Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-27-67MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION November 27, 1967 CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M., by Chairman Marster~. Present: Commissioners: Bacon, Ludwig, Mars=ers, Oster, Webster~ Larnard. Absent: C~issioner: Ha!us Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney Harry E. Gill, City Administrator James L. Supinger, Planning Director Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mrs. Ludwig, that the minutes of November 13, 1967, meeting be approved as mailed. Carried 6-0. 1. ZC-67-161 - G.L.A. DEVELOPMENT COMP6NY To rezone property from C-1 (Retail Con~arctal) to R-3 (Multiple Residential). Mr.. Supinser presented a brief staff report giving the applicant's justification and recommended that subject application be approved and be recommended to the City Council for the following reasons: 1. It conforms to the General Plan. 2. That said rezoning will remove a part of the commercial zoned area not needed in the South Tustin area. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing be included by reference and made a part of the motion. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:32 P.M. Mr. Ken Nelson, representative of G.L.A. Development Co., 415 West Fourth Street, Tustin, spoke briefly stating his reasons for the zone change. He c~m~ented that he definitely felt that there is an over-abundance of comnercial property and that the area could benefit by more ?opulation. Feeling that this is a proper use for the prop- erty and since it does fall under the General Plan, stated that he was very much in favor of it. Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 7:34 P.M. Mr. Oster concurred with the applicant and the staff's report that this would take some of the cor~nercial property from the South Tustin area, since previous studies did show an over-abundance of comm%ercial property. It was moved by ~r, Oster~.seconded by Mr. Webster that Resolution No. 929 be adopted~ recormnendinK to the City Council that Application Z~-67-161 be Kranted and the adoption of an ordinance rezonin8 ~ubi~t. property from C-1 to g-3 be apprpved for the followinK, reasons: 1. It conforms to the General Plan. 2. That said rezoning will remove a part of the commercial zoned area not needed in the South Tu~tin area. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing be included by reference and made a part of the motion. -1- PC Minutes - 11/27/67 The above motion was voted by roll call. Webster, Bacon, Larnard, Marsters. Noes: Motion carried 6-0~ Ayes: Oster, Ludwig, None. Absent: Halus. 2. ZC-67-262 - J. E. CLARK To rezone approximately 4.23 acres from C-1-P (Retail Commerci~! and Combined Parking) District to R-3 (Multiple Residential) District. Mr. Sup~q~ presented the staff report along with the reco~nendation. The Planning Staff r~<.=ended that ZC-67-162 be approved and recom- mended to the City Council that subject property be rezoned from C-1-P to R-3 for the following reasons: 1. Subject proposal conforms to the Tustin Area General Plan. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing be included by reference and made a part of the motion. Mr. Supin~er mentioned that it was also part of the staff's recom- mendation that a small parcel of land approximately 90 by 145 sq. ft. at the northwest corner of the subject property be rezoned from C-I-P to R-3. It was recommended that the Planning Commission initiate the rezoning and set the public hearing for December 26th. Chairmsn Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:38 P.M. Mr. James E. Clark, applicant, 238 Via Graziana, Newport Beach, spoke saying he would be glad to answer any questions that the Planning Cormnission desired. Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 7:40 P.M. A brief discussion among the Commission and Planning Staff included such items as the amount of units that could be constructed on the parcel, the size of the parcel and the background of Mr. Sullivan's property and what his objections are. Mr. Supin~er explained that after extensive conversations with Mr. Sullivan, the problem was a basic one. The existing single family structure is of no use to the applicant and consequently they would not be willing to pay him for that, but they are willing to purchase the land. Mr. Sullivan does not feel that this is adequate. Mr. Oster stated that, again, this is in the S~uth Tustin area and getting away from the C-1 zoning as indicated in previous studies he was in favor of the request. It was moved bM Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Bacon that Resolution No. 930~ be adopted recommendinK to the City Council that ZC-67-162 b~ approved so that subject, property be rezoned from C-1-P to R-3 for the followin8 reasons: 1. Subject proposal conforms to the Tustin Area General Plan. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing be included by reference and made a part of the motion. That the Planning Staff be directed to prepare the necessary documentation and notices for rezoning the property owned by Mr. Sullivan from C-1-P to R-3. -2- PC Minutes - 11/27/67 l. lr. Oster clarified Li~,~L th~s property of i, lr. Sullivan's wa:; not being acted upon for rezoning at thc present meeting but the item that was being considered regarding >'~r. Sullivan was for the staff to prepare the necessary work for l~he proposed rczoning to b~: determined at a public hearing in the future. Mr. Supinger explained that he has indicated to Mr. Sullivan that he will be notified of the hearing date and he will have a chan"..e to voice his opinion at ti~at time. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Webster, Bacon, Larn?rd, Marsters. Noe~;: None. Motion carried 6-0. Oster, Ludwig, Absent: Halus. 3. UP-67-241 - GENE HOLTER AND W.F. BECHER To permit the operation of a trained animal exhibit for four days in a sixty (60) foot tent located in Che parking lot of the Tustin Heights Shopping Center at Fourth and Irvine. ~r. S~pin~er presented the staff report recommending conditional approval subject to the Fire Department's recommendation that the tent used meet the requirements of the Fire Department. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:44 P.M. There being no objections or comments from the audience Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 7:45 P.M. The Commission discussed thc safety precautions, licenses for this type of operation and the type of animals that will be exhibited. Mr. Gill explained that there will be rather large animals, but they will be relatively tame and trained and not harmful to thc public. Police supervision will be provided. He explained float this is more of a traveling zoo and something that other cities have also permitted, being somewhat unique. It was moved by Mr. Bacon~ seconded bv Mr. Larnard that Resolution No..931~ for UP-67-241 be conditionally approved subject to the following: 1. That the tent used meet the requirements of the Fire Department. Reason for approval: The Commission finds that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use and it will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Webster, Bacon, Larnard, Marsters. Noes: None. Carried 6-0. Oster, Ludwig, Absent: Halus. 4. UP-67-242 - PLANNING CO~.~ISSION INITIATED USE PERi, IT APPLICAT'[ ON To permit the Tustin Co~m~unity Sing in the parking lot of Larwin Square Shopping C. ,~ter. Mr.. S~jp_i.n__~cer- presented a brief staff report recon~cnding subject application be conditional]y approved to the PC~lautes - 11/27/67 1. That the Fire Department have thc rescue truck standby. , ~ :. '~ · 2. That the crowd be kept away from the buildings to permit emergency access. Chairman Marsters opene-'] the public portion of the hearing :It 7:50 P.M. There being no opposition or corr~nents from the addience, the hearing was declared closed at 7:51 P.M. }~. Oster commented that no one can be against a Conznunity Sing. It was moved by Mr. Oster~ seconded by Mrs. Ludwi~ ,that Resolut.ion No. 932, for UP~'67-242 be conditionally granted subject to the following: 1. That the Fire Department have the rescue truck standby. 2. That the crowd be kept away from the buildings to permit emergency access. Reason for approval: The Commission finds that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circum- stances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons re- siding or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use and it will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Webster, Bacon, Larnard, biarsters. Noes: None. Carried 6-0. Oster, Ludwig, Absent: Halus. 