Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-12-66MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION September 12, 1966 CALL TO O~D~ The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Chairman Hefner II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Absent: Cc'-:issioners: Others Present: Bacon, Brand, Hefner, Halus, Sharp, Oster, Marsters None James Rourke, City Attorney James Supinger, Planning Director Harry Gill, City Administrator Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary III. APPROVAL OF ~v[NUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS It was moved by ~rsnd, seconded by Marsterst that th~ minutes o~ the~-uKus~ 22, l~66.megting be approved as mailed. Motion carried. 1. UP-66-222 - STgRE FOR SELLING USED HOME FU~SHINGS Vernice ~ Ryder To consider application for Use Permit No. UP-66-222 to permit the establishment of a business for the sale of second hand goods, such as home furnishings, decorator items and antiques. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that the appli- cation is to open a sLore in the existing Jamestown Village Shopping Center and that Section 4.8 requires a Use Permit for a store selling second hand goods. He pointed out that all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance had been met and the Plan- ning Department recommends approval. Mr. Sharp wantod to know if ther.~ had been any complaints from other stores in this area opposing this type of store, and MA'. Supinger said there had been none. Chairman Hefner opened the hearing to the public at 7:40 p.m. Mr. John Jamieson spoke in behalf of the various businesses giving his suppcrt to the community of Tustin, saying, any kind of business was a gamble and he felt that the people should be given a cbmnce to get a business going here in Tustin. There being no further comments or objections the hearing was declared closed at 7:43 p.m. It was moved by Oster~ seconded by Sharp that Resolution No~ 860 be adopted, granting U~-66-222 - Store for SellinK Used Home Furnishin~s. Motion carried by Roll Call: Ayes: Bacon, Brand, Marsters, Refner, Ealus, Sharp, Oster. Noes: None. Absent: None .1. 2. ~O~E OCCUpaTION ORDINANCE - (Continued from August 8, 1966 meeting) To consider an Amendment to Ordinance No. 1~? (Zoning Ordinance) to provide specific criteria, based upon which home occupations will be permitte~ in res~entXal districts. ~r. Supinger presented the staff report along with a Su~.e~t.e~_ Ordinance drafted by the City Attorney. Mr. Supinger stated that this ordinance was established by the sub-committee amd was set up for the Commission's action if they so wished. Ur. Sharp questioned Item B-(3) of the suggested ordinance as to whether this included or excluded the garage on the property and if it was attached or detached would this make a difference. Mr. Supinger made the statement to the effect that if the garage was part of the main building and was attached, it was permitted to be used for home occupational purposes, but if separated or detachcd then it could not be used as set forth in the suggested ordinance. Chairman Hefner opened the hearing to the public at 7:~8 p.m. The only question that was of concern pertaining to the Home Occupa- tion, was a definition of what was meant by ,,building attached?" Mr. Supinger explained that if a garage is attached to the main structure of a dwelling it is a part of the main building and if there Is space between the dwelling and it is not attached, then it is not considered a part of the structure, although if a breezway connects the garage, it is part of main b~ilding. In reply to a question of how this affects the use of the garage, Mr. Supinger pointed out that it precludes the garage amd can not be used for home occupations if it is detached. There being no further comments or objections the hearing was de- clared closed at ?:~ p.m. Mr. Oster stated that he would like to go on record as saying, the present drafted ordinance could hurt the people by allowing only one r~om in a dwelling for use - if washing was done in one room amd ironing in one, he felt we are in trouble - if people drive care to bring washing - again ~e are in trcuble. If they have to come to City ~all to get permits he ¢:oes net feel the ordimance is serving its purpose. Mr. Oster said he did not want to sound like he was filibustering but he did not think the present Home Occupation Ordinance draft was the right way to go about it and was against an ordinance of this nature. Mr. Hefner commented that as it is now, no Home Occupation is legal under the Zoning Ordinance. He d~d not feel that it should be limited to one (1) room or unattached garage and was against having to get a perm4t for these uses, but agreed that there should be some kin~ of ordinance stating home occupations are legal in a definite p~r~meter - right now all home occupations are illegal. Item B-(~) of the ordinance states that the use shall not generate pedestrian or vehicular traffic beyond that normal to the district in which it is located - Mr. Sharp questioned how this was determined. Mr. Supinger said any traffic that would be used for delivering services to the homes would be abnormal, although they would have to enforce an ordinance like this before it is abnormal for anyone. Mr. Sharp wanted to know in regards to Item B-(6), if this is in keeping with the ordinance that was drafted approximately a month ago on Parking Commercial Vehicles in Residential Zones. He was concerned about the Home Occupstion Ordinance being more re- strictive than the one on parking Oo.