The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Minutes 08-08-66MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1966 C~T~. TO CR.D~R The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hefner. II. ROLL Present: C~.~ssioners: Absent: C~.~,~ ssionere: Others Present: Hefner, Marsters, Halus, Brand, Sharp. Bacon, Oster. City Administrator, Harry G~11 City Attorney, Kor~oth Bryant City Clerk, Ruth Poe Planning Director, James Supinger III. ~PPROV:~L OF F'~11~ Mr. Malus asked that the word "eastbound" in paragraph 4 of UP 66-218 of July 25th minutes, be corrected to 'Westbound". Moved by Sharp, seconded by F.~rsters, that mdt. utes of Jul~ 25th meotlr, g, be approved as corrected. Carried. PUBLIC FW~KINGS 1. H_OME OCCb~ATION ORDnaNCE To consider an f~endment to Ordinance No. 157 (Zonir~ 0~4~uance) to provide spec~_fic criteria, based upon which home occupations v~llbe permitte~Luresidenttal districts. Hearing opened at 7:38 P.M. A written repo~ presented from the City Administrator with a comnentary of the history and reasoning behind study. The following excerpts fr~n tho report were then read: l) z) Regulation of "ho~..c occupations" is ~o~ intended to prohibit the non-offensive ~asiness use of a home, but rather to permit those activities which do not create a problem in a residential area. The present Zoning Crdirmnce in Tustin does not allow ar~v home occupations in any residential district. Persons who ~my be perform~ug incidental services such as occasional s~.~ng or ironing, telephone can- vassing, and artists, or conducting infrequent gar- age sales or other similar activities,are now in violation of the law. Yws. George ~aff questioned the C~m~ission on Just what meant by a ~as~ness and what volume of business could be taxed. Mr. GiLl explained that this .matter is not related to the contents of the Business License Ordinance, over which the Planning Co~,~ssion has no Jurisdiction. ~T~.er~ being nq'~urther co~.~ents and no objections, the $..~h~ar~ ~s declared closed at 7:47 P.M. ,. "Moved ~y Sharp, seconded by Halus, that the staff prepare a report containing all data available ar~ a proposed Ordinance for consideration at the September 12th meeting. Carried unanimously. ~ ... Pl~ing lllnutes - 8/8/66 Parle 2 VEHICLES IN ~w.~!DER~!AL ZO?~S - NO. 157 - re: i%e~lation of vehicles allowed in resi- den~iadistricts. Hearing opened at 7:52 P.M. F~. Supinger presen%cd a staff report ~.~th recoiu~;endations that the C~v~.ission adopt a resolution rec~:~;Aending the proposed Ordinance, ~th the addition of the word "except" after the word district, section 8, first paragraph, ~u the Ordinance o~er~g Crdin~uce No. 141, to tho City Counc0_l. ¥~. ~illiar. Finken, Pacific Street, questioned parking of pick-up trucks ~hout advo~ising in front set-back, and was told that section 1.01 of the proposed Ordinance prohibits the park~ug of c~u,.ercial vehicles (including buses, trucks, or any vehicle displaying advcrtisLug m~tter, etc.) in front yard set-backs ~u any residenti~ district for a peric~ exceeding two (2) hours, and section 1.04 states that the provisions of this Ordinance do not preclude overnight park- ing of ar~ non-ccm~.ercial type trucks of 3/4 tons or less. M~, Hera~y BadMor, Brookline ~.~¥, questioned the height of fences all~.rod to screen vehicles stored or parked in side yard areas. It was confirmed that any f~aci~ghigher than s~x feet sOx inches (6'6") on the property l~e, would require a VarL~nce or the fence would have to bo five (5) feet from the property line. Mr. Jack Zabn, "..;estkary Vane, asked about large trucks in residential areas and was informed that the proposed Ordinance · ~-mending Ordi.~nce No. 141, prohibits parking for longer than five (5) hours, except when performing certain services. There beiug nc further co~onts or protests, the hearing was declared closed at 8:04 P.H. Mr. Halus stated that since th, Co.