Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-13-67minutes of a regular meeting tustin planning commission february 13, 1967 CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. .\PPROV~L OF h~INUTES IV. f'UBLIC HEARINGS Ti~e meeting was called to order at 7:38 P.M., by Chairman }la~ stets. Present: Commissioners: Bacon, Halt,s, }~arsters, Hafner, Sharp, Oster. Absent: Cc~mnts s loners: Drand Others Present: James Rourke, City Attorney l~rry E. Gill, City Administrator James L. Supinger, Planning Director Jo Ann Tumor, Planning Secretary It was moved by Mr. Sharp, sec_o3ded by Mr. Hefn~.~__.tb~.5~% minutes of the Janm~ry 23, 1967 meeting be approv~_d__as mailed. }lotion carried. 1. V-67-178 - BETKER CONSTRUCTION CORP. To permit on the front one-half of the lot, an accessory structure (carport) which is not connected to a ~in building and which does not meet the side y.lr~ set~mk requirements for amain building in the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential District:) and a zero foot side yard setback for carport along the south boundary line of subject property. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report snd reco~nend,tions of the oti%er departments and commented that if the comu~ssion feels tha~ adequate justification exists to grant a the Planning Department would not oppose said approval. Chairman }~rsters opened the hearing to the public at 7:45 P.~i. }ir. Rup_s.6J~ 3at',~.r., President of Betker Construction Corp., co~,~,,ended tlc doT, r~mants o£ the City for their well recom- mended cases as to why this variance should be granted. He stated that there was not much more to add to the unless anyone else had any questions. Mr. Oster asked Mr. Barker if this property was directly ad- jacent to the }lei Ling apartments and Mr. Betker answered Yes. }ir. Hefner asked if this had been discussed with the Fire Department and }Ir. Barker said it had. }ir. Barker went ahead to say that they had no jurisdiction over the property to the south, but they did have some Juris- diction as to what to do with the driveway to the Mai Ling apartmmnts and were willing to go ahead with the recommend- ation made by the Fire Department. .Mr. Sam Hudsins, 0%mer of the property, opposed the request and wanted to know what the reason for this was based on. }ir. Betker- I feel that to pull the carports off and attach them to the main building is no problem, but the basic reason ts such a small area that we feel it is of no use. It is simply wasted. I think the Co,~,ission will recognize this. -1- Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 1967 Mr. Hudsi.ns asked how this compared with it now. Mr. SupinF~er stated that he did not have the exact figures, but it has been checked and is definitely within the specified requirements. He explained Chat they have an approved plan right now for the same number of units, but it is somewhat modified. }:r. Supinger sunmnad it up by saying that as far as the Planning Staff is concerned, they are within the bou~is of the ordinance. }tr. Hudgin~ asked h~¢ the dens icy compared with Tustin. Mr.. SupinKer = The proposal has a density of 30 to 31 units per acre. It is a little bit lower than Tustin Arms and is comparable to them. Mr. Douglas, representing the applicant, stated that anything that he would have to say would only be repetitious after all the other reports, but did add that if this sams five (5) ft. setback was enforced it would clear a ten (10) ft. wide all~y which would be essentially a "no man's land". He felt that open parking in front of the property was not a good idea because it is unsightly. When people park in front of the apartments, it may create difficulty in other tenants reaching their garage. This proposal would give us five (5) ft. of more space for the driveway that would allow for maintenance and fire trucks. Mr. Greenwood, co-owner of the property, said regarding the legal terminology, he realized that officially to grant a variance you have to have a legal reason, and one of the reasons for granting a variance would be "strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classsfication." }~ stated that this was the primary legal reason that this variance is justified. When this application came in, a different interpretation stated that we could not do that and that is why we are applying for this variance tonight. There being no further objections or c~,m,ents Chairman }~rsters declared the hearing closed