HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-13-71MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 13, 1971
The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was
held on the 13th day of September at the hour of 7:30 p.m. of said
day in the Council Chambers, 275 South "C" Street, Tustin, California.
The Pl'edge of Allegiance was ~iven by Commissioner Dukleth.
The Invocation was given by Commissioner Edelstein.
ROLL CALL:
Present:
Absent:
Others
Present:
Larnard, Curtis, Edelstein, Dukleth
Sharp
R. Kenneth Fleagle, Assistant CA - Community Development
Director
Pat Brown, Assistant Planning Director
Jean M. Smith, Planning Commission Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
OF REGULAR MEETING
OF AUGUST 23, 1971.
Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that the minutes of
the August 23, 1971 meeting be approved as submitted.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
UP-71-365 - Donald H. Bush - Request to permit the use of an exist
ing building for the purpose of conducting membership
meetings and other allied affairs of Hillview Post 930~
of the V.F.W.
Location:
Site fronts approximately 50 ft. on the west side of
Prospect Street, approximately 100 ft. south of the
center line of First Street.
Mr. Brown stated that subject hearing had been continued to this
meeting at the request of the applicant in order that the recom-
mendations of the Engineering, Fire and Building Departments might
be studied further. If after hearing any new evidence on this mat-
ter tonight, if it is the Commission's wish to grant the request,
it is recommended that Resolution No. 1229 be adopted for approval
of this request.
Mr. Larnard re-opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Mike Pomar, Realtor, 105 S. Prospect, Tustin, representing Mr.
Donald Bush, the applicant, stated he would be glad to answer any
questions regarding the property and its proposed use.
Walter Watts, Commander of the V.F.W., said he felt that they could
comply with all recommendations of the various city departments, a:
did not foresee any obstacles to prevent their opening up the
premises for the V.F.W. meeting place.
Mr. R. C. Johnson, President of the Tustin War Memorial Board,
questioned the parking facilities to be provided by the V.F.W. and
whether or not there might be trespassing on their property which
abuts the V.F.W. Other than that they had no objections to the
proposed use.
PC 9/13/71
PC 9/13/71
Mr. Carl J.']cka]., Fi r:~t Comm,'~ndcr of the V?W Post, which has been in
existence for 11 years, stated the Post is making provisions for
40 parking spaces for their members on existing, asphalted parking
lot located on the east side of Prospect Street, across from
subject property, lie also stated they are taking steps to attempt
to acquire the two lots immediately south of the building for
future parking. The one problem they are attempting tO resolve
is that of an emergency fire door which the Fire Department re-
quires they have for this type of occupancy. Hopefully they can
install a fire door on the north side of the building opening up
. on t.o the Tustin War Memorial Building property. However, it
would be only an emergency door, and not used for a regular exit.
This would satisfy the Fire Department's requirement in this regard.
Mr. Ernest Beckman, 665 West 3rd Street, Tustin, declared he was a
member of the VFW Post for 1% years and a resident of the city for
the same length of time, however, he was definitely against the VFW
acquiring this property as a meeting place, feeling it was highly
unsuitable. He also stated he was in the process of trying to acquire
the two lots directly to the south of the property, which was in
probate and he was in contact with the administrator of the estate.
As of this date the deal has not been consummated, but hopefully
it would be closed in a short time. He reiterated his disapproval
of the VFW acquiring the property in question.
Public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:58 pm by Chairman
Larnard.
There was some discussion among the Commissioners and Staff with
the emphasis being placed on the parking requirements for this
type of building and occupancy. Staff advised that as a condition
of the Use Permit, it was mandatory that parking be supplied, and
if there were no parking provisions, they would be in violation
of the Use Permit, and hence the Use Permit would cease to exist.
In view of the fact the VFW will expend a considerable sum of money
to lease this building and bring it up to code, it would be a
natural assumption they would protect their investment by making
certain the required parking was supplied.
Mr. Curtis moved that Resolution No. 1229 be adopted, approving
this Use Permit UP-71-365, subject to the applicant complying with
the requirements of the Building, Engineering and Fire Departments,
plus approval by the City Attorney of the parking lease covering
the required parking; seconded b~ Mr. Edelstein.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1
PZ-71-130 - Planning Commission Initiated - request to prezone from
the County R-2 (1500) (Group Dwelling) District to the
City of Tustin R-3 (1500) Multiple-Family) Residential
District.
Location:
Site fronts approximately 255 ft. on the southeast side
of Red Hill Avenue; is approximately 600 ft. in depth,
consisting of approximately 4.2 acres of land, located
approximately 330 ft. northeasterly of the centerline
of Mitchell Avenue.