5. UP-67-243 - SPROUL HOPtES INC. OF NEW MEXICO To permit a small lot single-family subdivision of 90 lots plus certain co~,~,on areas and recreation facilities on 10 acres of property fronting approximately 390 feet on the south side of Main Street at the western City limits of the City of Tustin. MK. SuniBKe~ explained to the Commission that the applicant has requested to continue this hearing to the December llth meeting to re-examine their position due to the recent change in the re- discount rate. He recon~nended that any testimony be accepted that is desired at the present meeting and continue the hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:53 P.M. Mr. Bill Gray, 420 West Main Street - spoke saying he was not speaking for or against the time requested but stated that he also received a letter from the Sproul Homes Inc. giving their reasons for not requesting the continuance and that he would be at the next meeting in their behalf. There being no further comments or discussion from the audience, Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 7:55 P.M. Mr. Oster request:ed ~hat Mr. Supinger give the Cormn~ssion, in his report at the next meeting, Lhe various parking standards that this type of development might fall into. He suggested that Mr. Supinger discuss the parking requirements with the applicant for information for the Commission before the next meeting so there will not have to be a continuance of the hearing again if the problem arises. -4- PC Minutes - 11/27/67 It ;.las moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Webster, that continued thc public hear£n~,~ on UP-67-2.!3 be to next rc~u~;..7~v scheduled meeting~ December 11, 1967. Tile above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Webster, Bacon, Larnard, }larsters. Noes: None. Carried 6-0. Oster, Ludwig, Absent: Halus. 6. UP-67-237 - PAUL LERNER - SERVICE STATION To consider a recormr, endation that UP-67-237 be rewaked. Mr. Su~inger presented the staff report and explained that this basically involves a situation where the conditions of the Use Permit have not been complied with, and felt that some decision should be made on the matter. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:57 P.M. Mr. Alan Fox, 812 Union Bank Plaza, 15233 Ventura Blvd., Sherman Oaks, Calif., attorney, representing the Lerner Oil Company stated that he fe. lt the staff report and background were not complete. He discussed the business license situation, the background of the station before and after the Business License was issued and the landscaping aspects. He mentioned that the applicant has attempted to secure bids and estimates on the trees surrounding the periraater of the service station, which basically seems to be the problem. He stated that several landscape architects have been contacted but for some unknown reason have not been able to comol~.te the plans. He felt that progress has been made and that they are doing everything possible to meet the requirements of the Planning Com- mission's d;¢ision relative to this situation and felt that the Use Permit should not be revoked. Mr. Lee Cozad - repre0enting the Lerner Oil Company, staued that he ~ad t21k~'l with Mr. Supinger, who advised him that thc best policy to follow was to submit the plans to the Architectural Committee, but it was not necessary for him to be present, i. ir. Cozad said that his purpose for meeting with the Architectural Committee was to see exactly what was required and desired. Mr. Supi.n~er, clarified the misunderstanding regarding tl~e applicant relative to meeting with the Architectural Corr~nittee. Ue stated that normally the applicant is not required to meet with the com- mittee but that plans are submitted and unless there is a definite problem, they do not meet with the Committee. The only problem on the matter was that Mr. Cozad wanted to find out what was required by the Architectural Committee for the landscaping. As a resoIt of the meeting, in which Mr. Gill attended, it was agreed to question the Architectural Committee and they indicated that they expected to have landscaping around the entire boundary of the property. This was conveyed to Mr. Cozad, he still wanted to meet with thc Archi- tectural Committee and it was indicated at that time that it was not proper to meet with the Committee until a plan was actually submitted. This seems to be where the bone of contention lies. The Architectural Committee did not want to dictate specific plans. Mr. Cozad felt that the plans that had been submitted to the Coramis- sion along with the original application were sufficient and did not understand why they had not heard anything from the Architectural Committee relative to these. Mr. :...'cb:;ter point~d out to Mr. Coz;~d that there were som~, specific problems regarding this at the Sep~ember llth meeting and during thc conversation between Mr. Halus and himself (Mr. Cozad) that co;?.mentcd "I don't want yo~, ~o rati~er sweepingly cognovit yourself all the.,;e standards and then realize .... "and that i, lr. Cozad's was: "Rigi~t, I understand .... " Mr. Webster stated that thc p.lot plan of the landscaping indicating a problem was recognized at that time. ?C~tnutes - 11/27/67 Mr. Cozad said that they now have plans and they do want to submit them to ~.h~:~rq~...