HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-23-71 MINUTES OF A RECULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 23, 1971
The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was
held on the 23rd day of August at the hour of 7:30 p.m. of said
day in the Council chambers, 2?5 South "C" Street, Tustin, Calif.
The Pledge of Allegiance was given by Commissioner Sharp.
The Invocation was given by Commissioner Curtis.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Larnard, Curtis, Sharp, Edelstein, Dukleth
Absent: None
Others R. Kenneth Fleagle, Assistant City Administrator -
Present: Communitv Devolopment Director
Pat Brown, Assistant Planning Director
Jean M. Smith, Planning Commission Recording Sect'y.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
OF REGULAR MEETING
OF AUGUST 9, 1971
Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Sharp, that the minutes of the
August 9, 1971, meeting be approved as submitted.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
UP-71-364
(Temporary) - Eugene F. Tutt - Request for permit to
establish an outdoor plant nursery, with limited retail
sales.
Location:
Site fronts approximately 110 feet on the northeast side
of Nisson Road, and is located approximately 435 feet
southeasterly of the center line of Red tlill Avenue.
Mr. Flea9le informed the Commission that this matter was heard at
the August 9, 1971 meeting, and testimony presented; however, as the
applicant/owner was unable to attend the meeting, it was Staff's
recommendation the hearing be continued as an open public hearing
to t~is meeting. If the Planning Commission so desires to approve
this temporary Use Permit for a six months' period, it is Staff's
recommendation that the following conditions would apply:
The existing site be cleared of all dead trees, weeds,
debris, etc.
Removal of the present billboards with an amortization
period of five years.
That a six foot high chhin link fence be installed around
the perimeter of the prpperty.
The parking area shall be oiled or surfaced to the satis-
faction of the Building Official so as to eliminate dust
problems and the parking lot be re-oriented along the
westerly line of the nursery in accordance with the
recommendation of the City Engineer.
PC 8/23/7]
PC Mins. 8/23/71
That nubj~,ct (:c'mt~orary use may bo ext. endc~d for an addi-
tional six months' period of time at the discretion of
the Planning Commission wfthout further public hearing,
upon written request of the applicant. :
Mr. Fleac]e further stat~t it was a foregone conclusion the condi-
tion requiring the complete removal of the billboards would be
unacceptable to the landowner, Mr. Tutt, as he stated he could not
live with or accept this condition. Staff's position at this ~oint
is that the bilboards are contrary to the policy of the Council,
Planning Commission and adoption of the Sign Ordinance, and the
conversion of the land to any Qther use should require the removal
of these billboards. As a matter of equity, Staff would suggest
the billboards be removed with an amortization period of five years,
as a recommended course of action.
Mr. Larnard re-opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:40 p.m.
~ugene F. Tutt, the applicant, stated he appreciated the opportunity
to speak at this time and apologized for not being able to attend
the previous meeting. He further stated the requirement to remove
the billboards from his property is economically impossible, Vs.
the proposed use of a retail nursery. The billboards represent a
substantial investment as well as substantial income to him, and
he cannot live with such a condition. In answer to questions from
the Commission, Mr. Tutt replied he was aware of the recommendation
from Staff for an amortization period.of five years, however, he
has land leases covering the two billboards, with 8 years to run
on one, and 13 years on the other, before expiration.
Lucas Wall, 15500 Tustin Village Way, Tustin, the potential lessee
and operator of the retail nursery stated he felt the proposed use
would be of benefit to the people of Tustin, as well as to the City
inasmuch as the parcel of land would be cleared, and not be an eye-
sore, as it is presently.
Mr. Noboo Miyamoto, 1031 Walnut Street, Tustin, spoke' in opposition
to the granting of this temporary use permit, voicing disapproval
of the temporary nature of the business without a structure being
built, feeling it was unfair to other businessmen who do operate
from a store or building. He added that it was his opinion it
would leave the City open to all other types of enterprises coming
in and operating in the same manner, and thereby would set a precedent
at this time.
The public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:04 p.m. by Mr.
Larnard.
A lengthy discussion followed among the Commissioners and Staff
relative to the use being strictly for a one year period; whether
the land should be cleared of debris, trees, etc., and the bill-
boards to remain, with a productive use being made of the property;
or let the land'remain "as is", an eyesore, with the billboards;
whether the Sign Ordinance specifically states the "change in use"
applies to temporary uses or only permanent; just what type of
precedent, if any, might be set if the Commission approved this
temporary use and what the resultant ramifications might be.
Staff offered several alternatives or suggestions to the Commis-
sioners which they discussed as to pros and cons of leaving the
area in question as "agricultural use", with no retail sales, thus
there would be no conflict or change in use; continuing the matter
until the next Planning Commission meeting so legal counsel could
be sought; approval of the temporary use for a one year period
only, wit]] the definite understanding any further extension of the
business or use of the property would require amortization of the
billboards.
PC 8/23/71
- 2 -
° PC Mins. 8/23/71
Mr. Sharll made, a motion to adopt Resolution No. 1228; seconded by
Mr. Edelst~,[n, al~}~roving the Use Permit Application UP-71-364,
subject to the following conditions:
The 6xisting site Shai'l :'be cleared of all:dead trees,
weeds, debris, etc.
b)
That an appropriate chain link fence be installed
around the perimeter of the property.
c)
That any parking areas shall be oiled or surfaced
to the satisfaction of the Building Official, and
that all parking spaces and required turning radii
shall be provided completely on site along the
western boundary.
d)
That subject temporary use may be extended for an
additional six months' period of time at the dis-
cretion of the Planning Commission without further
public hearing, upon written request from the appli-
cant. Any further ~xtension of time will require
an advertised publi~ hearing with consideration
being given to the requirements for permanent improve-
ments of the property and public right-of-way with
additional consideration to be given to amortiza-
tion or removal of the billboards.
Mr. Larnard stated that it would be a part of the motion that an
actual abbreviated transcript of the discussion be included, noting
the Commission's concern that they are not establishing a precedent
by granting this "change in use", even though temporary, without
requiring the removal of the billboards.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-1
AYES: Larnard, Sharp, Dukleth, Edelstein
NOES: Curtis
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1
UP-71-365 - Donald H. Bush - Request to permit the use of an
existing building for the purpose of conducting
membership meetings and other allied affairs of
Hillview Post 9302 of the V.F.W.
Location:
Site fronts approximately 50 feet on the west side
of Prospect Street, approximately 180 feet south of
the center line of First Street.
Mr. Fleagle declared that the Commissioners have the Staff Report
delineating the conditions and the required conditions necessary
to bring the building up to Code. This same information was fur-
nished to the applicant this past weekend, and other information
was given to him some two weeks ago, in order that he would be
aware of the obligations to be assumed if the Commission approved
the Use Permit. A letter has been received from the applicant
dated this date, requesting a continuance of the hearing due to
insufficient time to study and analyze the recommended requirements
of the City's Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. It would
be Staff's recommendation that the public hearing, since it has
been duly advertised and there may .be people in the audience wishing
to be heard, be opened, and on the motion of the Commission, con-
tinue it as an open hearing until the next meeting on September
13, 1971.
Mr. Larnard opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:32 p.m.
PC 8/23/7] - 3 -
Mr. R. C. ,lol~l~:;~n, P]'~,~;id~,nt o.r tl]~, 'lh~.~;tin W, tr M~:mori~,l, spoke
agai. n:;t thc qrant-i]~.~-~{f-['l~is U:;o t'~,rmit, fec:l..irw th,It th~.:rc; would
bo insuffi¢ie..~t parkinu area for an organization of this type,
and the parking facilities of the War Memorial would not be avail-
able to them. lie questioned the modifications necessary to the
building, if it were to be used for public meetings~ and the means
of exit from same. His main concern appeared to be insufficient
parking area, infringement on their property, and proper ingress
and egress to the building and property.
Mr. Edelstein moved to continue this hearing until the next meeting
on September 13, 1971, with the public portion remaining open~
seconded by Mr. Curtis.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 ~'
OLD BUSINESS
?
PZ-69-121 - Williams and Cleqg, and R. S. Jones, Architect
Approval of Precise Plans of Development
Location: Browning Avenue, southwest of Nisson Road.
Mr. Fleagl~ recalled to the Commission the prezoning application,
PZ-69-121, covering a 1.89 acre parcel, with approximately 284 ft.
on the northwest side of Browning Avenue, and 290 ft. southwest of
the center line of Nisson Road. The area was annexed tO the City
under PC R-3 (1750) zoning, which requires the approval of precise
plans by the Planning Commission. The plans have been submitted
and have been reviewed by the Development Preview Commission, and
met their requirements. It would be the recommendation of Staff
that,you approve the precise plans, as submitted, subject to con-
forming to those conditions specified in Resolutions No. 1141 and
1147 of the Planning Commission and City Council Ordinance No. 459;
subject to annexation of the property into the Tustin Lighting
District; and final review and approval of subject plans by the
Development Preview Commission prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
Mr. Curtis moved for approval of Precise Plans of Development fbr
subject property covered under PZ-69-121; seconded by Mr. Edelstein.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Fleagle_advised the Commission that the City Council was con-
cerned as a result of the Planning Commission action under a pre-
zone action requiring a 6'8" property line wall be constructed
separating the property on Irvine Boulevard, that was developed
PC - Professional, from the adjoining residential properties. He
cited three other instances in the past year, with a similar situa-
tion, wherein a wall existed on the property line, constructed prior
to the improvement of the commercial or professional properties.