at 8:00 P.M. Mr. Sharp said that they had mentioned the problems of the five (5) ft. setback but wanted to know what they intended to do with the one (1) ft. setback. Mr. Backer - W~en we build a building we have private patios on the first floor and we plan on using that one (1) ft. for that purpose. We will extend the fence to the dead wall. Mr. Hales asked Mr. Hudgins if he had any objections to Chis application. Mr. Hudgins said he still felt that he would object because of the other properties. Mr. Oster asked how many units there was to this property and was answered eighty-six (86). Mr. Betker- I know as a builder that this has always been a problem when you have this one (1) ft. You put the carport one (1) foot away and that would mean we would have a two (2) foot area ~len the same thing is do~e on the adjacent -2- Planning Co~,isslon Minutes February 13, 1967 proper."y. We have a drainage area that we can not get away from. We want to minimize the maintenance problem. It was moved by }ir... Oster~ .~econded by Mr. Sharp that Resolution No. 874~. V-67-178 be llranted for the followin~ reasons: That tile adjustment hereby authorized will not constitut2 a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation~ upon other properties in the vicinity and district in vhich the subject property is situated. e That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance will deprive subject property of privi- leges enjoyed by other properties in'the vicinity and m-der identical zone classification. That as a condition of the granting of this variance, the Tustin Fire Department approve the plans prior to con~truction. The above mo~ion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Fafnir, Mars~ers, Halus, Bacon. Noes: None. Absent: Brand. }lotion carried 6°0. }ir. l~alus requested a report for the Planning Commissioners on Section 5.15 as it pertains to these situations. I.:r. Hq.~.i~s said that he was afraid that the people next to these apar::.%cnts would do the same thing and it reminded him of what the aplirtments look like in Newport Beach. 2. LW-67-173 - S:~ZLING BROILER To permit a second free-standing pole sign in a co,mmrcial co:,~plex. Location of said sign is to be on the north sid.~ of Sevente:ath Street at the intersection of Yorba Street~ and ia the location of existing building ~17391 Seventeenth Street. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that the basic conditions have not changed and the applicants are not able to show that there is a hardship. Recommendation was for denial of UV-67-179. Chairman Marsters opened the hearing to the public at 8:12 P.M. }ir. Ed. Agnew, Federal Sign and Signal Corp.- I have talked with Mr. Supinger, the Planning Director and have great respect for him but we do not agree with his opinion. ~e Union Oil Company, directly across the street from us have three (3) pole signs and next to that is the Cai-Va-Dairy with two (2) pole signs. I have nine (9) photographs here, one ia of the Union Oil Co. and Cai-Va-Dairy with others that I would like for you gentlemen to see. Our company erected a sign that your honorable body granted ~o Red ];ill Realty. This particular application is not for tile front property, bn: , , ie(~t back. The restaurant is actually a separate bui. ld.;~g and is enclosed with stone walls. In re~ards to the background of this, I came in late, but invest- igated and at this time we ara asking for a sign that complies with the Ordinance. The only thing wrong is that it does not allow for two (2) signs. I think we are entitled to the same privileges as the people across the street. Planning C¢.,.;.ission Minutes February 13, 1967 }M. }~rsters, after reviewing the photographs that Mr. Agnew presented, stated that he noticed six (6) of them boing in Santa Ans. Mr. Agnew said that there were numerous signs in this vicinity also. There being no further discussion or co,,~ents the hearing was declared closed at 8:20 P.M. }ir. ~alus pointed out to }ir. Agnew that this is the reason the staff has worked so long and hard on the Sign Ordinance and he fully agrees with the staff report. Ne stated that he could see no new reasons for granting this particular variance and felt ti:at the Planning Commission has made it quite clear that they are serious about the signs. Ne also felt that it would not fit into a "hardship" case, and was a little annoyed about the constant repetition on variances. Mr. Hefner asked }ir. Supinger if it had