oster asked if there was an application of file from the owners.
Mr. Supinger - They have an affl. davzt on file with the property
owners and there are no objections.
}:r. Sharp - Is chis she only thing or is this the recommended thing
that we would be doing on this property? If ti~e other shops are
of a C-1 ,ature, we are changing the zoning on the land that may be
temporary in the long run. Is there some other way we could allow
the business to continue there? I am concerned about changing the
zone to allow one shop in thc ,.hopping center to remain in business.
It seems like a good healthy business but must we change the zone?
Planning C<,a,,~lssion Einutes
March 13, 1967
Page 9
Mr. Supinger - I don't believe that there is another way we could
go about it., Mainly because I do not feel. it was established as
a legal non-conforming use. First: of all, C-2 permits ail uses in
C-1 districts. The C-2 type of zoned bu[ldi.ng are in the downtown
,~reas and that is why I think ir would he permissible.
l.;r. Rourke concurred.
It was moved bv fir. Halus~ se.condcd by Zr. Ostar that Resolution
No. 878. recommendln~ that Application ZC-67-152 be ~ranted for
the followJn~ reasons:
1. The proposed rezoning conforms to the Tvstin Area General
Plan.
As add]rional grounds the minutes and evidence introduced
~t the kearing are included by reference and made a part of
the motion.
The above motion was voted by Roll (:all: Ayes: Oster, Sharp,
Hefner, Haius, Bacon, Brand, Marsters, Noes: None. Absent: None
}lotion carried 7-0
~. PZ-67-104 - Saddleback ~.:edical Development
Prezoning ,'o P-C (Planned Community District), approval of
develoMnent plans and approval of development standards for
an eighty-six (86) bed propietary general care hospital,
which will ultinmtely contain 250 beds.
Mr. Supinger presented the staff report giving the recommendations
of the Fire Department, Orange County Planning Commission and the
Tustin Planning Staff.as follows:
Fire Department:
1. That the plans be cimcked ~nd approved by the State Fire
l.;ar :; ha 11.
2. \ccess roads be provided around the buildings for fire
equipment and rescue' operations.
3. Loop the water line for fire fighting purposes.
4. tlydrants be placed 300 feet apart.
Orange Comity Planning Com, aniss i.on:
It was the opinion of the Commission that if there should
be a hospital in the Tustin area, this proposed site appears
to be a good choice because of its proximity to two freeways
and a major arterial highway.
Tustin Planning Staff:
It is our reco~muendation that the application be approved,
subject to the following:
1. That the suggestions of the Fire Department be complied with.
2. That the Plans be approved by tile Arci~itectural Committee.
Chairman liarsters opened tile hearing to the public at 9:07 P.M.
Dr. James S. Casceel. General P;'~rtner - 12230 Browning, Tustin,
spoke in favor of the application and stated that Mr. Gillman had
plans and charts to present to the Commission for their review.
Planning Commission :.iinutes Page 10
~rch 13, 1967
Dr. C,~s,~ee! then introduced ti~e other General Partners that wu. re
in f~-.vor, which are Dr.Ernest E. A£nsl~e, l)r. Donald L. DonohuRh,
Dr. Lot, is F. Galente, Dr. ;.:il]ism L. ilains, Dr. Richard A. Hayden,
Dr. Ala~ O. iIoien, Dr. E;:r~. Radc]iffe. Kier:~an, Dr, Richard L. Se'llman,
Dr. l-:elvin A. Shtffman, Dr. l:rank R. Vi]ialobos, and Dr. Robert P.
Wiener.
Dr. Casteel stated that a hospital here in Tustin is not a new idea.
Five (5) years af;o t~ere x.:a~ talk with two (2) individuals that Co
have a hospital ,~ha[: i~ small wo:~ld help to relieve, some of the over-
crowdi~:g of ti;c major ccn~;n,nlty hospitals. Our first step was to build
the 'i'ust~.n l. lcdical Building o~ Newport and at the present time we are
building i'he second unit because several doctors want to locate in
this area. Ti,is actually has worked along well with the idea of the
hospital, l.;e ask permission to build a hospital. This group is ~de
up of some of thc best known mcdicz,] help. St. Joseph and Santa Aha
Co~.~munity ho.~;pll',~ls are planning.,, expansion and are going to about 600
beds witi~lr, the next four (4) years.
