Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-09-76 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION February 9, 1976 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 9th day of February, 1976, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., of said day, in the Council Chambers, City tIall, Centennial at Main, Tustin, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman McHarris. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Hill. INVOCATION was given by Commissioner Shambeck. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners: Shambeck, Sucher, Hill McHarris Absent: Commissioners: None - Mr. Lathrop was not as yet seated. Others Present: R. Kenneth Fleagle, Assistant City Administrator- Co~mmunity Development Director James Rourke, City Attorney ~Sucher, seconded by. Shambeck that the minutes of January ~e approved. ' MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Use Permit 76-1 - Five Point-U-Serve, Inc. to permit the con- struct[on of a post pay, self-serve gasoline station located at the southwest corner of First Street and E1 Camino Real at 100 E1 Camino Real. Dr. F~ presented the synopsis of the staff report, indicating that this application had been reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 12, 1976 and continued to February 9, 1976 at the request of the applicant. The Commission at its prior consideration deter- mined that a service station could be compatible on the site, subject to design criteria and requested the applicant to resubmit site de- velopment plans. No revised plans have been submitted and staff rec- ommends denial. Chairman McHarris opened the public hearing for audience participation. Although a representative of Five Point-U-Serve, Inc. was in the audience, no remarks were addressed to the Commission. The chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sucher moved, seconded by Commissioner Hill to deny the Use Per--mi--t 76-1 b--y t~e ado~tion"of ~solu~ion No. 1494. COmmissioner Sucher's basis for his move to denial was the review of the previous site development plans and their incompatibility with the adjoining properties in the neighborhood. Commissioner Hill recognized the right of the applicant to reapply, subject to redesign of the site. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PC ,X~in utes 2/9/76 - Page 2 PUBLIC CONCERNS: None OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS 1. Composite Plan Tract 8912 Dr. Fleagle presented the synopsis of the comments of staff related to %he composite development plan with concern for perimeter walls, fencing, drainage, and tennis court locations. The staff's recom- mendation is for approval of the conceptual plans subject to staff resolution of points of conflict. Mr. Ca~ of the Irvine Company stated that the wrought iron ~-~c~ would be a high maintenance item, based upon experiences in other like developments. Commissioner Hill stated that the wrought iron fence, next to the private properties, particularly Lot 17, would provide a lack of privacy to the property owner. Commissioner Sucher commented that surveilance is a critical issue and the wrought iron fence is desirable both from an aesthetic and surveilance perspective. It was noted that the fence will be along the private properties and the responsibility of the private property owners for maintenance. Commissioner Hill noted that the City would have maintenance respon- si~i[it[e~ for wrought iron fencing in front of thc public cul de sac areas. Moved by Commissioner IIill and seconded by Commissioner Sucher to approve the composite, deVeloPment ~ah-s--in concept as recommended by staff. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 Final Tract Map No. 8912 - property in Peppertree neighborhood east of Browning and south of Walnut Avenue, formerly identified as a school site. The staff report was presented indicating that the final tract map No. 8912 was in substantial conformance with the conditions of Tentative Tract Map No. 8912 as approved by City Council Resolution No. 75-85 and staff recommends approval. Moved by Commissioner Shambeck, seconded by Commissioner Hill to ad~t ResOlUtion No. 1496 ~com~hding to %he City C~uncil the ap- proval of Final Tract Map No. 8912, subject to conditions stated within the resolution. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 2. Amendment to the Sign Code (Ordinance #614) Dr. Fleagle presented the concerns of the City Council relative to sign code amendments to permit greater flexibility and resolution of the problem areas. A suggested approach to the resolution of the problem was the creation of a town center sign district whereby signing within the town center area would be at the sole discretion of the City Council, based upon the guiding criteria of the existing sign ordinance. For areas out- side of the town center, the variance procedure could be eliminated by establishing as a matter of right, the issuance of sign permits in accordance with the sign ordinance. If an exception were re- quested from the standards and criteria of the sign ordinance, the ap- plicant could make a submission to the Planning Commission, which in PC Minutes 2/9/76 - Page 3 turn would be recommended to the City Council for consideration. The Council then would have the complete discretion to approve or deny signing other than that authorized by the sign ordinance, again with the criteria of the sign ordinance as guidelines for approval. Public hearings would not be required and the procedure of a variance process would not be required. This would enable maximum flexibility and sole Council discretion in determining the appropriateness of signs other than those which were authorized by the criteria of the sign ordinance. Commissioner Sucher replied that creating a town center area dif- ~-~rent from ot~er properties in the City for sign criteria may not be the best process. Signing would not be unique to the town center area and it may not be advisable for a special consideration to be given to any area. It was his further opinion that pure discretion on the part of any individual or agency would leave the door open to abuse by special interest. It was his opinion that it would be a better process to work out the bugs in the present sign ordinance and to elicit the comments from those individuals who are most ad- versely and directly effected by the present sign ordinance. Commissioner Shambeck was of the opinion that to abandon the sign control standards for E1 Camino Real and the town center area would defeat the very purpose of the redevelopment study now under way for E1 Camino Real. It would open up signing requests to the pressures of special interests upon the City Council. Commissioner Hill stated that the sign code as written with the re- quirement of a showing of a hardship for a variance is too restric- tive. The popularity for complete restricted sign control in Tustin has diminished in its public support. He now felt that more flexi- bility is necessary in sign controls. It was recognized that the Tustin sign code is as