been discussed with the applicant as to what he is allowed in the building signs and }ir. Supinger assured him that it had. Mr. Supinger went on to say that it had been discussed with more than one sign company and seems to be something that they would rather not consider. }ir. Hefner said he agreed with Mr. l~lus and did not feel that the variance should be granted. }ir. Slmr~ asked }ir. Supinger to clarify his statement that the applicant is not being deprived of any privileges. Er. Supinger's su~anary of his rec~,m,endation was this: My feeling is that non-conforming signs are not a reason for granting a variance, or creating a hardship. The other signs are legal because they were granted under the old Sign Ordinance at the time so the~ have a right to stay. They are not denied privileges of the others in the area because of others in the Shopping Center. This is my basic reason. It was moved by }ir. Hefner~ seconded by }ir. Halus that Appli- cation No. 15;-67-179 be denied for the foll~{in~.reasons: 1. The subject property is not deprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity; The granting of the subject application would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. The above motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Hefner, }Mrscers, Halus, Bacon. Noes: None. Absent: Brand. Mr. Supinger informed the applicants that they can appeal their case to City Council within five (5) calendar days of the Planning Co~ulssion hearing. 3. Ai.~ND}iENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 157 To permit a caretaker's apartment incidental to a small animal hospital. }ir. Supinger presented the staff report and reminded the Com- mission that after the January 9th meeting, the staff was directed to prepare an ordinance for public hearing. ~ felt after the public hearing this evening it would be appropriate to recommend the proposed ordinance to the City Council for adoption. -4- Planning Commission Minutes Februnry 13, 1967 }iF~ Supinger said that the purpose of this ordinance was to have someone on hand at the hospital to give medication to the anin~ls when the doctor is not there. 14r. Supinser then read the comments frdm.the Orange. County Planning Departmmnt stating that their zoning code does not permit any type of residential use other than hotels and motels in any of the co.~mrmrcial districts. There are com- mercial establishments with living quarters in existence throughout the County. However, they were in existence or had building permits taken out prior to February 11, 1964 when The County Zoning Code was amended to prohibit residential uses with commercial uses. ::r. Oster asked Mr. Supinger after reading the County's letter, if this meant they were for it or against it. }~r. Supinger replied that the County was just expressing their opinion in generality. He stated that Tustin also prohibited other residences in the commercial district and this would essentially be limited to caretaker's apartments. Chairman }iarsters opened the hearing to the public at 8:30 P.M. There being no discussion from the audience the hearing was declared closed at 8:31 P.M. }:r. Halus felt that since this had been previously discussed at the January 9th meeting that this was just a formal way of amending the particular ordinance. It was moved by I.;r. Halus~ seconded by Mr. Oster that Resolution No. 875 for the Amendment to ZoninK Ordinance No. 157 be recom- mended to the City Council for adopgion. }ir. He fner expressed his feeling on the matter that we are putting the Zoning Ordinance in effect for the one hospital (Dr. Seretti) that is located on First Street. He felt that there should be so~mthing to review before putting this on a permanent basis. Hopefully this would limit it to just care- taker's purposes, ~:r. Su~inser agreed with }~r. Hefner and said he had a good point but would like to clarify this by saying, "an animal hospital already requires a Use Permit and must be reviewed by the Planning Commission". Mr. Sharp expressed concern as to ~]ether this might establish a precedent and perhaps others would come in saying that a pharmacist might claim that if someone came in at 2:00 A.M. asking for a proscription to be filled, stating that it was an emergency if there wouldn't be a slight problem. He felt that the applicant might be establishing a precedent. 