Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-11-75 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION August 11, 1975 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the eleventh day of August, 1975, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., of said day, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, Centennial at Main, Tustin, California. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: McHarris, Hill, Kennedy, Sucher, Shambeck Absent: Commissioners: None Others Present: R. Kenneth Fleagle, Assistant City Administrator- Community Development Director James Rourke, City Attorney Marge Will, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Sucher. INVOCATION was given by Commissioner Hill. Commissioner McHarris welcomed new members Sucher and Shambeck to the Commission. OATH OF OFFICE Mr. Flea~le stated the oath of office for the new members had been given by the City Clerk. Moved by Hill, seconded by Kennedy that the minutes of July 28, 1975 be approved. MOTION CARRIED~ 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Continued - Sign Code Amendment ZC 75-1. Commissioner McHarris explained this was a continued hearing on directional signs which was discussed at great length at the last meeting and continued for further testimony. Opened public hearing at 7:40 p.m. ~im Kierstyn, Kierstyn Realty, 17411 Irvine Blvd., stated that the members of the East Orange County Board of Realtors participated with the City Council in the original hearings concerning the drafting of the sign ordinance for Tustin. The Board of Realty is interested in the betterment of the community, but we need to serve the public and feel directional signs would be of benefit to both the realtors and the public. Through cooperative efforts on the part of the Board and the City it was our understanding that a revision would be made to the original draft ordinance which would specifically consider directional signing. Based on these agreements, we feel we have been over this particular area before and thought we had an agreement and understanding that it would be included in the ordinance. Now we are hopeful the ordinance will be drafted including the wording that will permit directional signs. Commissioner Hill inquired if Mr. Kierstyn had the wording in a written document that was previously acceptable to both the Realty Board and the Council? Mr. Kierstyn replied negative. Commissioner Sucher inquired if the directional signing as outlined at the last Planning Commission meeting calling for the sign not to exceed 3 square feet and 3 feet in height with the words "open house" only is in line with his thinking? Mr. Kierstyn replied affirmative. PC Minutes 8/11/75 2 Mrs. Margaret Byrd, 158 N. "B" Street, Tustin, inquired as to the number of signs at one intersection? Commissioner McIIarris replied the suggested ordinance calls for no more than 4 at any interesection, nor more than 2 at any corner. In reply to Mrs. Byrd's question as to whether the parkway area was public property, Mr. Fleagle replied that in most circumstances the parkway (the area from the edge or inside sidewalk to the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street)is public right of way, and may be either dedicated in fee or it may be an easement for public purposes. The parkway area which is identified as that area between the sidewalk and the curb is maintained and the responsibility of the homeowner, though title in either fee or by easement, is to the city. It is public ownership but under direct responsi- bility of adjoining property owner to maintain. James Rourke, City Attorney, stated that in most situations these are easements. Commissioner Sucher questioned that in subdivisions where the street is not owned in fee, does the property owner have the legal right to refuse place- ment of the sign on the public right of way? Mr. Rourke added where public right of way is in fee ownership, the granting of the right to put up a sign is probably not a public purpose but for a private purpose. In an easement situation, if the city were to exercise the right over the objection of the property owner to grant to some private individual or company the right to make private use of that property raises a question. Commissioner McHarris asked if there would be a problem with something that was worded on a "consent basis?" Mr.. Rourke replied it could possibly remove the problem if the ordinance were to permit the placement of these signs in the parkway, with permits, and require the approval of the adjacent property owner. Commissioner Sucher added it might be a problem if the ordinance does not require approval 'of the property owner. Mr. Rourke replied with the permit procedure there would also be a formal paper which would have to be executed by the property owner to allow for the placement of these signs. In reply to Mrs. Byrd's statement that if you amend the real estate signs, there will be ~igns all over town, Mr. Rourke said there will have to be a distinction between a permanent place of business versus houses going up for sale. Reuben Kvidt, Westland Realty and member Legislative Committee of East Orange County Board of Realtors added that we are not restricting this discussion to real estate homes only, but include garage sales, lost dogs, apartments for rent, owner signs advertising house for sale. If the ordinance is changed, it should include the wording "with all signs placed on public right of way." I would like to suggest that the Legislative Committee of the East Orange County Board of Realtors work with the Planning Commission and draw up a proposal for this adjusted change in the ordinance for consideration, and this hearing be continued until the next meeting to give us an opportunity to prepare a proposal. Commissioner McHarris agreed it would