Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-13-66'~ MINUTES Or A REGULxR i° r iTING TUSTIN PLAi~1L~IG CO:~:ISSION June 13, 1966 I. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. CALL by Chairman Hefner. TO ORD~t II. Present: Commissioners: Brand, Bacon, Hefner, Halus, ROLL Sharp, Oster. CALL Absent: Commissioners: Marsters Others Present: James Rourke, City Attorney James Supinger, Planning Director Diane Baig, Planning Secretary III. It was moved by Sharo. seconded by Halus. that the minutes APPROVAL of the Mav 23. 1966. meeting be aoaroved as mailed. Motion OF carried. MINUTES IV. 1. LANG At~1D GRr:EN TRUCKING COM.''ANY PUBLIC To permit the continuation of a non-conforming truck yard HEARINGS located at 355 Vest First Street, Tustin. This new hearing was caused by erroneous notification for the public hearing held ~Iay 9, 1966. Mr. Supinger presented the Staff Report, indicating that there were no changes in the facts presented, nor in the recommendation of the Staff with reference to the subject under discussion. The only new item attached to the repcrt was a letter from Mr. W.R. Nelson, of 1872 Bent 'twig Lane, Tustin, objecting to the continuation of this use. Chairman Hefner opened the hearing to the public. Speaking in favor of the continuation of this use ~:as I~,r, l•Jarren Finley, 1010 North ~:ain Street, Santa Ana, of the United California Bank, representing the Bank in its capacity of Trustee for the Harold W. Finley estate. ;°ir. Tinley stated that the property had been initially purchased in 1946, and the trucking operation had been in existence for over fifteen years with no complaints from neighboring homeowners. Nr. Finley also stated that, at the time of the stGrt of the Finley Trucking operaticn, there were 84 pieces of equipment, and, at the demise of the late r. Finley, there were 64 pieces of equipment in operation. Mr. Tinley also mentioned that the public Utility Commission permitted a weight of up to 78,000 pounds par unit. Mr. Finley mentioned the fact. that most of the trucks came in fully loaded. Their shipments consisted of, among other things, citrus fruit,, iron, steel, U.S, missiles, etc. I~Ir. Finley stated that the Finley trucks came in at all hours of the day and night and that in his opinion, the present use (Lang and Green Trucking) was no heavier than the previous non-conforming use. at the end of his statement, i`',r. Finley asked Mrs. Harold Finley to verify his statements, which she did. Speaking against the continuation of this non-conforming use were the following homeowners residing in the immediate vicinity of the truck yard: Mr. Jerome Kidd, l24 North B Street, Tustin;, Mrs. Joyce, 133 North B Street, Tustin; Mrs. Lee Byrd, 158 North B Street Tustin; Plannine Minutes-6/1'i/66 Pa e2 and Mr. Bill Mustion, 125 Plorth A Street, Tustin. 1~e consensus of opinion of these homeowners was tra t the Lang and Green trucking operation is a heavier non-conforming use than the previous one. Main items of complaint were: Noise, dust, and late hours of operation. Mrs. Joyce mentioned specifically that she had been forced to move out of a front bedroom ir. order to obtain some rest at night. Mr. Mustion did mention, however, that the hammering noise referred to by him at the last hearing, had abated somewhat. There being no further comments or objections, the hearing was de- clared closed. Ifr. Halus mentioned the fact th^t, at the last hearing, Mr. Green had stated that he had as yet not received any formal complaint, and asked Mr. Rourke if he had received any such complaint. I4r. Rourke replied that he would have no knowledge of such a complaint and Mr. Supinger added that, to his knowledge, nc formal complaint had been filed. Mr. Oster mentioned the next item of business on the Agenda (Ordinance to limit the hours of operation of certain industrial uses adjacent to residential areas), and asked i4r. Finley°s opinion on the feasibility of reaching an agreement concerning hours of operation of industrial uses. Mr. Finley replied that, as he understood it, no formal ordinance had as yet been prepared, but that he saw no impediment to an agreement con- cerning this matter. Mr. Oster then mentioned the length of these proceedings, as well as the fact that this hearing had