Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-23-75 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION June 23, 1975 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the twenty-third day of June, 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, Schier Absent: Commi ss ioners: Duk leth Others Present: R. Kenneth Fleagle, Assistant City Administrator- Community Development Director James Rourke, City Attorney Mary Ann Chamberlain, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Schier. INVOCATION was given by Commissioner Kennedy. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Hill, seconded by Kennedy that the Minutes of June 9, 1975 be approved. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Use Permit 75-14 - On application of Lyle Anderson Jr. - to permit the use of subject premises for an auto parts store. Site is located at 145 West First Street. Mr. Fleagle explained that this item was continued from June 9, on the advise of the City Attorney. Mr. Rourke stated that he had conferred with Mr. Anderson's Attorney who had requested a continuance until the July 14 meeting. Moved by McHarris, seconded by Schier to continue this item as an open public hearing to July 14, 1975. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 2. Use Permit 75-13 - San Mar Management Company - to permit the development and operation of a baseball batting range and tennis practice alley. Site is located on Laguna Road (southerly side) between Newport Avenue and Orange Street. Mr. Fleagle reviewed the staff report and stated the requirements of the City Engineer: (1) Submittal of improvement plans and installation of improvements including paving, curbs, gutters, drive- ways, sidewalks, street lights and street trees. (2) Provision for sanitary sewer and water facilities. PC Minutes 6/23/75 Page two (3) Annexation of subject parcel to the Tustin Lighting District. Mr. Fleagle commented that staff has serious reservations that the proposed use might not be considered as the highest and best use of a commercial parcel. However, it will provide a commercial recreational facility for public use and will be located close to another recreational facility, Kartopia. Chairman McHarris opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Commissioner Hill stated his concern of balls being hit out of the area of the subject parcel. Mr. Itoward Wolkoys, San Mar Management Co., explained that there would be a net covering the tennis courts and batting cages so that no balls could be hit out of the area. Mr. Wolkoys stated that they would be adding landscaping and trees to enhance the appearance of the facility. In response to Commissioner Schier's question about the trees, Mr. Wolkoys explained that they would be purchasing large sizes of trees that would be compatible with the green screening and would be around 30 to 40 feet when full grown. Commissioner Schier questioned if there were any other develop- ments of this kind in the area. Mr. Volkoys answered that they are familiar with one in the City of Orange that is two to three times as large but is not as pleasant to the eye. Mr. Volkoys stated that there would be as few poles as possible and the netting would blend in with the surroundings. Commissioner Itill questioned if they would have pros and a pro - shop like the Tennis Factory which is located on Newport Avenue. Mr. Volkoys answered that they do have pros lined up for in- struction and there would be a very limited pro shop because of the restricted building facility. Commissioner Hill suggested that an additional condition be listed to the Resolution that if the business dissolves, they be required to remove all of the nets within 120 days so as not to create an eyesore for the community. In response to Chairman McHarris's question about the support of the net, Mr. Volkoys explained that there would be as few poles as possible which would be supported by cables and wire which would be invisible at 700 feet. Commissioner Schier questioned if there would be any grass on the tennis courts or in the batting areas. Mr. Volkoys stated that because of the drainage problem grass can not be used and they would lay a green coat of rubber on concrete in the tennis court area and use green carpet in the baseball cage area. Chairman McHarris questioned the ground cover treatment that they plan to use and the ten foot easement on the easterly side of the property. Mr. Volkoys informed the Commission that they would be using as many plants as possible rather than concrete and would look into landscaping the ten foot easement. Mr. Fleagle suggested that they build a block wall and landscape the rest of the easement. Chairman McHarris questioned staff if these plans were final or if they are approving a concept. Mr. Fleagle stated that they were approving the concept and staff would review and approve all precise details for landscaping, lighting, irrigation, etc. ~nmm~n~r Kenn~du i~quired whether or not there would be eating facilities on the premzses. Mr. Wolkoys replied in the negative. -2- PC Minutes 6/23/75 Page three The public hearing was closed at 8:35 p.m. Moved by Schier, seconded by Kennedy to approve Resolution No. 1454 granting a Use Permit on application No. 75-13 with the additional requirements that in the event the operations are vacated for a period of 30 days, the owner or operator shall remove all screening and netting within 120 days following the closure, with said condition being voluntarily accepted by the applicant as a condition of the Use Permit, and the owner/operator shall maintain the grounds, netting, and facilities in a sta~ of repair, and cleanliness. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PUBLIC CONCERNS - None OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS Mr. Flea~le suggested that because of audience participation New Business No. 2 be considered before New Business No. 1. Moved by Hill, seconded by Kennedy to consider New Business No. 2 out of order. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 2. Final Tract 8031 - Laurelwood Townhomes Location: East of Browning, south of Santa Ana Freeway Mr. Fleagle reported that the composite plans had been reviewed by the Commission and the changes the Commission had requested were being made. The City Engineer has indicated that this map is in substantial conformance with the previously approved tentative map. The street improvement plans have been completed and are ready for final approval by the City. Commissioner Hill questioned staff who owns the trash recepticle. Mr. Flea~le replied that the IIomeowners Association owned them. Commissioner Hill stated his concerns about homeowners associations and if it would be in existence 10 years from now. Mr. Rourke in- formed the Commission that he feels these associations are good programs and are set up to continue indefinitely. The City Attorney does review all CC&R's but the City is not a party to CC&R's. Moved by Hill, seconded by Kennedy to adopt Resolution NO. 1453 re- commending to the City Council approval of Final Tract Map No. 8031. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 1. Si~n Code Revision - "Open House Signs" Mr. Flea~le reported that the City Council on June 16, 1975 re- ferred to the Planning Commission, "Open House Signs" for their study, hearing and recommendation for a modification of the sign ordinance to authorize "Open House Signs." Mr. Fleagle presented the staff report and factors that should be considered. Attention was directed to a copy of the City of Irvine Sign Code for "Open House Signs", directional in nature. -3- PC Minutes 6/23/75 Page four Commissioner McHarris questioned if the property between the curb and pavement is public right of way. Mr. Fleagle replied that the property line on the normal development is from the inside of the sidewalk. The sidewalk, parkway and curb and gutter are public property. There are some exceptions but that is a general rule. The property owner maintains the parkway, irrigates it and is responsible for controlling the weeds. The question now is to put a directional real estate sign in that public right of way, but what happens when there is not a grass parkway and parkway is solid pavement? Chairman McHarris expressed his concern that the party who lives at the intersection would be picked on and have an open house sign on his property most of the time. He gave the example of First and Red Hill where it would be necessary for any realtor to place a sign in front of that particular party's house. Commissioner Hill expressed his opinion that it would be very difficult to amend the ordinance so that it would be rational and fair to the people that own the property and is going to give us a desired city appearance. Another question raised would be how many arrows would be at one intersection, and then know which one you are supposed to follow? Commissioner Hill stated that he felt there are so many factors here that haven't been considered that perhaps the Board of Realtors should come back with their prospective changes to the Ordinance and then look at it from that point. The Commission should not try to make a good effective campaign for the real estate industry. Chairman McHarris commented that perhaps the Commission was looking at some favortism in approving these kind of signs and how would this signing relate to other temporary signing for other things like election signs which are required to have permits and post a removal bond. Commissioner Kennedy informed the Commission that she had talked to three realtors, two of the realtors conveyed to her that they thought these kinds of signs would be stolen by private owners who are selling their homes. In response to Commissioner Kennedy's question pertaining to flags, Mr. Fleagle informed that flags are authorized on the private property at an open house but they are not allowed on public property. Commissioner Kennedy expressed her thought that the smaller realtor would suffer because the realtors in the smaller companys buy their own signs and the big companys buy them for the realtors. Commissioner Kennedy further explained that she had also heard the opposite of that statement. Policing would also be a problem, as to who would police them. In response to Chairman McHarris's question regarding our existing ordinance, Mr. ~leagle replied that you may not have any sign on public property except public signs. Chairman McHarris questioned what is the City's experience now. Mr. Fleaqle stated that the City has been exceptionally successful in controlling the number of signs in public right of way and the majority of the signs in public right of way are placed there advertising property not in the City of Tustin. The developers and builders in the City of Tustin have lived with our present sign ordinance and if they don't, they can come back to City Hall and collect their signs from Mr. Snyder. Chairman McHarris questioned if the Board of Realtors is proposing this change. Mr. Flea~le explained that this request came out of several newspaper articles that portrayed the sign problems of Irvine and Anaheim and the Board of Realtors presentation of those cities saying th~they should identify open houses for weekends particularly when there is high traffic volume directly into their -4- PC Minutes 6/23/75 Page five subdivisions, and at that time it came on the Council ageDda as a request that the City of Tustin also consider this item the same as the Cities of Anaheim and Irvine had done. Mr. Fleagle stated that he has met with the Board of Realtors three times and made suggestions to them how it could be done in the interest of the City and the Realtors; where we had designated points for the placement of the signs and if they pay the cost, the City grant them the right to use the public right of way but nothing ever came of fruition. Commissioner Hill stated that this City went through a very strenuous debate that took longer than a year on the sign ordinance. The City had open forum meetings monthly and that ordinance was written and rewritten. Today the City has an out- standing ordinance and certainly these sections had been considered. Mr. Hill feels that it was very definitely on purpose that realty signs were excluded from public right of way and in his opinion he felt that this was proper. He stated that if Council is asking us to study and recommend, he recommends that the Commission does not change the sign ordinance. It