Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-10-67II. ROIL CA~-~- II!. APPROVAL O~ MINUTES MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 1967 The meeting vas called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Narsters. Present: Commissioners: ~acon, Brand, Halus, Marsters, Hafner, Sharp, Oster Absent: C~,~..%ssioners: None Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney James L. Supinger, Planning Director Jo Ann Turner, PlanninE Secretary It was moved by Mr. Sharp~ seconded by dM. Oster that the minutes of March 27, 1967 mee~n~ be approved as mailed. Motion carried. 1. ZC-67-153 - KAL-SOUTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION To reclassify approximately 7.52 acres from PD (Planned Development) District to PD-2700 (2,700 sq. ft. of lot area per d~ellin§ unit). Mr. Supinger presented the staff report giving the reco~nendations of the other departments. The staff felt that the proposal has merit. The Planning department rec_o~_nds approval of ZC-67-153, noting that said approval does not include the specific plans, for the rolls, inS reagons: 1. The proposed rezoninS conforms to the Tustin Area General Plan. As additional grounds the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by reference and made a part of the motion. Chairman Marster8 opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:40 P.M. ~r. Ervin Wlne~uff, 1442 South Euclid, speaking in favor of the appli- cation gave a brief talk on the development and what they ~ere striving for. Ne mentioned that he was there to a~s~er any questions and pre- sented an elevation plan for the Co~ission's review. Mr. Win, surf stated that he would like for their engineer to review the Fire Depart- ment's recc~ndation, but saw no problem in carrying them out. Rec- reational facilities would be provided both, for adults and children and felt that it was a good plan, and that it was in keeping with the general development of the particular area in the City of Tustin. Mrs. ~rR McDonald, 13~02 Charisma, Tustin, opposing the application stated that this was the first step to creating 81~ns and vas not considered compatible living, due to children being placed in a small area and not being allo~ed the freedom that they would be in a larger place with fear families. Mrs. McDonald's concern vas also that of egress and ingress of the driveways, allys and streets that may create a hazard for fire trucks and ocher vehicles that would head to service these areas. Chairman Flarsters closed the public portion of the hearing at 7:54 P.M. Questions from the Con~nission were in regards to the safety hazards, the density and the square footage involved, ho~ this fit in with the South Tustin Study and things of this nature. Mr._Su~lnRer explained that a more precise plan would he presented at the time of the use permit consideration. He also stated that this would eot have any effect on the overall study. PC Hinutas Page 2 April 10, 1967 Mr. SupinKer explained that there would be an apartment survey to give a good picture of the current market. He stated that the apart- ment vacancy has been relatively low in the last six (6) m:nths. It was moved by i.lr. Bacon~ seconded by Mr. H~fn___er.~ that Arplication No. ZC-67-153 be continued to the n-~xt regular Planning Commission meetinf[, April 24~ 1967~ for a more precise plan of what is in tt,e The above motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Hafner, lialus, Bacon, Brand, }Hz'stars. Noc$: None. Motion carried 7-0. The Commission requested that the Staff get a better feeling for the vacancy factor in that area as part of the information that will be reviewed, for proof that £he vacancy factor has gone down substantially. Mr. Oster requested that the percentage of lot coverage would also be included in the study. Mr. Hefner felt that the plans should show in detail, the surrounding areas on all four sides as to what exactly is and ia not existing. 2. AMENI2~ENT TO .... !N~ -'DINANCE NO. 157 To consider an ordinance to provide for the location of Small An~-~l Hospitals and Veterinary Clinics in C-l, 0-2 and C-3 Districts subject to various conditions. Mr._Supin~er presented a short staff report recommending that the subject ordinance be approved and sent to City Council for adoption, stating that the staff feels that such hospitals and clinics should be permitted in C-1 Districts if they comply with the suggested standards. The staff feels that such a use would be a good neighbor to other C-1 uses if the standards are met. Mr. Supin~e~ felt that the Commission may wish to consider a slight change of the ordinance under the performance standards as follows: 1. "A. All animals shall be kept within a sound attenuated structure." 