However, Ordinance No. 157 specifically states that property devel-
oped for commercial or professional use, shall be separated from
residential property by a 6'8" masonry wall.
It would seem that the wording of the ~rdinance works an unnecessary
obligation, when it stipulates you shall construct a 6'8" wall, when
a similar wall already exists, only it is on somebody else's prop-
erty. Either discretion should be granted or the wording of the
ordinance should be amended. Staff would like to know the Commis-
sion's pleasure as to how to approach and hopefully solve the
dilemma that sometimes occurs. It was brought out there is still
the Use Permit procedure which can be used to modify wall require-
ments, if need be, wit]] a public ]]earing and use permit application.
The Commissionor.~ discussed the matter, citing that it was not the
ca:]e, of there only b~,inq a dual wall, but in so,ne instances there
is a diffcronc~ in heiql~t of the fences, materials, etc., which
pres~,~ts another },rob]~m~. It was aisc suggest, cd t}~at ~n'rhap:; rather than
anoLh~,r wall J~,; con:;[.ructed, porman~,nt l~ndscapinq or sl~rubbery
'~' ~i,'2'!/7t - 4 -
PC Mins. 8/23/71
M~'. ,qharl!j~!.o_l'_!'2_l that th(~ matter be referred to Staff for report
and rqcom:~cn~ation for the Commission to consider at the next
meetin'~'0n September 13, 1971.. The draft amendment to-the Ordi-
nance should allow for the 'separation of uses, to insure privacy,
a maximum of security and other amenities for the residential
properties; with the reconnmendations of the Development Preview
Commission being invited; seconded by Mr. Curtis.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
PENDING MATTERS
REAL ESTATE SIGNS
Mr. Brown stated that Staff has recently had some difficulty in
enforcing the Sign Ordinance relative to real estate signs. Briefly,
the SigD Ordinance allows 6 sq. ft. per face, and not over 4 feet
high. However, over the last.year or two, several real estate
companies have come out with a rather ornate type sign, aesthetically
more pleasing, but in violation of the Sign Ordinance. This is
being brought to your attention now, to give you ample time to check
out the various types of real estate signs, and to give the matter
some thought prior to the next Planning Commission meeting when
we will bring the matter up for a full discussion, with the
thought perhaps you may think it wise to amend the ordinance.
In reply to Mr. Larnard, Mr. Brown advised the matter had been
discussed with the President of the Real Estate Board in this area
as well as representatives of some of the larger real estate com-
panies involved, and they have been invited to attend the September.
13, 1971 meeting and bring samples of their typical signs.
Mr. Fleagle added that when this matter is presented to the Commis-
sion at the next meeting, there will be three courses of action
the Commission might follow: 1) to say that when you adopted the
Sign Ordinance to determine after much study and deliberation,
what was the appropriate size for a residential "for sale" sign,
you established the size as such, and that is the way it is to
be, and enforced; 2) those who violate the existing requirements,
will'be advised they have illegal signs and will have to conform,
but if they feel there is justification for using those signs, it
will be up to them to initiate proceedings to amend the Sign Ordi-
nance, and the Commission will reserve its decision on the matter;
3) if the Commission feels the Sign Ordinance is in need of amend-
ing, the you can initiate action to amend the Sign Ordinance.
!
CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Flea~le stated that tradi%ionally, as a matter of policy, the
5th Monday of the month has been reserved as a workshop session
between the City Council and Planning Co~mission. The Council has
requested that the August 30th session be cancelled, unless there
is an overriding reason to hold such a meeting.
Mr. Sharp moved that we accept the suggestion of the Council and
cancel the workshop session for August 30, 1971; seconded by M~.