Santa .\ns Hospital will also go up to approximately 500 beds. We
have worked along on the idea of a hospital and we feel that Tustin
needs a hospital. We have spent a great deal of tim~ in the last
two and three years and the feasibility of building a hospital and
the location and group that would be involved in it are finally
pretty well solved. We think that we haw: an ideal situation for
the [~.ospita 1.
Our next phase would involve an eighty-slx (86) bed hospital with
spanish design, red tile roof and all the architect~ral design that
goes along very well with the Tnstin area. Ue feel that this goes
,-.long witi~ ~he type of architecture io thc area. The total size will
be ew:nt~ally 250 beds and would be a nice size and handle the re-
quirements i.~ the years to cc.ne. The parking has worked out very
nicely and we '~l] I have additional space:; for parking. We have
spent a considerable amount of time on the land scap~ng and we want
to have one of the most attractive ito~pitaJs it, Southern California.
Thc taxes on ~'hc hospital ?7o,,lld ru:% $'~0,000 per year, ,:lthough this
is just a~ e:;'.:imate. Ic wou'd titimatelv employ 600 full or part
time people and wot,id be a trc.-:endous' boom for the people of the
City. Tl;e ap;~rtmont situatiot', wo::ld fft in very good Chat are in
the area.
One of the bill th ir. gs ::i~at we c:re concerned .about is emerl~ency
care. This is especially true of Santa \ns Community hospital.
There is a tremendous amount of people that are seen in the
emergency room. This would enable all people, including E1 Toro,
South Santa .kna, and others additional emergency room facilities.
It would be a tremendous savings for lives especially in a state
of disaster.
House calls are becoming more passe, not because we do not want
to go out but the emergency cases need all the necessary tools.
We feel that we should have a hospital in the Tustin area because
of the present need. Ail of the hospitals in the major areas are
expanding because they need more space and we feel that Tustin
needs a i~ospital.
Charts with additional information were shown to the public and the
Commission for closer review. Dr. Casteel went on to say that he
felt t'he hospJl:al is ideal and wanted to have a first-class hospital
that the people in Tustin will be proud of.
~:r. Bob Gi llman stated that ho felt Dr. Casteel had pretty well
covered the hospital plan except what the Fire Department req~,ired
but that these requirements would be followed.
Planning C~,,,~,ission .'qinutes Page 11
March 13, 1967
}irs. Ward - Property owner adjacent to the proposed hospital -
voiced her approval of such an establishment.
There being no other comments or objections the hearing was declared
c]osed at 9:25 P.M.
};r. Sharp - I believe ti~ere is a set of development plans for a
hospital and a 100 beJ hospital is the breaking point. I see
yours show}ng it at ciqhty six (86) beds. Which set of standards
would you be using?
Dr. Castee[ - it ins various n;,mber of beds and tile consideration
of these would vary at some point. The developer has built approx-
imately ~0 hospitals in tho area and it has all been worked out.
Nr. Sharp stated }'.is concern was because of the capacity.
Dr. Shiffman - explained that over 99 beds a permanant pathologist
is required for each ward and to add a small room for a morgue ~ich
would be 10 to 15 feet square, that tile requirements are not that
great.
Mr. SharE - The thing that concerns me is you say that additional
beds can be added. When you reach that 99th bed, do you plan to
construct offices?
[:r. Gi llman - The standards of beds are no different in a 99 bed
hospital than a 250 hed hospital. Therefore, they are going to
have to add only the morgue and a resident pathologist.
:ir. Sharp q,estioned tile office space for pathologists, and was told
th:~t there would be adequate space.
Oster asked what approval did the) have, if any, from other
governmental bodies.
Dr. Castee] - We ha,tn not rece'~ved any so far. We have been told by
the County that it would require az: extensive report on this matter
a:,d as of yet qt ha~ not been received. !.:e ~re most desirous to
gain approval frou,, the Sduthern Cv[ifornia !Iospitai Association.
:.~r. Oster - :.:hat affect does tl:fs have on your building a hospital?
Would you build ii: any ',:ay if you dc not recezve approval?
Dr. Shi. ffman - There is only a $2.00 difference - but it would be
$2.00 le:~s than those that are not approved.
fir. Sharp asked if the Orange County liospital Planning Committee was
set up primarily to review hospitals of this nature or do they review
things of other nature.