2';r. SupinKer said he personally did not feel that it would, but the Commission would have to make this decision. If they are permitted in other districts, in order to do this they would have to come before the Planning Co,,m, ission, but he did not feel that it would present a dangerou~ precedent. Mr. Sharp wanted to know if the Commission had granted a Use Permit just recently to allow this in Tustim. .~:r... Supin.ger said not to his knowledge, although Dr. Seretti did come before the C~-,,mission because he wanted to construct such an apartment. Mr. Sharp wanted to know the mm~ber of veterinary hospitals we had now in Tustin and Mr. Supinger said Three (3). -5- Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 1967 }:r. ilefner co~,.-mented on I.;r. Supinger's statement and asked if it required a Use Permit for such an adventure. 1.2r. Supingar answered by saying under permitted uses, a Use Permit is required for all that canes in this gro~,p. If it was not es-~ablished at the same time, it would require a new Use Permit. ','n other words, a veterinary ,~ospital without the apartment wou'id require a Use 'Fermit, then later if an apartment was permitted it too would require a Use Permit. The above motio;] was voted ky Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Hafner, Halus, Bacon, Marsters. Noes: None. Absent: Brand. }:o~ion carried 6--0. Chairman }~rsters called a five minute recess. 4. PZ-67-103 - APPLIC\TION OF Tile IRVINE COMPANY Prezoning of the property bounded by Red Hill Avenue, Walnut Avenue, Navy Way and the AT & SF Spur Track to · "P-C" Planned Ccmmunity and approval of Development Plan for said property. i, lr. Supin~er prescnted ~he staff report, explaining the Existing Conditions, Proposed Zoaing and Uses, Land Use Breakdown, Surrounding Conditions, Departmental C~.m~nts and recommended that it be bent to the City Council for adoption. Mr. Supinger then read a letter from the Marine Corps Air Base, E1 Toro (Santa Ana), signed by Col. E. G. Glidden, Jr., Commander, opposing such zoninF,. A letter from Commissioner Harry Brand was read s~'ating his comments and feelings on this application in.his absence. Letters from the OranF, e County Planning, voicing no opposition and tile Orange County Flood Control District was ~aad for the audience and tile benefit of the public. Commissioner Hafner disqualified himself from any discussion because of conflict of interest due to his employment. Chairman :.karsters o'~ened tile hearinil to the public at 8:45 P.M. }ir. Dick Reese, irvine Co., stated ,'hat he would be glad to answer any questions and gave a presentation along with ex- hibits. He explained that tl.e area is presently zoned for Residential Agricultural. The proposed P-C zone also provides for single family developmen~ and is in keeping ~'fth the type of zoning. Nr. Reese indicated that the exhibit on the wall in Area i represents a more conventional subdivision - Area 6 is slightly higher density for single family and Area 8 is even a little higher density. Area 6 reflects row-house types ~lere the open green space might blend in with the neighbor- hood park. Area 8 might reflect with ti~e railroad, and flood control. Tile organization of the P-C zone follows this general pattern. The zoning reflects the fact that there is a minimum difference regarding whether it is side yard or rear yard. They are comparable to the area planned in your normal standard ordinance. l';e intend ~o file the Tentative Tract }lap and at that time we will be glad to review with you tile entire 189 acres. We are also develop£ng design criteria for new h~,e design. This in- cludes land planned for tile total c~nmunity such as street trees and landscaping. I would like to point ou~ that this is in the P-C proposal. -6- Planning Commission i'-inutes February 13, 1967 Mr. Rcese mentioned in Commissioner Brand's letter that he h,nd voiced concern over ~'he inadequate school situation and said that they were wor]~ing with the~e school districts now, to build a new jt, nior High School. Col. C. L. Br[~,ht, Co:mnandin;.: Officer - stated that the }karine Corps strongly objects to this application. He stated that to change the existing zoning, it would be a problem for the safety and welfare to the public. He described the hazards of all types of aircraft and showed panels, explaining aircraft crashes which occur in proximity within five (5~ miles. Col. Bright referred to a Supreme Court statement which said "if zoning is reasonable it will be upheld in court." l{e mentioned the accident at Leisure World and pointed out that this is what would happen someday in this present land develop- ment - he did not know when, but it would happen. He said that they had no way of predicting or preventing this. lie felt that something better could be worked out that we could all live with. He stated his reasons why they cannot seem to work out a decision with the Irvine Company. Tile Irvine Company l~as every right to develop this land, there seems to be no question of that. What can the ilarine Corps do? We can be careful. We are flying these airplanes and we have good pilots but still on occasion, they crash. 