Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-07-49MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION 11-07-49 M. INUTES OF T}{E :4EETING OF THE TUSTIN PLANNING COH.~ISSION H~n IN THE CITY HALL OF TUSTIN, CALIF., ON NOVEMBER ?, 19~9, AT 7:30 P. ~. The meeting was called to order by Chai.--man Miller. Minutes of the meeting of October 3 were read and ap- proved. Minutes of the October 2~th meeting were read and ap- proved as corrected. Present were: Chairman Miller; Members Cox, Means, Gray, Byrd, Forney, Charleton and Humeston. Variance application by H. H. Hannafo~d, of 422 W. First St., requesting an extension of the Trailer Cou~t to his property located 150 feet South of Street No. 450 W. First St., in Block C of Tustin City Tract, was read by Cha~xw,~n Miller. Mr. llannaford spoke to the effect that it was not so much more T~ailers that he desired as more space. In opposition. Attorney James Walker, representing Mr. Duncan, a neighbor, and Mr. D. X. Martin, of Martin,s Trailer Court on First Street, claimed that .%tr. Hannafox~i was seeking a ohang, e of Zone from R-1 to M-1 and declared that the ordinance had been in effect for approximately two years, that on First Street there are few businessess zoned above C-i, that there are only three circumstances that might Justify a Variance, namely: 1. Placing the prop- erty owner under some hardships. 2. Variance to secure an essential property right. 3. Proof that it would not be detrimental to the public welfare. He stated further that it was against the very purpose of the Planning Ordinance. Attorney Nisson, upon request of Chairman Miller, read the paragraph stating the intended use and commented that it evidently was for t he pumpose of extending the s_Pea. Mr. Joe OJeda asked why Mr. Hannaford had not been told that he could request a conditional land use and re- quested that such be granted Mr. Hannaford. Attorney Nisson, in response to a question by Vincent ~eeks, state~ ~hat the seller of the p~operty, surrounded on all sides, would have to furnish an entrance to the property. Mr. Charleton cited likely decrease in property values of surrounding properties and the nuisance effect of Trail- Sr GOU/~tso Mr. Kirchner, a resident of the Hannaford Trailer Court, testified to the high morale and quality of the Court. Commissioner Gray asked how many of the Plarnning Co~iz- sion members had sumveyed the propert$. A majority stated that they had in one way or another. yr. Hannaford stated that he was requesting a land use permit. Mr. Cox stated that to distumb or prevent a man from carrying on his business was a serious thing. Mr. Means spoke of the difficult histox-y of drawing up a suitable Planning O~dinance, due to the mixed natume of business along First Street, and stated that he would favor an extension of use but not a granting of Variance to M-1. Moved by Gray, seconded by Cox and camried, that Mr. Hannaford be permitted to withdraw his application for Variance and to make a request for conditional land usage. Chaix~nan Miller read the Variance Application for property of Hardy & Ha~per, 4~0 W. First Street. Mr. Hardy stated that he had purchased the property in good faith because he had been engaged in the same business in the same zone under the Santa Aha Zoning Law in Santa Ans. Mr. John Siegel also stated that he had sold the property in good faith. Attorney James Walker, ~epresenting in this case both Mr. Duncan and Mr. Memtin, spoke in opposition, stating that a Variance would be objectionable and would make the property permanently M-i, that the Vami- ance should be deniwd, or, that if anything be granted tha~ for the protection of the surrounding property owners only a conditional land usage should be granted. Attorney Nisson stated that a non-conforming usage when g~anted could specify the specific usages and limit the right of sale as to such non-confessing usages. Moved by Cox~ seconded by Gray, that the Chairman appoint a Committee to work out the details of the two Variance Applications with t he interested parties, that the application of Mm. Hannaford be considered in the same manner and at the same time as that of Messrs. Hardy & Ha~per, and that the Planniln~.Connuission ad- Journ to 6 P. M., Monday, November .~+, when a report of the Committee will be made and the matter further considered. Motion cemried.