Dr. Casteel said he could not answer this.
l';r. Sharp asked if the normal chain of events before a Planning
Commission give approval in this case of zoning. Uould an applicant
have obtained all the necessary approval from local and state agencies '
before he would bring it to a body like this.
l. lr. Supinger answered by saying the only other case he knew was one,
and that was that the approval would have to be given by the City
before the Hospital Planning Commission. lie stated that he had talked
to tile Executive Director of the committee .,nd they could not give
approval prior to tile April meeting and th,'tt was the earliest.
f;r. Gillman said timt the plans are now at the State for preliminary
approval and the State will not approve them unless the City has
approved for zoning. It usually makes it easier to go to the lender
and come up with a loan.
Planning Commission l.;inutes
}larch 13, 1967
Page 12
Dr. Castee[ commented.~thaK.v~i£b the hospital planning there are
many installations that come before the group and they try to
figure it our a3 to what hospital coverat;e will be adequate.
fir. Oster asked if the plans were at the State for preliminary
approval, and then t,~e Sailors! app':oval, and then tile final plans
have 1.o go back end be appzovc, u ageit, from "A" to "Z". Mr. Oster
opined tiler he ¥:a~ in favor of a hospital in Tustin area and
felt rhac ti:e people were goin8 to have to dccide if there is a
need for on~:. he comm,~nted chat he ~hought ~t was a ,~;ood proposal.
l'r. Hefuer rer,.inded the Cc,;.'mis~,ion t!~at the statistics that were
presented this e~ening were diff~.~rent than the ones p) esented to
~hem :l few months ago. Ti~e County report shows that there will
not be a need. We have a question of need; whether there is a
requirement or not. Why does ti:]s have to be a planned development?
Mr. Supin$~er explained t:hat the zoning presently on the property is
R-4 arid it could go in that zoning but the reason that this was done
was to cut down the time. They could submit the plans and get ap-
proval. With R-4 they would have tn get a Use Permit which they
could not until the annexation is completely through tile mill. They
discussed this witi~ us and decided on this approach.
!',r. SupLngcr went on to say that' the good thing about P-C was that
it ?,~ves the governing body a little more leeway and they know what
they are getting into be£ore they zone tl~e property.
,~:r. Ucfner - What development would there be at the rear of the
propeL'ty?
.~J~'. (ii. 1 Lman said the rear portion of the development is single story.
Mr. !(c~fner felt that it was the appropriate area for a hospital, but
tho,ght Lhat it shm~id bg looked at preaty thoroughly to see that it
is developed properly.
Nr. Siiarp questioned ti~e ('J.f.~er~_nce between the fi.J:,ures that they
h~ve seen recently wit;) the other hospital that was considered in
~'he area. lie wanted to knm~ if this fell pretty much in the same
statistical area as all the oLher hospitals.
Mr. Supinger said he did not thLnl¢ they would change too much.
:.:r. Sharp said he could not recall ail the statistics but that they
had deliberated for some weeks ou the other application and reviewed
the other statistics.
i.:r. Oster stated that he had a basic opinion diffcrc, nt from the
Commission. Santa Ana Cormnunity llospital really doesn't concern
me, but I think if they can get the finances for this hospital,
the economics are not important.
it was moved by Mr. Oster~ seconded by Nr. Halus that Resolution
No. 879 recommending that Application PZ-67-104 be ~ranted for the
following reasons:
1. The proposed prezoning conforms to the Tustin Area General Plan.
2. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at
the hearing are included by reference and made a part of the
motion.
3. That the suggestions of tho Fire Department and approval of the
Architectural Corm~ittee be complied with.
Planning Cc~uission blinutes
Harch 13, 1967 Page 13
l.'r. Hefner felt he could not go along with the motion made by
Mr. Oster nn,1 felt it would be wise to take another look at this
and take a little more time for further study.
Mr. Sharp agreed with ~;r. Hafner and state.4 ti%ay should take a
few more weeks to look at it and the needs and study with the
Orange County Plannlng Cor'missio~.. ][e ~.elt ti~ere were questions
tha~ needed to be answered on the flnar, ciai needs.
