Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-24-66MINUTES OF A REGULAR TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 1966 me · CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M., by Chairman Marsters. Present: Commissioners: Brand, Bacon, }talus, Marsters, Hefner, Sharp, Oster Absent: Commissioners: None Others Present: James Rourke, City Attorney James Supinger, Planning Director Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary It was ~oved by Mr~ Sharp,...seconded by..Mr. Oster,.th~t mhe minutes of t~ October 10. 1966. meeting .be aoproved a~ mailed. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN To consider the adoption of the Tustin Area General Plan. Said plan is a proposed guide to the growth and develop- ment of the twenty square mile Tustin Planning Area. Mr. Supinger presented a brief summary of what the proposed General Plan was and recommended that it be sent to the City Council for adoption. He stated that he thought it was sig- nificant that we are holding this hearing tonight because it is the first time that there has been such a plan. He then introduced Mr. Ted Adsit, Consultant to give a more detailed report of the Plan. Mr. Ted kdsit explained that approximately three (3) years ago the Tustin City Council decided to start a program for the de- velopment of the City's first General Plan by naming a Citizens Committee to work with the City staff in developing a plan. He commented that the General Plan program was divided into four (4) phases: Phase I - Community Goals and Objectives Phase II - Research and Forecast Phase III - General Plan Elements and Adoption Phase IV - Plan Implementation He said this was the first step in bringing about this type of a multiple area and that the plans represent dreams for the community and was very soundly based economically. He said as the plan was presented this evening, we have some 40,000 people and the ultimate will be lO0,O00. Mr. Adsit, then turned the program back to Mr. Supinger, with Mr. Tosh Ishikawa assisting in showing and explaining maps and slides on Land Use, Zoning and Goals and Objectives. Mr. Supinger said that the ultimate population was 100,000, although he did not think it would reach that by 1981 but may reach 72,000. -1- Planning Minutes - 10/24/66 Park slides were then shown, indicating a need for a neighbor- hood park per each 4,000 people and five (5) community parks totaling ]50 acres. Mr. Supinger said one of our major pro- posals was to utilize the land on those sites at times when they are not used for school purposes. Mr. Supinger commented that we have a school-park combination on most schools in the area adjacent to the sites for recreation purposes. A total of 135 acres needs to be purchased by recreation agencies. We feel the proposed plan is a reasonable solution in the area. Mr. Supinger stated that this plan has taken a lot of work on both parts of the City and County and we would again like to thank them for their cooperation, it proves that we can work together. A letter was read by Mr. Supinger from Mr. Charles Greenwood saying that as a member of the Gengral Plan Committee, the cooperation among the participants has been excellent and the results of the time and study in the development represents the approval of the Committee, as a whole, and it was his hope that this General Plan can be adopted with a minimum of delay. Chairman Marsters opened the hearing to the public at 8:05 P.M. Mr. Philin Carson, 1835 Rainier Drive, Tustin, said it seemed to him that the park and school sites are on the very edge of the planning district and wanted to know why - He opined that the park will end up being used by adjacent communities. He said there appeared to be a number of parks and school sites slated between the freeways and wanted to know why Tustin is supporting this instead of Santa Aha. Mr. Supinger first explained the congestion in the 17th Street area as a reason and second, that Tustin wanted to utilize those parcels already off the tax rolls and said we feel that we can utilize this for a community park. Santa Aha plans to expand the existing Prentice Park, and said they will be purchasing that parcel and third, that a community park is proposed for the South Tustin where the population density is highest. Mr. Supinger said that the planning area includes all of the Santa Aha and Tustin school district, which is included in the plan for convenient statistical analysis. Mr. George Reno, Real Estate Broker, voiced his main concern and