continued for some time previous to the present hearing. :lt this point, Mr. John Covington (of the United California Bank) pointed out that this new hearing was due to his (as Trustee of the Finley Lstate) not receiving a notice of public hearing. Mr. Supinger indicated that the notice for the current hearing was mailed to a Lcs :~ngeles address as noted in the latest Assessment Rolls. Mr. Oster asked Mr. Rourke if, should the Commission find this a heavier use, the Lang and Green Co, could go back to the type of operation previously existing. Mr. Rourke replied that this was so. I~r. Halus stated that he realized the difficulty of making a decision on this non-conforming use. However, it seemed to him that most of the complaints were on the hours of operation. Therefore, it was moved by Halus, seconded by Brand that Resolutior. _No. 844 be adopted, findir,a-. based on the hours of operation that the Lana and Green Truckine Cornanv is a heavier non-conformine use. Votes: Ayes: Sharp, Halus, Brand Noes: Oster, Bacon. Motion carried three to two. Chairman Hefner then asked I~lr. Rourke if, seeing that the Commission ': had just ruled on the previous hearing based on hours of operation, the f Commission could then go on to consider the Ordinance to limit hours of operation of industrial uses adjacent to residential areas. Mr. Rourke replied in the affirmative. 2. ORDINANCc, TO LIMIT the hours of operation of certain industrial uses adjacent to residential areas. Mr. Supinger presented the .Staff Report, recommending adoption of this ordinance, with the intent being to insure the peace and privacy of re- sidential areas during the night time hours, while allowing business operations to be conducted during reasonable working hours. V Planning Minutes-6/13/66 Paee 8 Mr. Oster asked Mr. Supinger whether this would include nor.-conforming uses. Mr. Su irger stated that this would include any uses allowed in M (Industrial or PM (Planned Industrial) Eones, wherever this use is located. Mr. Oster felt that the staff proposal was too broad and mentioned he would like to see a more specif is outline of the proposed ordinance. The hearing was opened to the public. Speaking in favor of this Grdinance were i~ir. Jerome Kidd and Mrs. Joyce. Mr. Covington asked if this Grdinance would affect garages alone First Street, to which Chairmar. Hefner replied perhaps it would. After a brief five minutes recess, the open hearing resumed ~t 8:40 Pi!. There being no further objections or comments, the hearing was de- clared closed. There was further discussion on the matter, insofar as this t•:ould place restrictions on certain types of businesses, such as light electro- nic plants in the matter of second shifts. M~. Hefner stated that this is in no way a criteria tc adhere to, merely a guide to foilo:•* in ~"e drawing up of an ordinance. It was moved by Sharo, seconded by Oster, that mention of specific hours of operation be deleted from the motion for later det?rmiration. Votes: Ayes: Cster, Sharp, ?-Talus, Bacon, Brard. Roes: None Motion carried. It was moved by esters seconded by Sharp, that the main motion ~e amended to state t;~at the objectives of the Commission are to cu?•tail late evening and early morning ':,ours of operation. Votes: Ayes: lister, Shar?; i'alus, pacon, Brand. .Toes: gone Motion carried. The original motion was restated as follows: That the °lanr.~~:- Cc mission go on re^ord as being ;_r * avor of curtailing t::e ohe.r. a+.i or. of objectionable cr heave industriri or light manuf_ct~ari.~< u-s ~•~.t"- i n 100 feet o' reSldaritl?1_ ar~a~ `.' ~t~~'esn late e~rerir.ft and°.a~~ V morning hours. Votes: Ayes: Cster, S'narp, Halos, Bacor., Brand. Noes: :~~c :e i4otion carried. It was moved by ester seconded b`. S'.^.arp, t'~at the ~lannin~, Sty=' be. directed ~ln C.;,, "~~,^ti 0" nth t^e r'.tV _AttO?"neV, t0` drr~ ~ an G_':'lr?^':.^.c ir. light of the previous rroticr. Votes: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, ::a1us, bacon, Brand. ?'