Chairm--n ?~arster,_: was in acco'.'¢~ with Mr. Sh,0rp and fir. llefner
feel i~H; tiaa'.' there :~ho~id 5e :~ore ti~.-e a/loweC for ~t~ldying certain
areas, lie p[airly ~t~ted ".P,~t ?.e was not against having a hospital
in the T,stin area, bet felt a ::~orc c~nple~'e study sho~,ld be made
before a ~=ecis~or ~s maoe.
The above motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes:
Bacon, Brand. Noes: Sharp, ['e~'ner, l:arsters.
Motion carried 4-3.
est,:r, t~ lus,
kbsent: None.
Dr. Castee[ spoke in behalf of tile ouher doctors thanking the
Commission and assuring them they would not be disappointed, be-
cause there was very definitely a need for a hospital in the
Tustin area.
5. UP-67-227 - Kenneth [linsvark
The construction of a service station at the northeast corner
of Newpor~ :\venue and Hain Street.
Hr. Supinger presented the ~ta£f report and rec~tmended denial
for the following reasons:
The Commission finds tPat ti~e establ3shment, maintenance
or operation of the use applied for will, under the circum-
stances of the particbLar c~se, be detrimental to the health,
safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of ~he persons
residi~.g or work,.'ng in ti~e neighborhood of the proposed use
and it would be injurious or detrimental to property and im-
provement~, in the neighborhood er to the general welfare of
the City.
2. The Conm~ission finds that ','here is an adequate number of
service stations iD the area to serve the needs of the public.
Orange County Planning Commission recommendations:
Tile pie-shaped lot, with the building and pump island placed
on its present position, does not appear to be large enough
for easy maneuvering of automobiles.
The approach located on Main Street near the intersection may
not be very useful and it would be, to some degree, a traffic
hazard when an automobile used it to go in a northeast direction
on blain Street.
Mr. II:~lus - asked if the staff had an epportunigy to cc~.,pare 'the
application with the proposed service station standards.
Mr. Supinger answered vas - one problem is the overhang of the
canopy. The size of the parki;~;; s,-~aces, they show 6' x 18' We
require 9' x 20 . We have not ;;one into as much detail as we
wo~,ld at the Architectur~ Co~:mittce meet'.'ng.
I. ir. Oster asked if ti,asa were ~;~.~ plans that were to be approved
this evening if tile C(~".:~iszio;~ is to reccnnmend this Use Permit.
Planning Co~nission Minutes Page
Hatch 13, 1967
Mr. Supinge. r said that ~h~ sk~'ff'would recon'm~end that the Conur, ission
would inclmle a provision that tile plans are not a part of the
approval and would be approved by the Architectural Gotm~ittee.
Mr. Supine:er :~aid that the minin'um site standards call for a
minimum 10,000 sq. ft. and a miniuum frontage of 100 feet.
Mr. Halus said it was his understanding that it is at least 100
to 150 ft. :'r. Supinger said tha~ was incorrect.
Chairmnn Yarstero asked ;;ithin how many wiles are these 16 stations.
Mr. Supin.~:er said he weuld say apprcxil:ately one (1) mill~, but it
runs from Sycamore Street to Wass. Nr. Brand corrected Mr. Supinger
on the "mile~,'' stating he believed it was closer to three (3) miles.
Cl:airman ~.;ar~lers opened the hearini~ to the public at lO:15 P.M.
};r. Ken,:eth I{insvark, ?724 N. Bristol, Santa \ne, - Applicant -
said this was in escrow to purchase the five (5) acres bounded
by N.uin and Newport. He stated that if they could get a Conditional
Use l'ermit for this corner, they plan to develop it with a commercial
shopping center in a C~I zone.
£;r. Hinsvark mentioned the fact that [;r. O'Cai, built :;J{~glc family
homes in the area ;,nd since then he ha:; gone into the Shopping Center
i)cvelopmcnt. We have come in only on tile plans for tim service
station corner, if the size is not sufficient we can increase the
size to what ever size you ..:ould require. It' is hard for t,s to
conceive of a better service station corner and a shopping center
will be developed next to it. I can noz see what detriment it would
he. With a service statJo9 on ~he corner you would [lave [letter
visibility than if a larger structure was there. ] believe tile only
objection is that ti:ere is apparently no existing justification for
it because of the other ~ervice sl:ations in the area. Should you
legis!azc competition? ] don'~ think this is ,'he proper province
of the Planning Commission. Unlc,.;s ;,: is so bad that it will create
a blight of service stations going ~ut of business. For the last
six (6) months I have bee~ hearing that business is bad from every-
body. As far as the service stations being grouped along Newport,
I think that' is a result of your zo~ing policies. I (1o not fee].
that this service station being located i~ere wi. ll fail. The Gulf
Oil Company will go along with x.'[:at ~he .\rchitectural Co~:::;~ttec
des i re s.