2. Eliminate subsection "b." The reason for the suggested changes are that there is no professional licensing for acoustic engineers. The Architect or Building Designer and the Building Department will have to be depended upon to insure that this safeguard is met. Hr. Sharp stated that he was in favor of the requirement being added that the animals be kept in a sound attenuatinM structure, but wanted to have it qualified more specifically. He felt that a decibel rating should be established, so that if the sound is going to be attenuated, they will have the sound level that is required. After discussion with Mr. Supinger on the matter, in answer to Mr. Sharp's question of "Just what are we trying to meintain", Mr. Suptnger stated that the staff is trying to achieve a situation where the noise emanating from the struct would not exceed the background noise in the area. Mr. I/alus expressed concern regarding "air-conditioning" in the clinics although Mr. Supinger had not added this in the staff report. Hr. Supinser said that ha did not feel that it was t~eceasary tO add this raque$~ be- cause he felt it was mancla~ory that this be doge, Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:20 P.H. l~-liinutes April 10, 1967 ~,. Page 3 Dr. Stanton, 1192 Laguna Rd., Tustin, stated that he would be happy to gtve any supporting material to anyone that might find a certain situation interesting. He stated that through a survey he had in- formation fro~ many different sources supporting this type of ordinance. Re stated that the people involved in thi~ bu~ine~ w~ mo~t anxious to locate their hospitals or clinics in the proper zones so pet owners could have easy access to the service. He stated that he did not see ho~ Lhese hospitals could be built without air-conditioning. He felt that if air=conditioning was eliminated, it would be the reverie o~ ~i~c they are trying to achieve. Their 2-~I is to achieve attractive, desire- able and a convenfent.: place to service the people. In answer to Chairman }~rsters question of any other "musts", Dr. Stanton called out the noise and odor factor to'be the two main points that his research has found most often discussed. Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:25 P.M. Cc.a~,issioners l~lus, Marsters and Brand were in accord with Mr. Supinger'a recommendation, but }Ir, Ralus stated that he would like to have the word "air-conditioning" added into "a" on the second page of the proposed draft. Mr. Brand - stated that he would like to see, in addition, in Section 3, quoted from the Orange County Planning Cou~,ission's cc....ents "All facilities for treatment and confinement of animals shall be designed, installed or constructed, and maintained in a manner, meeting the approval of the Director, Veterinary Public Health Division, Health Department," on the basis that this is considered to be the State Health Department and not the County. Dr. Stances explained that the State regulates this and their license can be revoked if they do not follow the regulations. Mr. Brand withdrew his previous statement, that he wanted to have in= corporated in the amendment ,'f the ordinance. Concern was expressed over the wording in the first part of the proposed ordinance "Kennel" = Any lot or premises on which more than three (3) dogs, cats or similar animals, more than three (3) months of age, are kept, boarded, or trained, whether in special buildings or not." Mr. Hefner wanted to know what was considered "similar animals" and if this portion could be changed. Mr. Supin~er explained that this definition was exactly the same as included in the City Code, but it could be changed to "similar small anim.~ls." He went on to explain that a clinic might be where they Just come in for treatment, and would be no boarding for surgical or treatmant of disease. Dr. Stanton answering Mr. Hefner's question on "similar small animals", stated that this section is qualified to state Just Small Animals and felt that this qualified Just for small animals and not for horses, COWS, etc. Mr. Supin~er stated that it would be no problem to remove the word "Veterinary Clinic" and that it would not take away from the meaning of the proposed ordinance, tle explained the use as being limited to short time boardin~ for clinical purposes is intended to mean that animals only be boarded when it is required for surgical or disease treatment, and thac the area not be used for a boarding kennel. Dr. Stances suggested that the word "boarding" he eliminated and re- phrase it to say "hospitalization". It was moved by Mr. Halus~ seconded by Mr. Bacon~ that R~solution No. 885 for the proposed ordinance be recouu,~nded to the City Council.f~r adoption with the followin~ chartres: pCoNlnuces - April 10, 1967 Page BUSINESS VI. BUSINESS 1. Section 1 - The word boardinR be changed to hospitalization 2. Section I - Paragraph 2 - tile word small be inserted between similar animal:;. 