Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-22-76 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF TIIE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION March 22, 1976 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the twenty second day of March, 1976, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., of said day, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, Centennial at Main, Tustin, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Lathrop. INVOCATION was given by Commissioner M~IIarris. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners: Hill, Lathrop, McHarris (Commissioners Glenn and Robbins not seated) Others Present: R. Kenneth Fleagle, Assistant City Administrator, Community Development Director James Rourke, City Attorney Moved bi MctIarris, seconded by Lathrop that the minutes of March 8,--1~7~ 5e approve~. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS - None PUBLIC CONCERNS - None OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS 1. Annexation No. 92 - Mitchell-Red Hill-Walnut Moved by Lathrop, seconded by McHarris that Resolution No. 1501 be approved as drafted, recommending that the City Council approve the circulation of petitions and take such action as may be necessary to annex said property to the City of Tustin. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0 2. Annexation No. 94 - Sycamore-Newport Moved bi McHarris, seconded by Lathrop that Resolution No. 1502 be approved as drafted, recommending that' the City Council approve the circulation of petitions and take such action as may be necessary to annex said property to the City of Tustin. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0 ADJOURNMENT TO WORKSHOP SESSION Chairman Hill, at 8:00 p.m. adjourned the regular meeting to a Workshop Session to consider the following items: Presentation of E1 Camino Real Design Study - Mr. Ross Sutherland (Wallace, McHarg, Roberts & Todd) and Mr. Jim Lyons (Alfred Gobar & Associates). 2. Question and Answer Session for property owners, business- men & consultants. 3. Presentation of recommendations for E1 Camino Real Signing. A synopsis of comments relative to the above items are appendixed PC Minutes 3/22/76 - Page 2 hereto. Chairman Hill adjourned the Workshop Session at 9:50 p.m. to the regular meeting of the Commission. RECONVENE OF REGULAR MEETING Chairman Hill called the regular meeting to order at 10:10 p.m. All Commissioners present. NEW BUSINESS (cont'd) 3. Tract 8912, Ayres Development Corporation (Peppertree neighborhood) Dr. Fleagle presented the summary of previous Planning Commission actioKs and recommendations and City Council actions relative to the perimeter walls. Mr. Mike Jager, Ayres Development Company stated that there was no problem wf~h the walls but that the Community Development Department was holding up the building permit. The building permits were not a condition of the Tract Map and that all but one home owner had given permission to the developer to construct the perimeter walls as required. Dr. Fleagle responded that the consent of the abutting property owners ~-~ ~ ~equ-~rement of the City Council. Commissioner Lathrop moved, seconded by Commissioner McIIarris to rec~~d %~ t~he City C~ncfl amendment of Paragraph 2e of Resolution No. 76-20 in accordance with Paragraph 2A of Resolution 1496, which would authorize the developer to proceed with building permits upon approval of wall plans by the staff. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Former Commissioner Victor Sucher addressed the Commission stating ~-f~'-~Teasure to have serv~n~ the Commission with the Commissioners and was disappointed that he could no longer serve in that capacity. lie expressed his concern for the manner and reasons for the Council's termination of his appointment. He acknowledged that the Planning Commission works as an assistant to the City Council but charged the Commission with its duty to work for all elements of the community and not for select interests. Chairman Hill and Commissioner McHarris thanked Commissioner Sucher for his service to ~h~ Commission. Commissioner McHarris noted the extra contributions of committee service to %h~ Commission that Mr. Sucher had performed and felt that he had served the Commission well with an honest and fair expression of his opinions. CORRESPONDENCE The Commission was advised of the public hearing notice for County Zone Change 75-37 for the property located in the southwest corner of Newport and 17th Street. Dr. Fleagle advised that the Commission had stated its matters of con- cern relative to the Draft EIR and that no plans for the development were submitted in conjunction with the notice of zone change hearing. Moved b~ Commissioner McHarris, seconded by Commissioner Lathrop that th~ hotice for zone c~ange hearin~'be received and fi'led. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0 PC Minutes 3-22-76 - Page 3 COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner McHarris stated that the E1 Camino Real Design consultant had made an excellent presentation. The information was not necessarily new, but was presented in a concise and comprehensive manner. Espe- cially noteworthy is the long range overall plan objectives with im- mediate actions that can be taken. Chairman tlill also complimented the presentation. specific recommendations are desirable. lie believed that C~mmissioner Lathrop felt that it is extremely frustrating to deter- mine ~hat--should be done. The Commission needs something back from the consultants that can be evaluated and would enable proceeding with a positive program. Chairman Hill extended his thanks to Commissioner McHarris for his two years as Chairman of the Commission and further extended his thanks to former Commissioners Shambeck and Sucher. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Mctlarris, seconded by L~t~rg~and unanimously carried to adjourn at 10:45 p.m. ~, CHAIRI~h.N OF PLANNING COMMISSI PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPENDIX TO THE MINUTES QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, WORKSHOP SESSION March 22, 1976 The following comments, questions and responses were made by members of the business community and the consultants. RESPONSES The restrictions and prohibitions against sidewalk merchandise display and signing are a restriction on business promotion. The City needs to promote local antique dealers and not large scale operators who are not local. The configuration size of the lots in the E1 Camino Real area are not inducive to large warehouse type merchandising. 11. 12. 13. Newport freeway off-ramp or frontage road would be most desirable as an asset. 14. Who pays for the improvements? Response: Potentials for assess- ment districts, general fund, or tax increment financing. The businesses that are successful are not working for the land- lord but are the proprietors of small businesses. If property is over-improved, it will force out the small operator. Requirements are for parking, lights, street improvements and the improvement of the City lots. You don't need to paint a building fancy colors to improve the business climate. Response: Conven- ience of parking, access to the shopping area and consolidation of business activities have been the keys to other successes. Why do we have to spend $25,000 to find out how to get rid of a piece of property? We don't need a mall like Riverside. The City property should be retained and not sold. How did E1 Camino Real and declining business get to where it is now? Response: The root causes are lack of access ways. New investment went elsewhere such as First Street and Irvine Blvd.; there are some property owners who do not want to develop the properties; there are deteriorating buildings with mixture of land use. Santa Cruz was much like Tustin but the property owners there redeveloped the property themselves. There is a lack of convenient parking within the area. Shopping centers stay together for merchandising for the benefits of shared parking, environmental and sign control. What does the consumer want for the E1 Camino Real area? What traffic will not go from First Street to Laguna Road? What can we do? What is the role for private and public invest- ment? What will the City do? (i.e., Should 6th Street extension easterly be a specific item and program for an immediate objective to reach a long term goal.) A potential is for sodium vapor lights from Red IIill at Laguna up E1 Camino Real to First Street to highlight and identify the white way as the main business street for the community. SIGN CODE REQUIREMENTS Every business should have a sign. It doesn't have to be flashing but it should be based upon front footage and whether 40 feet or 400 feet, businessmen should have a sign. Appendix to PC Minutes 3-22-76 - Page 2 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. The sign should be uniform for everybody - on poles. You can't see signs on buildings, 98% of the signs in the City are non- conforming. Sign ordinance is confusing and negative. It should be positive, telling what you can do and not what you can't do. Desired would be a 40 sq. ft., 4' x 10', non illuminated wood sign on the side of the building. Those businesses which are successful have non- conforming signing. The non-conforming signs were conforming when they were put up. There is a general anti business attitude and businesses are the whipping board of City IIall bureaucrats. The limited size and color of a sign now makes it improper for identification. Small shopping centers should have identification of the business- es like signing for the merchants in the Stater Shopping Center. Sign requirements for E1 Camino Real should not be detrimental to the remainder of the City and should be uniform without the City. You are required to be an engineer and artist in order to get your sign approved. Enforcement should be by the spirit rather than the letter of the law. You cannot regulate public taste in signing. There is objection to the limitations upon water based window signing. Monument signs in professional districts should be perpendicular rather than parallel to the building. The sign committee that recommended Ordinance #614 did a great job and didn't acknowledge or claim that it would be perfect. No response has been received from the Realty Board in reference to their proposal for amendment to the sign code for realty signs.