Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-11-66MINUTES OF A REGUZ.;.? riEr~'TING TUSTIN PLANNING CGiu~ffSSION July 11, 1966 I. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by CALL Chairman Hefner. TO ORDER II. Present: Commissioners: Brand, Bacon, Hefner, Halus, Sharp, ROLL Oster. CALL Absent: Commissioners: I4arsters. Others Present: James Rourke, City Attorney James Supinger, Planning Director Diane Baig, Planning Secretary III. It was moved by Sharp. seconded by Halus. that the mirut~s APPROVAL of the June 27, 1966. r:eetinn, be approved as mailed. I~iotion OF carried. MINUTES IV. 1. ORDINANCE TO LIiiIT the hours of operation of certain in- PUBLIC dustrial uses adjacent to residential areas. (Continued HEARIb'GS from June 27, 1966, meeting.) Mr. Supinger presented a short staff report, mentioning the adCii- tion of °district° in Subsection 2) e. Mr. Supinger also pointed out that, although the Lang 8: Green Trucking Co. was not rrentio::ed in the list of those people receiving copies of the Staff Report and proposed Ordinance, they had been sent such a copy. The hearing was opened at 7:~5 P.ri. Speaking against the proposed Ordinance was Mr. Warren Fi:aey, 1010 North I~iain Street, acting in the capacity of trustee to the Finley Estate. I~ir. Finley stated that their main objection was directed at the 6:00 AID starting time, for the following reasons: It is impossible to run and operate a truck yard from the hour of 6:00 AM, due to the fact that the trucks have to be at their work location at 6:00 AID, and ther efore have to start out at 5:00 _^'•:; and, stated I'ir. Finley, the customary starting time for this bu- siness has bean 5:00 Ali or earlier since the establis'_:ment of •G~is operation in 1946. Mr. Finley called on 1•irs. Harold Finley to say a few words on this: subject. i~irs. Finley stated t%4t when her late husband acqu.red this property, it was t?:en. located in the County and tI-sre vrera ro restrictions or regulatio.,s relative to times of operation. Mrs. Finley said that their cpsration consisted mainly of „~t-.~s hauling, which raquiras a vary early starting t-~r~e. Site s'cai;sd that the Finlay TruC[\ ~ Y~J Co. o: a~~ated anywhere from x:00 a~•i c::~;~'r~:; • depending on derean~ fr o::~ pGcke~ s. I•irs. Finley e~:p.~rtically~ ..~w:,~:: that this operation s..~::;;,i-.~~ ~~~.r_ around the clock. ~Ir. Finlay •~:::;n .;ali~,d on :.r. iiannath Green, of the Lan;; :_d Green Trucking Cc. _~lr. Gr;e;~ s;,~.tad that riS con:~any t:~.s i:'1 a~_~;,~- ment with t'r_o g:30 r;~i 'ci,.,:, ~_:.__-cy r:.nd that he would even like to make that 9:G0 r.i. Ho::evar, s~.ia Ir. Green, the 6:00 Ai'i starting time is unrealistic. ;•ir. Green emphasized the fact that his trucks have to be a;~ Their jobs at 6:00 ~i and that, therefore, they hava to start out a•t S:OC ?.l~i. ?rr. green asked that t:.e Commission con- sider 5:00 ?~: as the starting cir:e, although he personally thinks Plannine Minutes-7/11/66 P__ aye 2 it should be 4:00 ANI. Mr. Green also stated that should the 5:00 AM time ba granted, he would try to keep the operation as quiet as possible. Mr. Green also stated that during the last months, he has tried to keep the operation quiet and has reduced the number of trucks in the yard. Mr. Finley concluded by saying that the hour of 5:00 AM is essential to this operation, and that it should be the intent of an ordi- nance to conform to the custom of the industry, in this case, the starting time of 5:00 Ail. Speaking in favor of this ordinance were I'Ir. Jerome Kidd and 24rs. Joyce. Mr. Kidd stated that he realized the ordinance would impose a hardship on the firri of Lang & Green, but that he thought it was up to the Planning Corr~rnission to make the final decision on the matter. i~rs. Joyce stated that, in spite of the fact that it would create difficulties for the Lang & Green Co., she was in favor of the 6:00 Ai~I time. rirs. Joyce further added that 1`irs.Byrd who could not attend the hearing, was also in favor of this ordi- nance. There being no further comments or objections, the hearing was closed at 7:55 P.M. Mr. Halus then stated that, as far as he could see from the pro- posed ordinance, the 6:00 A:tii starting time was adequate and he was in favor of it. Mr. Sharp stated that he remembered Mr. Green sa-ying, at a previous meeting, that after the rainy season, he would have most of the trucks out of the yard for long periods of time. Mr. Green answered that this eras so, that he had approximately 15 trucks out. Mr. Oster asked Mr. Supinger under what classification a truck yard would fall. I~Ir. Supinger replied that this use would fall under M (Industrial) district uses. Mr. Bacon asked i•ir. Crean whether it was actually in his contract that the starting time was to be 6:00 AM; Mr. Green replied it was, and also was common practice. Mr. Halus asked i~ir. Jerome Kidd whether, in the recent months that hearings have been heard on this subject, there has been any de_ crease of noise and annoyance. iir. Kidd replied that there had been some decrease in both noise and annoyance. Mr. Oster suggested that, since the disagreement