The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Minutes 11-22-65MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION November 22, 1965 CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Hefner. Present: Commissioners: Helmet, Brand, Marsters, Halus, Shar~o Oste~e Absent: Commisstomers: Bacon. Others Present: James Rourke, City Attorney Harry Gill, City Administrator Edward Haworth, Planning Director Lois A. Ault, Secretary Moved by Halus, seconded by Sharp that Section VIII., Item 3 on Page 3 be amended to include that Marsters voted "No" and Section V., Paragraph 7 on Page 2 be amended to chaPEe the word illuminize to illuminate for better meaning. Carried unanimously. 1. UPr65-199- .A.R..BUILDERS.-_~' (Continued from 9/2?/65). To permit the establishment of a Planned Residential Development at the North- west corner of Williams and McFadden Streets, TUstin. Hearing opened at ?:35 P.M. Mr. Haworth of the Planning Staff stated that he received a telephone call from the Applicant, requesting that UP-65-199 be withdrawn. There being no further comments or objections, the hearing was declared closed at 7:36 P.M. Moved by Halus, seconded by Brand that UP-65-199 be withdrawn from the Com- mission as requested by the Applicant. Ayes: Hefner, Brand, Marsters, Halus, Sharp, Oster. Noes: None. Absent: Bacon. Carried. 2. ?-6~-203-_SUNSET:FARF~. INC. To permit Drive-In Sales of Milk Products, located at the Southwesterly cor- ner of First and "D" Streets, Tustin. Hearing opened at 7:37 P.M. Mr. Haworthpresented the Staff Report, stating that he had spoken with the Applicant and th~ Applicant is agreeable to the conditions of the Staff Re- port as well a~ ~he conditions as outlined by Chief Sissel of the Police Department. ~ Staff would recommend ~pproval subject to these conditions. There being no ="~-ther co~..ments or objections, the ~aring was declared closed at 7:43 P.~. "~.~.~ nalus expx.... ~d b. ic ~ ~r~ ,'~i of t~.~ rcqu=sted u= · fez a Lrlve-In Dairy ,..~ Mars~ · rent: V. OLD BUSI- NESS VI. NESS 1. Service Station Develooment Standards The Staff Report was presented by Mr. Haworth. He stated that if this report is approved it would serve as a policy guide for development standards which would be used when reviewing any new service stations. Mr. Oster expressed approval of the need to require a Use Permit for Service Stations. He also stated that earlier he had voted ~'no': on the requirement of a Use Permit for Service Stations, but at this time he feels that the Use Permit would be of value in reviewing proposed Service Station Sites. Moved by Halus, seconded by Oster that Service Station Development Stand- ards be amended to state that the section on signs be modified to require that signs be reviewed by the Architectural Committee. Carried unanimous. ly. Mr. Sharp suggested that the Planning Staff make a comprehensive study on other Orange County Cities showing how we compare to their Service Station Star. dards. Mr. Oster stated that he did not feel that a limit should be placed on the number of Service Stations allowed. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Oster that Service Station Development Standards be amended to state that the rental trailers at the service stations be adequately screened from view. Carried by roll call. Brand voting no. Moved by Oster, seconded by Brand that the Service Station Development Standards be amended to state that any lights provided to alumirate or advertise service stations be located in such a manner so as not to dir- ectly shine upon surrounding property. Carried unanimously. Moved by Brand that no Service Station may be located within 2500 foot radius of a similar establishment. Motion died for lack of second. Moved by Sharp, seconded by Halus that RESOLUTION NO. 810 be passed and adopted establishing a Service Station Development Standard ?olicy to be used by the Planning Commission for proposed Service Stations. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Hefner, Halus, Marsters, Sharp, Oster. Noes: Brand. Absent: Bacon. 2. Area Zoning Study Southeast Tustin Mr. Haworth pointed out that the City and the County Planning Commiss- ions met November 4, 1965 regarding this study. The outcome of this meeting was that both Commissions would take this study back to their respective Commissions for consideration of adopting this as a guiding policy for Land Uses in the area until such time as the General Plan has been completed. Mr. Haworth also pointed out that if there are any policy changes made by either Commission, that another workshop should be scheduled to discuss these changes. Moved by Halus, seconded by Brand that the Area Zoning Study Southeast Tustin, dated August 17, 1965 that a Resolution be adopted establish- ing the "suggested Land Use Plan~ be utilized as an interim Land Use Policy by the City of Tustin~ to provide guidance to both the City and the County, and if the Planning Commission should consider changes to this Land Use Plan that a workshop should be scheduled with the County Planning Commission. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Hefner, Halus, Brand, Marsters, Sharp, Oster. Noes: None. Absent: Bacon. 1. Tentative Tract Mae No. 6110 - JOh%~ B. HUNTLEY Mr. Haworth presented the Staff R~port stating that they would recommend approval subject to the conditions as outlined in the report. -2- VII. CORRES- PON- DENCE VIII. OTHER BUSI- NESS Moved by Halus, seconded by Brand that Tentative Tract Map No. 6110 be approved as submitted. Carried unaninously. 1. County Case CP #1213 To permit the construction of a sanctuary in connection with an exist- ing chapel and parochial school and the conversion of the existing chapel to a fellowship hall on a parcel of land in the R-1 Single Family Resi- dence ristrict. The Staff Reoort was oresented by Mr. Taylor stating that the Planning Staff .would recommend that we have no objections to the proposed deve- lopment, subject to the conditions as outlined in the Staff Report., Moved by Sharp, seconded by Halus that the Planning Staff write a letter to the County Planning Commission stating that the Tustin Planning Com- mission has no objections to the proposed development, subject to the increase of the size of the access drive to twenty five feet and also to provide landscaping in the parking areas. Carried unanimously. '1 2. .County Case CP ~;.121b To permit the rearrangement of the plot plan in connection with an exist- ing 184 Unit Apartment Development permitted by C-1074 in the R-4-6000 PD-3300 Suburban Residential-Planned Development District. Mr. Taylor presented the County Report, stating that the proposed re- arrangements have already been accomplished. Moved by Oster, seconded by Halus that the Planning Commission has been advised that the changes have already been accomplished, therefore, we have no recommendations to submit to the County. Carried unanimously. 3. ZC-65-40 - Change of Zone. in County The County proposes a change of zone from the R4 '~Suburban Residential" District to the R--2 2100 '~Oroup Dwellings: District, bounded on the West by Newport Avenue, on the South by Bonita Street, on the East by Orange Street and on the North by Andrews Street in the Northeast Tusttn Area. Mr. Haworth presented the request of the Orange County Board of Super- visors, recommending approval of subject zone change. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Halus that the Planning Commission for- ward to the County Planning Commission a letter stating that we have no objections to ZC-65-40 in which the County proposes to change the prop- erty from R-4 Suburban Residential District to R-2 2100 Group Dwellings District. However, the Planning Commission would like to recommend that the Planning Commission's meet to establish an adequate depth for the commercial frontage on Newport Avenue. Carried unanimously. 1. County Off-Street Parkin~ Study Mr. Haworth announced that an Off-Street Parking Study was done by th~. County, a copy of which was handed out to each Planning Commissioner. 2. Freeway Si~n Ordinance Mr. Haworth announced that we received a copy of the Freeway Sign Ordi- nance from Pacific Sign Industry, a copy of which has been made for your information. 3. .U,n, derground Utilities Moved by Mars~ers, seconded by Brand that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending to the City Council that they consider amend.. lng tb~ Zoning Ordinance to require Underground Utilities in the resi- dential zones. Motion failed with Hefner, Halus, Sharp ,/Oster voting no. Mars ters, and