Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-09-67MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 1967 CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HBARINGS The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M., by Chairman Marsters. Present Commissioners: Oster, Webster, Ludwig, Marsters, Halus, Brand, Bacon. Absent: Commissioners: None Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney James L. Supinger, Planning Director Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary AMEK~MEN~ to the Septegber 1~, 1967 Planning Commission Minutes. Moved~.seconded and duly cargied tbat.~esolution No. 291, aDDrovinR Tentative Map. No. 6473: Resolution No. 922~ approvin8 Final Map No. 6470 and Resolution. No. 9~3, approving Final Map No. 6478 be passe~ and adopted. It was moved by.~r. Oster~ seconded by Mr~_Ha_lus~ that the Minutes pf September 25, 1967 and the AmeB~mg.n~ o~ Septembgr ~1, 19~7 minutes be approved as mailed. Carried 7-0. 1. AME~])MEh~ TO SIGN ORDINANCE NO. .305 To progide for the signs in Planned Community Districts. Mr. Supinser called attention to the proposed ordinance suggesting that it be recommended to City Council for adoption.. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:37 P.M. There being no comments from the audience, the public portion of the hearing was closed immediately. It was felt by the Commission that this proposal has been sufficiently reviewed and needed no further discussion. It was moved by Mr. Halus, seconded by Mr. Brand, that Resolution No. 924 for proposed ordinance relative to Signs in Planned Community Districts amendinK Sign Ordinance ~o. 305, be recommended to City Council for adoption. The above motion was vo~by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Webster, Ludwig, Marsters, Halus, Brand, Bacon. Motion carried 7-0. 2. AMENDMENT TO SIGN ORDINANCE NO. 305 Relative to the number of signs permitted for businesses within 200 ft., of a freeway off-ramp. Mr. Supinger explained that a proposed ordinance has been drafted and suggested that this proposal be recommended to City Council for adoption.. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:39 P.M. Mr. Fred Waitman, representing the Chamber of Commerce, commented that this had been publicized in the Chamber of Commerce bulletin to all the members and'received no response at all, There being no further comments or discussion from the audience, Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 7:42 P.M. -1- PC Minutes, October 9, 1967 OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. CORRES- PONDE,NCE The Commission felt that considerable time had been spent at the last meeting discussing the pros and cons and the wording of the ordinance seemed to be consistent with their thinking at that time. It was moved by Mr. Halus, seconded by Mr. Bacon, that Resolution No. 925 for ,roposed ordinance relative to the number of signs permitted for businesses within 200 ft., of a freeway off-ramp~ ameDdin~ SiRn Ordinance No. 305~ be recomnended to CiTy Council for adoption. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Webster, Ludwig, Marsters, Halus, Bacon, Brand. Noes: None. Motion carried 7-0. 1. "TAKE-OUT FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS Relative to correct zoning of such establishments. Chairman Marsters announced that this item would be discussed in a workshop meeting after the regularly scheduled meeting if this was satisfactory with the Commission. 2. PROPOSED PARKING REGULATIONS Relative to new p~oposed parking regulations to be incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Supinger mentioned that this item along with Item No. 1 would also be discussed at the workshop meeting with the Chamber of Go~uerce representatives in attendance. NONCE 1. COUntY TENTATIVE MAP - TRACT NO. 6484 - For Approval The only deviation from the City's standards was the 10' parkway. Full street improvements and street trees were discussed and the Planning Director was asked to pursue with the' County, the matter of street trees being considered as a normal part of the property as it is developed. i~ was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by MK. Brand, that the PlanninK Staff be directed to write a letter to the County of Orange Planning Cc~mission recommending approval of Tentative Map - Tract No. 6484 subject to the followinR suR~estions: 1. That ten (10)' foot parkways be maintained throughout the subdivision. 2. That full street improvements be installed on the five (5) acre parcel shown as not a part of the subdivision. That consideration should be given relative to establishment of a requirement of installation of street trees in new sub- divisions. (The City requires that these be cared for by the abutting property owners except along major thoroughfares.) The above motion carried una~imously. 