Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-12-76 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION April 12, 1976 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the twelfth day of April, 1976, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., of said day, in the Council Chambers, City Ilall, Centennial at Main, Tustin, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner McHarris. INVOCATION was given by Commissioner Lathrop. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners: IIill, Lathrop, McHarris, Glenn and Robbins Others Present: R. Kenneth Fleagle, Assistant City Administrator Community Development Director James Rourke, City Attorney It was moved by Commissioner McHarris and seconded by Commissioner ~ that the minutes of~a--rc--h 22, I~7~ be approved. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS Use Permit 76-5 - Marie Callender Inc., to authorize the con- struct~on of a restaurant and c~c~tail lounge located at the north west corner of First Street and Myrtle Avenue. Dr. Flea~gle presented a synopsis of the staff report,stating that the proposed use was in conformance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordi- nance, with a strong recommendation of staff for the desirability of this business at the proposed site. Mr. L. B. Lewis, 1211E. First Street - 165 N. Myrtle, Tustin Convalescent Hospital, spoke favorably of the project in that it would enhance the City and that they would be good neighbors. He stated that their parking lots would be adjacent and he would desire a block wall fence separating the hospital from the Marie Callender parking lot. Mr. Clyde Stockdale, 131 Hall Circle, stated that he had no objection to ~h~roje~ct'but that he would desire information relative to the entrances and he suggested the need of a traffic signal on the corner of Myrtle and First Street. It was suggested that Mr. Stockdale's suggestion be referred to the Traffic Commission. Public }{earing closed at 8:45 p.m. The applicant stated that this building was the first proto-type of its kind owned by the Company. It was moved by Commissioner McHarris and seconded by Commissioner Lathrop to approve Use Permit 76-5 by the adoption of Resoluti°n No. 1503 as drafted. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PC MINUTES 4-12-76 - Page 2 Use Permit 76-6 - Constitution Federal Savings & Loan Association, to authorize the construction of'~ 20,000 sq. ft. office and sav- ings and loan building at the northwest corner of 17th and Treehaven. Ms~Trud~y Gerstman, President of the Treehaven l{omeowners Association ~-~e~ue~ed that there be no vines on the block wall. She stated that pear vines on the Jo-Jo site destroyed the wall and she would like to avoid this problem for this development. She spoke in favor of the proposal. Mr. Clark Bonner, owner of the property, stated that there is no intent to plant vines and they will protect the walls. Mr. Bonner stated his concern regarding the 39" storm drain which would add an additional $12,000 cost to the project. He felt the drainage of 1 1/3 acres should only be a minimal contribution to the storm drain and requested that the Planning Commission endorse the elimination of the drainage requirement. Mr. Ilarvey IIicks, Unit 15-A of the Treehaven Condominiums, stated that he feit thi-~ was a beautiful building but has concerns about the traf- fic situation and wondered if the traffic could be diverted away from Treehaven Drive. The public hearing was closed at 8:05 p.m. Commissioner Lathrop commented that he felt the storm drain should be put in--Cad--paid' fo~ by the developer since it would be an unfair burden to transfer the cost to the general tax payer. Commissioner McIIarris commented that he felt the storm drain should be at t~e d~s~retion of the City Council. If there is an exception, it should be made by the City Council. Commissioner McHarris further questioned the status of denying street parking on Treehaven Drive. Commissioner Glenn informed the Commission that he would abstain on the actio~ due to the competitive character of this project with his employer. It was moved by Commissioner Lathrop and seconded by Commissioner Ro--~b~s_ to approve Use Permi~ 76-6 b~ t~~ ~op~i°n of Re~blu~i~n No. ~504. MOTION CARRIED 4-0, Commissioner Glenn abstained. Environmental Impact Repor_t_ (EIR 76-1) and Use Permit 76-7 for ev~I~a~fng the 'impact of the construction of an Organi~ Chemical Reaction Unit (OCR) as a part of Thiodol/Dynachem located at 2632 Michelle Drive in the Tustin-Irvine Industrial Complex. It was moved by Commissioner Lathrop and seconded by Commissioner McHarr~s that EIR 76-1 and UP 76-7 b'e conti~'ued, at the request of the ap~T~cant, as an Open Public Hearing to April 26, 1976. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC CONCERNS Don Allen of Elderly Things, 540 E1 Camino Real stated that he wrote letters approximately thr~e weeks ago to Commissioner Hill and to Mr. Bopf, City Administrator,regarding the signing for his business. Mr. Allen stated they presently have two signs. They have a sign per- mit for one of the signs and they do not have a sign permit for the other sign, which is a repainted John Birch Society sign. The total frontage of his business is less than is permitted for two signs. I{e stated that without the two signs out in front, his business would fail. He felt that with 90' frontage, he should be able to have two siqns. PC MINUTES 4-12-76 - Page 3 This matter was turned over to the City Attorney who gave Mr. Allen until the llth of April to remove the illegal sign. As of this date (April 12), the sign is still up. It would cost Mr. Allen $200 to apply for a variance. If he is cited for this violation, he must go to court and defend his position. As a businessman and tax payer, he doesn't want the City or himself to go to that expense. Commissioner Hill stated that he would like to grant the sign of