~uission had been thru a previous hearing on this matter and minutes of t~t he,r- ing were inc~:ded in this report, there is lit%le need for further discussion. Moved by !Ialus, seconded by Brand, that Resolution No. 856 rec~,~ending to the City Council adoption of Ordinance ro- strictir~ parking aud storage cf heavy vehicles in residential zones. Carried by Roll fall. Ayes: Hefner, Marsters, Halus Sharp, Brand. Noes: None. Absent: Bacon, Oster. OLD BUSINESS VI. · BUSIkT~SS None. 1. Proposed Ordinance relative to Mobile Home Parks Mr. Supinger explained that the Zoning 0rdir~nco does not have specific rogu!ntion Movorning this use. Mr. Supinger stated t~t ~_~ it is the pleasure of the Cc~m~Ission, the staff is prepared to meet in a workshop to go over details or a public hearing could be schedu!od. .¥~. ¥~rsters feit~..'obile Hom~ P~rk regulations important ~n~.. it would be ',ris%'%o sche~ul~.a.~eeting with tho Planning : D4_/-ector. ' ~.~. Halus said hc believed it important to hear from people in the Mobile Hmue Park ~asLuess ar~ staff recmmuemdati~ns in an open hearing. Planning l~tnutes - 8/8/66 Page ~. Hefner fc!~ a study should be made as to what other cities are do~.ug and hold a s~udy session, then hear co~,~onts from,.. Mobile Hc~o cpora~crs, otc. I-~. Sharp s~id ho pr,ferrod gcLug direct ~o a public hearing, but could see the value of beth cpproaches, and would go along ~th tho x,lshos of tho naJority. In an~,er to questionLug by Ym. Brand, )~. Supingor staued tha~ this study was derived fr~n F~st experience and new Trailer Park application. ~. S~urp stated he would like to see a tabulation of criteria, to see what ether cities uso. Chairman Hefner directed ~ho st~ff to formulate a report of other cities ~ hold a Workshcp for discussion. ~. Supinger is to route a study through Departments for c~:~,.ents ar~ report to tho Co~.~v...ission as soon as possible, and a Workshop date is to be set at that tL~,e. POND~CE County LW 5771 to continue use of temporary Real Estate Office and one t~mporary sign for tract 5285, Tustin Imperial T~=k. ousos, located on ¥~tchell Avenue, approx- imately 845 feet ncnb*est cf ~ming Avenue. ~.~. Supinger stated he Pmd investigated tho application and had no objections to the continuation of uses. Moved by Skmrp, secor~ed by Malus, that tho Planning L~roctor prepare a letter notifying tho Co~uty Planning Cc~.mission that this Cc~ission is in favor of extension of this use for a period of one year, as st~ted in UP 5771. Ca,-tied. )~. S~mrp asked if tho staff had rmde a check on residential structure at thc roar of the %us%in CarWash. ~. Supinger reported ~h~t ~h~ o~ors were hnving a proble~ getting access to a raiL~cad crossing. The railroad would grant crossing if the City ~ould t~ke responsibility of crossing. He is mo~in~ ~ith ~or~ers ~.~odnosday, Lugust llth. M~. Sharp stat~ he ~lt that the ~,~rs wore running way over the original n~nety (90) day t~ue limit ~ the ninety (90) day extension, and that ho v~as not t~ng to work a hardsblp on zhe property but that this should be review, ed or reheard, if ~hey have s~e prospect for the use of ~ilding, they shm~ld have tho oportunizy to do so, but should ~c~ thc ~imo ol~o~ resolved. M~'. Gill inform, ed the Comb':lesion that tho P.U.C. would pro- ~bly require signalization ~' crossing of tracks was granted and ct tho cost %he City is no~ eager to take overt he re~'.' sponsibility. Mr. Bryan% Inforr~..ed the Co~..~.isslon that cthor ~ban ear, ending the time lir~it, tho City would remove the building, the cost of which becmnos a lien on -~ho property or could take legal action to force the ~.~er to take demolition steps. M~. Halus said he did not believe the City wanted to take such. drastic steps ~t ?~hen a t~ue 1Lv~t is set up it should · not be ignore~, an~ th~ Co=~s~ion shoul~ take corrective action and ir~rm o~s that '~ey should act or request aq extension of time. platting ~ituutes - 8/8/66 Pane Chairman Me£nor roquosted that a letter be sent ~o the m.mer ir~orming h~m of the Com,~mission's feelings and tk~t he must request au e×mension cf oD:e cr adhere to conditions of a Use Pewit. Moved by Mars~ers, seconded by ~and that the meetL~ be adj o-mrned. Carried.