Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-08-67MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION May 8, 1967 CALL TO ORDER II. ROIJ.. CALL III. APPROVAL OF ItlNUTES IV. PUBLIC OLD BUSINESS VI. NL~ BUSINESS The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. by Chairman Marsters Present: Co.,,,issioners: Bacon, Halus, Harsters, Ludwig, Sharp, Oster Absent: Co~iss£oners: Brand Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney James L. Supinger, Planning Director Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary Chairman Harsters stated that Mrs. Ludwi~ could not vote as an official Convnissioner until she was sworn in, by the City Clerk. It was moved by Hr. Sharp~,seconded by Hr. Oster that the minutes oF April 24~ 1967 mee~int be approved as mailed. Motion carried. 1. ZC-67-155 - HENRY L. HUNT To rezone a 50 ft. X 150 ft., parcel of land from 100 C-1 10,000 (Retail Commercial 100 ft., frontage 10,000 sq. ft. lot area) District to C-1 (Retail Commercial) District. Due to an error in the advertising of this application, the public hearing was canceled for this evenings meeting ard will be re- advertised for the Hay 22nd, 1967 Planning Commission meeting. 1. TEHPORARY OFFICE BUILDING "A" AND FIRST STREET Farmers Insurance Company, southeast corner of First and "A" Streets. Mr.. Supin~er presented a. brief staff report stating that a proposal was submitted to the Planning Department to construct a 384 sq. ft., temporary office for Farmers Insurance Company. It is proposed that the building will be utilized for nine months and anticipated that a new office building will be completed for the Insurance Company on the front of the parcel. The Architectural Co,~ittee referred the subject application for architectural approval because of the following reasons: 1. There is no provision in the Zoning Ordinance for temporary uses. 2. Legal questions of the capability to insure that a temporary building will not become permanent. It was suggested that the City Attorney be ~onsulted relative to the best legal course of action on this application. Mr. iuptn~er mentioned that the staff is proposing an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to cover future temporary uses. Hr. Bacon asked if it would be proper to discuss the amendment first and then come back to this item of business. Mr. Supin~er felt that this particular item should be heard first because if the Amendment for Temporary Uses was approved by the Planning Co~tssiou, it would still take three to four months for final approval and felt that it would be too long for the applicant to wait. ! IN: Minutes - May 8, 1967 Page -2- Mr. Oster concurred with Hr. Bacon and asked Mr. Supinger if they did grant approval for the application would it present any problems or would it be better to get the Amendment approved before taking any ectio~. Mr. Rourke felt that the latter suggestion would be preferable. Since the present ordinance did not offer any provisions for this type of use, it would be appropriate to amend the ordinance and then the request could be accomodated. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded, by Mr. Bacon that the ~ou~niss_!on discuss the prop@sal for ~he Amendment t9 Zoning Ordlnaqce No. 1}7.of ~mpor~y Uses prior to consideration of the pre,eat application. Motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Marilyn J. Ludwig. took the official oa%h an4 ~as sworn iqto..pffice as a Planning Commissioner for the City of Tustin and County of Orange by the City..C1Drk, Ruth C. Poe at 8:15 P.M., on the 8th day of May. 1967.~ 3. ANENIR/ENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 157 - Temporary Uses Mr. Supinger presented a proposed ordinance on the subject to the Planning Commission resulting from the application that was discussed earlier in the meeting (Farmers Insurance). He explained that the proposal requires Use Permits for such temporary uses. Such uses would be permitted for six (6) months in developed areas and one (1) year in undeveloped areas. He felt that the ordinance would put the City in a more favorable position to prevent temporary uses becoming permanent. Mr. Sharp questioned if there was a standard definition for developed and undeveloped areas. Mr. Supinger said that there was no definition for developed and undeveloped areas. Mr. Sharp was concerned about the problem of misinterpretation of this and ~r. Supin~er stated that he was sure that there might be a difference of opinion'of the definition, however, either way the applicant could apply for a Use Permit and the Cou~ission could take the information into account and decide whether they felt it was a developed area or not. He stated that it is rather difficult to know exactly where to draw the line. Mr. Sharp wanted to know the reason for establishing two time periods, one of six months and one for one year. ~r. SupinKer explained that in a developed area it is more important to limit these uses because there is more