size and scope requested. Itowever, as long as the Sign Ordinance (#614) is in effect, the Planning Commission will have to abide by it. If Mr. Allen wishes to apply for a variance, he may do so. Commissioner McHarris stated that he felt sufficient signing could be worked out within the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Allen said that a window sign of wood would not let in the light. He stated that he has three store fronts and two signs, which is less than would be allowed for one sign. Regarding the cost of an appeal, Commissioner Lathrop asked if 'there could be Planning Commission relief fr6~the fee until the Sign Ordi- nance is revised. ~ttorne~ Roprke stated the law must be followed until there is a cha~ge--i~ the law. NEW BUSINESS Plot Plan Review for the Barn Restaurant located in the Koll- ~o~chard Development at th'e northeaste~'ly corner of Moulton Parkway and Red Hill Avenue. There was discussion regarding the Eucalyptus trees and the height of the windmill. It was moved by Commissioner Lathrop and seconded by Commissioner McHarri~ that the PIot P'lan'~e app~ove~ w~h trees to remain, subject to an agreement to hold the City harmless. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 2. ApReal of Sign Plan Denial - The Ginger Shoppe - 12991 Newport Ave nue. Commissioner McHarris stated that he liked the sign better than others in--the Center. tie felt that the sign should be permitted until such time as an overall master sign plan was presented, and at that time, the signing should be brought into conformance. Chairman Hill stated that Newforth Center was a classic case in need of sign coordination but that he would not disallow this sign. Alan Warren, Planning Technician, stated that he did not want to deny {h~ ~ign but if this motiff was established, it would be unfair to others in the Center who had been required to meet these standards. It was moved by Commissioner McHarris and seconded by Commissioner Lat~-~t ~he appeal of th~ Gibber S~bppe is upheld' with approval of smgn as submitted, with right of continued use until a master plan is submitted by the owner and/or business association, at which time all subsequent signing shall conform to the master plan of signing as submitted and approved· MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None CORRESPONDENCE 1. Dr. Fleagle stated that in response to a letter from one of the businessmen on E1 Camino, a meeting is scheduled with representatives PC MINUTES 4-12-76 - Page 4 of the business community on E1 Camino Real on Tuesday, April 21st at 7:30 a.m. in the POW Community Building on E1 Camino Real with the consultants present. This will be a workshop type session, open to the public. We will be proceeding with Phase II, but going back to Phase I to pick up the requirement for participation by the business c ommun i ty. 2. Dr. Fleagle discussed communication from Orange County Environ- mental Management Agency regarding discussion draft of proposed General Plan amendments with impact on Tustin. The property on Main Street, adjacent to Newport Freeway, on north- westerly corner of freeway and Main Street is proposed for General Plan amendment to high density residential. Due to hazardous conditions for pedestrians and school children, previously the School District, City of Santa Ana and Tustin Planning Commission has taken opposition to residential use on this site. Commissioner Lath.~pp moved, seconded by Commissioner Glenn that the Planning Commission reenforce the' previous Commission position that determined that the site is not appropriate for residential develop- ment and take opposition to the proposed General Plan amendment. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 3. Red IIill, which is bounded on the southwest by La Colina, south- east-by Browning Avenue and north by Skyline Drive. Dr. Fleagle stated that the previous recommendation of staff was to keep ~o~sing on the flat land and preserve Red Hill as a landmark. Chairman Hill remarked that Jim Sleeper, Orange County Historian and past ~t of Orange County Historical Society feels that Red Hill is one of the most important historical points in Tustin if we are going to preserve our heritage. It was moved by Chairman IIill, seconded by Commissioner Lathrop to recommeh~ to the Orange County ~ahhin~ CommisSion to preserve Red Hill in its present state and to retain the hill as of historical significance as a landmark. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 COMMISSION CONCERNS 1 .Sign Ordinance It_was moved by Commissioner McHarris, seconded by Commissioner Lathr0p that the Commission subm[t pos~i0~ papers to staff for consideration of Sign Code amendments prior to next meeting and that staff is authorized to advertise the public hearing for May 10, 1976. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 2. Sidewalk Improvements Commissioner McIIarris was concerned about sidewalk on Red Hill between Koll Development and Tustin Meadows, and that request should be made of agencies to install sidewalks and/or limited improvements. 3. Bi Centennial Activities Chairman IIill stated that regarding the BiCentennial, the school children would be on parade on Saturday, April 24th and the Arts Festival would be on April 25th at Foothill High. 4. Selection of Chairman Pro-tem. It was moved by Commissioner Lathrop and seconded by Chairman Hill to continue until next medting t~n~-~Ie~i~K-~ Chafrman Pro-rem. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PC MINUTES 4-12-76 - Page 5 5. Workshop Seminar Planning Commissioners expressed their intent to attend the AIP workshop session to be held in Anaheim on May 6, 1976. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Glenn and seconded by Commissioner ~a%hrop ~t the meeting b~--adjo~rned ~10:30 p.m. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 CHAI~b~N 'OF THE PLANNINg' COM~IS~ON PLANNING COMMISSION RE~ORDIN~ SECRETARY