Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-14-74 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY January 14, 1974 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Agency was held on the 14th day of January, 1974, at the hour of 7:32 p.m. of said day, in the Council Chambers, 275 South "C" Street, Tustin, California. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Ma~or Saltarelli. The Invocation was given by Councilman Welsh. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen: Saltarelli, Langley, Welsh Woodruff. Absent: Councilmen: Sharp. Others present: Assistant City Administrator-Community Development Director Ken Fleagle Assistant Planning Director Bruce Lenorovitz City Attorney James Rourke Planning Agency Recording Secretary Mary DJ~n Chamberlain Mayor Saltarelli explained that Councilman Sharp had been hospitalized that morning and on behalf of the Council he wished him a speedy recovery. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilman Woodruff moved for approval of the December 10, 1973, Planning Commission Minutes as submitted; seconded by Councilman Welsh. Carried. PUBLIC HEARING 1. SIGN CODE DRAFT Mr. Flea~le explained that this sign code revision is offered as a public hearing for the purpose of amending the Sign Ordinance adopted in 1969, to clarify ambiguities of the old ordinance and to provide opportunities for business identification without creating the clutter and offensive character of signs that were designed without a relationship to the structure and busi- ness they serve. Mr. Fleagle gave recognition to the ad hoc committee who prepared this proposed revision: Marvin Lee, Chairman; Raymond Kemp; Speed Schuster; Jack Vodrey; Jerry Mack; and R. Kenneth Fleagie. Mr. Fleagle stated that there are many sections of this proposed ordinance that did not receive the unanimous concurrence and support of the proposals, and, in effect, the draft proposal is a compromised document. The following sections are the major revisions to the past policies and sign ordinance requirements of the City of Tustin: Article IV, Section 4 - Maintenance Requirements Ail signs are required to be maintained in a state of good repair. Article IV, Section 5H - Window Signs Window signs, both temporary and permanent, are restricted to 25% of the window surface. Article VI - Section 4, Abatement Schedule for Non-Conformin$ Signs A provision has been proposed that would authorize the retention of non-conforming signs until 1980, except for signs when the proprie- torship, use, and identity of the business is changed. After 1980, the City would have the authority, if desired, to compensate the owner of a non-conforming sign, based upon a depreciation rate cal- culated on a 20 year life span of a sign, as a condition of required removal for a sign which exceeds the code requirements by 25%. Planning Agency Minutes 1/14/74 Page 2 Article VIII - Regulations The proposed ordinance, although comprised of detailed explanations, is designed to separate the regulations into a separate document for the benefit of applicants and interested citizens. The ordinance encourages ground based monument signs but does not exclude the free- standing pole sign. Councilman Woodruff questioned Mr. Fleagle if this draft ordinance con- stituted the committee's majority of opinion. Mr. Flea$1e answered yes. Councilman Woodruff questioned staff if the audience had been provided copies of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Fleagle informed the Council that Mr. Ray Kemp had published it for this occasion and they had been distri- buted in the audience. Councilman Woodruff questioned if the draft ordinance contained staff's opinions. Mr. Flea~le responded that the draft reflects majority opinions of the committee, but minority opinions will be offered from the staff as well as other members of the committee. Councilman Woodruff moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Mayor Saltarelli. Carried. Mayor Saltarelli opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Dominic Correa, owner of Roma D'Italia, E1 Camino Real, stated that he felt the City was steamrolling this ordinance through and the council was not running the City for the benefit of the people. Grad¥ Henry, Manager, First Na~onal Bank of Orange County, 14601 Red Hill, stated that he felt the sign ordinance should cover all signs in the City. Mr. Grady then referred to Section 9-8 and commented that a monument sign would create a traffic hazard for his place of business and a pole sign would be safer. He further stated that he felt the square footage of a sign should be related to the street frontage rather than the size of the building. Bill Moses, Tustin News, stated that he was in total opposition of the con- fiscation aspect and was against the squashing of individual liberty in the sense of private property. Stephen Schuster, manager of McDonalds, explained that he had resigned from the committee prior to the completion of the sign ordinance draft because he objected to the amortization of certain signs because the compensation was not fair. Mr. Schuster stated that he realized that staff and Council did not want a Harbor Boulevard with flashing and animated signs, but there are very few in Tustin comparing signs with other cities in Orange County. Mayor Saltarelli questioned Mr. Schuster if he thought the current 1969 ordinance was a good one. Mr. Schuster replied no, that it was in definite need of revision. Mayor Saltarelli further questioned Mr. Schuster if he felt this proposed sign draft was better, deleting the amortization, than the present ordinance. Mr. Schuster replied that it is a definite upgrade. Cass Hare, 368 E. First Street, Tustin, stated that he felt the business com- munity had not had time to study this new draft and he would like to review it and be given an opportunity to respond at some later date. Ray Kemp, 422 Sixth Street, Tustin, explained that he was representing the sign committee and what they had attempted to accomplish was an understand- able and enforceable sign ordinance. Mr. Kemp referred to Article 6, Section 4-D, and explained that a non-conforming sign may be removed after 1980 if non-conforming, not will be removed. If the City takes the responsibility for removing a sign then they would have to pay for it. If the City feels a sign should be taken down then they would have to compensate the owner of the sign. He further suggested that the business community should read the complete text. Planning Agency Minutes 1/14/74 Page 3 Councilman Welsh questioned Mr. Kemp if signs would come down. Mr. Kem~ stated they would but very few are non-conforming and this amortization period would allow people to keep their non-conforming sign until 1980 or change them in the meantime to be conforming. Councilman Woodruff questioned Mr. Kemp if there was any change in real estate signs. Mr. Kemp explained that ~%is section was the same as in the old ordinance. Mayor Saltarelli questioned if this new draft allows more flexibility or less. Mr. Kem~ replied that this new draft ordinance provides businesses with more flexibility, applicability and definitions than the present ordinance, with the exception of the compensation clause. (Councilman Langley arrived at this point in the meeting, 8:30 p.m.) ~yor Saltarelli directed staff to prepare appropriate commendation for the sign committee. Bill Moses, Tustin News, commented that the new draft ordinance contains pro- visions for removal of wall and window signs which do not meet the standards. Mr. Kem~ replied that the new draft is so broad that he doesn't think any wall signs would be affected by this. Steven Schuster stated that he feels this new draft ordinance clears up a lot of ambiguities and discrepancies; if we gave it up now there would be a lot wasted. Mr. Schuster reiterated that without the amortization this draft is a real good document. Milton Curtis, 13362 Cromwell, Tustin, announced that the Chamber of Commerce would have a meeting this Wednesday evening, January 16, to discuss this pro- posal and anyone interested was most cordially invited. Jack Vodrey, Federal Sign Company, Santa Ana, explained that he does business in more than 48 townships in Southern California and thinks this is the fair- est sign ordinance that he has seen in the business. Mr. Vodrey informed the Council that at the present time he is serving on three different sign code committees in Orange County and feels this is the most progressive piece of sign legislation in Orange County. Dominic Correa, owner of Roma D'Italia, E1 Camino Real, questioned the Council if the City needs a new sign ordinance. Mayor Saltarelli answered that Coast Federal and First National Bank were not treated equally with other banks and this is an ey~mple of why we need a new ordinance rather than amendments. Councilman Woodruff added that the ordinance as it now exists creates inequities --everyone should get the same treatment. In response to a question regarding non-conforming County signs, Mayor Saltarelli informed that the County is attempting to write a new sign ordinance that will bring County island signs into conformance with their respective areas. Richard Edgar, 13622 Loretta Drive, Tustin, stated his views that it may be more desirable to take separate actions against non-conforming signs, i.e., County permits or signs built under an old ordinance. Mr. Bill Moses, Tustin News, asked the Council if a sign permit were to be valid only for the tenure of the Council that approved the sign, and if so, what permit would be valid? Richard Edgar responded that the City Council has the responsibility of reflecting the viewpoints of the citizens at any given time, and the Council has the right to change the actions of previous councils, but only in fairness. Ray Kem? suggested that a change in wording should be made in Article IV, Section 1, to eliminate the posed threat of the wording: "at such times as he deems necessary", the Building inspector can examine signs for structural safety. Planning Agency Minutes 1/14/74 Page 4 Mr. Rourke explained that this is the wording of the present ordinance and there are safeguards provided the property owner against arbitrary action. Councilman Welsh moved to continue the ~ublic hearing to the February 4, 1974, Council meeting. Motion died for lack of second. Councilman Woodruff moved to continue the ~ublic hearing to be next City Council meeting on January 21, 1974,and have staff ~re~are re~ort for February 4, 1974, meeting, seconded by Councilman Langley. Carried, 4-0. Ma~or Saltarelli directed staff to take testimony and have copies of the pro- posed ordinance available for the public at no cost. Mayor Saltarelli closed the public hearing at 9:25 p.m. PUBLIC CONCERNS NONE. OLD BUSINESS NONE. NEW BUSINESS NONE. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION NONE. CORRESPONDENCE 1. ORANGE COUNTY ZONE CHANGE 74-1 Location: NOrtheast corner of Newport Avenue and La Colina. ~. Fleaqle reported that there were previous zone change actions on this property which had changed it from R-1 (Single-Family) to multi-family and planned development with increased density. The Tustin Area General Plan designates this area as R-l, Single-Family detached dwelling units. Pre- viously, the Foothill Home Owners Association and the City of Tustin had opposed the change from R-1 to a higher density zoning. The County now has decided to down-zone this property to E-4. Staff would recommend that the Council authorize the Mayor to sign the proposed draft letter which recommends authorization for single-family detached dwelling units on not less than 7200 square foot lots. Councilman Welsh moved to approve the correspondence as ~repared, seconded by Councilman Langley. Mayor Saltarelli directed staff to forward a copy of the correspondence to the Foothill Home Owners Association for their information. Above motion carried, 4-0. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Fleagle informed the Planning Agency of the pending public hearing for an environmental impact report and Specific Plan No. 5, to be heard on February 19, 1974. Location of this plan is First Street, Fashion Lane and Irvine Boulevard. PLANNING AGENCY CONCERNS Mayor Saltarelli requested the City Attorney to check and see whether the two fired Planning Commissioners came under the State financial disclosure law which went into effect January 1, 1974. Planning Agency Minutes 1/14/74 Page 5 ADJOURNMENT Moved by Lan$1ey, seconded by Welsh ~at meeting be adjourned to a regular City Council meeting, January 21, 1974. Carried unanimously. (9:30 p.m.) J MAYO~ P~.ANNI~ AGENCY RECORDING SECRETARY