to protect. The main purpose of this is to preclude a temporary use becoming permanent. It is one of protection for developed areas and felt that a shorter period is more desirable. '- Mr. Sharp opined that it seems it would be a simpler thing to operate with, if only one time period was established for both. Mr. Su~in~er stated that it could be established this way if it is the pleasure of the Co~isaion and that it does not make any difference to the Staff. Mr. Halus commenting along the same line stated that, assuming that it was limited to a six (6) month period and if the applicant requesting an extension would merely write a letter and the letter would be acted upon at the appropriate meeting of the Planning Con~ntssion - would there be a cost involved to the applicant? ~r. Supin~er stated that from a legal standpoint he was not sure, or how it would stand up as it is worded in the ordinance, because in the ordinance it says six (6) months for developed areas and one year for undeveloped areas. He suggested that the word "provision" be added and the Planning Commission could grant a certain amount of time based upon due cause. Mr. Helus felt that a six (6) months time limit would be more agreeable to have it applied across the board and that the word "temporary"was of concern to him, hoping it would eliminate a possibiity of permanency. PC Minutes - May 8, 1967 Page -3- Mr. Oster concurred with Mr. Halus, feeling that it should not have a distinction of "developed" or "undeveloped" statement and show on the proposed ordinance that it be established to "not in excess of six (6) months," and if it went that way, then it could always be extended but at least it would be "temporary". It would let the applicant know what the Co~nission's feelings were as far as six (6) months is applied and would prevent any squabble over developed or undeveloped areas. It was moved by Mr. Oster~ seconded by. Mr. Halus that the Plannin~ Co~nission request the Planning Staff to schedule a public hearing on the Amendment of Ordinance No. 157~ to provide that the Plannin~ Cuu,,ission may ~rant temporary uses for a period not tQ.~xceed six (6) months by followin~ the procedure in Rovernin~ the Krantin~ of a Use Permit. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Ha lus, Bacon, Mars ters. Noes: None. Absent: 6-0. Oster, Sharp, Ludwig, Brand. Motion carried 1. TEMPORARY OFFICE BUILDING '~" AliD FIRST STREET This item continued from the earlier portion of the meeting. Mr. William E. RedliBe, present business address, 181 So. '~" Street, Tustin, stated that he ~nd Mr. Zeigenhagen were owners of the property on the corner of First and "A" Street. He mentinned that it had been their intention for some time to build a two occupancy building - one for then~selves and one for the Tustin Village television. He said that the architectural plans had been approved in July of 1966 and not pro- ceeded as rapidly as at the present time, but they have been jogged into this now because the owner Mr. Martini, owner of the property that they now occupy, sold it and has served them with a 30 day notice to vacate. He stated that they were not in the position to start the structure and wanted to establish their office address at the location where the new building is proposed. He felt that the onl~ way they could do this was to put in some temporary quarters that they could occupy and establish the address rather than making two separate moves. He stated that neither they, nor Farmers Insurance, would anticipate staying in that status for over a period of twelve (12) months, because it is a part of their contract with Farmers Insurance to establish a permanent location for the office and they have given them permission to use temporary quarters with the anticipation that the building will be completed as proposed and occupy it. Questions from the Commission were in the nature of how long it would take to complete the proposed building, were the plans completed, did they have a building permit and financing of the subject building. Mr. Redline answered by saying he thought possibly a time period of six (6) months but he was not definitely sure because it would have to be in two stages. The television store would have to be completed and move them out and complete their hals of it. He went on to say that the plans were completed but the entire financing was not yet finished. Mr. Oster asked Mr. Rourke what the procedure would be for Chis since there is no temporary use in the ordinance now and could there be any requirements stipulated. His main concern was that First Street be upgraded and not turn into something that would cause it to be down- graded eventually Mr. Rourke opine~ that it would certainly be questionable how enforceable any conditions would be inasmuch as it is somewhat outside of the pro- visions of the ordinance. He stated that he did not know how the appli- cant'would feel about some sort of agreement secured by bonds or something on this