3. Section 1 - Paragraph 3 and the heading of the proposed ordinance the word Veterinary be eliminated. 4. Section (a) the word "air-conditioned" be added "All animals shall be kept with£n an enclosed, air-conditioned, sound proofed structure." 5. Eliminate (b), Section 3 of the t::'oposed ordinance. Mr. Brand expressed concern of possible violations, if the definition of '~ENNELS" was not reworded. Mr. ~ourke stated that he did not see any problems with this as it is written. Mr. Hefner felt that there should be an agency or someone to determine whether the building was built to specifications regarding the attenoating of sound. Mr. Supin~er explained that he felt there were three (3) safeguards providing for the provisions in this respect, l. A Use Permit is required, therefore, guidelines would be set at the time it is granted. 2. The ~rchitectural Committee would have to review the plans. 3. The Building Department must approve the building permit. He did not feel that this was going £o be a great problem. The above motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Hefner, Harsters, lla lus. Noes: Brand. Motion carried 6-1. 3. AMEI~DMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 157 To consider an ordinance regulating tile height and location of fences, hedges, and walls and a definition of front yard and stde yard. ~}%.. SupinKer presented a brief staff report stating that the proposed ordinance has been prevgously discussed and agreed upon. The staff reco,~ended that the propo~:.~ o~diaance be approved and sent to the City Council for adoption. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:48 P.M. There being no discussion from the audience, the hearing was declared closed at 8:49 P.M. It was moved by Mr. Halus,. sEcond.ed, by Mr. Sharp that Resolution No. 886 for the proposed ordinance re: HEIG!IT AND LOCATION OF FENCES, }{EDGES AND WALLS .~ND DEFINITION OF "FRONT Y~RD" AND "S1DE YARD"~ be. submitted to the City Council for adoption. Mr. Hefner asked why the proposed ordinance called out for three (3) feet in the front yard setback, while tile County has a 4 ft. limit. Mr. Supinger felt thac three (3) feet was a good height for 2 reasons. 1. It allows for the greater portion of children to be seen above that and with the modern automobiles, you can not see adequately over a four (4) ft. fence. Three (3) ft., seems to be more practical. The abova motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Hefnet, liarstera, ltalus~ Bacon, Brand. Noes: None. Motion carried 7-0 None, PC-Minutes - Ipril 10, 1967 Page VII. CORaZS- 1. Letter from LaVerne Elkins re: Permitting an Electrologist in the Pr (Professional) District Mr. Supinger presented a brief staff report stating that Miss Elkin's application for a business license had been turned down because it was not a specified use in the district and did not come under the general provision permitting "Others licensed by the State of Calif- ornia t__o practice healin~ a~s ..... " He stated that Miss Elkins requested that this be found to be a similar use. Chairman ~rsters opened the public portion on this matter at 8:55 P.M. Miss Elkins - applicant stated that she is a licensed electrologist. She stated that she could not understand why she had been turned down by the City of Tustin, when every surrounding city, c&,,,,unity and populated area in the United States has at least one or more practicing electvologist. She explained that the procedure was to eliminate the embarrassing "hair problems" for women and teenagers that have a need for permanent removal of this. Sometimes, after medication for this problem, without results, doctors have recoum,ended that this type of treatment be applied by licensed, skilled electrologist. Questions arose from the Co,~issioners such as: What are the quali- fications for this practice, the length of education and could it be allowed in beauty shops. Miss Elkins stated that it is governed by the State and eight (8) months of school is necessary, working along with other electrologist and a continuous study thereafter to keep up-to-date information re- garding this. }ir. Supinser stated that Beauty Shops are not allowed in the Pr (Prof~ssional) District, so the practice could not be conducted there. It was moved by Mr. Hefner~ seconded by Mr. Oster that the C~,,,tssion finds the practice of electroloysis is a similar use in the Pr (Professional) zone. The above motion was ~oted by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Hefner, Marsters, Halus, Bacon, Brand. Noes: None. Motion carried ?