be good if we had something concrete from the Board of Realtors showing their specific desires and how they might be able to control the placement of these signs. Also, if the Board has ever considered a private means of basically performing the same task as the directional open house signs, such as a central office which would have a city map available to the public indicating all "open houses." Mr. Kvidt replied we have had some discussions on this but nothing has been resolved, as there is still a need for the directional signs on the short interrupted streets. Joe Langley, former Mayor, City of Tustin, told the Planning Commission that the directional sign issue is vitally important to the community. On week-ends we are constantly overloaded with cardboard tack on signs - garage sales, open houses, new townhouses, apartments. The police have spent a number of hours trying to police these signs with little success. The city has the responsibility to each homeowner in the community to make them PC Minutes 8/11/75 Page 3 aware as to what is legal. The Police Department tried ticketing for awhile and it has a temporary affect only. If a child trips and falls on the grass area between the sidewalk and the curb, they certainly don't sue the city but go after the homeowner. I think the Planning Commission can be creative and find a resolution to the sign clutter and work with the East Orange County Board of Realtors for suggestions to present to the City Council. And just as important is to advise the public of the problems and they will help to keep the city clean of the sign clutter. They do not willing break the law, just lack of knowledge. Commissioner McHarris asked staff inasmuch as the realtors were not the largest violators of the sign problem, would it be proper to include the entire signing as an issue? Mr. Fleagle replied that he would like to refer that question to the City Attorney. The advertisement for this public hearing was for the purpose of "open house" realty directional signs on public right of way. If your recommendation goes back to the Council in the form of an ordinance to be adopted authorizing realty directional signs in the public right of way, your action would be in accordance with the advertisement. But if you recommend authorization for other signs such as antique sale, garage sales in the public right of way, a readvertisement of the public hearing will be necessary. The City Attorney concurred. Commissioner Sucher asked Mr. Rourke if one drafted an ordinance specifically directed to include or allow real estate only, would it be constitutionally permissible to so limit? If you are giving a class or segment of the populous the right to put signs in public right of way, can you with propriety restrict that license or right to a specific class of people or must you of necessity open it up to everyone? Mr. Rourke replied that it may be possible to make a reasonable distinction between real estate directional signs and certain other kinds of signs, particularly signs relating to places of businesses with fixed places. There could be a reasonable distinction to justify granting the right to use public right of way for "open house" real estate signs. Commissioner Sucher inquired: Could a tie-in be made, for instance, to entities holding a business license of a certain class, which would eliminate many of the private sales signs? Mr. Rourke replied if you were going to restrict it to people who hold business licenses, excluding the private owner from selling his own house, that would seem like an unreasonable distinction. The Planning Commission and City Council could make the distinction between the house, garage and antique sales. Commissioner Sucher added the private sale signs vs. public sale signs would be debateable issue. Mr. Rourke replied it will be necessary to determine whether it is con- stitutionally appropriate to have authorization restricted solely to real estate signs. Mr. Langley stated that the City of Tustin has the requirement that most types of signs require a city permit, and these signs can be regulated and controlled by the city. There are numerous temporary signs in the city which need permits. Staff and the East Orange County Board of Realtors should be able to work out a solution to the temporary real estate signing which will enhance the week-end appearance of the city. At the direction of the City Council the politicians in this community can put up their signs almost anywhere - all that is required is a permit and bonding. I think the Planning Commission should present a comprehensive study with strong recommendations to the City Council. Commissioner McHarris stated that the real problems on this signing lie With ~'ther issues. If we have a workable and agreement re the real estate "open house" signs, it probably would not make the community look much better as the realtors are not the violators of the sign cluttering. Commissioner Sucher stated our first choice is whether or not we are going to address the signing issue as a general issue including all types of signs, or restrict ourselves to the issue noticed in the public hearing. In order to do that job adequately we must first determine whether or not if we propose an ordinance and it were adopted, that the ordinance would not be PC Minutes 8/11/75 Page 4 opening up a box that everybody can get into, because if we allow one type of signing in the public right of way, all types of signing such as garage sales, antiques, would be legal. Before we can really determine that we should go on a limited issue, we need to find out if we can limit ourselves that way. If we can, we should go that way. Otherwise we should think of the whole and broader issue. Commissioner Kennedy commented on her research she found that general directional signing for the