order. He called to the attention of the Commission that all they were involved in, was approval of plans and there was no provision of the ordinance for contingent or restricted approval of plans. He stated that if they did change their minds it would be very questionable as to what the City would do for removal of the building. PC Minutes - May 8, 1967 P~ge -4- Mr. Oster asked then if it would be a firmer agreement if the applicant would agree with the City Attorney, in consideration of the Planning Co~nission granting them the architectural approval of the plan, that they would remove the structure within one year and if they did not, the City could take appropriate steps to remove it and place a lien on the property for any cost of removal. He did not feel that a bond should be put up now because it may present problems but wanted a firm agreement. Mr. Rourke stated that the suggestion that had just been made was the most that could be done at this time and most satisfactory, although none of the suggestions were beyond problems. Mr. Halus voiced concern of the sanitation facilities that were not shown on the proposed plan and asked what would be done. Mr. Redline stated that there would be portable toliet facilities and that there were only three (3) men for such a use. Mr. Halus then directed a question to Mr. Supinger on the temporary structure as to the health, welfare and sanitation from the City's standpoint. Mr. Sppinger explained that he had been informed that they would use the facilities in the existing building on the site. Mr. Sharp asked how long it would take to get an amendment to the ordinance that was being acted upon amending the City law. Mr. Rourke felt that it would be less than 3 months. Mr. Sharp wanted to know if there would be a problem if they were agreeable to a three (3) month period for the subject at hand and after the three (3) months if there was a need to extend it later. Mr. Rourke stated that he did not see any problems but didn't think there would be any difference in the particular problems that they would have. It was moved by Mr. Oster,.seconded by Mr. Halus that the PlanninR Commission grant architectural approval to the temporary bu£1dings proppsed as set forth in the plans subm~ ~ted to this meeting and ia~d approval is conditioned upon the execution of agreement between the applicant and the City of Tustin obtaining the necessary approval of the City Attorney a.nd any other city. bodies which may b~ ~equired, which agreement would pro- vide that the structures be removed at the expiration of six (6) months from this date and in the event that the structures are not remov~d~ the City could remove the structures and have whatever word~n~ the ~i~y Attorney may deem appropriate to protect the riKhts of the City and giye. the City Attorney full authority ~o draft the a~r~ement in a form satisfactory to protect the rights of the City. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Ludwig, Halus, Bacon, Marsters. Noes: None. Absent: Brand. Motimn carried 6-0. 2. PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL POLICY Mr: Supin~er stated that the Proposed Architectural Policy was pre- pared as a result of the last regular scheduled Planning Commission meeting. The staff recommended that the proposed polic~ be approved and recommended to the City Council for adoption as revised relative to the scales at the pre-meeting. It was moved by Mr. Halus, seconded by Mr. Oster that the. p~oposed pqli~¥ be submitted to the City Cquncil for their approval and in- clusion in the City's manual. Motion carried 6-0. Absent: Brand. 4. AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANC~ NO. 157 Accessory Structures Mr. SupinRer presented the staff report giving the key aspects of the proposal and recommending that it be scheduled for a public hearing if the C,~,ission was satisfied with the proposal. PC Minutes - Nay 8, 1967 Page -5- Mr. Supin~er stated that Mr. Brook, Building Director, has brought up the question relative to Item No. 5 of the staff's report and rather than stating20 ft., in the rights-of way, if it shouldn't be keyed to the regular setbacks from the rights-of-way which in the R-3 district would be 15 feet. Mr. Supinger c~,ented that through the discussion with Mr. Brook, he felt that it would be good, just for var£ety to have carports set back another 5 fe.t from what the main buildings are. Relative to the zero setback and side and rear property lines, Mr. Greenwood asked Mr. Supinger to give his views on the subject. He feels that if the property owner can not get an easement for maintenance that there should be a provision in the ordinance stating what the setbacks should be and feels that one (1) ft., would be adequate. Mr. Supinger felt there should be a minimum of three (3) feet. In order for main- tenance to have a little more room this would be necessary. Mr. Greenwood based his opinion on the fact that with a one (1) ft., setback there has been no