2. COUNTY CASE ZC-67-23 - W. G. Sommerville. Proposal to change from the R4(3000) PD(3000) "Suburban Residential Planned Development" District to the RP '~esi~ential Professional" and R2 "Group D~lling" Districts, certain property located at the most easterly corner of Red }{ill Ave., and San Juan Street. Mr. Supin~er presented a brief staff report recommending denial, -2- PC Minu~es - October 9, 1967 ' '"' ' Mixed feelings were expressed by the Coa~ission regarding subject proposal. High density in that particular area, non-conformance with the General Plan, proper land usage and zoning were the main subjects discussed. Mr. Oster felt that the RP zoning on the corner might be a goo~ buffer zone. Mr. Halus opined that there was a bad situation in terms of high density and crowding and would not like to see the problem continued in the area considered R2. He felt that it might be best to hold to the existing zoning or at least be consistent with the General Plan. Mrs. LudE~=E~_ feelings were that it was too close to the residential area. Mr. Brand did not feel that professional zoning in this particular area to be objectionable. It was mcved by Mr. Op_ter~ seqonded by Mr. Brand that the PlanninK Director direct a letter to the Orange County Planning Commission recom~endinz 9~Droval of the portion to be zoned RP, but with re- ~ard to the portion zoned R-2~ we would request them to hold to the existin~ ~onin~,.wh__ich ~uld yield 14 units per acre. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Bacon, Brand. Noes: Webster, Ludwig, Marsters, Halus. Motion denied 4-3. It wzs moved by Mr. Halus, seconded, by Mrs. Ludwig, that a letter be preDored by the staff and directed to the Orange County Plannin% Commission referencing ZC-67-23~ that the. request for RP (Residential Professio~a!}and R2 be denied and that the entire parcel be developed at a density of 14 units per acre. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Webster, Ludwig, Halus, Marsters. Noes: Oster, Brand, Bacon. Motion carried 4-3. It was requestcd by 1~. Gster that the 'Wore count" be included in the letter submitted to the Orange County Planning Commission. The Commission requested that a copy of the letter from Mr. Currie of the Tustin Elementary School District in regard to this case, voicing concern for the safety of the school children, be mailed along with the Plannin~ Co?mission's cormr, ents to the Orange County Plata%lng Commission. 3. CmU~Y CASE ZC-67-31 - Winona L. Jackson Proposal to change from the 100-Ci-10,000 "Local Business" District to the R2 - "Greup D,:elling" District, certain property located on the southerly side of Nisson Road approximately 150 ft., easterly of Utt Drive, in the southeast Tustin area. bir. Sup3qc?~ presented a brief staff report recommending that the County be informed that it would be best to continue the application until completion of the South Tustin Study, but if the applicant de- sires a decision that the maximum density be RfD. Mr. Bob H~ll, and Mr....Howell, attorney, were in attendance, speaking in favor of the application. Both spoke giving their reasons that the application should be granted. After discussion on the matter amonK the Commissioners, It was moved by Mr. Oster~_s.'~__co_?d__ed___by Mr. Bacqn, that the Planning Staff be directed to pre?~r~ a letter to the Orange County Plannigg Commission voicing no obi'etlon to zene chsnRe ZC $7-31 to an R2 district. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Bacon, Noes: Ludwig, Wekster, Marsters, Brand, Halus. Motion denied 5-2. -3- .'es - October 9, 1967 It was moved by l. lr..O, ster~ s,econde,d,, bM, Mr. Bacon, t[~.a_~,.a..1, etter be directed to the County of Orange Planning Commission stating that this body has no objection to an R-2 rezoning providin~ that they did not exceed 26 units per acre in whatever figures the County uses in their computations. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Bacon. Noes: Ludwig, Webster, Marsters, Halus, Brand. Motion denied 5-2. It was moved by Mr. Halus, seconded by Mr. Brand that the Staff be directed to oreoare a letter to the County referencing ZC-67-31 ex- pressing concern for.high density development where not designate~ by the General Plan.and to recommend zoning of R2-2500 for the subject prqperty. This zoning would permit a density of 16 units per acre and the construction of 30-32 units on the subject property. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Ludwig, Marsters, Webster, Halus, Brand. Noes: Bacon, Oster. Motion carried 5-2. Again, Mr. Oster requested that the "vote count" be included in the letter submitted to the County Planning Commission. VI%i. OTHER BUSI,N~.SS Chairman Marsters asked Mr. Supinger if there has been any corres- pondence from Ziegenhagen & Redline Farmers Insurance in reference to the Temporary Office Building they requested to occupy until November 1, 1967. Mr..Supinger said there has been no correspondence at this time. IX. ADJOURN- MENT 2. ORANGE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEN~ CONFERENCE Chairman Marsters mentioned the seminar that will be held in Anaheim and requested that anyone wishing to attend, report to him after the meeting. Mr. Halus, opined that he had attended some of the seminars and felt that it would be beneficial to those attending. It was moved by Mr. ~acon~ seconded by Mrs. LudwiK, that the meeting be adjourned. Carried unanimously. There being no further discussion or business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Marsters declared the meeting closed at 8:40 P.M. SEC~TARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CtbtIP~MAN OFd~HE PLANNING CC~MISSION -4-