public good was discussed at the Feb. 27, 1974 City Council meeting. If real estate directional signing were to be in- cluded under "general signs for public good," the City Council reserves the right to approve them. Nothing was decided at that meeting, but it would be helpful to see exactly what was said, and would like to have a copy of these minutes available for the next meeting. Mr. Fleagle stated that signs have never been permitted in the City of Tustin in the public right of way since adoption of a Sign Ordinance, except those placed by authority of the City Council or as traffic direct- ional signals. When Ordinance #614 was adopted the item was debated and there was provision placed in the code for public service signs and these included signs directing to public service agencies, such as churches, schools and city hall. The matter came back on the agenda of the City Council at the request of the Board of Realtors to determine if it was possible to obtain an amendment to the Sign Ordinance to allow for real estate signs in public right of way. The matter was never resolved even though many meetings were held with members of the Realty Board at which time the possibility of a board location map within a planned community was discussed. There has never been an action taken by the City through a public hearing process that has ever authorized directional signs in the public right of way for realty purposes, nor are signs permitted in public right of way for garage sales. These violators are notified of not only the City Ordinance violation but the State Law as well and requires constant policing. Commissioner Kenned~ stated she had counted 22 illegal signs in the community within one mile this past week-end and only two were by realtors, all other private. Commissioner Sucher added if we cannot recommend to Council a specific ~rdinance dealing with only real estate "open house" directional signs, or in the alternative if we do make such an ordinance, would it be a "carte blanche" to all types of signs. If we cannot limit public right of ways signs specifically to real estate "open house," then we must tell the Council that our inquiry must be broadened to include other signs in the public right of way. One of the questions we have to answer is can we limit the ordinance to this type of sign? Mr. Rourke replied if the Commission is of the mind to consider recommending an ordinance which limits itself to real estate directional signs, then it would be first appropriate to determine whether that would be a legally permissible alternative available to the Commission. Commissioner McHarris asked Mr. Rourke to address the question of whether we can limi~ ourself to this issue. Commissioner Hill stated it would be excellent for the Board of Realtors to put together their suggestions for amending the ordinance, while at the same time staff would put together a revision for the Commission's next meeting. Mr. Kvidt replied that the realtors would submit their proposal to staff for the next meeting. Mr. Fleagle stated it was necessary to have the City Attorney's opinion as to whether or not we can proceed in the direction we are heading. Staff will work with the Realty Board both jointly and independently in preparing ordinances for your consideration at the next meeting. An ordinance could be drawn directing itself to the realty directional sign (which is not an advertising sign) with liability protection to the property owner and the city. Moved by Sucher, seconded by Hill to continue this matter dimecting the attorney to address the issue of whether or not an ordinance can constituti- onally be limited to specific type of sign and that staff continue their efforts in developing the background for the Commission to consider regarding the form of ordinance we can adopt. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PC Minutes 8/11/75 Page 5 INITIAL PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Use Permit 75-17 - Mr. Fleagle reported that the public hearing has been advertised for the purpose of issuing a use permit to authorize the paving and use of 1.36 acre parcel for outside storage of finished products in conjunction with an existing industrial building and manufacturing facilities of Spartan Plastics. The property is in the M-1 district located on the northerly side of Edinger Avenue between Red Hill and the Newport Freeway. Outside storage is authorized by a use permit process as existing new building adjacent to this lot. Staff's recommendation is to approve the use permit subject to the conditions as recommended by the City Engineer and as contained in Resolution No. 1458. Grading plans were submitted to the Engineering Department as of this date. The annexation of such property to the Tustin Lighting District, which means in this case the forwarding of request for annexation, the dedication of 20' frontage cf Edinger which is required for street purposes. A masonry wall not less than 6'8" or greater than 8' to be constructed on Edinger Street frontage on line with adjacent building and with matching color for the purpose of screening from public view the storage of materials. This is a standard requirement now in the industrial district for any of the frontage property. The side yard has an existing fence, on the easterly side and the building would serve as screening on the west, and the rear has an existing chainlink fence along the RR track. We have requested submission of landscape plans and irrigation for Edinger property frontage, tree plantings on easterly and westerly lot lines to again break the skyline and screen from view, for approval. There is also the requirement that the storage of finished products not exceed the wall heigh~ along the Edinger Street frontage. For the benefit of the new Commissioners, the properties for the