complaints. Through the discussion and questions of the Commission and the staff, the Commission felt that they would like a little more time to study the proposal. It was moved by Mr. Halus, seconde~ by Mr. Oster that the proposal under consideration'for accessory structures be delayed to the next regular scheduled meetinS. Motion carried unanimously. FINAL MAP OF TP~%CT 6110 Mr. Suptnger presented a brief staff report stating that the property is directly north of Ralph's Sh6pping Center to the west of the existing homes. The City Engineer finds that the map of 6110 is technically correct and recomnends approval. The copy of the map was presented to the Commission for their review. It was moved by Mr. Halus, seconded by Mr. Bacon that the Pl~nnin~ Co~aission find the minute ord"r is appropriate for final map of tract 6110. Mr. Shard voiced ~oncern over the underground utilities. M~r. SuDinger stated that it is a City policy to encourage underground utilities for this but there is no requirement. Mr. Halus amended the motion to include undersround utilities, Mr. Bacon concurred. Motion carried unanimously. VII. CORRES - PONDENCE 1. County Case - UV-5888 - PARKLANE TERRACE GARDEN APARTMENTS To permit the continued use of a rental office and model apartments for the rental of the existing 220 apartment units in Tract 5028 in the R-4 Suburban Residential District. After much discussion on this matter among the C~m, issioners as to whether such a use should be permitted.in a Suburban Residential District, It was moved by~r. Bacon, seconded hy Mr. Oster that a letter be prepared to submit to Orange County PlanninK DepaFtment voicing no objection to Application UV-5888. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Bacon. .Noes: }talus, Ludwig, Marsters. Absent: Brand. Vote tied 3-3. It was moved bv Mr. Oster, seconded ~y Mr. ~a~on, thag "no.comment" b~ forwarded to th~ QranKe County Planninm DeDartmeqt and let them handle it by ~heir own standards. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Bacon. Noes: Sharp, Ludwig, Mars~ers, Halus. Absent: Brand. Mottqn d~n. ied 4-2. PC Minutes - May 8, 1967 Page -6- Mr. Oster asked if it would be appropriate to direct the Planning Director to prepare a letter to the Orange County Planning Depart- ment to the effect of the first motion that was made indicating the split vote and the reasons why, so they would be aware of the Commission's feelings on the matter. It was Mr. Halus's feelings that the pros and cons should be conveyed to the Orange County Planning Commission. He felt that not to issue any comments at all was not meaningful and they should know some of the rationale behind their split vote.. Mr. Oster concurred and said that that was what he had in mind when he made the previous motion. With this in mind Mr. Oster moved that this be done] seconded by Mr. Ha~us. Motion carried 6-0 VIII. OT~ER BUSINESS 2. Tentative Map of Tract No. 6400 After the Commission reviewed the map, It was moved by Mr. Halus, seconded by Mr. Sharp that the PlanninK Director draft a letter to the Orange County Plannin~ Department voicin~ concern of the lots of narrow width and the lack of under~round utilities. Motion carried 6-0. 3. Tentative Tract 5745 After a short presentation of the map and comments from Mr. Supinger as to the location, It was moved by. Mr. Halus, secondgd by Mr. Bacon that a letter be prepare~.tp, the Orange County PlanninK Department egpre~sin~ coDcern over the substandard street width and ~Kai~ ur~in~ underground utilities, motion carried unanimously. 1. TRANS-ROBLES INC. Mr. Supinger stated that they had taken over the tract that ~as formerly the "Originals", north of Ralph's Shopping Center, that have some on- site and off-site identification signs. One on the corner of Yorba and Seventeenth that is 96 sq. ft., and three (3) signs at Laurie Lane and Yorba, two (2) of which are 96 sq. ft., and one is 36 sq. ft. The one at the end of Santa Clara Avenue, east of Carrol Way is 96 sq. ft. The permits have expired on all of these. One other sign is on'the site that is 348 sq. ft., which has not expired. Since they have taken over the tract ahd renamed it, they want to repaint the signs. Mr. Brook indicated that they need to comply with the sign ordinance, however they went ahead and repainted the signs and now are asking what procedure can be followed to get approval of the signs as they are. Mr. Rourke stated that this property has been a subject of great mank problems. The Original owners went into foreclosure and sold it to another group, which in turn this group sold it to another and now it has gotten down to foreclosure by the original lender and the present holder is a subsidiary corporation of the lender that has taken title now to try and affect some sort of a salvage operation. The people that were painting the signs are sign companies, so it did not particularly mean that the owners went ahead with it. Mr. Rourke thought that this might bear some consideration in terms of willfulness of what they are doing. Mr. Rourke asked what would their status be if it had not been for a change of ownership. Mr. SuDinRer said the signs still would have expired. They were limited to one year with two six month extensions. M~. Halus was in favor of encouraging the development in the sale of these homes as much as possible, but felt that the signs had been ex- tended to what is an appropriate time limit and had certainly expired their ~se. PC HinuCes - Hay 8, 1967 ".~'" ~ Page Chairman Harsters wanted to know exactly what was expected of the Con~uission on this subject. Hr. Sup~nRer stated Chat they had requested help on how to proceed and felt that they should comply with the Sign Ordinance or apply for a variance. Hr. Halus stated that personally he felt he would be agreeable to any- thing that he or the Commission could do to assist the Trans-Robles Incorp., in their current problem consistent with meeting the legal mechanism that exist in the City. Hr. Oster concurred and felt that the C~.,,ission should request the Planning Director to advise them that the Commission desires to look at their sign problem and the signs require a variance for this type of action. . ~,t was requested by the Commission that Mr. Supinger .writ~ a letter to 'the Trans-Robles Inco~p., stating their desire to help. 2. Richfield Sign at San Juan and Redhill Hr. ~upin8er stated that Hr. Gill had ask for discussion among the Conanissioners on the Richfield sign which is above the Tustin Sigp Ordinance height limits. The height of signs has been discussed that are adjacent to the City limits and Hr. Supinger felt that it might be appropriate to direct a letter to the County and request that they have more consideration for Tustin regulations. The Planning Co.mission expressed grave concern about the proliferation, size and height of signs pe~nitted in unincorporated territory adjacent to Tustin and requested that greater consideration be given to the regulations of adjacent cities by the Orange County authorities. It was moved by Hr. Halus, ~econded by Mr. Sharp..~hat the Planning ~irector prepare a letter to the County of OranRe, statinR,the position of this body relative to signs of any nature of this particular heitht and elimination contiguous to residential areas quoting the sections qf.pur Sign Or~inances t~at are applicable.and encoura~in~ and requestin~ ~he,County to take these facets of our Ordinance into consideration when acting on portions of property that are contiguous to the City. Hotio~ carried unanimously. 3. Tax Override in Support of the Tustin Onion High School District Mr. Halus felt that the Planning Commission as a representative of the City of Tustin should endorse the forty-five (45¢) cent school tax override due to the importance of maintaining the high calibre of education for which Tustin is so well known. It was moved by Mr. Halus, that in the best interest of the community the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin endorse and support the current forty-five (45¢),cen~. school tax override p~oposal in order to assist in maintatninR the htKh,educattonal standards that we striv~ ,for in the City. At this point in the meeting It was moved by. Mr. Oster~ seconded by Mr. Bacon that the meeting be adlourped. Hr. Halus called a point of order, stating that a motion was on the f~6r. Hr. Oster informed Hr. Ma lus that a motion to adjourn always takes precedence over any other motion. Chairman Marsters concurred with Hr. Oster stating that he was correct. The above motion by Hr. Oster was voted on and the motion carried unanimous ~y. Hr. Oster and Hr. Bacon withdrew their adjournment motion. Chairman Harsters stated that the previous motion of Hr. Halus stands. PC Minutes - May 8, 1967 Page -8- IX. ADJOURN- MENT It was seconded by Mr. Sharp for purposes of discussion, but he went on to say that he questioned whether it is appropriate for the City Planning Commission to endorse such a petition in public, although he personally felt that everyone stands to benefit from this. Mr. Bacon concurred with Mr. Sharp and felt that individually the Commissioners could write a letter stating their feelings.. Mr. Oster agreed with Mr. Bacon and Mr. Sharp and did not feel that this was one of the functions of the Planning Commission and any action on this matter would be very presumptuous ~nd stated that, that was the only reason for his motion at that time for adjournment --- it was nothing personal. Chairman Marsters also felt that this should not go on record as a public body and he would not be in favor of this type of action. The above motion was vote by roll call. Ayes: Halus. Noes: Sharp, Oster, Ludwig, Bacon, Marsters. Absent: Brand. Motion denied 5-1. It was moved by Mr. Bacon, seconded by Mr. Oster~...that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried. There being no other business before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:29 P.M. SECreTARY OF THE PLANNING CO[~4ISSION