interest in whether the Planners will adhere to these guide lines when the General Plan is adopted. In answer to his question Mr. Supinger said that this plan that is proposed is a policy guide line for the twenty (20) square mile area and the Planning Commission and City Council can determine to what extent the plan will be adhered to. I think we have to use our reasonable Judgment as to what we will adhere to specifi- cally, hopefully it will be carried out as the way it is in- dicated here tonight. Mr. Dick Cl~rk, 140131 Utt Drive, Tustin, stated that it seems as some major land uses have been overlooked - "I would like to point out the existing size of R-1 development. C~n you ex- plain how you consider that for future planning ordinance~ There are areas of existing single family houses, but they are proposed for high density development." -2- Plann~.r~ Minutes 10/24/66 Mr. Supinger said we know all too well that there are exist- ing single famkly subdivisions in the South Tustin Area. We do not propose to change in the near future to multiple but we do feel that ultimately they will become ,lultiple residential. We do not support any land zone changes iu the existing South Tustin. This plan is based on ultimate land use. Mr. Mike._~a_~].~l, Tustin Real%or, wanted to know what was going to be done with the "gre'~,l" area as shown on the Land Use map. Mr. Supinger sa%d that the irvine Company intended to hold this for agricultural purposes. Mr. Ed Haworth, of the Irvine Company, said they have been talk- ing with tho County and hope to put the acreage into contract over a period of ton (lC) years subject to negotiation on an annual basis, however', some of this land, in East Tustin along Santa Aaa Freeway and surrounding UCI - may go ~'esidential in the near future. W~. have filed a map with the County of Orange which indicates wha~ we think and wc hope would eventually be our agriculture rcscrv~ area, :forth of the Santa Ana Freeway. In addition to this study, wu are also involved in a marketing analysis. In the near future we would like to come back and discuss with both tke County a[ld Ci~.y of I~stin, the plan we hope to develop. M~'. H~wort!~ said :'we w~nt to go on record stating that we do not intend ~o hold this for agricultural purposes, but in the near future it is plan~]ed for residential~ This should in no way reflect on our plans. We intend to have a further study with tho County on the agricultural reserve area and when our plans are more concrete we would like to come back. Col. Br~.~ Ccnm~nding Offlc~r of ~:CAF - We certainly agree ~ith 'Ed !~awnr~h and ~ould ]~ke ~o see this plan go through. The regional o~rk ol"n is a step forward for us. When I came here, I u.~derstocd it ~:;.'3 to be an Industrial Park. As you r.ay have obse~/cd, ~u~· £1i~ht pa!.tern areas, South of the free- way are ~§ricu]tur.~l ~hlch Ed has discussed for potential de- ve].opment and we pla:~ %o be here fo]' a long ti~e and we do in- tend to fly a~rc~fc in this viciniSy. %~0 have analyzed our flight patterns and developed a land use to permit us to live among fr9edom and honesty with our neighbors. We would be very pleased to seo thc area approximately one-half (½) mile wide to the North of our base and maintained as it is now shown. We are goinE to be in an industrial area - from our interest, we support it as it stands and can certainly live with it. We would be extremely dismayed to see a high density area close to the base. We know the area is going to develop eventually and we will try to live with the situation. Mr. Charles Ell, 665 W. Main Street, Tustin, paper had made some indication that the old would change to multiple. mentioned that the down town area Mr. Supinger said the Planning Commission has looked at its plan several times and decided to indicate it SlnEle Family use. Mr. Chuck Bell of T~)CO spoke next, saying it had been a struggle to get this many people out to a meeting and he hopes to see the same smiles on their faces when we come back to implement the plan. He favored maximum use of ex- isting school facilities and additional park space, but we need an agency to carry this out. The school boards seem favorable. Planning Minutes - 10/24/66 Ihere being no further objections or comments, the hearing was declared closed at 8:35 P.M. Mr. Shard asked if Lhe izpact of the Irvine comments would ~ffect the analyses of the Genera! ?lap. Mr. Supinger said, izdeed it would, but did not feel he was ~repared tc give a complete report at this time. There will definitely be an additional need for al! types of facilities. It i:~ a major portion of the Tustin area. Mr. Oster asked if we have an indication of the size of the Irvir,e proposal. Mr. Suninger said ho did not know tho exact acrea!;e of the Irvine proposal. Mr. Oster asked if there was any reason why we should hold un on the adoption of the plan because of Irvine and }Ir. Supin{~er said that it is important that the elan be adD, ted as soon as possible a~d he was aware that Irvine has not completed their stud y. ?r. Su.oir~ger .