.X;r. Fred West, Gulf Oil representative,' 666 East 17th .qtre~t, Santa
Ina - The Company of Gulf Oil Corporation has run quite a business
survey in Tustin and this corner is basically the last possibility
to get into Tustin. We imve many credit card holders in Tustin and
no piece in Tustin to buy their gas. We have planned for the
Spanish motif which w~[l fit in with the Tustin area. The corner
is called a "gore" corner and it seems to feasibly fit this type
of property. I feel that the designed station is quite attractive.
There being no other c~nments or objections Chairman Marsters de-
clared the hearing closed at 10:25 P.M.
:.~r. Sharp - Mr. i[insvark gave new information that I did not find
in the :.;tall report, lie asked if there were some planned commercial
standards for parcels of fi.ve (5) acres or more that wc could re-
view. He reel',tinned that the work ti~ey had done on tile Thrifttmart
was the reason ;,e remembered Jr, because the applJcant wanted to
bring in a liquor store and wanted to know if this put tile present
application in the same category.
Mr. Supinger said to !lis knowledge, there is no reqnirement to
submit an overall plan.
Planning C~.l, ission i.2inutes
March 13, 1967
Page 15
fir. Sharp - mentioned that i~e felt that riley should look at the
lor. g range plln. Mr. Svoinv, er explained th:,t the "Thrifttmart"
appli, ca{'ion was submitted before he was employed with the City
and tiler be did not remember it ever being before the Architect-
urn] Cot:m,i{tee since he has been here.
:.ir. Sharp felt that the ay?tall gro~.th sitoul.d be approved, and
thought it was a little premature for tile Con~nission to review
this phase.
fir. O:;tcr a?ined that h(; rec'~]lcd the Cormni};sion's discuss[on with
the Thrifcimart an.~ felt {:}tat the Ccmmission sh,~uld I',ave the oppor-
tun{ty to review the ~,hole plan as far as the merit of this appli-
cation a,d Lile economic =~usti£ic~t~on. l{e felt that it looks like
a good location for a service station, lie went ahead to say that
he had no objection to the service ,,;ration per se, but would go
along with what the Commission wanted ,~o do.
;.:r. Ilalus felt that ;,Ir. Oster was premature in thinking that a
service station was alright at this location and said he would
beg to side step tile economic justific;ltion if at all possible
bvt did not feel this was an appropriate location for a service
station bec..~use of Ills concern of tile traffic flow. lle commented
that he was completely i.n accord with !.ir. Sharp's co~anents, if
this ,~rea was to develop in this manner. He did not want to see
a piece-meal type of development.
i,:r. Rovrke fe]t that tile number of stations in the City should be
taken irto cons{deter%on, lie stated that the property is presently
zoned C-I and to deny or upprove the Use Permit is what this is
for tonight
iqr. Oster - ,\s far as I can see, there is no reference here tonight
that !.hi:; was a part of the development as far as con~idering long
range plan. We }lave establlshed a precedent for that. I feel it
is a basic plan rather than piece-meal.
Mr. llinsv?.rk asked what tile precedent was.
Hr. Rovr3:e explained t~at £ir.=t the application will be ruled by
the Planning Commission. If this is ,': part of o f~ve (5) acre
plan, they would prefe'.' co see a proposed develop~aent plan for
the winole five acres submitted.
i:r. Bacon - I wou]d like I:o see the plan too, b~t maybe at this
time they will develop this corner but it will be five (5) years
before it will all be developed.
fir. Sharp said he did not feel that it was going to take that long
to develop the five (5) acre parcel and stressed that tile Commission
needs I'o see some indication of parking and other things of this
nature.
14r, llefner directing a statement to fir. IIinsvark said tile reason
we request that tile City Council require a Use Permit for the
service station is so that tile Commission can have some control.
I think our fear originally was too many service stations being
in Tustin. I don't see that we need any more. We are going tc
have problems because it is detrimental to tile welfare of the City.
Chairrm~n I. iarsters voiced his opinion of concern with the over-
saturation of service stations and felt the City did not need
another one. Mr. Marst'ers brou;%i~t vp tile Orange County's Plan-
ning Cc, mlission disapproval of it' being a traffic hazard when
an automobile used it to go in a northeast direction on Main St.
Planning Commission 1.;inute:; Page 16
biarch 13, 1967
l.:r. llinsvarl< commented that riley ,.Jet'e located where [:here are
sufficie,t grocery stores, however, they have the advt,ntage of
being ncro~s the street frota Latvia Square so it will probably
go into a ~ype of ha:'dware or furniture stores and c~piiment
tim covm:m:ity r:hopping center. We have been negotiating for
this land for s~e time and the land has been laying there dormant,
If I subset n plan to yet, ft will call for a service station on
that corner so if yen do mot want one there, then deny it now.
blt. Sh,-.rp ~olzl :.;r. liin.';vark !:.~,'~a he :..t~der,~tooc[ ,:hat, but the thing
he was pushi,i.; fo:' is toe prb,ciFal o? having a long range develop-
meat in p:lrcels for five (5) .,cran o.'-more.
It was moved hv ;.ir. Hefr'er~ ne__eonde.__d by t;r. Halus timt .\ppltcation
UP-67-727 ~or the Dnvelopment of a Service Station be denied for
for thc £otlov.,b~q reasons:
The Comt. d. ssion f[llds that the establishment, mains'chance or
operation o~: tile uae appi. ied for will, under tile circumstances
of the particular case, be detrimental to ti~e [lealth, safety,
morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or
working in the neighborl:ood of the proposed use and it would be
in iuriovs or detrimental te property and improvements in the
neighborilood or to the general welfare of the City.
2. The Col:'m[ssion finds that there is ~m adequate number of
service stations in the area [.o serve the needs of the public.
The shove mOtiOn was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Hafner, [lalus,
>:::rsLers. Noes: Silarp, Oster, 1½::con, Brand. Il>sent None.
Sharp ::anted to clarify If}roi' tho al~o%'e vole?., did not mt. an they
voting "~o" to the service
'ri '.:::s :'eyed .,v Xr. Sharp, secondcLd bv l','. ilah:s th,ti ApplicaLion
11P-67-'~27 i:e returned tn I'hc 2lanni,m. Cor:nH ss ion at lbo earl l. e:;t
OLD
BUSINESS
po.~si:,lo d:l,.v v:['.h .~ lon~; ranl,.e piln of ,.:tlc t. otai are;: of five
acres ;:i:h :il ;.he faail!.t:ie:¢ il:clud.;d o:i the pr?.pcrt': for review.
The above mot:on w'm ye"ed by Rell Coil: .'yes: Sil;-,rp, [lerner,
llalus, i,ar:;lars. .':oes: Os:'er, Bacon, Brand. 14eLlen carried ~-3.
After i..r. Ilinsv:~rk s*~id he (lid not understand, i;r. Sharp clarified
tile riot[on by saying that the Iifng he wa~; after was that there is
n principal involved and a complex parcel of five (5) acres is
goipg to be developed and felt that it really should be considered
all at one rime so the overall plan can be reviewed. Those timt
are done that way appear so, wi~en they are completed.
l. lr. Oster - If the Co~mnission could consider a posit:.ve statement
to that effect, I don't think it is fair for an applicant to come
in here without understanding. The Planning Director should be
advised to explain this to all applicants In that respect.
:ir. Shard said he did not want to completely discourage a developer
in the Tustin area and we should try to stamp out that kind of
impression in the interest of the City and the applicant.
fir. H~.lus stated that he would like to state his position clearly,
saying that he did not feel that the City needs another service
station at this time.
NONE
Planning Co~ission }iinutes Page 17
March 13, 1967
VI.
NEW
BUSINESS
VII.
CORRESPOND-
ENCE
NONE
1. V-66-1S9 - Clyde Stockdaie
Request for a one (l) year extension.
l:r. Supinger presented a brief staff report and recoi:u,iended
a final six (6) n~onl:h exte~'~';io;~.
In answer to flr. Halus's qaestior., i'r. StJpinger said it was
zoned E-L ','itl' access co:n~ng ~, ~:r~m i,;yr~le Street.
