HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-27-66
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUSTIN P?:AD]i.IiVG CC':ii4ISSI0N
Ju.~e 27, 19:;0
I, The meeting was callad to order by Chairman
CALL Hefner at 7:3j P.:•
TO
ORD.
II. Present: Co:rrnissioners: Brand, Bacon, Marsters, Hefner;
ROLL Halus, Sharp, Oster.
CALL
Absent: Commissioners: None
Others Present: Harz•y Gill, City Administrator
Jar.:~s Rourko, City Attorney
James Supinger, =iahning Director
Diane Baig, Planning Secretary
III, It was moved by Sharb. seconded by 0ster3 that the
APPROVAL minutes of the June 1'i. 1966. meeting be approved
OF as mailed. i~iotion carried.
MINUTES
IV. 1. A•IEND?•IEy'I' TO ORDINAiJCE D?0. 157
PUBLIC Re: Regulation of vehicles allowed in Residential
HEARINGS Districts (continued from Jur,e 13, 1966, meetingi.
ivir. Suping~r presented a shc~•t staff report, including a
revi sad version of ;:he or,-?in~nca ir. question, and an amend-
....:.: t to C.ainurce •?o. ;41, 1°miting the parking of vehicles
on streets in residential districts. 1`ir. Supinger felt that
t:::sa two ordinances would e~imii:ate the existing problem,
The meeting ~~-as opened to the public.
Speaking in ? avor of this o~ dinance erers Iii• , Henry Badger,
14.721 Brookline ;day, I°:r. tSUd Koch, 1?362 Parker Drive, and
Mr. John Hinnant, 14722 Brookline '+Jay> M.', Badger felt
that the proposed ordinance was in line with what is needed
and would protect the residential character of the Tustin
Area. He endorsed this ordinance wholehe.artedly_ I°ir. Koch,
although also endorsing this ordinance, had ~. question con-
cerning the parking of house trailers. He felt that if there
was no ordinance currently in effect concerning house
trailers, mention sho~:ld~be made in the proposed ordinance.
',•ir. ?=i::n~nt felt that this ordinance t•:ould eliminate the
nroble:r. :.nd, or. tlZa other h~ nd, was not unfair to the owners
of such ~- ehicle s ~s s~ ~ forth in the ordinance .
There 'oe_n~ r.;, f~~'~''.e. ejections or co:nr,:ents, the hearing
was closed ..~ 7:Y; --
.'.r. O~t~_• ~:..•-,- -~lr. ..~:tii::ger what provisions had been made
relative to ....:.~ ~:.ra_ia_ s. 'sir. Supinger replied that the
ordiranc.: ~; u :;~ ~ ~ _i~pi ~ the parking of house trailers,
;rep - t ":e ~~.~a o=• ~..~ - ~ t"'- i lers as residences and parking
~:.:,yy`~,'~.~-fix
Planning Minutes-6/27/66_
Paae 2
Mr. Oster then asked if there had b:>en pr•o'~lems concerning
the use of house trailers in residential areas. I°ir, Supinger
replied he did not knoo* of any.
Mr. i'~arsters felt tY.at sor~ie regulations of house trailers
should be incorporated into the ordinance.
Mr. Halus suggested that this mention could go into Secticn
1.01 as an addition to the oth;i• vehicles defined therein.
Mr. Sharp concurred with this suggestion and added that large
boats should also be included in this ordinance. i•ir. Sharp
asked Mr. Supinger how othcY• cities in Cz•rngo ~~unty handle
this problem. Dlr. Sunin~cr rcNlied the 't it is a rath:;_~
standard matter to pro::ibi; house trailers in residential
areas. '_s to boats, the problem has only rECently co.:_e into
existence and he doubted th~~ too many cities :gad as yet set
up ordinances to cover th'_s tyre of -vehicle,
Mr. Sharp mentioned the fact that most of the ne-~~ tracts re-
stricted this type of vesicle.
In relation to house trailers, his, Hefner ranted to know
whether the commissioners referred merely to the front yard
setback, or to front and side .yard setbacks, as mentioned in
the ordinance.
It was i•ir. Sharp's opinion that house trailers ::ould b~ in-
corporated into the revised ordinance, ~rhich mentions both
front and side .yard setbac'.~cs. I~r. Supinger said this was ens
way to do it. Soma cities prohibit Douse trailers cn at.y
residential lot, unless in a trailer p~:Ic,
Mr. Halus mentioned t'_ze fact that, in all fairness to ts~
owners of small pick-up truc'.•cs used as second csrs ar_d ;aiL c_
are not commercial in nature, he did not believe it :aas the
intent of the ordinance to restrict this type of vehicle.