centered around the 5:00 or 6:00 Ai~I starting time, a compromise could be reached and a time of 5:30 AM agreed upon. Mr. Finley stated that it would be impossible, since the 5:00 iii starting time was essential to the operation of this truck yard. Mr. Green stated that, in that case, he would rather see the 6:00 AM time adopted, so he could then take the case to court. It was moved by Haliis, seconded by Oster. that Resolution No 851 be adopted recor2mendine to the City Council the adobtion of the Ordinance amar.d~-~U Section 15_7 of the Tustin Citv Code ineludin; two chances a;- 'off lo~,rs: ? . ^'ra addition of the word °district9 in Subsection 2) G.: "...t~r t~"lin ore hundred feet (1009) of any residence dist-c•~ e- • ~ . ," ; 2. i'r_~t the following sentence be written so as to i .dude ~-a'~;.:;ctio:zs 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, and 2e, "on private property L:ithin o:,a hu:_d_ed feet (100') of any residence district between t.ie :ours of 9:30 P.M. and 6:00 A.ri." 1 1 Votes: Ayes Os;,ar, S~~_r,, :iglus, Hefner Noes: ?~cor., Erard. Motion carried ;,wr to t::c. ~_ . :! '. • 1;7#.:'jr'u~: Planninr~ Minutes-7/11/66 Paee ~ 2. A1"IvND~it~dT TO ORDIN:~NCB N0. 157 Re: Regulation of vehicles allowed in Residential Districts. (Continued from June 27, 1966, meeting.) Mr. Supinger presented a brief staff report and mentioned the changes that had been made, as per suggestions made at the June 27, 1966, Planning Commission meeting. These changes concerned provisions on boats and boat trailers and the exclusion of vehicles of 3/4 tons or less from the restrictions of this ordinance. Mr. Halus suggested that this sa~:e exclusion be added to the amend- ment to Ordinance No. 141, of Uniform Traffic Code. rir. Supinger concurred. Mr. Rourke suggasted that Section 1.02 of the proposed ordinance be changed to raad: "...in any zesidential District must be screened from vie~a from adjacent properties...", and the deletion of "sight obscuring" from the same section. Mr. Supinger concurred. The hearing was opened at 8:1G P.i1i. Mr. B.A. Laubach, 14701 Brookline ~Iay, stated that he was in favor of the ordinance but wanted soma clarification on the height and type of screening. Mr. Laubach said he was planning to erect a trellis bet*aeen his and the adjacent property and wanted to know whether this would be permitted under the proposed ordinance. i•4r. Supinger stated that he had indicated to hr. Laubach .that the maximum allowed height is 6~8". Anything higher than this would not be permitted, unless placed five (j) feet back from the property line, unless a variance were granted. Mr. Henry Bader stated that, in his opinion, this ordinance is what is needed to help keep the residents al character of the Tustin area as developed so far. sir. Badger recommended that the i'lannina Commission move to recommend this ordinance to the City Council. Mr. Stan Brard, wro recently moved to Tustin from Temple City, stated that, although ha did not know the exact provisions of t'.ne proposed ordinance,he had checked with the Los Angeles police and other communities and they all had some sort of regulation on commercial vehicles in residential zones. sir. Brand hoped that this ordinance would ragulate heavy commercial vehicles in resi- dential zones. rir. Supinger stated this ordinance ~ uld not r~a`u- late the traffic routes of heavy commercial vehicles, since this was in the province of a t=uck route ordinance. Mr. Jack Zar-n, 17592 .~restbury Lane, Tustin, also spoke in favor of the ordinance, but t~ras interested in seeing parking restricted to 72 hours. I•ir. iiefner clarified this by saying that the proposed ordinance would only regulate o~~~-street parking. i~Ir. Bud Koch, 17362 Parker give, o:as also in favor of the ordi- nance, but wondered about on-street parking. Mr. Supinger pointed out that this eras regulated ir. t::e amendment to Ordinance No. 1~:1, Uniform Traffic Ordinance. ii-r. Koch then said he was in agreerent ~ with the proposed ordinanca. There being no further objections r com.•nents, tee hearing was closed at 8:20 P.ri. Mr. Halus suggested that a section (c) be added to Ordinance iuo.141 similar to section 1.04 of the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Supinger replied this had been agreed on, bit suggested it be placed in the first paragraph under Section 8. ir. Halus concurred. pl-annin¢ Minutes 7/11/66 P It was moved by Sharp seconded b Brand that Resolution No. 8 2 be adopted recom:nendine that the Council be informed of the aptiro_ val of the Plannine Comm; ccinn ~,,,a we ..,.._..._~~t____ .. _ -- - „~..