~aid '.',hat tho circulation c3emeut as shown on {,he plan incorporates the existing p~.an f~.r arLoria] highways with o~:e exception, that being, the relocatior ~,'f .'.eters Canyon Road to the ?L~st and np c.n to the ridge. We have ~hown this chan~e because we fee] that there will be ne disagreement with this ;)ropc. sai, however, tko ~est of the oroposals are awaiting cc~ents by the County Road Department. Subsequent to their comments, we will co~e back for an a~e~:dment %o the General Plan to incorporate the new arleria], highway proposal. · Mr. ilef~er - We are cc. ir:g a detailed r%udy wilhin the city limits? gr. 2upinger exo/ai'.:od the i,~.-.ediate pla-':s are these: 1. A detailmed ,;!,u:ty of the t':wn center area, 2. k].:',o, wc inter:el to study the city limits in detail. '.hi,': plan :.:ill be u:~ed for £cr~ulaling .~ore specific polici~.e.% and will ~ake g,c.,'~sibLe ald gi';c us more detail iu which to ba~e th~.~::o zcr.e changes. Mr. Halus felt its extreme i~porL~nce tc use the concept plan as a p~licy ~ui~e for the coordinated development amon~ the different a~encies involved. !.'.r. Brand said "I, for or,e, hate to sec the t<~tal area go to high residenbia! area. I feel very nervous about seeing all these multiple restder.ces ir. one concentrated area. These are the oiur. s cf the future. I think the feelings of Lhe people o~ ~u~utr~ has be~n overlooked." It way zoveQ b',, Zr. Oster, s.econCe~. ,by Mr. Sharp that ResglutioR ~!o. 864, IusLin ~roa General...~i~n~ be recommended for adoption by City Cent. ell. The above no,ion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Hereof, i!alus, Bacon, Moos: Brand. Absent: None. Motion csrried 6-1. Chairman Marsters called a five (5) minuto recess at 8:55 P.M. Planning Minutes - 10/24/66 The Plannin§ Commission said they believed during the public hearing, besides the Tustin Town Center needing further study that the area South of Santa Aha Freeway could also stand some additional studying. It was moved by Mr. S~ro, seqgnded by Mr. Hefner, .that the Pl~nnin~ Commission direct the Planning staff to make an in- depth study of the problem. Chairman Marsters wanted to know the effect this would have on the General Plan adoption. Mr. Supinger said we have started preliminary work and I think we could also work on the area referred to by Mr. Sharp and Mr. Brand concurrently. I would be in a poor spot to argue this. .Mr. Hefner said he did not think there was anything in the plans that say, overnight these areas must change. The above motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Hefner, Halus, Bacon, Brand, Marsters. Noes: None. Absent: None. Motion csrried ?-0. 2. PR-66-101 - FREDRICKS Dh~;ELO?M~T Prezoning of 4.71 acres fronting on the Southeast side of Newport Avenue, approximately 350 ft. Southwest of Mitchell Avenue to R-3, effective only in the event said property is annexed to the City of Tustin. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report with the following recommendation: It is recommended that prezoning for tho subject property be established as R-~ for the following reasons: The proposed Tustin Area General Plan shows all heavy density apartments located north and west of Newport Avenue. ® A large amount of land, presently vacant, is pro- posed for heavy density (R-3) type development west of the Newport freeway. The subject proposal (117 units on 4.71 acres) is almost twice the density set forth on the proposed Tustin Area General Plan. The minimum setbacks, maximum densities, etc., set forth in the Zoning Ordinance have in so many cases become the standard for developers. Through land speculation, the developers then plead for high density zoning based upon economic hardship. This does not seem to be in the best interests of the community, nor should it be adequate justifi6ation for rezoning. Letters requesting a re-hearing on ~his application had been sent to the Planning Commissioners so that they might have a better picture on the