Perhaps the definition (Section 1.01 of the r3v`~.seci Ordir.anc~j
could read 3~4• ton trucks or larger, or something simil=.r.
Mr. harsters wished to concur i•rith the trailor~boat p. ovis`_on
and further mentioned Section 1.03, and asked that "occssicnal
sleeping" be clarified. It was Mr. :iarstP. °s ieelin;; tha~.
this was too broad a provision and should be more specifically
stated.
Mr. Halus suggested t:.at Secti cn 1.03 be .:ne?Zded to ': a~ ~ as
follows: "No utilities, excepting elactrici~.y, shall be
connected to trailers or camping vel:icles~" ':'iii s ::ould eli-
minate the latter Hart of t::e sentanca. :•ir. Su)i nger then
pointed out that this revisior. would not pravent t::a continua
use of trailers for sleeping; urpose:.•.
Mr, Halus said that, in his opinion, this tra;, not necessa.y,
since the wording of Sec-;.ion 1.01 can lir,iit tra-,le_~s and bouts
to a time period rr'rich ~-o~~::ld preclude the usa o= t:•ailars
for sleeping pu-~aosas. i•:r. Sunirner said this ~•rou~_d cnly a~~uly
t0 front yard SCt~aC.~<.°„ - .. =glue replli;C: that t':ey ?•: •::rc: ~.: ,'
concerned ...iT,l"i 'Ci'OteC ~~r ^v':._^_c:r ~: ~p2r-Gy Jw?:erS C.nd ~•.~t Ll:i;
rear sa ~~acy COlii.^_ G2 ....:.c . e. t'_^e ?:asking c_ t..=_o: - , as ~ __
as ::~ ..~., .,,.:c,~a~u,
~Ir, --. -- --.,-_~_.--~~. '~..,_ ..; :.oulc '_ike ':,o sae some _astr~ui-~c,
p12~<; . :-~.-, -:- u__-_ _ . _,...;d as second resider;ce ~ _ c. _
~.J
Planning Minutes-6/27/66
Page 'i
Mr. Sharp thought that the language of the Zoning Ordinance
in relation to '~_1 zoning precludes second residences on the
same lot; but i~ir. Supinger clarified by saying that a second
residence is permitted on the same lot if said lot exceeds
12,000 square feet and a Use Permit is granted.
Based on the points mentioned during the hearing and on the
Commissioners° desire for further information, it was rroz!e
by I~farsters, seconded by Halus. that this matter be returnee.
to the staff or to a worKShoo discussion; this Taould alto _ir,-
elude the amendment to Ordinance "Jo. 141, ~~nich is intiir~ately
related to the subject under discussion. Iviotion carried.
2. G?DI??A:vC~ TO L?~•I'r the hours of operation of certain
industrial uses adjacent to residential areas.
Mr. Supinger presented a short report, including a draft of
the proposed ordinance, as outlined by the Commission at the
June 13, 1966, meeting.
The hearing was opened to the public.
There being no comments or objections, the hoaring was closed
at 8:00 PM.
2~1r. Halus felt that Section 15-7, Subsecticn 2, should be
amended to read "...on private property wit'rin one hundred
feet (100') of any residential area", instead of "within
one hundred feet (100°) of any residence.'', sinco thero are
some non-conforming residences within industrial and manu-
facturing areas.
IJir. Sharp then voiced his concern for the fact that there wa:;
no one present in the audience to speak either in favor of o-~
against this ordinance, in view of the heavy attendance at
past meetings on this subject, I`2r. Sharp asked Mr. Supinger
whether these people had been notified. iir. Supinger rep] i'~Ci
that i•ir. :•!arren Tinley onl~~ had received notification ~.nd
copy of the proposed ordinance,
Mr. Halus asked i•Ir. Bourke •whether it was legal to proceed
with the hearing in view of this fact. Mr. Rourke replied
it was.
Mr. Oster questioned the 9:30 Pi~i limitation on gas stations
and felt that it ~,*ould place unfair restricticns on some of
these stations. I~r. Halus felt that there were enough station
other than those within one hundred feet (100') o~ r~s:~dential
areas.