Curtis.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - Enclosed Garages
Mr. Fleaqle declared that the City Council at their August 16, 1971
meeting directed the Planning Commission to initiate hearings for
an amendment to the Ordinance to require completely enclosed garages
in all re.~;Jd~?ntial units, in lieu of the presently permitted car-
ports; multi-family developmenls would have to provide enclosed
garagen, clo~ed and locking. T~e matter is to be subm.~tted to
th~ n~,w~;l~ap(~r for a(lv(,rti~(~ncnt for a l)ub] [c l~earJ, nq before the
Co~nmi~;~;i~n on f;~,l)t~ml)('r 13, ].97]. Council h;~s been advised and
mad(~ ,~w;~rc ot' th(~ many !')rot)].('m~; that will confront this i~sue,
and tl~at Js th(~ l)urpon(' of th(f public h~ar[ng, to listen to all
(Americ,~ Z;~)c[~,ty of l~].anning ~)['fici~]~ for their r~co:nm,,ndat, ions.
PC 8/2'~/7.1. - 5 -
[.
PC Mins. 8/23/71
S TAI.'I.,' CONCERNS
1) Pro. zoni'nq - Red II.i. ll Avr>nue, north of.' M.itcho]l, south of Nisson.
Mr. Fleaqlo stated thoro is a piece of property on the east side of
Rod llill, north of Mitchell and south of NJsson Road, on which the
City has initiated an annexation action. There was a prezoning
action for a realty office on the corner of Mitchell and Red llill
previously, however the annexation initiated by the City is for the
entire frontage property running from Mitchell to Nisson Road. Part
of this parcel, a 12 acre parcel, is owned by Mr. Roy Daly of ~an
City, Missouri, and is the largest assessed valuation in the entl
area. He has consented to the annexation of his property into th0
City of Tustin, however, a County zone change just recently comple
covering 255 feet of frontage on Red }{ill, classified the property
as R-2' (1500). Where property is annexed into the City with a zoning
classification comparable to the City's zoning class, it comes into
the City with that classification. However, in this instance Tustin
does not have an R-2 (1500) classification; it would be the same as
our R-3 (1500). In order to obtain a building permit within the City,
there would have to be a zone change action. If this can be accom-
plished, the property owner would have no adverse cause to object to
the annexation by the City.
The action necessary would be a motion by the Commission to initiate
a public hearing for a prezone action on this property from County
R-2 (1500) to the City of Tustin R-3 (1500).
Mr. Curtis moved that prezoning action be initiated by the Planning
Commission to hold a public hearing, covering the property as men-
tioned previously, to prezone to City of Tustin R-3 (1500); seconded
by Mr. Sharp.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
2) Development of Tustin City Park
It was brought to the attention of the Commissioners by Mr. Fleag]e,
that hopefully a park would be developed within the City. The City
Council met this evening for the purpose of selecting a developer,
designer and architect for the property fronting on First Street,
bounded by "B" and "C" Streets. They are ready to proceed and a
bond sale is authorized for development of that park site. However,
the site is zoned R-2 and C-1 zone and parks are only permitted in
the R-1 zone by Use Permit, and not permitted by right in the C-1.
zone. What Staff would recommend at this time would be to initiate
a new zoning classification of "P and I", Public and Institutional,
to apply to civic centers, school sites, institutional uses and
parks, for the benefit of segregating this property that has been
developed, acquired or about to be developed, by zoning classifica-
tion, to indicate it is property not on the tax rolls, in public or
quasi-public use and the uses on those parcels would be subject to
a Use Permit procedure.
Authorization was requested to initiate an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance to create and adopt a District called "Public and Insti-
tutional'' and concurrently a Use Permit for that particular site
mentioned above for development of a City park.
The Commissioners discussed at length the possible ramifications of
such a zone change; what, if any, possible delays might ensue in
the park site development; the City Council's reaction to such a
zone classification; the "U" classification on various properties.
Mr. Sharp indicated that Fullerton had adopted a Public Land (PL)
District for much the same reasons stated.
PC 8/23/71 -6-
I'C M:in.~;. 8/23/71
It was Staff'~'i thought thoro wol~ld bo no ramificati, on.~; or any
delays in tl~e t~aYk .~iite development; also, the City Cotincil had
been advised of this proposed classification and reacted favorably.
Mr. Shar~ moved that we initiate an action to conduct' a pu'b'lic
hearing at the September 13, 1971 meeting for an amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance to create a "Public and Institutional" District
(P&I) and concurrently, a Use Permit for the development of the
new City park site on First Street, bounded by "B" and "C" Streets,
with the understanding it would not in any way delay the development
of same; se. conded by Mr. Edelstein.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Mr. Sharp inquired as to scheduled development of park sites and
sale of bonds. Staff replied that the First Street site was
granted first priority and the Council has authorized the sale
of the bonds as financing becomes necessary.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Edelstein moved for adjournment at 9:40 p.m.
NNING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY
PC 8/23/71
- 7 -