1~ can and we will take every precaution to prevent these crashe~, but I ti~ink this indicates that ti%ere is a hazard proximity with resident's hoar, es. In this instance, the changing of the flight pattern would not have a tremendous effect on tills piece of land. We can depend upon high density traffic. The final factor is the kind of money you are willing to spend to build a new runway. The action of tile zoning is public wel- fare, Ti%e value in 1942 was arot,nd two million dollars as it stands. To removc it to San':a Aha would cost between eighty and ninety million dol;ars. Finally when we considdred what else could be done - we came to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission and City Co.ncil have the final say on what can or cannot be done. The ?ustin Area General Plan is a good plan - let it be said that we feel a part of Tustin. We are making our plans on tile ass~nption that it will grow and realize it's full potential. There are limits to what the Irvine Company can do and w'nat the l,;arine Corps can do and the decision rests upon you. Why doesn't the i.:arine Corps buy it? This is not tile issue before the house - the question is on zoning. Col. Bright closed by saying, they intended to continue to dis- cuss these matters that revolve around living together in the same area and hopefully will come up with something. There it is gentlemen - our reasons for opposing the plan. -7- Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 1967 ~.~r. \rthur Nisson, land o~-ner, "I i]ave a few questions base([ upong the fact that I have twenty (20) acres across from Red Hill. ~.~e are forced at thi~; time to consider other uses besides orange groves for this property. We have grown oranges for the past fifty (50) years and it is a dead loss each year. We are faced with becoming one of the last groves for residential areas. .'. mobilehcme park might: be a suitable use Co this ;,rea. ~.!e would propose to come in about i0 units to ti~e acre. We have no definite plans yet and would like for the Commission to consider this. Would [tv[ne oppose this? .\re they going to sell or lease their land? Where are they going to start?" We are s~,pathetic witi~ the blarine Corps but it does occur to us that there is a risk any where you do it. It is true, that no Government agency has enough money to buy enough land to make it reasonably safe, according to what you call reasonable. };r. Reese answering ::he questions asked previously by Mr. Nisson, said ti[at their intent was to basically lease tile land and they would comnm,]ce opposite Sycamore and go northerly to Walnut. ;';r. Rease complimented Col. Bright and the Marine Corps for their cooperation on the planning of the East 'rustle co,m~unity. He also staled that ti,e Irvine. Co., is withholding any action for land use on any other area pending the completion of studies with the r.:ilitary. 2.;r. Reesc opined that the C{ty and County staff say that there is no conflict with the adopted General Plan. There being no further con~.ments or objections, Chairman l,~ar~ters closed the hearing at 9:30 P.M. Oster asked if there was any problem with the Orange Cou~ty Flood Control and M:'. Supinger said that there wasn't. ¥.r. [!alus said the point ha:.: been made of the cnrrent zoning based on -~he ?-C. WI:at is the average lot area? :<r. Reese said it would average approximately 6500 sq. ft. per lot and dwelling. Mr. ilalus asked if they took the total area under consideration would riley come out with Less than that. Mr. Reese answered No, in fact it would be more titan 7200. We feel that the open space and public park is much more meaninsful than the extra feet on each lot. It can result in an equally good living environment. ~;r. Oster commented that we }]ave reached a point of dilemma and doomed if we do and (loomed if wc don't. I am not in favor of taking that zoning away from them. The density involved does not include ~.he risk. I think it is a good project. I:' was moved by :.:r. qster, seconded by :.:r. Bacon that the General Plan be amended from \gricultural to Medium ])ensJtv Residential and that the Commission adoRt Resolution No. 876 recommending \pplication PZ-67-103 be g, ranted for the followinF, reasons: 1. That the proposed plans would conform to tile Tustin ,\rea General Plan as amended. 