good as any in Orange County but still leaves something to be desired in the way of fairness. It is a serious and tough decision for the Commission and Council to apply the doctrine of fairness. The Commission has the ability and interest necessary to determine how the signing criteria should apply. Commissioner Hill supports the concept of individual review within the framework and criteria of the sign ordinance, without the neces- sity of the variance process. Chairman McHarris questioned the basis of a sign ordinance. If it were purely for the benefit of the businessman, there would be no ordinance and no control. On the other hand, sign codes can be too restrictive and can effect a hardship upon the businessman. The purpose of a sign code is for an aesthetic design plan for the City. People come to Tustin for the uniqueness of the community and its amenities. There is an obligation to protect the business community but the obligation is two directional. The question is where do you draw the line. To allow each individual request to stand on its own merit would defeat the purpose of the sign ordinance and result in discrimination among different business interests. Commissioner Sucher further commented that the sign code not only --places ~estrict[o~s but it also grants rights and assurances that an individual is entitled to signing equal to all other like busi- nesses in the same area. If you throw out the criteria and leave the determination of signing to the discretion of the reviewing agency, there is a danger of losing rights of the individual. He further questioned the economic benefits of signing related to size. Mr._Speed Schuster stated that he had been close to the sign ordinance for a good number of years. It was a good ordinance in 1969 and it has been considerably refined and improved. It would be a mistake to deep-six it. Maybe the sign ordinance should be loosened up in cer- tain areas but not destroyed. There should be a limitation on signs both as to maximum height and minimum height. The ordinance as writ- ten can be refined and made to be more workable and a better ordi- nance. He encouraged the revision of the existing ordinance rather than its disregard. PC MINUTES 2/9/76 - Page 4 Art Barrett, Tustin News Reporter, stated that he considered it to be a v1~bl~ attempt that was being presented to provide relief for those who face financial hardship in the town center area. The E1 Camino Real businessmen who addressed both the Planning Commission and the City Council in support of increased signing allocation are considered to be responsible individuals who would not be likely to abuse either the intent or desire of the community for sign standards. Commissioner Sucher moved, seconded by Commissioner Shambeck, to eli~-~ from the business community their comments relative to those areas of the sign code which are troublesome and suggestions for amendments to the sign ordinance. It was further desired to make the same request of organizations, individuals and homeowner associ- ations. In response to the motion, Commissioner Hill indicated that the motion puts the city back in the Pandora's Box of redesigning and rewriting what is already a good ordinance. The Tustin sign ordinance is used by many communities as a model. The redesign of that sign ordinance and amendments would be a futile endeavor. The present ordinance should be kept and the process should be eased for exceptions to the ordinance. The amendments as proposed by staff provides the means of relief for requested exceptions to the rigorous standards. Chairman McHarris stated the ordinance in his opinion should stand on----its own merit rather than subject to the discretion of individuals. Commissioner Sucher stated that there is a process of procedure for a variance under the present ordinance and these processes do make an allowance for exceptions that are justified. MOTION CARRIED: Ayes - Shambeck, McIIarris, Sucher Noes - Hill 3. Environmental Impact Report for Saddleback College. The Commission was presented with sections of the environmental im- pact report prepared by Larry Seeman for the Saddleback Community College District in relationship to the site selection program for the northern area college. The Commission reviewed the various sites under consideration and the site selection criteria proposed within the environmental impact report. Motion was made by Commissioner Sucher, seconded by Commissioner Shagbark that the Planning CommiSsion recommend that the site of a norther~ area campus be as near as possible to the City of Tustin boundaries with preference indicated for area No. 2, located at the vicinity of Bryan and Culver Rd. It is further recommended that the Community College District explore the concepts of the Satellite Community College and give further consideration to traffic and community impacts in site selection. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 STAFF CONCERNS 1. Formal Finding - Open Space Requirements Dr. Fleagle presented a report to the Planning Commission requesting a formal finding of the definition of open grill or trellis latice work covering for patios, as to whether or not the open trellis work would be considered a covered patio for the purpose of the definition of open space in the planned residential development district. Mr. Bert Welsh, maintenance committee member of the Palmwood condo- min~um project addressed the Commission and indicated that the latice work proposed for patio coverage would not intrude upon the common PC Minutes 2/9/76 - Page 5 green area and would be coverings only for patio areas that are already established. Motion was made by Commissioner }{ill, seconded by Chairman McIIarris that t~he CommisSion makes a f~rm~'l 'f~ihding that latice work for patio covers is considered to be uncovered area for planned developments when the roof area of the latice work is not covered more than 50% of the roof surface area. MOTION CARRIED: Ayes: McHarris, Hill, Shambeck Abstained: Sucher Commissioner Sucher commented that he abstained from voting for the reason of not being fully cognizant of the impacts of the determin- ation in relationship to other development projects. COMMISSION CONCERNS 1. Chairman McHarris advised that at such time as Newport Avenue is annexed to the City of Tustin in the area of Walnut, that cogni- zance should be taken of the signing in front of the Pantry, which indicates a mail drop, bus stop, and signing which prohibits stopping. 2. Annexation of the Marine Corps Air Station (H) 71-B to the City of T~s~in. It was moved b_y Commissioner_ Shambeck, seconded by Commissioner Sucher t~at Resolution No. 1495 be ~dop~e~, recommendin~ to the City Council the approval of annexation No. 71-B to the City of Tustin. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Sucher, seconded bz Commissioner Shambeck to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commzsszon at 11:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 CHEF' THE PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING CO~MISSION RECORDING ~E~ETARY