Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-21-49MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION 11-21-49 ,%:INUTES OF ~'{?: ADJOURNED MEE'TING OF THh T'JSTI:t PLANNING CO.¥J,;ISSION [{ELD Iii TH?.' CITY iI;~r.T OF TUSTI.N, CALIF- O~';IA, 3,'~ NOVE;,LB"',~R 21, 1949. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Miller at 7:30 P. M. Minu~es of the meeting of November 7th, 19~, were read and approved. Report of Committee appointed by Chairman ;.~iller on Xovomber 7 was read by the Secretary. P'arnsworth moved tha~ the Co~mi~sion adopt by Reso- lution the recommendations of the Commitnee with reference to Mr. Hannaford,s application, on the basis that the facts g~ven in the application are sufficient to warrant grant- ing of the Variance application in accordance with Section l'~-B, of Ordinance No. '~l. Seconded by dray. Carried. Attorney Walker stated that the Variance should be limited to ~r. Hannaford'a ownership of the property es- pecially assuming that we were grouting the Variance in part due to ~r. Hannaford, s use of the property. ~r. ~al- kef also asked how long ~r. ~{annaford had used ~2 Trailers. ~r. iiannaford replied that he had receive~: temporary per- mission until the completion of the question of Variance. ~r. Walker than. stated further that his clients do not favor a Conditional Use Grant ~:d that the c~rcum- stances required for granting a Variance c~ be found. ~r. Me~ls called attention to the fact that this property is exceptional in that it has no frontage on ~uy street and is assessed seperately and stated that gr~tlng usage was simply extending the area for trailers ~ud for children to play. '~uestic~ of application of Hardy .~ Harper. ;~eight of proposed fence to surround the property was discussed. Mr. Hardy stated ~xat it was his purpose to build ~he kind of a fence that would be suitable to his neigjubors. M,r. dray moved that t~e ?latching Co~-nlssion adopt by Hesolution tDe reco~.-.eniations of the Committee with reference to the Hardy .~ qarper application on the basis that the facts given in the application are suffic~-ent to warrant granting of th~ Variance in accordance with Sec- tion 17-B, Ordinance 71, ~d that in addition t?:e owner make satlsf,ctory arrangements with the surrounding prop- e~'ty owners as to the type of fence to be constructed and upor. that conclus!on to submit that plan to the ?lanning Comrission at a re~ular meeting. Seconded by Forney. Attorney ~',alker, represe.~ti.~, the s~.~e clients as In th~ case of the Haru:aford application, objected on gro'~:.:s that the thi.~q~,s being instal]ed constitute such noise, dust and other ,~Istu~bances as t* practically ig- uore the rights of his clients. 'fha~ if the Variance is granted it s~.ould be limited in use a~d to the particular parties owniug it now, and he insisted that if graY, ted at all %t should be specifically limite~ as to equipment, noise, dust, etc., for the protection of the properby o~lerse ~4r. Hardy stated that he had offered to purchase the property on the basis that its use would not be questioned and that no objection was made to his knowledge until they had moved in..~.~r. Hardy presented his purchase agreement . He also stated that if he were per..~itted he could eli..~inate the obnoxious noises, dust, etc., and that it was his purpose for the sake of his own busines.s as well as for others to make as presentable an appear- ance as possible. Mr. Means moved that ~e motion be amended to read that the Variance be limited to the specific use of Hardy & Harper, which is now that of paving and excavating, and further that the right of sale shall not include the right of the Variance, and further also that ~uy exterior bell or gong be equipped with a "disconnect switch". Seconded by iSyrd. Carried. The motion as amended was then voted on and carried. Present were Chairman Miller, Means, Gray, Byrd, Forney, Charleton and Humeston. There being no further business Chairman i~iller de- clared the meeting adjourned.