was felt that the Board of Realtors has not made a case of hardship justifying an exception to the sign code. Chairman McHarris commented that he feels that there is not much need for this type of amendment because the City of Tustin bound- aries are not that large and it seems like it would be showing unfair favortism even if the Commission would construct an ordinance that would identify the size and locations, shape, length of time that a sign could legally be put up. It would be unfair to other people who would want to give directions to a garage sale or any- thing else. It would also be unfair to certain property owners because of realtors constantly using their property for these signs. Commissioner McHarris stated th~he felt these directional signs should not be allowed in the median islands and how would the City recover the cost of the damage that may be incurred because who would be able to identify who caused the damage? He did not see how the City could equally collect fees unless it would be done through the Board of Realtors and only if they came up with a proposal. It should be the responsibility of the Board of Realtors to see that their members complied with the sign ord- inance that we do have. Commissioner Schier noted that every house has been sold that has been up for sale in the City of Tustin. It may be a matter of a little extra time to get the house sold. He was concerned with the appearance of the City. We are noted for a City that is developing into a very attractive community. We have been able to get along this far with only the county developments breaking our laws. The City realtors have been pretty much following our code. Our city would be better off without any directional signs. Commissioner Kenned~ commented that she lives in an area where there are five or slx open house signs displayed every week-end. The City of Irvine has been a leader in community planning and since they have made allowance for open house signs, perhaps Tustin should look into this matter. Commissioner McHarris questioned Mr. Fleagle how this policy was working in Irvine. Mr. Fleagle replied that this open house sign policy was recently adopted and therefore we have not had an evaluation. Commissioner Schier suggested that the Commission postpone this matter for six months to see how the Irvine sign ordinance works since this item does not seem to have any priority at this time. -5- PC Minutes 6/23/75 Page six Commissioner Kennedy also suggested that we review the Irvine ordinance in six months and also take a sampling from other cities and report back on it. Commissioner Hill stated that our ordinance was looked at with other cities and it was a deliberate exclusion not to have any signs in the public right of way. Our sign ordinance is completely fair when it comes to competitive posture among the realtors in our town, they all have to conform to the same lack of announce- ment of open house signs. The City has no flashing or rotating signs and we are way ahead of other cities in the area because of this. Moved by Hill, seconded by Schier that this matter be referred back to Council with the recommendation that the existing sign ordinance be adhered to and directed staff to monitor the City of Irvine sign regulations to determine their experiences with signs in the public right of way, and to report the findings to the Commission in December 1975. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 3. Relinquishment of Access Right to Myford Road - Tract 8603. Mr. Fleagle reported that the developers of Tungsten Carbide Manufacturing (lot 7 of Tract 8603) have requested that additional "access rights" be permitted to Myford Road from Lot 7. Lot 7 has 390 feet of frontage along Myford Road and the City Engineer has determined that one access point is inadequate to provide proper on-site circulation. This additional access would be limited to right turn ingress and egress to and from the subject lot which would mean no additional breaks to be allowed in the future median. Chairman McHarris questioned if this would have any effect on Lot 8. Mr. Fleagle explained that the access for lot 8 is from Walnut rather than Myford. Moved by Schier, seconded by Hill to recommend to the City Council that access rights to Myford Road be relinquished over the southerly 50 feet of lot No. 7 of Tract 8603. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None CORRESPONDENCE 1. 9range County Use Permit 3674 (Zoning Administrator) Location: Northwest corner of Foothill Blvd., and Old Foothill in the northeast Tustin Area. Received and filed. Announcement for League of California Cities Planning Commissioners' Institute - July 30-August 1, 1975. Commissioner Bob Hill and Ursula Kennedy stated a desire to attend this Institute. -6- PC MINUTES 6/23/75 Page seven STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Fleagle informed the Commissioners that he wished to adjourn to a workshop session to review a tentative circulation plan for the City of Tustin. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Schier questioned the lack of landscaping on the New- port Freeway from Irvine Boulevard north to 17th Street. Mr. Fleagle explained that the state has no money to maintain the landscaping that already exists and will probably have no funds available in the near future. Commissioner Kennedy complained of the weeds at the Alpha Beta center along Red Hill Avenue. Commissioner McHarris complained of the weeds at the Silver Fox property on Newport Avenue and the old Tuscan Room also on Newport Avenue. Mr. Fleagle stated that staff would act on these weed problems. Commissioner Hill requested that Mr. Rourke report on the solvency and status of homeowners associations. Commissioner Kennedy questioned staff about the hearing for the Laurinda Way and Prospect property. Mr. Fleagle informed the Commission that the Mayor had forwarded correspondence to the Orange County Planning Commission and Supervisor Clark. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m., to a workshop session and then to the next regular meeting on July 14, 1975. PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN PI~ANNI~FCOMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY -7-