~c. rural committee if it will be allowed. Mr. Oster explained to Mr. Cozad that the Planning Commission's function is to reschedule a hearing if there is some hardship shown or some problem with the plans submitted to the Architectural Con~ittee if it is requested and that at this point it is out of the hands of the Planning Director. He opined that if the appli- cant has some concrete proposals and tkey are willing to meet with the Architectural Comittee to expedite this then this should eliminate some of the problem, but further explained that the Planning Commission and the Architectural Committee are not going to help them select a bid or tell them what price of landscaping to purchase. He felt that enough time has elapsed between the original hearing and the progress that has taken place and ex- pressed interest in seeing the service station back in operation if all regulations were complied with, although if not, then he is in favor of revoking the Use Permit. Mr. Bacon concurred with Mr. Oster and stated that if the applicant would come in with an adequate set of plans that the Architectural Co,~ittee would not be adverse to talking with them. Mr. Fox felt that the conditions stipulated were reasonable enough to continue the hearing to the December llth Planning Commission Meeting and stated that ~ set of plans are complete at this time that can be submitted to the Architectural Committee on the 28th of November for their review. Mr. SupinEer explained that the next Architectural Meeting would be held on Friday, December 1, 1967. It was moved by Mr. Bacon~ secondedby Mr. Oster that UP-~7-237, Lerner Oil Compaqy~ be continued to the December llth reAularl¥ scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Marsters expressed concern over the lot being striped, the trash area, and noticed that a double trailer truck has been parked there for 3 days. He also asked Mr. Supinger to go over the Sign Ordinance w~th Mr. Cozad. Mr. Supi~er explained that these areas of concern would be discussed with Mr. Cozad. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Webster, Bacon, Larnard, Marsters. Noes: None. carried 6-0. Oster, Ludwig, Absent: Halus. Chairman Marsters called a 5 minute recess. The Planning Commission reconvened at 8:28 P.M. 7. AMENDbIENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 157 Amending Section 5.3, deleting therefrom the requirement that circuses and carnivals be permitted subject to the issuance of a Use Permit and amending Chapter 8 of the Tustin City Code providing for the issuance of permits for carnivals, circuses, fairs and other amusements. Mr. Supin8er presented the staff report explaining that the purpose of this ordinance is to remove the responsibility for approving the above activities from the Planning C~,~ission and to vest same in the License and Permit Board. He felt that the proposed pro- cedures will be an improvement over those at present. H~ recon~nended approval for the proposal and to forward it to City Council for adoption. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearin); at 8:30 P.M. There being no cormnents from the audience th~' public portion of the hearing was immediately declared closed. -6- PC Minutes - 11/27/67 Ve OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. CORRES - PONDENCE !.ir. '..'ebster asked what the function of the Lict, n,~;c ,~n:] i'c,:' i." Board would be on tlnese matters. Mr. Gill explained that thc Licen,,;c and Permit Board wi. il. co:.:;'.'.d,' , the particular activity that is involved with enterrai~..,~.':, ~,.- such. The applicant will be ClUeS;:~oned as to the ~:ctivity, c::- plaining that the Police i)epartme;~u, now, is responsible in sure that this Js a legitimate opcrat{on. The License Bo,~rd h~n the authority to require the applicant and the members of the operation to be cleared by the Police ]Department. Thc function of the proposed ordinanc~ would not change, it would just ~ak~. th~ Usc Permit problem away from the Planning Commission and direct to the License and Permit' Board. Ch4:irman Marsters questioned the safety and :.:el fare aspect.<; of such operations. Mr. Gill stated that this would be inciu,,ii~d the investigation and before a license permit was issued, these particular areas would be cleared. It was moved by ,x2r. Oster~ seconded by Mr. !.;ebscc~r that No. 933~ be apnrow~.d and reco~end to City Cou~cil for ador~C~o.'