situation. Mr. Oster wanted to know the location of the property and if this was R-4. Planning Minutes - 10/24/66 Mr. Supinger told him it was at the intersection of McFadden and Newport and th3t it is shown as R-4 type density on the Pl'oposed Gereral ?lan. >ir. Oster asked if the County denied this application and Mr. Supinger said a check had been made with %he County and that they have had no application on this property and that the applicant desires Lo be in She City of Tustin rather than the County. Mr. Hefner wanted to know the reason for the City Council's vote and Mr. Supinger said, by tho time this application had reached the City Council they had received more information on the General Plan than the Planning Commission when they con- sidered this application. Chairman Marsters opened the hearing to the public at 9:20 P.M. Mr. Douglas, representing the developer of the property, statad, it has only been a few short weeks since they were here before and at that time they had had an enthusiastic reaction on this proposal. He ccntinued by saying '~e felt that we hdd not made a proper presentation to the City Council and when we asked for a re-hearing it was granted, although we did not know it would be routed through the Planning Commission again. Nineteen (~9) letters were presented to the City Council approving this proposal - nothing has changed to alter our thinking, we are still as eager to dcvcloo this project as we were at the orig]sal date of application. I think we should feel a great eagerness for the rental business." · We have been askcd ~:hy we want to annex to the City of Tustin and we would l~ke to ask why <he City of Tustin does not want %o annex us? We tike the oresti§e of a Tustin addrcss and we are also concerned with certain police protection from %he City of Tustin in comparison with that of the County, again be- cause of the ability to !~c% protection from ohe fire depart- ment in the City. We prefer the City of ~astzn ins%cad of the County. We =eel we are knowlodgogble in this business. We offer you a particular p~an and a delightful architectural work. Our ~roup will develop a precise manner that this body would see fit. Those persons are not going to rent low density type apartments. We offer strictly an adult pro,iect. We have taken the liberty to canvas and suhuit letters from businesses in the community to the City Council and these letters plainly state, they need support. Mr. Dean Evans, ~th St., Tustin, Economics and Planning Con- sultant, representing Mr. Frederking - I was pleased with watching the presentation of the General Plan. I believe in a General Plan program and was glad to see so much support in Tustin. Ther~ is no conflict on land use in the applicant's project and what is recommended in the General Plan. I think that all of the Commissioners are well aware that in an explosive commuuity like Santa Ana, Tustin and Irvine Ranch, it is appropriate to realize that there ~ill be changes in a General Plan. -6- PlanningMlnutes - 10/24/66 I hope that the Planning Commission and City Council will. do as some of the other cities have done - and that the Planning Commission and City Council, in consideration of their plan, will not allow it to become a frozen concept. I feel that this application is good and I suggest that an agreement be prepared by the City Attorney for the development of the property according to the plan submitted by the applicant. Mr. Nicholas ~$r~etta, ]37 S. Prospect, Tustin, Realtor - This is merely a policy guide line for better development of our community. He said he has no financial interest in the prop- erty and is 100% for the General Plan but wondered whether or not it should be studied in depth before being adopted. If this is used as a piece of legislature or law, the community will react differently. I recommend that this particular deviation to this application be approved by the Planning Commission. We are taking into the City a very valuable piece of land. The use does not vary that greatly from the General Plan uses. The land owner is just as interested that the area does not turn into a slum area. A high density unit could lead to a fully occupied development. Mr, Stutsman, 21041 Canada Road, E1 Toro, stated that his property is C-1 and cannot see where this development would deteriorate his property, in fact, it would probably help be- cause of the eye sore of the unfinished apartments off Mitchell and if this application is granted to permit the building uow~ it would hide this. Mr. Sherman, 