Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-28-75 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION July 28, 1975 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the twenty-eighth day of July, 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 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 Hill. INVOCATION was given by Commissioner Kennedy. Moved by Hill, seconded b~ Kennedy that the minutes of July 14, 1975 be approved. MOTION CARRIED: 2-0 Commissioner McHarris abstained due to absence from previous meeting. Commissioner McHarris stated that the two new members of the Planning Commission, Dick Sucher and George Shambeck, will be seated at the next meeting scheduled for August 11, 1975. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Variance 75-2. Mr. Flea~le told the Commission a public hearing has been advertised at this time and place for a variance application submitted by the Williamshire IIomeowners Association for the purpose of authorizing patio covers/sunshades and porch covers adjoining existing structures. The variance would authorize greater than 50 percent coverage of the land area within the PD District. The Williamshire was originally constructed as an apartment complex and later converted to condominiums through adoption of Tract Map 6380. The recommendations and suggested conditions were incorporated in the staff report. Mr. Fleagle added that a suggested amendment to Resolution No. 1457 incorporates (1) structures shall not be enclosed other than by existing fences to prevent being converted to a room; (2) roof lines of structures shall not extend closer than three feet laterally to the property lines nor closer than six feet to an adjoining patio roof line; and (3) the stipulation that the physical improvements authorized be incorporated within the bylaws and regulations of the Homeowners Association. Opened public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Dick Veneman, President Williamshire Homeowners Association told the Commissi'on that a contract has been let for the resurfacing and street changes, which is the responsibility of the builder while the patio covers are the responsibility of the purchaser, and we do not necessarily control one another. Commissioner McHarris asked Mr. Veneman whether he had reviewed the resolution and was familiar with it, and if it meets all his needs. Mr. Veneman replied affirmative and that aesthetically it would look better if all the patios did join at the building. PC Minutes 7;/28/75 Page 2 Commissioner IIill inquired whether each owner would design his own patio cover. Mr. Veneman replied we had an architectural committee get together and submitted plans to the Board of Governors of the IIomeowners Association who in turn approved a plan for patio covers and a plan for the porch covers so that everything would be uniform. The plan must be approved by the Association before the owner can build, but he is not forced to construct a patio cover. Commissioner Hill asked staff to comment on closing in to building lines. Mr. Flea~le replied he has the Building Director's recommendation which reads: "Roof lines of structures come no closer than 3' from the property line or common wall, and in no case closer than 6' to the adjoining patio roof line." This requirement of the building code is strictly for fire separation due to the fact that the building is no longer considered an apartment complex. Closed public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Moved by Kennedy, seconded by McHarris to adopt Resolution No. 1457 as amended. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0 2. Sign Code Amendment ZC 75-1. Mr._. Flea~le stated that a public hearing has been advertised at this time and place for the purpose of amending the sign code, which is a portion of the zoning ordinance, to authorize "open house" directional signs to be placed on public right of way. Extracts from sign codes of other communities is for your information. The Realty Board has been notified of the public hearing, plus Homeowners Associations and affected property owners were given notice of the hearing. It is the recommendation of staff that the Commission open the public hearing, take testimony from those wishing to speak, and continue the hearing until August 11 for further input and procedures to be followed. Opened public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Reuben Kvidt, Westland Realty and representative of the Legislative Committee for East Orange County Real Estate Board stated that Tustin is a very beautiful city and has a unique city street system making it difficult in many cases to find homes in the remote areas. A good part of the realty business consists of displaying homes (open house) which enables people to see them and find out more than you can possibly publish in an advertisement listing. Many people prefer to drive to the city and go from open house to open house and see what the various developments look like. In other words - means of shopping for the best buy. We do not want to clutter up the city with street signs. Our recommendations are: (1) Open house signs that would be in good taste, controlling size, location, and time of posting. A small 1' x 2' directional arrow sign with no advertising except perhaps a small company identification. A limitation of one sign at each corner in any one direction with a time limitation of 9-5 or 10-6. In order to have control an annual permit could be issued to each company with appropriate fees; and a six-month trial period, similar to the city of Irvine's to test the revised sections of the ordinance and the success of its implementation. Commissioner Hill was concerned about the proliferation of these signs in that it could take as many as 5 changes of direction for one house. Mr. Kvidt replied that this is true, and that he and Mr. Fleagle have discussed the possibility of a common enclosed board at the entrance of the housing developments which would have posted the address and a map showing how to get to the "open house." One of the requirements of the sign code revision would be that there will be only one sign allowed at each corner. The first person who puts up his sign knows that no other realtor will be allowed to put a sign up at that corner. The real estate companies plan to patrol the areas and when a sign offender is discovered, they will be contacted by telephone, and if a followup is needed, a letter will be sent. The City of Irvine has not had too much trouble with offenders. Also, the placement of the sign could be in a certain spot and in a permanent pipe. PC Minutes 7/28/75 Page 3 Suzan Pikes, Woodland