In view of the Corrnnission°s concern over the lack of atten-
dance at this hearing, it ryas moved by Halus. seconded by
Sharp t:~at furt!^er discussion of this ordinance be carr~.ed
forward t.o the next red'1inr~ V scheduled meeting of tr_e Planning
Commi ssi or..: ~:r,„'. that the Staf= be directed to notify all
parties co,;cerne;':.. :ncl•~c:_ne members of the audienco, oz the
Votes: ~ :;::: _ .:,_ _.;. _ , talus, Hefner, I~iarsters, Bacon,
i'c t: ~•Y. ~a:tl~j
~~
Plannine Minutes-6/27/66
Page 4
3. uP_66-216 - GLOiG~ i~,~'J?S
To amend Use Permit 65-191, of George I~Ieurs, permitting
the expansion of a I~iobile Home Park to property located
in a U (Unclassified) zone, at the southwest corner of
riain and :•7illiams Streets, Tustin, California.
I4r. Supinger presented a staff report, including a comparison
of the standards of t'.ze existing trailer park and the addition
thereto, and the standards of Mobile Home Parks for cities
in Orange County, the County of Orange, State and Federal
Government. Also included trere the landscape plans and plot
plan of the proposed addition.
T•ir. Sharp questioned iFr. Supinger concerning that section of
the Staff Report referring to recreational area. The report
mentions the fact that the area presently allotted is adequate,
based on the owner°s intention of catering to adults rather
than families ~,r~th children. i~ir. Sharp wondered if this should
be added as a condition to the Use Permit. i~ir. Supinger
thought that the area would still be adequate if families with
children should move in, but would have to be arranged
differently. dir. Supinger suggested a provision in the Use
Permit limiting the trailer park to adults only.
Mr. Sharp suggested that, if the area is adequate in size, a
re-study could be made at such time as children become in-
volved. Mr. Supinger said this could also be done.
The hearing was opened to the public.
Mr. i•Ieurs spoke in his own behalf. He mentioned the fact
that the Commissioners had viewed the existing development
and the proposed addition. ifr. jieurs mentioned that there
were in the audience several persons who were experts in
this field and could ansT~rer any questions the Commissioners
might care to ask so that any problem could be solved at
this time.
There being no further comments or objections, the hearing
was closed at 8111 Pi~i.
Mr. Halus mentioned the fact that he had viewed the property
in question and appreciated the time spent by iir. :•ieurs in
showing the Commissioners the trailer park. Irir. Halus thought
that this was a high class development and an asseT
area. He asked i`ir. :ears ~:i:ether he would 'navew
to a legal requirement to r:aka this excl~~;s:.vel~~ a:. .~-_ .
community.
Mr. P•leurs called on sir. Horr^.an Bush, past President of the
ti~lestern i~iobilehome association, and presently serving on the
Mobilehome Advisory Cor~riittee, to talk on this subject.
h1r. Bush mentioned a similar situation in Garden Grove. ie
said the situation had been handled by insertir.~ a condition
to the Use Permit that, ir. the event that more than 25j o= tl.e
spaces became occupied by fa-~ilies with children, 12j0 sq._ft.
of space would be made available as recreation area for tY:e
children. I~:e mentioned that there ware 8000 square feet of
space on i~Ir. i~~eur° s p~^oposed Dark, presently beinb used fcr
storage, which could be ~r:ade available for the ouroose. This
condition in the use Per•:it r:ould solve the problem for t;:e
city, be agreeable to i°:r. i~;eurs, and prevent t:,e possibility
of having to hold a further hearing in the event the trailer
park was opened to families with children.
A r.
Plannine ilinutes-6/27/66
Paee 5
After further discussion concerning this and other aspects
of the proposed Mobilehome Park, it was moved by Oster,
seconded by Brand, teat Resolution i1o. 84.9. apnrovine
UP_66_216 Abe adopted, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of two (2) access routes on I•iain Street, as
suggested by the ,ire Department. Said access routes
may have locked gates, subject to the approval by the
Architectural Committee of the building materials to
be used on said gates.
2. That the developer improve the Main Street and :•lilliams
Street frontages as per standards set forth by the
Engineering Department.
3. That the private drives be improved, as per standards
set forth by the Engineering Department.
4. That design of the proposed six (6) foot concrete block
wall and the landscaping plan be approved by the Archi-
tectural Committee prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. That in the event 25j or more of the trailer spaces on
the property subject to this amendment of Use Permit
65-191, are occupied by families with children under the
age of twelve (12) .years, there shall be made available
within the subject property an additional 1200 square
feet play area at or rear the center of the trailer park,
which is to be adequately fenced for the use of children
in the trailer park.
Mr. i~iarsters asked Iir. I.leurs if these conditions were satis-
factory.
i~ir. ifeurs replied that, in his opinion, these conditions are
fair to the City and fair to I:im, and that he was in total
agreement.