«c,ac,~:rj i~o. 14.1 - Un1_ form Traffic Ordinance. Mr. Halus asked whether this motion would include the comments made by the City Attorney (re addition of 'view* and deletion of 'sight obscuring°) and tho Planning Director. Mr. Sharp replied it would. Mr. Hefner mentionsd the article attached to the report concerning a similar ordinance for the City of Anaheim and wondered if the pro- posed ordinance should rot include mention of campers, as does the ordinance for Anaheim. I•ir. Supinger felt this type of vehicle was adequately covered in the proposed Ordinance. NIr. Hefner tren suggested that some provision be made in the Ordi_ Hance to allow commercial vehicles to park in residential zones during normal working hours, such as for moving vans, construction work, etc. Ilr. Supinger agreed and said that such a clause could well be included. Mr. Halus suggested that this clause could be the same as Subsection 2 b) of Ordinance No. 1~1. I4r. Brand and Mr. Bacon concurred with this suggestion. It was moved by Sharp. seconded by Halus that the motion to amend Section 1.01 of the proposed ordinance be amended to add the follotaine after the words "tt•:o (2~ hours" "except when such vehicle is parked in connection yrith, and in aid of, the performance of a service to or on a property in the block in which such vehicle is parked and time in addition to such two (2) hour period is reason- ably r.~c~ssary to complete such service." Votes: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Halus, Hefner, Bacon Noes: Brand Motion carried five to one. Mr. Stan Brand again objected to the fact that no provision was made in the ordinance concerning heavy commercial vehicles such as trucks driving through residential districts. Mr. Supinger again stated that the intent of this ordinance is to prevent• parking of such vehicles for an extended period of time. Mr. Brand stated that t'rere was a heavy truck parked daily on the street on which he resides and that the owner also parked it there on Sundays in order to wash it and perform minor repairs. rir. Brand said this should rot be permitted in a residential district, since it does nothing to enhance the residential character of the area. Mr. Oster asked Mr. Brand whether he had made any formal complaint. Mr. Brand replied that he had complained to the police, but that nothing could be done about it, since no ordinance presently exists restricting this type of thing. Pir. Supinger again stated that this problem could only be solved by an amendment to the truck route ordinance. Mr. Rourke mentioned the fact that the Uniform Traffic Ordinance was in the process of being revised and the police would be going over the matter of truck routes. I•ir. Rourke felt that this would would take care of the problem stated by Mr. Brand. i'1r. Sharp inquired whether it would be possible to include the comments made by 1~Ir. Brand in the minutes and so inform the City Council. Mr. Hefner repl~_ed that he thought this would be appro- priate and directed the S-gaff to include mention of this matter in the minutes, and direct th=s to the attention of the City Council. Planning 2~4inutes-7/11/66 I Pa e nded by Sharp. that the first amended as follows: "...for more than five hours in any Resi- dents al district, except" Votes: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Halus, Hefner, Bacon, Brand Noes: None Motion unanimously carried. Votes on original motion: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Halus, Hefner, Bacon, Brand. Noes: None Motion unanimously carried. V. 1. HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATIOTJ GFDIi~~ .;1CiaJ OI:D Memorandum from Harry i;. Gill, City Administrator BUSI- NESS (See Item 3) i~r. Supinger gave a short summary of the feelings of the Council relative to triis proposed Ordinance. The Council was in agreement . with the Hoare Occupation Ordinance and approved that the Planning Commission proceed in this matter. Mr. Oster asked whether the procedure for informal hearings on ten- tative subdivision maps was being worked out (this is mentioned as Item 2 of i•Ir. Gill`s memorandum). Mr. Supinger stated that the Director of Public :lorks was in the process of working out such a procedure. Mr. Halus reminded the Commissionars that they were now dealing with the proposed Household Ordinance and asked whether it ~rould require a Public Hearing. I~1r. Hefner said it would and directed the staff to notice this matter for public hearing and draw up a Staff Report for the Planning Commission, based on the Council's recommendation. VI. None NL~~1 BUSI_ NESS Mr. Badger asked what the gist of the Home Occupation Ordinance would be. 2•Ir. Hefner briefly clarified for Mr. Badger. VII. None. CORRES- PONDENCE VIII. 1. It was moved by Halus, seconded by Sharp. that a minute crde-r OTHER be adopted. extendin-- ~ appreciation of the Plarnin~ Co~rmission BUSI- to I~1rs. Ba1P for hor services as secretary. NESS Plannin^~ Minim ut_es_~11/668 Pipe 6 IJir. Halus went on record to state appreciation for Mrs. Baig's high standard of excellence. Mr. Halus also suggested that th3 format of the :.i r.~aes ac~:.F : ed by Mrs. Baig be continued. M~ . Hefner concurred. i~iotion carried unanimously. Mr. Hefner asked Mr. Supinger to develop such a minute order to be signed by the Planning Commissioners and presented to Mrs. Baig at the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. IX. It was moved by sharp. seconded by Oster that the meetine bs ~- adjourned. i%otion carried unanimously. "- JOURIVI~NP There being no further bLSiness before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.ii. cxAIRMAIU ,SECRETARY