.pas: :~:c::e Motion carries. It was moved by 3acon. seconded by Brander that this hearing be ecr.tinu~:: to the next regularly scheduled meeti.r.g of the Planning Comm.i ssior.. Votes: Ayes.: Gs';.er, Sharp; H~lus, ?acon, Brand. Noes: lone Motion carried. It was moved by Brand, seconded by Bacon. that ths_Commission go on record as being in favor of curtailing the operation of objectionable Plannine Minutes-6/13/66 Paee 4 3• ZC-66-151 - CIi~RLES GREc;iIWGOD To change the zone on prGperty located on the South side of Fourth Street and having a ::~p~h cy approximately 190 feet beginning at Prospect avenue and continuing :ast for approximately 632 feet. Consideration will be given to change the zone from C-1 (Retail Commercial) with accompanying front building setback on Fourth Street of 11C feet (measured from street centerline) to C-1 (P.etail Commercial) with a front setback on Fourth Street of 65 feet (measured from street centerline). Mr. Supinger presented the Staff Report, recommending approval of i,he zone change for the follot,ing masons: This action caould make the set- back requirement along the Fourth Street frontage equal to those :~- quired of properties fronting on other primary highcea.ys; the present setback requirement seriously reduces the usability of the subject pro- perty; the setback controls arc no longer necessar~* because other con- trols are now available under the Zoning Crdinanc;: *.aaich will adequately protect the public interest. Mr. Hefner opened the hearing to the public and called for ccm;:eni;s in favor of this change. Mr. Charles Greero~cod, 365 mast First Street, spoke in his o;:n behalf and stated that he had not much to add to the Staff Report, which seemed to him very complete. In justification of this request for a zone change, he mentioned the fact that the large existin; setback was originally established in order to insure that a s~i•vice scallop would not be developed on this property. lio;aever, now that a Use Permit is required for Service Station development, he felt that this setback is no longer required for the protection of this property. There being no further objections cr comments, the hearin; was de- clared closed. After a brief discussion among members of the Commission, it way move-i by Halus, seconded ov Bacon, that Resolution Vo. 345 be adopted, re- commendine to the City Council that Gone Chanee b6-9.51 be aranted.- L'otes: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, ?talus, Bacons Brand. P1oes: ?gone Motion carried. 4. PRc,-'LGt~E STUDY - JACK A. TEOI~:F'~ To consider pre-zoning of property located on the Last side of Pasa- dena avenue, approximately 938 feet Isorth of the Centerline of Mc Fadden ;.venue in the South Tustin Area. Consideration will be given to designate this property R-3 (Iiultiple Family Resider_tial) effect- ive only in the event said property is annexed to the City of Tust~.n, under the provisions of Section 3.200 of Ordinance I\o. 15?, as amended, cf the City of Tustin. .._ Mr. Supinger presented the Staff report, with accampanyir.g maps, re- commending approval of this req~iest for pre-zoning. After a brief discussion among Commission members, the hearing ti:as declared open to the public. Mr. Thorer spoke in .".is ~:.r. ':,_. al He stated that he had rothirg further to add to the .~~~dl= _`:2nG:"t, except that he warted to clarify the fact that R-2 zcrir.~ ir. the ~:.ur:~~y is the same densitiy as R-3 ir. the City. i`~r.r'.alus asked ?:r. iho :ar what plans he rad in mind for this property; and A:r. r:no:::_~ replied teat he was planning to erect one bedroom, two story ap~r~:°:~r~t structures containing 22 units. However, no plans had beer. fir:al-_zed, +:a Plannine Minutes-6/13/66 Pa e Speaking against the pre-zoning request was Mr. Anthony Edwards, • 15611 Myrtle, Tustin, owner of a single family residence immediately adjacent to the subject property. Mr. :sdwards mentioned specifically the fact that they did not want their privacy intruded upon; that iir. Thoner had had his case up before the County Planning Commission pre- viously and that his request had been denied. Mr. Halos asked r. Edwards if the four lots (shown on map) backed up to the property under discussion :•!ere owned by the citizens present protesting this pre-zorino recuest. 4r. Edwards replied this was so. He further strongly objected to this pre-zoning on the basis that these homeowners, including himsel*', would be robbed of their privac~r if two story dwellings !ere erected. Mr. William H. .'.rnold, of 15631 .