14211 Newport, Tusti~spoke protesting this application on behalf of five (5) other property owners, directly across from the proposed Fredricks Development. He said this area is overbuilt with apartments and some have even been repossessed. This seems to be a complete reverse and for what reason. He strongly opposed the apart- ments going in. Mr, Dick Clark, Tustin, I live in R-1 zone and wish to state my objection based on facts. There are too many apartments in Tustin, also as you all know, based on recommendations tonight. There being no further objections or comments, the hearing was declared closed at 9:50 P.M. Mr. Sharp - I believe there are a minimum of three (3) more hearings before the Plan could be adopted. This proposal is untimely. Before the other public hearings it would be un- timely for us to consider a change like this. It would be a breech of faith with the County and all other participants of the General Plan to act at this time on this application. It w$$ moved ~v Mr. SharD. seconded by Mr. Oster that this m$%ter be tabled until all hearings on the General Plan are heard. .Mr. Rourke said this would require another hearing re-noticing. Mr. Supinger said we hope to have the General Plan adopted by the City Council by the end of November, but because of the uncertainty at this time, he could not give a date for re- scheduling this hearing. -7- Planning Minutes - 10/24/66 Mr. Douqlas - stated that they have the property in escrow now and it is being purchased upon the contingency of R-3 zoning being granted. He said there was no objection to a postponement il' it was a reasonable time, but would not like to wait for a long period of time. The above motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Sharp. Noes: Oster, Hefner, Halus, Bacon, Brand, Marsters. Absent: None. Motion denied 6-~ Mr. Bacon wanted Lo know if this could be postponed until the next regular meeting. Mr. Supinger said that there was no way he could promise the Planning Commission that the General Plan would be adopted by the end of November although wo would recommend renoticing this matter so the people will not have to come to the December meeting if the Plan has not been adopted. It wss moved by Mr. Sharo, seconded by Mr. Hefner that PRr66-10~, ?r~driqk$ Development, be continued to the first available Planning Commission date after adoption of the General Plan. Mr. Halus said "are we willing to side-step an issue and shoulds't we finish it this evening - I think in all fairness to the applicant, are we postponing it." Mr. Brand felt that it could be a hardship to the applicant by postponing it. Mr. Sharp directed a statement to Mr. Halus, that in no way was he side-steping an issue and that they should not be con- sidering changes to a new General Plan that has not yet been adopted. Mr. Hefner felt it extremely important that they go ahead with the General Plan and as f&r as the City was concerned he felt it was practically in being. Mr. Oster states his concern ovor tho silence of the Fredricks Development representatives while the proposal of the General Plan was being heard and said he agreed with Mr. Sharp - this is an inopportune time to get involved for a change and I recommend that we approve it or deny it. Mr. Douglas stated that they would like a decision tonight. The above motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Hefner, Bacon, Marsters. Noes: Halus, Brand. Motion c~rried ~-2 Oster, Sharp, Absent: None 3. ~ - MOBILEHOMEpARK DISTRICT - AM~M~NT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. (Continued from the October 10th meeting) It was requested at the last meeting for the City Attorney to draft an ordinance on this, which he has done and a copy of the draft was sent to the Planning Commission. Mr. Supinger stated that he had conferred with Mr. Busch on the matter and he is satisfied with the ordinance. Chairman Marsters opened the hearing to the public at 10:21 P.M. There being no comments or objections from the audience, the hearing was declared closed atf~:22 P.M. -8- Planning Minutes - 10/24/66 We BUSINESS It wss moved by Mr. Halus, seconded by Mr. Shard that Resolution No. 865, Mobilebome Park District Regulations, as proposed be recommended to City Council for adoption. Mr. Hefner said there had been no mention from the Architectural Committee on landscaping and felt this should be reviewed. He was not in favor of the proposal as it now stands. Mr. Oster pointed out on Page j, Item 11, was the Architectural approval. Mr. Supinger said %h~.