.Mr. Flea~le presented a summation of the Staff Report, stating that
subject pr~pe~mty is proposed for annexation to the City of Tustin
(Nisson-Red H~l-Mitchell Annexation No. 72) which was approved by
the Local Agency Formation Commission on September 8, 1971. Prop-
erty in question will be developed as an apartment complex with 124
dwelling units, either in the Orange County unincorporated area or
in the City of Tus~in. The property owne~, has the right to develop
within the County now, to county standards. Mr. Daly, the owner of
this property, the largest parcel within the proposed annexation,
has consented to the annexation on ~he Condition he be granted the
same rights of development density as now exist within the County
PC Min;,, 9/13/71
of Orange. It would be in the best interest of the City of Tustin
to apl~rove this l~rezone application to authorize the property to
be developed within the incorporated limits of the City and developed
with the design and development amenities as recommended by the
Development Preview Commission. It would be Staff's recommendation
that this application be approved since it is not~a change in per-
mitted use but only a change in the title or classification of the
zoning district to be effective upon annexation of the property
into the City.
The public portion of the hearing was opened by Chairman Larnard
at 8:10 p.m.
Mr. Warren Finley, Attorney ~or the owner, Mr. Roy Daly, introd~
the architect for the proposed apartment complex, Gared Smith,
the owner of the property, Mr. Roy Daly. He advised the Commiss
they were all willing to answer any'questions
Mrs. Lee Wagner, owner of Lee's Lamps in Tustin, voiced disapproval
of having this undeveloped property developed with an apartment
complex, inasmuch as there was a high vacancy rate in apartments
in the City, especially so in the older apartments; also, it would
make for more crowded conditions in the schools.
Mr. Larnard explained that regardless of whether we approved this
prezone or not, it would be developed with apartments, but within
the County, with no control by the City of Tustin; and the children
would still be attending Tustin School District schools, hence the
request to approve this prezone in order to maintain some control
over the development.
Public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:15 p.m. by Mr. Larnard.
Mr. Edelstein made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 1233, for ap-
proval to the City Council of said prezone; seconded by Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Flea~l~ added, for the benefit of the applicant, the require-
ments of the City Engineer, as stated in his report of September
10, 1971, which would be covered under 1 - "d" of subject re~olut.
reading:
Dedication of additional right-of-way for Red Hill Avenue
in accordance with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
e
Installation of all missing street improvements, such as
pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk and approved street trees.
Installation of street lighting on the Red Hill frontage
and annexation to the Tustin Street Lighting District.
In addition, the Developer should be aware of possible
drainage problems concerning this site inasmuch as the
general fall of the land is toward the southeast corner
of the parcel.
This is being read into the record, Mr. Fleagle stated, so there
will be no question about these requirements not precisely
delineated elsewhere.
ABOV~ MOTION CARRIED: 4-0
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2
ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 157, as amended - Amendment to Section 11.34
Proposed amendment would require all multi-family developments
to provide a minimum of one garage, enclosed on three sides
with lockable door, for each apartment dwelling unit.
PC 9/13/71
-3-
PC 9/13/71
At the request of the City Council, the Planning Commission on
their own motion, set this item for public hearing, so advised
Mr. Fleaqle. A brief summation of the Staff Report was given
by Mr. Fleagle, quoting from the various sections of the Zoning
Ordi~amce defining carports and garages. A summary of.the results
of a questionnaire sent to the 'Cities in Orange County ('with re-
sponses from 12) revealed that only two cities stipulated garages
as mandatory in multi-family developments; all cities required
carports or garages; seven of the cities permitted carports with-
out walls; only four of the cities required storage facilities
within the carports, while two required mandatory common storage
areas. Comments from a survey conducted by the Building Industry
Association was presented as well as figures from a construction
firm comparing costs of carports Vs. garages.
In view of the many factors to be considered in this matter, it
would be Staff's recommendation that the public hearing be opened
and testimony taken from tho~e who have knowledge and information
to add, for the guidance of the Commission. After all the infor-
mation has been gathered, the commission weigh all the pros and
cons for both carports and garages for the various types of develop-
ment for off-street parking, then on the basis of its findings, a
recommendation be submitted from the Commission to the City Council.
Mr. Larnard opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:25 p.m.
Mr. Gared Smith, Architect, 2043 Westcliff, Newport Beach, Calif.,
spoke stating he had a great deal of interest in this item, how-
ever, was not previously aware of it being on the agenda tonight.
However, he added, he does have a set of colored slides that have
been presented to various cities, on occasions when they have been
considering the proposal under discussion at this time. If the
matter is continued, he asked for the opportunity to present them
at that time. In the event it is not continued, he said he would
like to state his feelings in the matter now. In summary, the
points brought out by Mr. Smith, favoring carports over garages
are as follows:
1) Carports favored fr~m an economic standpoint.
