Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-27-67MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANANING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 1967 TO ORDER ROLL C.%LL III. \PI~tOV.~L OF MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HF~%RINGS Ve OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. CORReSPOND- ENCE MINUTES OF A REGUL'~R M~.ETiNG TUSTIN PLANNING CO~;ISSION February 27, 1967 The meeting was called to order at 7:37 P.M. by Chairman Narsters. Present: Commissioners: Brand, Bacon, Halus, Marsters, Hornet, Sharp, Oster %bsent: Commissioners: None Others Present: James Rourke, City Attorney James Supinger, Planning Director Jo knn Turner, Planning Secretary pt was moved by. Mr. llefn9r, seconded by 1.1r. Sharp, that tho minutes of the February 13, 1967 meetin~ be approved as mailed. }lotion carried. NONE NONE NONE 1. POSSIBLE .%MENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 157 Review of Zoning Ordinance Provisions re fences in the side yard on tile. street side of a corner lot and in the rear yard where such yard abuts tile side line of an adjoining lot. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report suggesting that the de- finition of "front-yard" be changed and the ordinance be amended as follows: SECTION 11.52 - YARD-FRONT: A yard extending across the full width of the lot, the depth of which is measured from the front line of the lot to the nearest line of the building; provided however, that if any Official Plan Line has been established for the street upon which the lot faces, the front yard measurement shall be taken from such Official Plan Line to the nearest line of the building. "(b) No fence, hedge or wall over three (3) feet in height shall be erected in the required front yard setback. No fence, hedgo or wall over three (3) feet in height shall be constructed in any required rear yard abutting the front yard of an adjoining lot unless approved, in writing, by the Planning Department," Mr. SupinKer stated to the Co~nission that if this proposal met with their approval the staff will prepare an ordinance and schedule a public hearing. Mr. l~lus asked Mr. Supinger if the definition was changed wouldn't the problem go away. Mr. Supinger explained that it would not, because on the street side yard, no fence over three (3) ft. here ~s permitted. Hr. t~lus mentioned that it wasn't clear to him what the change says. Mr. Bacon asked about the corner lot. Phnning Co~issiou Minutes February 27, 1967 Mr. Supinser said this is why we are suggesting this, so the violations will be taken care of. Mr. Hales said he did not remember ever seeing a rear yard abutting a front yard. Mr. Supinser said it rarely happens but it does sometimes. He went on to say that he thought tho Planning Staff should handle this because it is a technical matter and should not come before the Planning Co..aission. Mr. Hefner opined that he thought the intent of the original ordinance was to propose a definition like the one proposed by the Staff for Front Yard but the wording didn't come out that way. Mr. Supinser said he would like to see Just one department work on this. The Con~ission did not know whether this decision should be made by the Planning Director or not. }ir. Supin~er said he had considered that in writing this but felt that we would not be doing our job if we did not consult with the Building and Public Works departments, but felt that the letter should come from one person rather than having 3 department heads signing it and stated again that the other departments should be consulted. Mr. Oster asked if this has gone to the City Attorney or were there ~ny other comments on this. }ir. Suptmger said Mr. Rourke h~s not received this and this was brought out for the consider- ation of the Planning Co.m~ission. Mr. Oster said that he had no objections to giving the initial responsibility to the Planning Department~ but stated that if you deny it for s~ne reason, the interested party should be allowe~ a public hearing for a decision to be made on it in the event that it is denied. Mr. Oster asked if this was a real problem and were there fences being constructed now that was causing this. Mr. Suptn~er replied that ~ere were many fences up now, and there was no real problem now but in the event that there was, he felt this was needed. It was moved by. Mr. Oster, seconded b~ Hr. Brand that the Plan- nin~ Staff be directed tO prepare a d~aft for an ordina~ce wit~ the City jttorney, 3nd schedule, a public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. 2. COUNTY TENT\TIVE M~P - TRACT 6082 Adjacent to and north of Treehaven Apartments }ir. Supinger gave a brief report and presented the ~p for the Commission to review. The Public Works Department rec- ommended that the parkway widths be maintained at ton (10) feet on all streets. Mr. H~lus felt that because it is contiguous to the City and the Seventeenth and Holt anne~ation, it should incorporate standards of the city policy and specifically the underground public utilities and the street tree policy. -2- Plannin$ C~..,,lssion Minutes February 27, 1967 VIII. OTIi~ RUSINES$ IX. ADJOURN- It was moved by Mr. I~lus, seconded bX }ir. Brand that approval for County Tract ¥~ap 6082 be recommended with the followin~ conditions: 1. That ten (10) ft. parkways be maintained along all streets within the subdivision. 2. ~at utility lines and related appurtenances be placed underground. 3. That street trees be planted in all parkways. Mr. IIefner said that the County already has an ordinance re- quiring Underground Utilities and we should not be ignorant of it. If they do have this requirement already, he did not think it should be stated in the letter to the County. Mr. Halus disagreed with Mr. Hefner and felt it should be included. The above motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp Hefner, Marsters, ~lus, Bacon, Brand. Noes: None. ~i3t_.i.qq carried 7-0. NONE was moved by }ir. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Hefner that meetin~ be adiourned. Motion carried. There being no other business before the Planning C~,l$~.i.'. , the meeting adjourned at 8:07 P.M. SI~CRETARY -3- MINUTES OF A REGULAR }~ETING TUSTIN PL%NNING CO}~ISSION March 13, 1967 CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:36 P.M. by Chairman Marsters. Present: Commissioners: Brand, Bacon, Halus, Marsters, Hefner, Sharp, Oster ~bsent: Commissioners: None Others Present: James Rourke, City Attorney James Supinger, Planning Director Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary III. ~PPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS It was moved by Mr. Hefner, seconded by Mr. Sharp~ that the minutes of the February 27, .1967 meeting be approved as mailed. Motion carried. 1. UP-67-226 - Robert A. Schoeffler To permit the construction of a 38 uni~ motel on property located in a "U" (Unclassified) district. Mr..~upinger presented the staff report and recommendations. The staff felt that the request seemed reasonable as a good transitional use between the commercial use along Newport and the single family and apartment uses behind the property along Wass Street. It was suggested that no kitchens be permitted in the motel, except in the managers apartment, because of the ease of conversion to apartments. Should such conversion take place, the density and parking require- ments of the ordinance would not be met. The Tustin Fire Department's recommendations were as follows: 1. All driveways should connect to the driveway in the rear to make all apartments more accessible for fire and rescue work. 2. Provide a minimum of 13 feet five inches (13'5") clearance over the driveway for access of truck companies, 3. Provide additional five foot (5') radius for turning fire trucks at driveway--rear of building. (northwest corner). The_praq~e County Planning Commission recommended denial of UP-67-226 for the construction of the motel on Wass Street. They did not feel that a motel would be compatible to adjacent county zoning or land use. They felt that a large motel would also tend to encourage further commercial developments northerly along Newport Ave. Correspondence from Mrs. H. H. Blqnken, 1062 S. E. Wass Street, Albert Ne~lander, 12762 Elizabeth Way, Mr. Charles B..Hill, Hil-Gan Develop- ment Corporation, Mr. and Mrs. Charles A. Hill, 105l S.E. Wass Street, Elmer & Josephine Farnsworth, 1091S.E. Wass Ave., and Mr. Charles Raymond, 1081Wass Street, Tustin was received in the Planning Department wishing to go on record as opposing this application. Copies of these letters ware presented to the Co,~ission for their review. -I-