$ ~'as just xn oversight and if the Commis- sion was in favor of the proposed ordinance, this could be added in Item 11 - also commented that we have a requirement for recreation space and lot coverage. The individual dweller is required to maintain the landscaping on the property. It Was ~ove~ ~y MV:.~_O]u~ec__cqd_e~__b~ M~ Oster thathis previous motion be amended to inc].ud,~ the landscanin~ reouire- ment. The above motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Hefner, Marsters, Halus, Bacon, Brand. Noes: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. HOME OCCUPATIONS ORDINANCE Mr. Supinger reported that this hearing has been rescheduled for the November l~th, meeting. COUNTY CASE UV-~Tq], re: 400 BED HOSPITAL - Lois Merrill (continued from the Ocuober LOth nee. ting.) Mr. Supinger present,'d ti~c s:~aff rcport stating that the Orange County Planning Com~.~ission bas continued this hearing to November 23rd, for the following reasons: 1. Protests of neighboring homeowners 2. Uncertainty as ~o actual need !'or another hospital in the area. It was also pointed out that General Plan hearings are coming up and that the Hospital Planning Assoc%ation will discuss this matter at a meeting October 31st. Mr. Supinger said that the Tustin Planning Department has received a copy of the preliminary report from the Orange County Planning Department, but has not been presented to their Planning Commission yet. The preliminary report includes a need analysis and a pro- jection of the possible effects such a use will have on the surrounding community. Based upon standards of the Hospital Planning Association, the report concludes that there is not a need for another acute hospital in the area. The Planning Department recommends denial of UV-5793 because of the detrimental affects such a use would have upon the community. -9- Planning Minutes - 1C/2d/66 Mr. Sharp questioned Mr. Supinger as to whether this proposal was to be considered a 400 or 200 bed hospi'ca! since the hos- pital had b~'en cut down to 200 beds verbally by the applicant. Mr. Supinger said since the original application was for a aO0 bed plan, it would have to remain tho same. In order to change it to a 200 bed hospital, it would have to be re- noticed as such. according to the County Planning Department. Mr. Halus asked if Mr. Supinger had ~onfcrred with other de- partment heads on this and what were their comments - Mr. Supinger said there had been no commen~s from the other de- partment heads. Mrs. Merrill stated that she had attended the Orange County Planning Commission meeting and they had instructed her to change the ~00 bed plan to 200 beds. The proposal iM a two (2) story, 200 bed hospital now but the parking area remains the same, with ~he stipulation stat "we do not '~ll~w t.'o'hos- pital to increase in size." There is no reason for it to increase, because as the other areas grow, they should be allowed to build their own hospital. In answer to questions on financing, Mrs. Merrill said that it had been suggested that the community contribute something so they would feel a part of it. She said that some of the "Old Timers" would contribute and at present there were eight (8) gentlemen who will put up money and it would be a voluntary non-profit hospital. Mrs. Merrill stated that the community could own the hospital if you could fina someone that would nut up $~50,000. Mr. Shard wanted to know if the community would elect the Board of Directors and if any one individual would benefit f:'om the hospital proceeds. Wanted to know where the salaries would come from. Mrs. MerrSll said that the owners would elect the Board of Directors and under this proposal they could be salaried. Mr. Sharp then asked who would determine the policies of the hospital in all respects. Mrs. Merrill said that the county hospital handles the policies and not the cities. She said it depends on stipulations by the State regulations. Mrs, Oe~bb~rt, home owner, said she attended the Orange County Planning Commission meeting October 12th, and there had been 80 letters against it and only one letter of approval. Mr. Sharp said he felt that if the County feels it is worth while to hold off for further study, we should do the same. Mr. Halus also said a further study should be made and felt that there has not been sufficient information in regards to the hospital and would like to see anything (maps, plans, reports) of this nature to analyze before making a recommend- ation. It was. moved by Mr, ~alu~, seconded by Mr, Brsnd thst UV-5793 be co,tiDied %o tb~ November ~4~h Planning Commissi~ meeting. lO Planning Minutes - 10/24/1966 Vie BUSINESS Mr. Supinger said he was not at liberty to submit the pr.'-- liminary report at this time. Mr r Sharp requested that the Hospital Planning Ascociation minutes be available after thei" moeti~g. Mr. Halus said he uould like to see a concret~ proposal on the hospital from ~he County and some info~,mtion from the Hospital Pl&m~ing Association? plus a detail~d ?r.~cn~atioa from the app!~ca~t. Mr. Hefner s; id ho did not re~,.,ember ~eeing anythiu,; or. this proposal su,:i~ '.l.s dr~'-:.;ings~ ~.: ,ps or amb~thi~g and Mr. S"pinger to].d him we have copic~ of tk.~ plot plan on fkic in t.h3 Plan- ning D~artment office with i-evised plot plans com~.n~ in. Mrs. Merrill said the new plans would be available at the end of this week and will try to get them to the Planning Department. .The ~bov9 ~otion was carried unanimously. UP-65-190 ~ CARTER SIGN COMPANy A request for an extension of time on the 8' ~: 12' directional slgn located on the east corner of Ne~ort Ave~'me and Mitchell Avenue, Tustiu. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report recom~.cnd~nz that the area of the sign bc reduced to a maximum of 32 sq. f'~., the height limited to ]4 ft., and that the permit be limited to six (6) months. A lette~" fz'om FzeC 3rook, Bu~.idlng D~:,~ctor, was :'c-d statins that the Bu~.ldin~. D:ou.'";men% has t~.ken action o'~ :1! dLrc~.'4ional signs w~ ~hir tko City e:-ected tmde~' -.'~-lid usc ~t~-,]it~ ..:s such pe~ts have e:.p.:..i, lhe :':sponsf. bio parties~ 5,~ cac[': case, have been ccntac~ed and :'equest~ ?er~lly %o remove said signs. Those persons wishing to extend the uses of said signs have been info,ed that it will be neces~ry for th~ to apply for a new pe~it, .lad ~ve ~en il~ormed of the re- quirements of Ordinance 305. Specifically: That a permit, the fee for which is $10.00, is required. · 2; That the aggregate area of said sign is !Jnitcd to thirty-two (32) square feet. 3. That said sign must be removed within a period of one year, and a removal bohd in the amount of $100 must be posted therefore. This permit may be extended by %he building department for a period of six months. Further extension beyond bhe months neriod must bo requested of the Planning Comniission~ Mr. Brook recommended that subject application be denied. The Planning Commission asked Mr. Supinger what would be the best course to take for their action and Mr. Supinger said Serial. -ll- Planning Minutes - 10/24/66 It was moved by Mr. Hefner, seconded by Mr, Oster that Resolution ND. 866, UP-65-190 be denied. Motion carried 7-0 VII. COUNTY CASE UV-5807 CORRESPON- DENCE To permit the continued use of a temporary sales office and two temporary signs. Mr. Suoinger presented the staff report saying that this application, along with several we have had in the past, indicate an urgent need for a coordinated policy relative to on-site and directional signs for subdivision sales. The l~' x 18' ~ign existing in this development, for instance, would not have been permitted even under our old sign regulations which allowed a maximum area of lO0 sq. ft. Since we do not presently have a coordinated policy relative to such signs, and because this project is adjacent to the City of Tustin, it is recommended that the following be approved for the site: 1. That the permit be limited to one (1) ~ear. That the on-site subdivision sign at the corner of Redhill and Mitchell be limited to a total area of 32 sq. ft. and a maximum height of 14 ft., as provided in the City of Tustin Sign Ordinance. e That the real estate sign on Redhill be limited to a maximum area (both sides) cf ~ square feet and a height of 4 feet as provided in the City of Tustin Sign Ordinance. It was moved by ,~r. Hefner, seconded by Mr.,.Sharo that County Gage UV-5807 ~e adopted ~s presented to the ~lan- nin~ Commission. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURN- MENT Motion carried unanimously. R~iSGLUTIC;.I .~i$. 86~ It was moved by Mr. Marsters. seconded by '<r. Halus that Resolution No. 86~ be adonted oxt~nding the aonreciation of the ,~lanning Commission to Mr. Hefner for his service .. as Planning Commission Chairman. Motion carried unanimou~iy. It was moved by Mr. Bacon, secpnded by Mr, O~er that the Meeting be adjourned. Motion carried. There being no further business before the Planning Commission the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.M. ., SECRETARY -12-