-0 2. County Case UV-58-78 To permit the construction of an apartment complex having a total of 80 units on a parcel of land containing less than tile required area in the R4-7000-(PD)-3000 Suburban Residential- Planned Development District. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report along with the suggestion that the General Plan be upheld and the application ~ r increased density be denied. The applicant also requests that he be permitted to construct the two buildings fronting on Ne~.~ort Avenue, eleven feet apart. The staff has no objection to the building separation variance. After a brief discussion and review of the plans, It was moved by Mr. Sharp~ seconded by Mr. Hefner~ that the Plannin~ Director be directed to prepare a letter to the Orange County PlanninK Co~alssion voictnK disapproval of the development because it is in conflict with the Tustin Area General Plan. Vote was 6-0 - I abstention County Case ZC-67-8 - Texaco Incor~. .Mr. Supinger presented a brief staff report stating that a Use Variance was previously granted permitting the service station in the R4 District and that the rezoning should have taken place prior to the construction of the service station. l~-Mlnu£es - April 10, 1967 Page 6 VIII. OT~E~ usi s ' In answer to ~:r. Sharp's question about "certain permitted uses", }ir. Supi~ger informed the Commission that he had discussed this with the Orange County Planning Department. There would be some additional uses permitted~that axe not permitted under the present Use Variance, such as rental of ,trailers. He stated that he was not familiar with any other speaific uses that might be permitted. flr. Rourke commented that many times a particular large company would prefer, to have their use in conformity with some zone that is allowed rather than be there under some variance or use permit. Mr. Supin8er stated that the Orange County Planning Department has requested a copy of our Service'Station Site Development Standards, so that they could consider incorporating some of the standards into their ordinance at this time. It was moved by 1.1r. Shar~ ~econded by Mr..Oster~..that the ?lannln~ Director p~epare a letter to the Orange County Plannin~ Co~,ission stating.that we wou[d approv~ this orezenin~since it appears to be a logical request since the property is already developed, but that we do have some feeling about 8as s~ations in ~he. City and s~rround- in~ areas. Motion carried 7-0 1. Motels permitted on property located in a "U" (Unclassified) District Mr. Hefner was concerned as to whether "motels" should be all~d in the R-3 zone and felt' that other areas should be surveyed to see if we are compatible with their R-3 zones vs. motels. 2. Plannin~ Corr~ission Minutes Chairman }~rsters c~,a,:enued that he felt the Minutes of the Planning Commission should be shortened due to it being time consuming for both the staff and the Co~m~ismion. Mr. Supinger concurred with Chairman Ymrsters an~ folt that the C~,,ission business is important enough that there should be a .record kept on tape for a period of approximately one (1) year prior to reuse of the tape and felt that all that is needed in the minutes is the indication of the subject and the action taken by the C~mmissi.on. Although, he felt that any matters referred to the City Council, there would be a complete transcript provided for their review. Mr. Sharp concurred with Chairman Marsters and Mr. Supinger, stating that approximately six ~6) months ago he had made the suggestion that there be a more complete~ set of the hearing action, prior to the purchase of the tape recorder that is now available for the minutes because a lot of the important evidence of the meetings were not being recorde~ at that time. Mr. Oster requested that the Planning Director discuss the matter with the City Attorney and City Administrator. Mr. Sharp, along with the oilier commissioners, felt that the suggestion of Mr. Supi~ger regarding support from the Planning Commission seeking the approval of the City Administration for a tape retention policy Should,be pursued. Based on the discussion, the C~,m,lss{on felt that the following information of the minutes would be sufficient: 1. The item under cousideration. 2. The action taken .,. the Commission. IX. It was moved by Mr. Bacon, seconded by Mr. Refner, that the meeting ADJOURN- be adjourned. Motiou ~:nrr|es1 tm.~,,imously -- "~-- C~Ii~M~ /-