Drive, wanted to know where the sign would be placed? And if the real estate people needed her permission before placing the sign on the portion of her property that is public? Commissioner McHarris replied that the proposal called for the sign to be placed at major intersections and that the realtor would have the right to put one directional sign in front of her property. Chuck Young, Woodland Drive, cited a number of blatant unenforced examples of "sign pollution" on his block. There are signs on trucks, cars and wired to trees but I don't feel the city should have to spend its own tax dollars to pay for enforcement of possible realty violations. I would like to know who is going to pay for the reciprocal repairs for my damaged parkway if signs are permitted on it. Mr. Fleagle replied that the city is responsible for enforcing all private violations and no reimbursement policy exists at this time. Mr. Young inquired about removal of realty signs after a house has been sold. Mr. Kvidt replied that the signs do stay up for an unusually long period of time and that the real estate industry would like to see this item in- corporated into the new ordinance. Mr. Fleagle added that the sign must be removed upon the close of escrow. There is a provision now within our ordinance covering this but the realtors are not following it. Ray Kemp, 1401 Irvine Blvd., stated that he would like to know who is going to pay for the reciprocal repairs for any damaged parkway. We need a clear definition of the words "directional signs" before we talk about placement and numbers. These signs could be placed where it would be eas~ for children to walk or skate into and rip out an eye and then who will they sue -- the city, realtor; or property owner. In reply to questions from the Commission, Mr. Kvidt stated he felt the sign should be identified with the real estate company's name, and that his personal reaction is that whoever places the sign on the right of way should be responsible -- whether it be the real estate company or a private individual. He also felt that the property owner should be asked if a sign could be placed on their property, and that placing a sign in front of a house might be objectionable to some people. Commissioner McHarris asked staff what the present situation is if a sign would be placed on private property? Mr. Fleagle replied that under the existing sign ordinance you may not put a sign on private property other than the property that is being sold. In reply to the question re flags, Mr. Fleagle stated the present ordinance permits flags on the property being sold, but does not allow flags for directional purposes. Commissioner Kennedy stated she had talked to three different realty companies and was informed that they hardly ever sell a house during an "open house." It is merely an advertisement and not exactly the type of house the buyer is looking for, but usually the buyer does purchase a home in the same general area. Closed public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Mr. Fleagle advised that it would be a public expense to enforce the sign code and would be more difficult to enforce against private owners if there is by right given to the realtor unless there is a permit process. The private owner could take out a permit just as the realtor would be required to do. Moved by Hill, seconded by Kennedy to continue this hearing as an open hearing to the next meeting scheduled for August 11, 1975. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0 PC Minutes 7/28/75 Page 4 Commissioner McHarris added that he would like to have additional testimony on the merits and mechanics of the suggestion getting more into the reasons and benefits, advantages and disadvantages of the proposal. Our main concern is whether we need the revision, then work out the details of implementation and enforcement. PUBLIC CONCERNS - None OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS 1. Final Parcel Map 75-76 - Irvine Industrial Complex Mr. Fleagle stated the tentative map has been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. The final map is in conformance and staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 1456. Moved by tIill, seconded by Kennedy to adopt Resolution No. 1456. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None CORRESPONDENCE - Mr. Fl.eagle stated that the Commission was furnished a copy of a letter from the City Administrator to the School Superintendent. This letter is for the Commission's information and no action is required. STAFF CONCERNS MR. Fleagle stated it is the recommendation of the City Administrator that a consortium of staff, commissions, and agencies review our bicycle plan in order to make a submission for funds available from State gasoline taxes, as well as update the bicycle plan. It is proposed that one member from the Planning Commission and one member from the Planning Department be on the committee, plus representation from the Traffic Commission, Recreation Commission, citizen groups and bicycle clubs. It was requested that the Commission designate one of its members in the event such a consortium is approved by the City Council. COhnnissioner McHaris asked if we could Wait until the next Planning Commission meeting at which time the two new commissioners will be here and they might express a personal interest in this activity. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Hill asked staff if there have been any reactions to our general proposal on the Tustin Circulation Plan. Mr. Fleagle replied that it has not been forwarded outside the city staff as it is still in Engineering. The plan will come back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Commissioner Kennedy inquired about Heritage House. Mr. Fleagle replied that they are in compliance with the City ordinance as of this date. They would like to change the conditions of the Council approval but have not formally submitted anything for Council consideration. Some of the require- ments seem very burdensome but no formal application has been filed for reconsideration at this time. Commissioner McHarris inquired about the status of the condition of the Silver Fox? Mr. Fleagle replied staff ha contacted the owner by telephone on June 24, and as of this date a formal letter went out to the owner requiring weed abatement. Mr. Fleagle advised the Commission of the League of California Cities Conference in October in San Francisco. Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hill to adj~urn]~r~.00 p.m~ to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commiss~n~O~/~A~D~: 3-0 ~L~NING~ COMMISSION CHAIRMAN PLANNING/~OMMISS ION~ ~ECORDING SECRETARY