~:•,~rtle avenue, Tustin, also protesting this request, pointed out that he believed there existed a City Ordi- nance prohibiting t:•!o-story dwellings within 150 feet of a residential area. He also mentioned the fact that the Orange County Planning Commission had turned down ir. Thoner°s request for zone change. Mr. Supinger clarified the fact that the restriction on two-story dwellings applied only to i'D (?lanred Development) areas adjacent to R (Residential) districts. Mrs. Foster, 15601 Plyrtle avenue, emphatically objected to two story units being developed, and concurred with Mr. Edwards and i`;r. Arnold in their objections. Mr. Thoner then spoke again and pointed out that, under the existing zoning of his property, he can already build two-story dwellings and that, therefore, he did not understand the basis of the compiainants° objections. After a short rebuttal from i1r. 3dwards along the same lines as his original statement, and there being no further objections or comments, the hearing was declared closed. Mr. Halos requested ~Ir. Supinger to confirm that the allowable height of buildings in an R-1 (Sirgie ra;.,ily Residential) zone was 35 feet, and the rear yard setback ter. (1C) feat; and R-3 'Lone being allowed a height of forty (40) feet and a rear yard setback of ter. (10) feet. Mr. Supinger concurred. Irlr. Halos pointed out the fact that the number of stories cannot be limited according to the zoning of the property; only the height. Mr. Oster asked if the Staff had received any recommendation from tl:a County ?lanning Departrrent ccncernirg this matter. ir. S~,pinger replied that the Staff had received no such comments. After Earthier aiscussion on this :cCi.lc',St, It [i2S t7OV@C bV ~~~0_". S2- conded by Halos. t'rat RFS~luti'or. 'ic. 846 be adopted, recoTmendi r.~ io the Citv Council t%;at orn-z~r.i'r:~ r-rice to annexation of Assess;;r4s ?arcel No. 62-5A~-0'-: be denied at This time. There was further discussion corc•erning the means of protecting the interests of those !:c::acv:ners r~sic_i::e adjacent to the sUC,;cC ~ prc~,arty since, if the prcparty is annexed io she City, it would cane ::~ u::cier 1tS exlSting ZG'.^.1nc~'y i•:GiC11 pcY';~,itS sic erectio:l O~ t;•!0-S~ai'j/ diic_1=''" It TJaS ,~,OVcd `* C', - =CQn: b'! !: =' ii154 tC 3me?'?O. t:' pr,~zr ,~,••.c - t0 further reCCC".ir!•?n - ..:ie %_tV .O':?:C11 th3~ pre-zonir.~ b° ct°tnb^i=5•::;, for R-2 (Duplex Residential), Votes: Ayes: lister, Sharp, Halos, Erard. Noes: Bacon Motion carried. , W Planning Minutes-6/1'i/66 Paee 6 Votes (on original motion): Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Halus, Brand Noes: Bacon Motion carried. 5. TO CONSID:s'R ADOPTION OF A POLICI' related to Minimum Site De- velopment Standards regulating service station development in the City of Tustin. Mr. Supinger presented the Staff Report, which included additions and deletions to the I•iay 23, 1866, proposal; comments from the Western Oil and Gas Association (T.vOGA); and a copy of the Nlay 23 proposal. This report recommended to the Commission the adoption of the May 23 Proposed Policy. Mr. Halus asked i~1r. Supinger if the ~~10GA comments had already been incorporated into the Staff Report. Mr. Supinger replied that they had not yet been incorporated. Chairman Hefner requested to know by what process Items 1 and 2 (Staff Report) had been eliminated from the May 23 Proposed Policy. Mr. Supinger replied that City Council had requested the elimination of these two items. Chairman Hefner opened the hearing to the public. Mr. Robert Harrison, speaking in behalf of WOGA, stated that the Commission had his Association°s comments in writing and that he had nothing further to add, and no objection to the adoption of the policy with the incorporation of the cha^ges recommended by WOGA. There being no further comments or objections, the hearing was de- clared closed. It_was_moved b-r Halus, seconded by Bacon. that Resolution No. 84•~ be adopted recomr~endin~ that the ;•"sir.imum Service Station Development Standards be medified as t;er the recommendations of ~•10GA and sent for- ward to the City Council for their action; that these standards in- clude the first three comments p resented in writing by WCGA (dated May 27, 1966);. and to accept the changes as stipulated by the City Council; that Item I-5 be incorporated to read: "Storage or parking of busses and trucks or similar vehicles is prohibited, excapt tow trucks. pick un trucks. and s-rail vans incidental to the service station use."; that Items II-3 and II-5 be incorporated as modified by WOGA; and that the word "basically" be added to the following sentence, page 5 of the ~iay 23 Proposed Policy, to read as follows: "This review will be made to basically insure that the conditions are complied with....". Votes: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Halus, Bacon, Brand. Noes: None Motion carried. 6. TO CONSID:;R pt~ A;~!:~D:~.;:`;T TC G:ilI~;ANCi, NG. 85 (Subdivision Ordi- • nance) to provide for the holding of a public hearing before the City Planni,~~ Co:::~:issicn or. all tentative subdivision maps. Mr. Supinger presented a reGC:t cr: this proposed amendment, which in- cluded ~. :ira- ~ o° th;, »opoz:a: :,r~._~ance. There was also included a report fro;ri the ~~rec~.,_ o . ,.~.__., .:crks. Mr. Sharp inquir.:c ~.. :~. `> . ~ ~_ ,; :ether it •r;as common practice for other cities to 'r_,. _ ., _... _ .. _. _ : or. tentative subdivision. maps. Mr. Supinger rc:~_:.:;:: .;:_ _ .. _. ;,r~~_ ~.:..ure was not common at all, but that. this propoe~: ,-. ,._ .:,.. ..s..lted frcm controversy on .previous subdivision mad; ~ . Plannine Minutes-6/13/66 Pa e There was an objection frcm Nr. Jack Hall, of Hall, Haynes and Forrran, Civil Engineers, 400 k'est Tenth Street, Santa Ana, to the effect that, due to the amount of work involved in preparing the tentative map, all changes should be made before the rearing before the Planning Commission. Mr. Halus replied by saying that, although he sympathized with Mr. Hall°s position, he believed the people should have the opportunity to be aware of and make comments or. proposed subdivision maps. It was moved by Halus seconded by Sham. to the previous_ouestion. Votes: Ayes: Gster, Sharp, Halus, Bacon, Brand. Noes: None. Motion carried. V. 1. AM.:;ND%a~IT TG ORDIi~:~.I~CE \C. 157, Re: Regulation of Vehicles OLD Allowed in Residential Zone Districts (continued from May 23, BUSINESS 1966, meeting). I~Ir. Supinger presented the Staff Report, which recommended that this item be dropped from consideration. vin. Halus questioned Ifir. Supinger as to his reasons for this re- commendation.. I~r. Supinger replied that, in the opinion of the staff, this amendme nt vrould apply to only one specific case. The Staff does not feel that this is a problec: in the City as a whole and there- fore recommends drooping this item from consideration. Mr. Halus, disagreeing with the Staff ir. its opinion, felt some con- cern as to the enforcement of such an ordinance. ~;r. Rourke replied that the Commission would have to consult with the Police Dap=.rtment on this matter. It was moved by Sharp. seccnded by Brand. that this item be nostnoned to the next reeularly scradu~.ed rr,eetina of the Planning Commission.. Motion carried. VI. 1. RE~iUEST FOR A PRA-ZC`;F STUDY frcm the Fredricks Development NSW Corporation.. BUSINESS i~Ir. Supinger presented a copy of the letter from the Fredricks Cor- poration, together with a map sr,et•;ing the subject property. It was moved by tester, seconded b~~ Bacon. tc direct the staff to ecr.- duct a nre-zone studv. nursuart to the Fredricks Ccrporaticr.~s reouest, dated Mav ~'. 1956, motion carried. VII. 1. County Cases ;JV 546, 5747, 5743 CORRES- PONDENCE This case concerns directional signs (off-site) and the request to have such signs continued. . Mr. Supinger presented the Staff Report, which recommended that the Planning Commission address a letter to the County Planning Commission stating that they have no objections to the continued use of these, signs.. ;~ . , After a brief discussion, it ?~~as moved by Bacon, seconded by ~.1 Planning Minutes-6/1'i/66 page 8 lti was moved by Halus. seconded by Brand that the Staff nrenarP a letter to the County relative to Cases UV 5746 5747 and 5748. con- cerning directional signs. and recommend that they be continued for a six-month period. 