It was moved by :ir. Hefner? seconded by }ir. Sharp that V-66-169
be granted a?proval of a final six (6} mon;h extension.
Motion carr'ied.
2. Letter f.r~;~ i.:r. S,~!mi Re: Veterinary Hospitals in C-1
Districts.
I.;r. Supit~er said the main reason for this ordinance was to
provide the facility where most used by t?.e ;ublic and provides
a more restrictive ordinance to ensure a better hospital.
;-;r. Oster asked if, in Larwin Square we wanted to put a small
animal hospital could we put it there.
Mr. Supin~er answered yes to the question but said under the
new ordinance it would be more restricti.ve.
Dr. Stanton - Tustana knima[ ;lospltal, 1192 Laguna Road, Tt,stin -
stated that it was non-conforming wi~en he was annexed to the City.
l':r. Sup~nBe~ said the goo~ ti~fr.g abo,t it, is when he increases
the s~ze of the present use he would bring it into conformance
with the new ordinar, ce.
!.ir. !{alus asked ff this wa~ modified for each individual's appli-
C~1 t i on.
Mr. Supqr. ger commented that the staff did not feel theft the C-2
zone belongs in that location. He could do a p~ece-meal job in
increasing the size of his facility, lie could go on being a non-
conforming use forever, but he wants to conform to the ordinance
as proposed.
Mr. Sharp asked Y~r. Supin8er who wrote the proposed ordinance.
l. lr. Supinger replied that it was drafted based on the study that
be did, in the previous City in which he worked. At the time the
Commission did not want to add this as a specific use.
~':r. Sharp stated that he would like more time to review it and
felt that rm~ybe a month from now would be sufficient time limit
to review it again~
F:r. Supinger said the reason for the letter from l, ir. Salmi was in hopes
that it would result in your advertising it for public hearing and we
would go from there.
~;r. Bacon asked Dr. Stanton if he was in favor of upgrading these
kennels in this ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes Page
March 13, ]967
VIII.
OTHER
BUSINESS
IX
ADJOURN-
MENT
Dr. SLantou saL~l yes, "I thinl¢ we could make some statements to
make iF a little more workable. 1 think the Veterinary profession
ns :~ wh~le, ,',s ind~cal'cd th~ Souti~ern California on similar
type ordinances wi~ere w(~ are residing, (~re rather severe restrict-
ion~; in some areas. We know that we have a service that is de~nding,
therefore, we have to re~pece ours~lves and upgrade our facilities.
We are very much ~n favor of tkis.':
~.]r. Oster ask¢'d if th~re was at: i~]'.mediate need right now.
I)r. Stqntotl - ~.?i~e~ 1 t'iiked witl, l-;r. Supinger to renovate some
chqnges J~t the building, I was quite sho¢:kell to learn it would
take six (6) r.%onths, lie would ask for atlything that might
exlledite this.
Mr. O~;ter - a:~ked if there was any reason we could not go through
tho variance for this.
l.'.r. Roi:rko answered by saying be felt tills would be one of those
cases that if the Plauning Co~mission determined it ,.:auld be a
hardship ti:eh we could grant a variance.
lt. was moved by Mr. Oster) seconded bv ;.[r. Bacon that the Planning
Director schedule a public hear int~,, date for the Amendment to Zoning
Ordin,'~nce [~¢.~. 157 for SmaLl Animal iiospit;ils, Veternitlarv Clinics
and Kennels) .u~d th.at ti~e Planning Director work with the ,applicant
of the hospital for his particular problem necessary, that he has
at the present time. ;.;otion carried.
Mr. Supiuj~er informed the Commission ti~at it would take approximately
lc)ur (4) r.o?.ths to complete thc amendment. One mont:b to get through
the Commission, another month for the City Council and then a month
before it becon~es effective.
i.'r. Sh,'trp suggested tl'.at the public hearing for the variance and
thc amendment not be :reid on the same eveni:,g.
The above motion was vo.~ed by Roll Call: ,\yes: Oster, Sharp,
llefner, :{alas, Bacon, BC&nd, '~arstars. Noes: None. \bsent: None
None
It was moved by Mr. Sharp) ~econ¢led by :.;r. Bacon that the meeting
be adjourned. "etlon carried.
There being no other business before the Planning Commission, the
meeting adjourned at 11:18 P.M.
SECRETARY
f/ CH\IP~iAN /