most part on Edinger westerly of Red Hill were developed either within the county or prior to the adoption of the standards for industrial development property. The difference between properties that have been developed west of Red Hill vs. Celanese plant which is on the easterly side, with the landscaping and screening are a reasonable compromise between existing and present standards. Commissioner Sucher inquired whether the parcel under discussion is already being used as outside storage? Mr. Fleagle replied negative. The parcel last had an orange grove on it. The orange trees were abandoned and removed. Commissioner Shambeck referred to the existing city policy at time of widening curb and gutter relocated at public expense. If the city policy changes between now and time that occurs, is the city bound by statement or do they go back to property owner to get improvements paid for? Mr. Fleagle replied that the policy has been in effect for several years t~at where curbs and gutters were put in and required to be relocated, it would be done at city expense. Commissioner Shambeck asked what would happen if the city changed its policy? Mr. Fleagle replied I don't know of any way that it could be done unless a Condition of a use permit requiring right of way be dedicated and approve ultimate right of way. Opened public hearing at 9:20 p.m. Wally Graham, President, Spartan Plastics, asked staff if it is in the code t~at a masonry wall be part of the frontage? Mr. Fleagle replied that it is in the development criteria. Mr. Graham said he felt compabitility in that area did not require a masonry wall as the economics of putting up a masonry wall in lieu of a chainlink fence with appropriate strapping within that fence to provide the screening necessary, would make a hardship on our company. Therefore, I request the Planning Commission's consideration of this matter. We could screen our product effectively by the chainlink fence and the result would be the same and the expense to my company would be considerably reduced. Commissioner Sucher inquired what would be the difference in round dollars between the two fences? Mr. Graham replied he did not have the exact figures but that the masonry wall 'could run between $1,000 to $3,000, whereas the chainlink fence could be installed for around $800. Closed public hearing at 9:25 p.m. PC Minutes 8/11/75 Page 6 Commissioner Hill commented that with this use permit there is the opportunity to upgrade that section of the city, and we should go along with the~masonry wall. Mr. Fleagle commented this requirement was consistent with all standards of development for industrial properties and not unusual in this instance. Commissioner Shambeck stated that by the time you put in a chainlink fence with adequate landscaping to screen the objects behind the fence from view, and you maintain the plantings until they achieve adequate growth, almost as much money is involved as compared to the masonry wall. A combination type wood fence with stone pillars would cost almost as much and the main- tenance of the wood would be a problem, plus you would not have the same security. Moved b~ Hill, seconded by Sucher to adopt Resolution No. 1458 as drafted. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 2. Amendment to ZC 73-6 Mr. Fleagle stated that when Ordinance No. 611 was adopted it changed the zoning from residential to industrial for the property that is easterly of the proposed Jamboree Road. When the Planning Commission and City Council conducted public hearings it was determined that it was necessary to guarantee assurances to the adjoining abutting residential property of protection from noise from rail operations and to restrict rail operations serving the Tustin-Irvine Industrial Complex to the hours between 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The objectives at that time were to make sure that the crossing was not blocked during peak traffic hours, and to make sure that there was no noise to the adjoining residents. The language of the ordinance is pro- posed to be modified to performance standards. Commissioner Shambeck asked staff to define urgency rail operations. Mr. Fleagle re~lfed urgency rail operations are those operations imperative t---o the continuation of normal industrial operations. Commissioner Sucher inquired if allowing 24 hour operation will increase use of main line? Or is it the same number of trains going across, just a change in hours? Mr. Fleagle replied that only hours of operation were changed. Opened public hearing at ]0 p.m. R. W. IIauptli, Manager, Industrial Real Estate, AT&SF RR stated that the ~anta Fe main line operation of freight trains is normally at night. Freight cars move into this new proposed yard would be handled on local train from Santa Ana. We propose to switch this new area just once every 24 hours during the evening hours. We will take loads in and pull out empties. Urgency rail movements would be rushing a car in to keep a factory running. The speed at the crossing of Walnut Avenue, which has signalization, will not be over 5 miles per hour. The main advantage from Tustin's viewpoint is removing the switching tracks behind Tustin Meadows to the industrial area. Commissioner Sucher asked what would be the terms of the noise level of the increased use of the main line, as opposed to the relative slower speed of the engine in terms of its proximity to the switching yard, as compared to the Santa Fe Express that uses the main line. Mr. Hauptli replied that there are three AM Track trains a day each way [~at travel over the main line at relatively high speed. They normally don't stop in this area and a lot of the noise that is attributed to the railroad is in stopping, starting and switching. Our main line freights would not stop in this area except on an unusual occasion. The freight coming down from Santa Ana on the local switch engine would not be traveling at high speed. This is a highly technical question, but I would say about half the noise level - little more vibration than heavy freight or passenger train. Closed public hearing at 10:10 p.m. PC Minutes 8/11/75 Page 7 Moved by Sucher, seconded by Shambeck, to adopt Resolution No. 1459, as drafted. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC CONCERNS - None OLD BUSINESS Mr. Fleagle stated the report dated July 24 from the City Administrator suggests that there are many various interests in bicycle paths. We have one plan of bicycle paths proposed fro Newport Avenue and the abandoned Southern Pacific Railroad right of way. It is proposed by the City Administrator that there be a committee appointed with representation from various commissions and agencies that would give a priority ranking to the bike path plan for implementation and recommend any modifications or amendments that should be made. Council has accepted this recommendation of a broad community base approach to the bicycle path and it will come back as an amendment as a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council. Before it gets to the process of scheduled hearings, it is desired to have the Commission designate one of its members to serve on the Committee, under chairmanship of Councilman Edgar, which will meet on the call of the chairman possibly once a month for the next three months. Some of the questions to be answered by the Committee are where should they be, public right of way or on flood control right of way, or railroad abandoned right of way, and whether to serve the school or recreational purposes. Commissioner McHarris inquired if anyone would be interested in serving on this committee. Commissioner Sucher stated he would be willing to serve. NEW BUSINESS Final Parcel Map 75-77 - Santa Fe Land Improvement Co. Mr. Flea~le stated the City Engineer has outlined the conditions of the proposal of this parcel map which is located off on Santa Fe Drive and Woodlawn Avenue. This parcel map splits two parcels so they can be developed independently. Moved by McHarris, seconded by Kennedy, to adopt Resolution No. 1460 as ~rafted. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 CORRESPONDENCE Orange County Use Permit 3705 - Cat Kennel located at 13241 Sandhurst Place, Santa Ana. - Mr. Fleagle stated this was for the Commission's information only. ~eceived and filed. 2. Southern California Planning Congress Meeting Announcement. ~r. Fleagle explained to the new Commissioners that the City does belong to the Southern California Planning Congress and they meet monthly in different cities within Southern California. Occasionally when their programs are of special interest, members of the Commission either indi- vidually or in a group will attend. We will see that these announcements come to you directly. If you contact our department, we will make a reservation for you if you see a program that you would enjoy. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Fleagle told the Commission that the City Administrator in his memo to t--he ~ity Council.reCommended a change in the procedure for the taking of City Council and Planning Commission minutes. It was presented to the Council on July 29 and they appeared enthusiastic and directed staff to consider and start implementation. If the equipment is available, such a system could be inaugurated at the next Planning Commission meeting. You would have a form very comparable to the Board of Supervisors ~inutes which shows maker of motion, second, and the vote and the action taken. There could be a brief summary of discussion. There would be a master tape, and PC Minutes 8/11/75 Page 8 from that tape 5 or 6 cassettes would be made for the public or whoever wanted to listen to the complete discussion. These cassettes would be available to Council members, Commissi6n~me.~Bers and.the general public, on request. The cassettes could be reused and the master will be on file. Commissioner McHarris stated it would be a disadvantage as they would not have a cross-~e{erence of the minutes between Commissions and Council. Commissioner Hill feels more than a summary is needed of the meeting. it would be difficult if a meeting had been missed. Also Mr. Fleagle said it would be necessary whenever you make a motion or take an action to define the reason for that action - make your findings of fact, supplementing the resolution. Mr. Rourke stated when you make a motion to state, I move that we find that such and such a fact, and such and such a fact, and that we approve the variance or whatever it might be. Mr. Flea~le said another staff concern was the letter received today from the Intergovernmental Coordinating Council of Orange County, recommending each city and county consider adopting these Standard Zoning Designations at a time convenient to them for implementation. We have applied this procedure to First Street with the "CG" District. Commissioner McHarris questioned if each city adopts the class indicated here 'for their zoning designations? Mr. Fleagle replied it is the city's option. We thought it a good idea to endorse the concept and already started to implement it along with some of the other cities. One of the additions is the P&I District, which is now being recommended for all cities and the county to identify their schools. In reply to Commissioner Hill's inquiry about what suffixes meant, Mr. Flea~le replied the letter would indicate it has a special use. COMMISSION CONCERNS The Commissioners stated the memorandum from Mr. Rourke re future maintenance of condominiums covered the subject very well, and thanked him. Moved by Hill, seconded b~ Sucher to adjourn at 11 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY