Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-26-67MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 26, 1967 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M., by Chairman ~arsters II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Present: Commissioners: Halus, Marsters, Ludwig, Oster Mr. Bacon arrived at 8:35 P.M. Absent: Commissioners: Brand, .Sharp Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney James L. Supinger, Planning Director Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary It was moved by Mr. Ostera seconded by. Mr. Halus~ that the minutes o_~f June 12th, 1967 meetin8 be approved as mailed. Motion carried 4-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. V-67-188 - Trans-Robles Corporation To permit the continued use of existing tract and directional signs. Mr. SuDin~er presented the staff report and recommendations of the various departments, giving the background, location of the signs and recommended action of the Planning Department. He recommended that a variance be granted, for a one (1) year period, for the con- tinued use of the four (4) existing signs at locations indicated by the letters "a" through "d" on the Location Map and that the signs "e" and :'f" be removed by the applicant. Mr. Supinger explained that there are presently six (6) signs ad- vertising the development, the locations of which are indicated by the letters "a" through "f" on the Location Map. Sizes.of the signs are: a. Directional Sign, double faced, 8' X 12', 96 sq. ft./face, total 192 sq. ft. b. Tract Sign, single faced, 8' X 12', 96 sq. ft. c. Tract Sign, single faced, 8' X 12', 96 sq. ft. d. Tract Sign, single faced, 8' X 12', 96 sq. ft. e. Tract Sign, double faced, 12' X 29', 348 sq. ft. f. Tract Sign, 36 sq. ft. (not part of application.) Mr Halus asked what was the reason for the sign referred to as "f" being excluded from this consideration Mr. Supinzer explained that the sign indicated as "f" was inadvertently left off the application by the applicant. He did not feel that the Planning Commission could grant a variance for the continued use of the sign until a notice of public hearing was posted. This would require ~he submittal of a new application for this particular sign. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing on V-67-188 at 7:35 P.M. Mr. Walter Gribben, 3053 Lakeview, Fullerton, California, Attorney for the applicant, apologized in behalf of the Trans-Robles Corporation to the Commission for the error made by the applicant. He explained chat the signs were renovated and utilized by Trans-Robles without application to the City. He stated that the reason for this was due ~o the fault of his office and the lender of this matter. He explained the necessity of maintaining the signs for the project because of the expense that has already been involved in renovating the project. The locations for the signs are necessary for advertising and asked the Commission to give careful consideration to the application. -1- PC Minutes - June 26, 1967 Miss.Ellio~t, 13631 Yorba, is opposed to the signs on Yorba and the portable sign which is occasionally on her property. She stated that she was assured by the City of Tustin in 1965, that these signs were to be erected for one (1) year and they have been there over two (2) years now. She felt that if the others must comply with the Sign Ordinance of Tustin, that the Trans-Robles Corporation shouid also comply. Mrs. Day, 13672 Yorba, asked why three signs were needed. She felt that the sign that was doing the most good was facing the freeway and opined that the others were not serving any purpose except facing homeowners property. There being no further discussion or comments from the audience, Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 7:45 P.M. After much discussion on the particular signs, where they were located and the feelings of the citizens being taken into consideration, the Cor~nission sympathized with the applicant but felt that some adjustments would have to be made. The Commission was concerned about the sizes of the signs as well as complying with the Sign Ordinance. It was moved ~y Mr. Oster. seconded by Mrs. Ludwig, tha~ Resolution No. 894 for V-67-188 be granted in part and denied in part as follows: The existing sign located at Seventeenth and Yorba Streets (indicated by the letter "a" on the attached Location Map marked Exhibit A) may be utilized for six (6) months from the date of this action. The existing sign located at Carroll Way and Santa Clara' (location "d") may be utilized for six (6) months from the date of this action. e The existing sign (location "e") in the right-of-way of Marshall Lane may be utilized for six (6) months from the date of this action. Provided, however, that the applicant shall post a cash bond with the City of Tustin in the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for the removal of said sign and that the Cigy may require the removal of safd sign prior to the expiration of the six (6) month use period by giving notice to the applicant, in writing, at least thirty (30) days prior to such removal. 4. The existing signs at location "b", "c" and "f" shall be removed. m One sign, not in excess of 32 square feet total area, shall be permitted at the intersection of Laurie Lane and Yorba Street for a period of six (6) months from the date of this action, which sign shall comply all of the requirements of Section 31.00 of Ordinance 305, including bonding requirements. That the applicant may, by letter, apply to the Planning Commission for a maximum extension of the above granted use~ of six (6) months, provided such application is made prior to the expiration of six (6) months from the date of this action. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Ludwig, Halus, Marsters. Noes: None. Absent: Bacon, Brand, Sharp. Motion carried 4~0. -2- PC Minutes - June 26th, 1967 2, ZC-67-156 - Charles Greenwood and Arthur Peterson Jr. For consideration for rezoning of property fronting approximately 374 ft., on the east side of Pasadena Avenue, approximately 320 ft., south of the centerline of McFadden Avenue from the '~" (Industrial) District to an R-~Multiple Family Residential) District. Mr.. Suping~r presented the staff report giving location, zoning and the history of the property, stating that it was annexed to the City of Tustin in 1960 and has been zoned "M" (Industrial) since that time. He stated that the staff has no objections to the proposed rezoning from "M" to R-3 and recommends approval of ZC-67-156 for the following reasons: The subject property is the larger portion of the only remaining '~;" district in this area. Ail the surrounding properties in Tustin have been rezoned to R-3 except for a small area immediately to the north. 2. The Tustin Area General Plan calls for a heavy density residential development in the subject area. In addition to the recommendations the staff made the following comments: Not included in this application is a small piece of M-zone just to the north of the applicant's property. It was suggested by the staff, that if ZC-67-156 is granted, that the Planning Commission initiate the rezoning of the remaining M-District property to avoid undesireable spot-zoning. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:25 P.M. There being no objections or comments, the public portion of the hearing was immediately closed at 8:26 P.M. It was recognized that Mr. Peterson, one of the applicants was in the audience but did not make any comments. There being very little discussion on the matter, the Cou~nissioners did not see any problems at this point and felt that the staff repor~ was sufficient information. It was moved by Mr. Oster~ seconded by Mrs. Ludwig? that Resolution No. 895 be adopted, recommendin~ to the City Council~ that Application ZC-67-156 ~e Kranted for the following reasons: 1. The proposed rezoning conforms with the Tustin Area General Plan. 2. As additional grounds the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by reference and made a part of the motion. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Ludwig, Halus, Marsters. Noes. None. Absent: Brand, Bacon, Sharp. Motion carried 4-0. Discussion on the remaining parcel that is zoned '~" (Industrial), just north of the applicant's property, was thought to be incorrectly zoned to be con- sistent with the General Plan and surrounding usage of property of that area. The cormnission felt that the staff should take this under advisement and then pos: a hearing, after the staff has done research to see if C-2 is appropriate zoning, considering the General Plan and cover this information in the staff report when it comes before the Planning Commission. All of the Commissioners were in accord with this. 3. ,~n. endment to Zonin~ Ordinance No. 157 To provide for the location of Small Animal Hospitals and Clinics in C-i, C-2 and C-3 Districts subject to various conditions. -3- PC Minutes - June 26th, 1967 }Ir. Supin~ar presented a revised proposed ordinance relative to the location of Small Animal Hospitals and Clinics, stating that the reason for reconsideration by the Planning Commission was due to an objection to the provision prohibiting the boarding of small animals by veterinarians, by l.!r. Rollin Mahoney. After further investigation, the City Council de- cided to send the ordinance back for rehearing by the Planning Commission. Mr. Supin~er felt that with the removal of this stipulation, there should be no problem and recommended that the Planning Commission submit it to the City Council for public hearing and adoption. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:32 P.M. Dr. Stanton stated that he had nothing to add, only that he hoped a good ordinance is adopted by the City. Mr. Supinger explained the corrected changes to Dr. Stanton, since he did not receive a corrected copy until just before the meeting. Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:34 P.M. The Commission felt that since there have been numerous occasions prior to this to act on this particular item, there was very little to discuss. It was moved by.Mr. Ha.lus? seconded bv Mr. Oster that Resolution No. 896 for the proposed ordinance re: ,%mendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 157, relative to Small Animal Hospitals~ Clinics and Kennels, be approved and submitted to the City Council for adoption. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Ludwig, Halus, Marsters. Noes: None. Absent: Brand, Bacon, Sharp. Motion carried 4-0. 4. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 157 Regulating the height and location of fences, hedges and walls and a definition of front and side yard. Mr. Supinger presented a brief staff report, stating that the reason for reconsideration was due to conflicting provisions in the previous form. He stated that another version of this ordinance has been received and it is substantially the same as before, however, it has been modified slightly. It was recommended that this be approved and submitted to the City Council for public hearing and adoption. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:36 P.M. There being no com. ments or objections from the audience, Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed immediately. The only question that arose from the Commission was the specified figure of 6 ft., 8 inches. }ir. Supinger explained that this is quite normal to have a stipulating figure. It was moved b~}lr. Osterj seconded bv Mr. Halus that Resolution No. 897 for the proposed ordinance re: Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 157, relative to the lleigbt and Location of Fences~ Hedges and Ualls and Definition of Front Yard and Side Yard be approved and submitted to the City Council for public hearing and adoptipn. The above motion was voted by roll call: Ayes: Oster, Ludwig, Halus, Bacon, Marsters. Noes: None. Absent: Sharp, Brand. Motion carried 5-0. -4- PC Minutes - June 26th, 1967 OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. CORRES- PORq)ENCE 5. Amendment to Zonin~ Ordinance No. 157 To provide for the issuance of Use Permits for Temporary Uses for a maximum period of six months. Mr. Supinger presented a brief staff report explaining that this ordinance is being created as a result of the Farmers Insurance proposal for a temporary office building at "A" and First Streets. The Zoning Ordinance does not now have a provision for temporary uses. Mr. Supinger stated that since the last discussion of this matter, it has been noted that numerous fireworks stands have been erected in the area. Because of the short-term nature of this use and others, such as Christmas tree lots, the staff suggests that they be permitted to issue a one (1) month permit. It was recommended that the proposed ordinance be approved and recommended to the City Council for public hearing and adoption. Mr. Halus asked what the proper procedure would be for the short term uses by the applicant. Mr. Supinger explained that presently the fireworks and the Christmas tree lots are in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and that appropriate processes are not being followed. The ordinance would permit minor process to take place wherein the City would be protected, because prior to issuance of the permit, the other City departments would be consulted to make sure that safety measures would be taken. It was moved by MK. Halus, seconded by Mrs. Ludwi~ that Resolution No. 898 Amendment to Zonin8 Ordinance for the issuance of Use Permit§ for up to six (6) months for Temporary Uses~ and in addition the consideration that thc Plannin~ Staff be permitted to issue a permit for a short term use~. be approved and submitted to the City Council for public hearin~ and adoption. Mr. Halus noting that he had overlooked one of the pages submitted with the staff report asked permission to withdraw his motion, if Mrs. Ludwig would withdraw her second so he could modify the above motion. Permission was granted. It was moved by bir. !ta~us, seconded by Mrs. Ludwig that Resolution No. ~ ~or an Ordinance of the City of Tustin~. California, amendin~ Ordinance No. 157~ Zonin~ Ordinance~ as amended be submitted to the City Council for their action based on Draft III (Temporary Upes). 2'he above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Ludwig, Halus, Bacon, Marsters. Noes: None. Absent: Sharp, Brand. Motion carried 5-0. 1. Report re: McReynolds Application Mr. Supinger explained that a meeting had been scheduled for a conference with those involved on this project, but due to un- avoidable circumstances, Mr. Schlegel, attorney for Mr. McReynolds could not meet with Mr. Rourke at the scheduled time. Since there has been no agreement reached on both sides, this item would not be scheduled for the agenda at this point. He stated that the Commission would be informed about further developments. NONE 1. UP-66-216 - George Meurs Request for extension for UP-66-216 >;~. Supinqer presented the staff report stating the reason for the application was to permit submission of revised plans for modification of existing Use Permit. A letter from Mr. Meurs asking for a six (6) month extension was also submitted to the Planning Commission. -5- PC Minutes - June 26th, 1967 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Meurs letter stated that the new proposal will result in less density, better fire access and a park which is more compatible with the correct needs of mobilehome park residents. It was moved by Mr. Halus, seconded by Mr. Bacon that a six (6) month extension be granted for UP-66-216. Motion carried 5-0. ARCHITECTUR~kL COMMITTEE M'~BER Mr. ~upinger discussed the termination of Mr. Sharp from the Architectural Committee and felt that a new member should be appointed at this time. Mr. Halus was appointed to replace Mr. Sharp on the Architectural Committee. IX. ADJOUR~N- gENT Mr. Sharp's Resignation from the Planning Commission ~r. Halus, speaking for the Planning Commission stated that he felt a very strong sense of loss to lose Mr. Sharp from this body. He commended Mr. Sharp on his degree of professionalism with both the Architectural field and the approach to Planning matters, which has been a real credit to the Planning Commission. It was moved by Mr..[!alus, seconded bv Mr. Bacon that Resolution No. 899 be passed and adopted cormmendinq Mr. Sharp for his many hours of service and the deep appreciation of the Planning Commission, feeling that it is appropria~D that the Planning Commission recommend to the Citv Council that they also pass a resolution as they see fit for the appropriate appreciation of Mr. Sharp. The above motion was carried unanimously. It was moved by Mr. ~acon~ seconded by Mr. Oster~ that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. There being no other business before the Planning Commission~ the meeting was adjourned at 8:58 P.M. CHAIRiMAN 0~L~HE PLANNING COM~ISS~N -6-