2. The m~nute:; and evidence made at the hearing be included by reference and m~de a part of th(~ motion. 3. Tha~ the site develoMnent standards submitted wtth the PZ-67-103 be :~dop'~ed. -8- Planning Commiss£on Minutes February 13, 1967 OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. CORRESPONDENCE :<r. Rourke stated that the Planning Commission is here to determine what is a feasible use for that property. Chairman ~:arscers asked Col. Bright if they could change their flight patterns. Col. Bri:~,ht said that the flight pattern you see going out is not. the pri~rmry problem and mentioned that he had flown several days ago and was still right above the Walnut school. It is almost impossible to stay out of the dead-man's curve. Yes, we can change our flight pattern but what worries us is the effect of the aircraft flying around that falls. We can- not foresee where the aircraft is going to fall. l.:r. Sharp opined that the lrvine property could proceed with- out any additional approval and Mr. Supinger said the only approval that would be required is the subdivision map. i.!r. Shard wanted to know if it should be a P-C development or allowed to go a "piece-meal" R-1 development. bir. Supinger explained that the land could not be brought into the City ~R, but without prezoning the land would co~e in as Unclassified, and would require a Use Permit. The above motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: ~iarsters, llalus, Bacon. Noes: None. Absent: }~r. Hefner. Motion carried 5-0. Oster, Sharp, Brand. Abstained: NO~ POSSIBLE ;C-:~;D}hENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RE: ACCESSORY STRUCTERE ON THE FRONT ONE-II\LF OF THE LOT. ].;r. Supinger informed the Commission that they may want to set up a workshop on this matter and could possibly discuss, it hatter. ~,:r. Halus stated that he would like more time to study this and };r. Oster concurred. 1. TRACT MAP 6110 Extension of Tract l.~'r. Supinser gave a brief report reco,m~ending that a one (1) year extension be granted. }ir. Halus wanted to know the basis for the extension and mentioned that in the letter from the property owner, there was no reason given for the request. ¥~r. Hefne. ragreed with Mr. Halus and opined that he could not see any adverse harm in extending this if it was re- quired, but felt that there should be some reason for the request. It was moved by i<r. Hefner, seconded bv ~,;r. Qster that Tentative Tract :.;ap 6110 be granted a one year extension. Motion carried 6-0. 2. LETTER FROM MRS. FORSTER Re: Trailer Sales and Services etc., in C-1 District. -9- Planning Commission }[~nutes February 13, 1967 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS IX. AD JOURA~EN T :qr. Sup[nger informed the Conm~ission that Mrs. Forster had asked that u'.nis item i:e delayed due to her not being able to attend tonight's meeting. \RC:i] TECTUR \L C0:-2'i] T FEE :':gE lINGS Mr. Supinize__r tobl the Co;nz:Jssion that in the interest of better serving the public, he would lkie to schedule the .%rchitectural Comm...ittee meetings more frequently. He stated that he felt it was not necessary to call a meeting everyti~;e :, plan was submitted b,t did feel that once a week would be sufficient and ~,t the most, the developer would not have to walt over one week for their approval. :.;r. Sharp asked if the increase in volumn was the reason for this request or was there an increase and Mr. Supznger said, no more than usual, but felt that it would be difficult to hold a tir,~e open for meetings if it was not scheduled, because at times the plans did sometimms come in bunches. It was agreed by Mr. Supinger, }:r. Sharp and }:r. Bacon that tile Architectural Committee meeting would hold a regularly scheduled meeting on each Friday of the week unless otherwise notified. It was moved by ~.:r. Bacon? seconded by Mr. Oster that the meeting be adiourned. };orion carried There being no other business before the Planning Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:17 P.M. / S ECI~ET,kRY -I0-