~mercial V~hicles in ~esidential Mr. Supinger said if they use the same definition of "Commercial Vehicles,~ it is definitely more restrictive. Mr. Oster asked if they wanted to confuse the ordinance or did they propose to change this one? Mr. Supinger said they should make this ordinance agree with the one just passed. Mr. Brand felt that the first sentence in "B' should be omitted and the first sentence in B-(4) should be reconstructed. He feels what a person alters or remodels inside the house ks not going to affect the neighbors, only the external alterations. He also felt Item B- (9) should be permit instead business license. Mr. Oster said he did not think the discussion, as presented, was satisfactory and felt that the Commission was going about it in the wrong way - it seemed that they were trying to license everything in the residential district and in his opinion it would be better to have a blanket permit to operate and not go at it this way. He said if they continue to do this, they are just creating a monster. It was moved by Os,tpr~ seconded ,by Bacon that the Commission make po recommendation at the p~esent time to the City Council for proposing a Home Occuoation Ordinance. Vote by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Bacon. Noes: Sharp, Hefner, Halus, Marsters, Brand. Motion denied Mr. Sharp asked Mr. Oster if he impl[ed a further study on this matter and Mr. Oster said No because he was against the Ordinance to begin with. Mr. Halus suggested that the Commission convey to the City Council as to what they have considered and what their feeling is on this matter and legalize something on this. He stated that if there are complaints, then it can be handled in a consistent manner. Explain to them why we feel we have a problem and tell them what we are going to do about it. Mr . Halus said they do have an obligation to work with the City on this problem and should not take a negative approach. Mr. Hefner stated that it is a problem and whether it is done tonight or not, they should consider a work shop. It was moved by !h!us, seconded by Sham that the Ordinance be re- ferred hack to the City Attorne7 for a more acceptable Home Occupa- tion Ordinance draft. Mr. Oster did not feel the burden should be put upon the City Attorney. He felt that a work shop should be set up. Mr. Hefner felt that the City Attorney could make more digestable com~.ents than the Commission. Mr. Brand's suggestion was that each of the Commissioners prepare a separate draft and come up with a permtssable Home Occupation Ordinance. He felt that the difficulties should be ironed out be- fore getting it legalized. Mr. Hefner did not agree that the seven (7) Commissioners could draft an Ordinance as effectively as a committee and thought they could use the City Attorney for a spring board. Mr. Brand said if we can not agree now, we are going to have the same problem if we put it off. In his opinion, a work shop can do it better and the burden should not be put on the City Attorney. -3- It was moved by Hal~s, .Seco..nded ~y..Sh~rp to vote on previous question. · · Vote by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Hefner, Halus, Brand, Bacon. Noes: Mars%e£s. Motion carried 6 - 1 The previous motion, that the ordinance be referred back to the City Attorney for a more acceptable llome Occupation Ordinance draft was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Halus. Noes: Sharp, Marsters, Brand, Oster, Bacon, Hefner. Motion denied. Chairman Hefner called a five (5) ninute recess. It was moved by Halus,.seconded_by S~.arp that the Ho~e Occupation Ordinance be referred back to the staff for further studZ. Vote by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, I~lus, Hefner, Marsters, Bacon, Brand. Noes: None. Motion carried unanimously 3. ADDITIONAL USES P~iMITT'.2D IN ~!E "FR" ~OFESSIONAL DISTRICT - (Continued from August 22nd meeting) To consider the addition of the following uses to the list of permitted uses in the "PR" District: Personnel Agency, Answer- ing Service, Collection Agency, Insurance Agency, Land and j~roperty ¥~nagement, Contractor,s Business Office, Advertising Agency, Photographer, Interior Decorator, or Artist Studio, Management, Technical or Professional Consultant, Stock Broker, Social Work, Travel Agency, Title Insurance, Dispensing Phar- macy - Selling only drugs and medicines by prescription. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report recommending that an ordinance be drafted to include the uses in the "PR" District. Mr. Sharp wanted to ~now if it was necessary to have a new ordinance cr ~m~nd the one that is now in effect? Mr. S~pinger said in order to add these to the existing uses they would have to pass a' new ordinance. Mr. Hefner wan+~d to know where the line would be drawn if other businesses wanted to go to a PR Zone - Where would you stop it? Mr. Supinger told the Commission that he bad made a thorough study determining all possible uses that he thought would and should be allowed in such a district. A list web presented to the Commission that listed the only businesses that should be added. ,Mr. Sharp wanted Lo make sure that only the Contractor's Business Office and not the yard be added - .Mr. Supinger answered by saying '5~e could go to the extent of saying field equipment should not be stored in such a district.,. Chairman Hefner opened the hearing to Une public at 8:32 p.m. There were no co~ents from the audience. There being no further comments or objections the hearing was de- clared closed at 8:35 p.m. It was moved by Pmlus~ seconded by Marsters. that an ordinance be drafted to include the additional uses in t~e PR District Mo%ion carried by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Halus, Hefner, Marsters, Bacon, Brand. Noes: None -4- --i. I OLD BUSLN,-~- S VI. BUSINESS PROPOSED COMMERCIAL PACKAGE - ORANGE COUNTY - (Continued from August 22nd meeting) In Mr. Supinger's staff report he reported that the "Commercial Package" as proposed by the Orange County Planning Department is an attempt to simplify and up-date the commercial zoning regu~t- tions of the Orange County Comprehensive Zoning Code. The pro- posal includes the following districts: CR "Commercial, Regional" District CC "Commercial, Community" District CH "Commercial, Highway" District "Commercial, Neighborhood,, District PA "Professional and Administrative Office" District In addition, special sections are suggested for regulating Service Stations, ~utdoor Advertising and Animal Hospitals and Clinics. Mr. Supinger asked for comments from the Planning Commission on the amendment to the County Zoning Code of the Commercial Pack~ge. Mr. Sharp asked Ym. Supinger if it was critical that the Planning Commission endorse it at this meeting. He felt that they could use a little more time, (2 weeks) to study it. He commented that t~o weeks of reading it would not hurt since it was comprehensive. Mr. Supinger did not feel that it would hamper the recommendation by allowing additional time and stated that at the last meeting, August 22nd, they did not have much opportunity to get into this matter, but expressed his fo~lin~ to the Commission that they get at it as soon as possible. Mr. Sharp asked if a statement to the effect that we have received it, but because it is comprehensive we would like more time for s~udying it, be sufficient to tell the County Planning Commission? Mr. Supinger felt that this would be appropriate. The Commission, in general felt that a letter should be dirocted to the Planning Director asking for additional time to review the document so they could give more serious comments. It was moved by Mr. Sharo~ seconded by Mr. Halus that a request be made for additional time to revi~ the document. Motion carried unanimously R~ORTFROM STAFF, RELATIVE TOBILLBOARD U~,N~ERCONpT~UOTION AT MAIN A~D NF~'PORT Mr. Supinger said the staff wanted to call to the Commission's attention tha~ billboards are under construction at Main and Newport and wanted to let you know that this is in unincorporated territory and "M" zone and consequently, a permitted use. We have not been requestod to voice our opinion on this by the County. Chairman Hefner asked if %here were any questions on this and there were none, although Mr. Halus said that he was appalled by Seventeenth Street and N~port Freeway. Felt that something should be said %o the County about this and to ask them to dis- continue this practice. He also wanted to know what for~i action could be taken on this. Mr. Hefner's feeling on the matter was that the Planning Commission should express its opinion whether or not in favor. -5- It was moved by Mr. Halus~ seconded by Mr. Sharp that a letter be directed to the Count,y voicin~ disapproval of billboards. Motion carried unanimously VII. CORRES- ?ONDENCE 1. TUSTLN C~R WASH - ~3~ E. Ymin Street, Tustin Request for Use Permit Zxtension until December 31, 1966. Mr. Supinger presented a staff report along with a letter from Mr. Shubin requesting an extension regarding UP-65-191~, stating the Planning Department has no objection to the granting, how- ever, he feels that the Commission should consider a time when the situation will be resolved; either the structure will be used, moved or demolished. Mr. Sharp wanted to know if this would allow Mr. Shubin sufficient time to negotiate. He also thought there should be a time limit on it. Mr. Sharp asked Mr. Supinger t_f there is a sufficient machine to keep a running track of what expires or a particular file on this? Mr. Supinger said he did not believe we have an adequate system at this time. He said he had discussed this with Mr. Shubin and he felt that this would allow him sufficient time to resolve the situation. ~t was moved by Er. Sharp, seconde~ by Mr. ~lus that UP-6~-I~ be extended to December 31. 