'motion carried, VIII. 1. Tentative Tract Map i:o, 6275 OTHER BUSINESS Tentative Tract r6%75 is located on a parcel 3,46 acres in size on the West side of Yorba Street, approximately 1,467 feet South of Seventeenth Street, Mr. Supinger presented the Staff Report (prepared by the Director of Public Works), which recommended approval of this Tentative Tract Map, subject to the following conditions: 1. The subject tract be annexed to the Tustin Lighting District. 2. An easement for right ;: t-~ay for Yorba Street shall be dedicated to the City of Tustin to a width of 40 feet from the centerline of Yorba Street, 3. Vehicular access rights to Yorba Street shall be dedicated to the City of Tustin except at Street intersection and shall be shown on the final map. 4. The two D;ortherl.y cul-de-sacs shall be named Yorba Street and "C" Street shall be named ilor*n*ood Park Place. 5. The following requirements shall meet with the approval of and con- form to the City of Tustin. Standards, as determined by the City Engineer: a. Street names and signs within said tract. b. Street improvements, sewer mains and appurtenances, water distribution system and appurtenances and street lighting system, . c. All utilities shall be underground. d. Street tree planting, Mr. Bacon. asked ?fr, Hall, representing the Developer, whether he agreed with the Staff ?report and the conditions therein, Mr, Hall replied he was in full agreement. It was moved by Bacon. seconded by Fialus, that Tentative Tract Map #6275 be approved, subject to the conditions of the Department of Public ~n'orks. Motion carried. 2. Departmental Policy Regarding Deadlines for Filing Applications. Mr. Supinger presented a brief Staff Report requesting that the deadline for Use Permits, Variances and Zone Change applications be set for the third Friday preceding the meeting at which the application will be heard; and the deadline for architectural committee applications to be the Thursday preceding the Friday of the Architectural Committee meeting. It was moved by Halus, secended by Bacon, that the Planning Commission endorse the reouest of the Planning Staff concerning the deadline. Motion carried, .. : 1.' ~+~y~Y '. Plannine Minutes-6/1'i/66 Paee 9 3. Meeting with Orange County Manning Commission-June 14•, 1966 i4r. Supinger presented a short sport which stated that the meeting had been cancelled, and inqu`rad of the Commissioners when they would like to have t'.~is meeting rescheduled. After a brief discussio::, the Staff ?gas instructed to schedule this meeting for ,~~ed?:esdav. June 2''. '_960. 4. Adoptior. and ?resentaticn of aesolution of Commendation to James a. Taylor. Chairman Hefner read the Resolution, commending James ~. Tayylor for his services to the City in the capacity of ?lanning Tec'rnician and Interim rlanning Director. It was moved by Halus, seccr.dec by Sharp. that Resolution 10. S~:? be adopted. ;~:otion carried. Mir. Taylor was then presented with the Resolution and congratulated by members of the ?lanrirg Commission and Staff. 5. Chairmar. Hefner reminded the c:embers of the Commissior. of the forthcoming General ?lan i~:eeting and encouraged them all to be pre- sent. 6. Chairmar. Hefner brought up the matter of the Home Occupation Report by Brard and lister and reouested the Commission to prepare their co;nments and give them to the Staff who would then prepare the matter for public hearing. Mr. Oster suggested that rc workshop meeting or public hearing be held until such time as they cculd have some indication from the City Council as to their objectives ir. promoting such an ordinance. After a brief discussion, Chair-n~a:: ?~efr.er directed the staff to pre- pare a letter to the Citv Council reuestina their comments. 7. The matter of whether or not to hold pre-meetings before the Planning Commission meeting ?,ras they. brought up. The lanning Cc~::nission was 5enerally in favor of such meetings. ifir. Rourke, upor. being asked for his advice, suggested that notice of such meetings be posted in City t-iall, mentioning that pre-meetings would be held at 7:00 ?:v? before the ?lapping Commissior. meetings tc discuss the Agenda for the purpose of informing the Commissioners cf items on said =agenda. These pre-:~eetings would be open to t're public. IX. There being ro further business, i.t ?gas moved by Shnrn, secon'ie~. AD- by Oster. that the meet~r.? be a6iourrcd. motion carried. JOURN.MENT The meeting was adjcurred at '1:1~ ?.M. CHAIR, PLANNING SECR~.TAR~