_.~. of an ordinance relative to Circuses¢ Carnivals, Fairs and Other .~nusements and the Conduct of Outdoor ,.3ales~ amendin~ Zoninl; Ordinance No. 157. The above motion was voted by roll cai].. Ayes: Oster, Ludwig, Webster, Bacon, Larnard, Marsters. Noes: None. Absent: Halus. NONE NONE 1. COUNTY CASE UV-5986 - Robert H. Grant Co. To permit a subdivision directional sign (8' x 12~) for three years in an R-f~ District. Mr. Supin~er. presented thc staff report recommending denial, stating that said sign is 64 square feet more than perr,:itted under our ordinance. The Planning Commission opposed thc granting of subject application because the request exceeds the limits for directional :zigns Jrt- eluded in the Sign Ordinance and in the Planning Cou~Jssion ?oiicy "Tract and Directional SLgns in Unincorporated Territory Adjacent to Tustin." It was moved by Mr. Oster, ,,;econded by Mr. Webster, that. the Plan- pi. ng Director be directed to direct a letter to tlne Oran~~. County Plannin~ Commission advising them. that the subject sig. n exceeds the Tustin Si~gn Ordinance and ,ointing out to them~ the require- ments of the Tustin Sign Ordinance. Mr. Oster stated that he would like to make it clear that he did not feel that the letter should contain anything with regard to Items 1 and 2 in the staff's reco.r~ncndation, feeling that telling the County what to do was beyond the province of the Tustin Plan- ning Commission. 1'he above motion was voted by roll cai].. Web:~ter, Bacon, T,ar,;'..~'d, Mar~,;t'~:x's. No~s: carried 6-0. Ayes: Oster, L,¢h..'i!; ~ Absent: l{alus. -7- PC Minutes - 11/27/67 2. COUNTY CASE CP-1322 - RESIDENTIAL INCOME CO?,P, To permit the elimination of Condition ilo. 8 of appr¢'~-al of amendment to CP-1069 with regard to the construction of a block wall in connection with a 50 unit planned develop- ment in the R4 (6000) PD(3300) "Suburban Residential" ;~rJ "Planned Development" Districts. ,X;r. SuDinzer gave the staff report stating that severa-~ of t1'.a trees are already dead or in very bad shape and that they shou]d either be topped to a maximum height of 30 feet or removed. The Comnission discussed the construction and dimensions of a block wall along with the existing trees r~_l:.tive to subject application. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Be-on that the Plannin% Staff be directed to prepare a letter to the Orange County Planning Commission recommending that a concrete 6' block wall be constructed between the existinq carports and between the caruorts and the property lines, p~ovided, howeyer, that said block wall be a maximum of three (3) feet high within twenty (20) feet of the r~ht-of-wa~ of Red Hill Avenue. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Webster, Bacon, Larnard, Marsters. Noes: None, carried 6-0. Oster, Ludwig, Absent: Holus. 3. COUNTY CASE - ZC-67-23 - (AMENq)ED APPLICATION) W,G. SO~EP, VILLE To rezone from R4(3000) PD(3000) to RP and R2 (1700). Original application was for RP and R2(1000). Mr. Supin~er presented the staff report recon~ending denf.~l for the following reasons: The Tustin Planning Commission has previously gone on record as opposing comme£cial development on Red l{il] Avenue north of San Juan, ® The proposed multiple family zoning would result in a density of 25 units per acre wi~ich is approximately :;ix times the density indicated by the General Plan (4 units/acre) and nearly twice the density of the existing zoning (12-14/units acre). The Commission discussed the density of the area, the proposed use of the property and the pros and cons of different types of develop- ments and it was agreed upon by the majority of the Cemmission that it would be a good buffer to construct apartments in that area. Mr. Chris' Lindlev, representing Mr. Sonnncrville, spoke briefly on the plans and answering questions pertinent to this applica~:ion. It was moved by Mr. Oster: seconded by blt. Larnard that the Planning, Staff be directed to prepare a letter to the Oran~,,,e Cowntv Planning Commission. voicinK no obiection relative to the .nro;)os,,d Zone Change. Motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Webster, .... ..,ar.~'~crs.. , Bacon, Larnard. Noes: Ludwig, Absent: Halus. C_,Trri_~ed__- L1.. VIII. OTE,:.R BUS i ~';S!; NONE. IX. ADJOURN- SE AI~Y 01" 'rHF. PLANNIt;(; It was moved by 1.1r....i, .con., 3ecm3.ded by _b_i.]:'s__.__I:,u_i~!::'_!!:,- tl. ~, meeting be adiourm, d. Carried unanimously. ,',d.}ou~,.,,:: :. .:, .~,. t;IiAIRI.IAN OF TIiE PLAMNIN(; C,¥;MI ,,)N