1966. Motion carried by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Halus, Hefner, Marsters, Bacon, Brand. Noes: None 2. COUNTY CASE NO. b'{-~?8~ - C.J. BONN~R OOMP~, INC, To consider application for continuation of existing temporary sign for three (3) years. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report recommending that the County limit the permit to a one year period and that they be encouraged to limit the size to 32 sq. ft., as allowed in our sign ordinance. This is based on the fact that other apartment complexes in ~he area are not permitted to have permanent signs of this nature, and that the City of Tustin is presently amortizing out the large directional signs at Seventeenth and Yorba. Mr. Sharp felt that the three (3) year permit for a sign could last indefinitely since the re-rental of apartments is a constant thing. He felt that they would continually have a need to advertise vacancies and such. The question in his mind was if it was agreed to continue to advertise vacancies with various sizeable signs, there would be signs dotting the area from here on out. Mr. I{alus said he lives in the area and feels that a sign of ~00 ft. is extremely large for that particular property and should be limited to 32 sq. ft. and a one year permit instead of a 3 year permit. He also felt %he sign should be maintained in a state of good repair. In addition the Commission noted the following pertinent facts: -6- VIII. OTH'=R BUSINESS Additional signs identifying the apartment area are existing on the site and are visible from Seventeenth and Yorba Streets. Other apartment complexes are not permitted to have such large permanent signs advertising the sale of rental units. Such signs are normally limited to a one (I) year period. Mr. Bonnet has stated before the Tustin Planning Commission that the Treeimven Apar~nents have a waiting list and virtually no vacancies. The existing and proposed permanent sign, is totally inconsistent with the City of Tustin Sign Ordinance. It was moved by Xr. Brand. seconded b~v~r. Marsters that a letter be directed to the County Plann~n~ Commission recommending the following action re!acive to Case No. UV-~?85. 1. That the permi~ be limited %o one (1) year. 2. That the total area of the sign be limited to a maximum of thirty two (32) sq. ft. and 3. That the sign be mmintained in a state of good repair. Motion carried by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Halus, Hefner, Marsters, Bacon, Brand. Noes: None. 3. COUNTY CASE ZC-66-~4 Zone change from R-! "Single Family Residence" District to R2D "Two Fatally Residence" District. Mr. Supinger presented the s~aff report stating the SUggested General Plan indicates high density residential land use for this area (12 dwelling unibs per acre). Proposed zoning of R2D would result in a maximum density of ]2 un, ts per acre. The Planning Department ~'ecommends that you notify the County Planning Commission that you are in favor of the subject appli- cation. The Planning Commission requested that a letter be prepared and sent to the County asking for a more sufficient background of the case and would like to know the opinion of the people on this, that live in that area. ~t was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Sharp that there was no objection to the Sumgested General ~lan relative to Case No. ZC-66-44. Mr. Hefner said he felt we have never had sufficient time, since he has been with the Planning Commission, to consider whether or not the Cmmmission objects or not on these county cases and would appreciate in the future, more time, information and a sufficient background of adjacent neighbors. Above motion carried by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Halus, Hefner, Marsters, Bacon, Brand. Noes: None. 1. Mr. Halus sta~ed that he was extremely sensitive to the commer- cial activity alonE Seventeenth and Prospedt, and would like to see the City prohibi% %his flower and fire wood selling. He felt that all selling activities of this nature should be eliminated on Seven- teenth that is not consistent with planned zoning. He said if these -7- IX. ADJOURN- M~T commercial activities were allowed to continue on Seventeenth Street, people would tend to accept them, which was not in keeping with the fine high quality of the residential area. 2. Mr. Ma-stets voiced ht~ disaproval of the "Chicken Delight" sign on First and Prospect Streets because it does not conform with the Sign Ordinance. Chairman Hefner stated that the County should be contacted about the flower and fire woOd sale on Seventeenth Street and eliminate them from the City because of the bad effects. He advised that the "Chicken Delight" sign situation also be turned over to thc proper authorities to handle. 3. Mr. Marsters said because of his new job in Los Angeles, he felt it would be difficult for him to attend the Architectural Committee meetings and would like to beg off his position. Mr. Bacon was appointed to replace him. It was moved by Mr. Bacon~ seconded by Mr. Sharp that the meetin~ be adJourued. Motiou carried unauimously. There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. SECRETARY -8-