Votes: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Halos, Hefner, i~arsters, Bacon,
Brand
iQoes: None
Motion carried.
There was a brief recoss, and the meeting reopened at 8:45 FIJI.
4. v_66-174_
(Withdrawn by applicant)
5. UP_66-217 - ROBERT CHUCKOW CONSTRUCTION CO.,INC.
To permit the construction of a commercial driveway,
twelve and one half (122) feat in width, for a distance
of one hundred and forty (140) feet to the southwest from
the westerly right-of-way line of ~Jass Street. Driveway
is proposed on a portion of :assessor°s Parcel ;103-201-48,
which is classified "U" (Unclassified) district and fronts
one hundred ten (110; feet on 41ass Street, approximately
one ::undyed seventy (170; feet south of IQawport Avenue,
I4r. Supinger presente3 a brief staff report, stating that in
his opinion this was a technicality due to the fact that 122
feet of the proposed driveway would be located on the "U" por-
tion of the lot and that, therefore, the staff recor-,mended the
granting of this Use Permit.
C~
`/
Planning Minutes-6/27/66 Paee 6
The Commissioners examined the plot plans.
The nearing was opened to the public.
Speaking in behalf of the applicants, Nir. Allan Albala
stated he would be glad to answer any questions concerning
the proposed driveway.
There being no further co.;,ments or objections, the hearing
was closed at 8:51 Pi•i.
Ivir. Sharp mentioned that he thought this was the same property
on which the Commission ruled some months ago, concerning a
zone change. It was sir. Sharp's recollection that the owner
of the property had stipulated that no liquor would be sold
on the premises.
rir. Schoeffler confirmed triss but said that the T•iinister of
the church protesting the sale of liquor had done nothing
further concerning this matter.
T•1r. Bacon reminded i~Ir. Sharp that the Commission was hearing
an application for a shoe store, not a liquor establishment.
ed by Brand, secorde
nnrnvi_na Use ?erm7.t
Votes: ::yes: Oster, Sharp, Halus, Hefner, T~iarsters, Bacon,
Brand.
Noes: None
Motion carried.
V. None
OLD
BUSINESS
VI. 1. iir. iiefner referred to the Staff's recommendation that
iJE4J specific standards for ?iobile Home Park uses be included in
BUSINESS our Zoning Ordinance, and directed the Staff to conduct a study
along these lines for the City of Tustin.
VII. 1. County Case UV 55?0
CORr~ES-Ttecuest to continue the use of dismantling and storage of
PONDENCE foreign automobile parts on the south side of I•iain Streets
270 feet west of :Qesaport Avenue.
Tfr. Supinger presented a staff report recommending the
approvals subject to the conditions set forth in the appli-
cation.
;'Ir. Aiarsters wondered if the staff had any recom.:.endations as
to the time of operation of this use. Tre staff did not.
:~ir. Sharp as'.•ced ir. Supinger whether the City has received any
complaints concerning this use. NIr. Supinger replied that the
City had received no such complaints.
i~Ir. Sharp then asked whether the proposed ordinance previously
discussed (re: times of operation of industrial uses) would
have any effect on this use. sir. Supinger replied it would not.
LJ
Plannine rlinutes-6/27/66
Page 7
It YI?_S moved by Bacon, seconder', by Brand, that a letter be
addressed to the County ?].annire Department recommendine
approval of UV_ 55704 subiect to the conditions set forth in
the application. and to be limited to a one year period.
I•iotion carried.
2. County Tract :;6288
Reversion to acreage of an 8.79 acre parcel located
on the northeast corner of San Juan and Red Hill.
i1r. Supinger presented a brief staff report.
Mr. Sharp wondered what the technique was in reverting a
parcel ±o acreage. iir. Supinger stated that, just as when
subdividing, a map had to be prepared and submitted for con-
sideration.
Mr. Sharp then as::ed whether the zoning would remain the same
when parcel was reverted to acreage. I~Ir. Supinger replied it
would.
Mr. Sharp voiced his concern for this area and suggested that
this matter be further discussed at a later time the same
evening.
After further discussion, it was moved by rlarster.s. seconded
1,v Hal us, that a ~ ettPr t-;,~ addressed to the County Plannine
DenartmPnt~ SunPPSti.nP that, the amount of acreage subiect to
reversion X8.79 acres) be decreased by the amount of acreage
necessary to P1VP. a comrarable oven area to the existing de-
velopment.
I•iotion carried.
3. Memorandum from General ?lan Committee, requesting the
concurrence of the Planning Commission in authorizing
the City and County staffs to proceed with Fhase III
(General Plan dements) of the General Plan.
Mr. Halus, in his capacity of representative of the Planning
Commission to the General Plan Committee, concurred with this
recommendation.
Ifotion carried.
VIII. 1. Draft of letter to City Council requesting the Council°s
OTHER comments re: Home Occupation Report.
BUSIiVESS
I~r. Halus suggested that, in view of the time and effort
expended by I~Issrs. Brand and Oster on this report, a copy of
said report be attached to the letter forwarded to the City
Council.
~'.
3
Mr. Hefner also suggested that the report be mentioned in the
body of the letter, and copy attached thereto.
`„/
Planning Minutes-6/27/66
Paee 8
It was moved by Ostert seconded by Sharp. to approve the
letter, with the modifications mentioned above. Niotion
carried.
2, Commercial property on Hed Hill near San Juan
Mr. Sharp raised a question concerning the Commission's action
at the last meeting concerning commercial zoning at the South-
east corner of :ted Hill and San Juan. iir. Sharp was parti-
cularly concerned based on t're presentation relative to
commercial uses and zoning presented to the Planning Commission
by the County staff. I~;r. S::arp wondered if the Commission
should reconsider its action and send a new letter to the
County Planning Commission.
Tor. lister felt that the Cou:ity planners were not so much con-
cerned wit'n this lot as such, but with access on San Juan.
I~Ir. Oster thought t'.nat a letter should be addressed to the
county, backing up their recommendation that, if this property
is zoned commercial, access to San Juan be limited. 1°ir.
I~Iarsters concurred with ='ir. Oster° s opinion.
It was moved by Halos. seconded by Sharp, that a letter be
'sent to the County stati.n~ that the Commission would reconsider
this particu]a.r property ~.~ view of their fee7.ina that there
is excessive commercial :,onin~* in the area. Hotirever, if the
County feels that commercial zonine is necessary, access on
San Juan should be restricted.
It was moved by Hefner, seconded by Sharp, that trotion be
modified ''based on the County Staff presentation.''
iir. Oster went on record as being against the original :~otior..
Votes: Ayes: Sharp, :talus, Brand
toes: lister, :°iarsters, Bacon
Abstain: Hefner
I•totion died due to tie vote. Tdo further action was taken on
this matter.
3, ;ir. Halos commended t're Planning Secretary for the detailed
minutes the Commission has been receiving. :sir. Hefner con-
curred with this commendation.
4. tiir. Hefner brought up the matter of deadlines for filing
applications (previously discussed at the June 13, 196b,
meeting), and suggested that this imposed a hands;yip on the
staff .
T~tove~ by 'talus seconded by B:^and. that t_h_e dear. =.ne be moved
from the third "-r~dav Y:eT cre he Heart n~ to the t'.~~ rd `= ~~r s': <v
before the Herir.~. notion carried.
5..•ir. Sharp ask~:,~: =-_ . Supir.ger to speak to the County Planting
Staff to re:~uast r..ore time fcr the Commission to rake a de-
cision cr. county c4sas.
T'Ir. Hefner ;:i reefed :'::. 5~.: i~_.ger to contact County :~:athcr_:,_~s
on t'_ri s mute: ,
6, _ .. ::u=~~s ~_orasoi.:. .__ .. .. -report or. L :C - _._....~ -
Com~ isc~.c:.: s° S, :o :.-... _%: ~, held at theu'il_._o~i o-~:j c
Soutl:err. CAL' _..rr~~ .~.
~,J
Pl annine A1;nutes-6/2'1/66
Page 9
Mr. Halus stated that this symposium was excellently con-
ducted and well presented.
I~r. Halus mentioned that ~r. Hefner had attended two seminars
"The ..:struggle for Beauty" and "Subdivisions and Beauty Toof";
while he attended seminars on "Environmental Planning" and
"Human Relations in Planning".
Reports on this Symposium will be available from the
University of Southern California, 206 South Spring Street,
Los Angeles, California 90012.
7. T•Ir. Supirger asked iahether the Commission would be in-
terested in discussing the changes made to the sign ordinance
at this point.
Mr. Hefner asked that this matter be held for the next
meeting.
IX. There bei_nc no further business. it was moved by Sharb,
AD- seconded by Bacon. that the meetine be adjourned. I•Iotion
JOURNI~IEEIVT carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:4.5 PM.
CHAIRMAN l
PLANNING SECRETARY~-