2) Lower crime rate with open carports.
3) No dangerous garage door springs in carports.
4) Garages more likely used for storage rather than automobiles.
5) Carports offer easier parking; i.e., more maneuverability.
6) Less fire danger in carports.
Undesirable (flammable, dangerous) items stored in closed
garages.
Again, Mr. Smith repeated, he would be happy to make his slide
presentation to the Commission and answer their questions.
Mr. Larnard said he felt sure the Commission would like to see
the slide presentation and asked the Commissioners' desires in
the matter.
Mr. Edelstein reiterated Mr. 'Larnard's feelings and expressed a
definite wish to have Mr. Smith return with his slide presentation
at the next meeting.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Fleagle advised that the public hearing
portion should be continued open until the next meeting so Mr.
Smith might make his presentation. He also added that feelings
similar to Mr. Smith were expressed today by Frank Morris, a local
architect; and also by the Building Industry Association and the
Development Preview commissioh.
Mr. Roy Daly expressed his favorable reaction to carports rather
than garages, and stated he lived in the middle west, and in the
more expensive apartment complexes in that area, carports were
preferred over garages.
PC 9/13/71
--4--
· PC 9/13/71
In answer to Fir. llarry Waqncr's inquiry as to how many parking
spaces are required for apartment dwellings, Mr. Curtis advised
it is desirable to have two parkinq spaces per apartment dwelling
which is above what the ordinance requires.
Mr. Curtis moved that this hearing be continued uhtil the next
Planning Commission meeting on September 27, 1971, in order to
take advantage of Mr. Smith's slide presentation and obtain
additional comments from interested people; seconded by Mr. Dukleth.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 3
ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 157, as amended - Amendment to add classif
tion. Addition to the classification of divisional districts
Public and Institutional District (P&I District.)
Mr. Fleagle advised this matter had been duly advertised for a
p~blic hearing on the motion of the Planning Commission for the
purpose of establishing a Public and Institutional District to
identify those public properties used for other than the standard
land use classifications of Residential, Commercial and Industriall
For the benefit of the audience, he explained that the existing
zoning map gave a distorted visual image of the existing and author-
ized land uses within the City. As an example, large areas of the
city contain school sites classified as R-3, R-2, Unclassified, etc.
Zone changa~s ~e confusing when applications are submitted showing
adjacent zoned land in the R-3 District, when its actual use is a
school site. It is also advantageous to have a classification that
identifies the authorized and actual land use by district.
It would be Staff'~ recommendation that t~ Planning Commission adopt
a Resolution such as has been prepared, recommending to the City
Council, the adoption of a Public and Institutional District (P&I),
with the purpose of the district being to identify by classifica-
tion on the Zoning Map those properties within the city that are
used for, or authorized for public, quasi-public and institution
use in tax exempt status, open space reservation, public recreat.
and miscellaneous uses, distinct from the standard classifications
of Residential, Commercial and Industrial.
To relate this primarily to the need, Mr. Fleagle stated we want
to follow through as rapidly as possible in the development of a
city park site bounded by First,"B" and "C" Streets, which is now
zoned R-2 and C-1.
Mr. Curtis inquired of Staff, if all of the typical type uses being
mentioned as being in the P&I zone were to be treated from a tax
standpoint in the same manner.
M~ Fleagle replied that basically the intent was to identify tax
exempt properties, as well as public properties, and that is why
public and quasi-public are mentioned. However, it is not mandatory~
they be tax exempt in order to be identified as quasi-public use.
Mr. Larnard opened the public portion of the meeting at 8:45 p.m.,
but seeing and hearing no one, the public portion was closed at
8:46 p.m.
Mr. Curtis made a motion that the proposed Resolution No.1234 be
adopted adding a Public and Institutional District classificatic.
commending the Staff for presenting the need for this new distr'
~econded ~y Mr. Edelstein.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0
PC 9/13/71
-5-
- PC 9/13/71
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 4
UP-71-366 - Planninq Commission Initiated - request to establish a
neighborhood park.
Loc~ion:
Sit_= fronts appr~)~im.!~,tely 300 ft. on khe south side of
First Street; approximately 610 ft. on 'th~ :east side of
"B" Street and approximately 610 ft. on the west side
of "C" Street.
In conjunction with the preceding hearing, Mr. Fleaqle stated we
have a Use Permit application for the development of Park Site No. 1
for a neighborhood park. Property in question is presently zoned
R-2 and C-1 on the First Street frontage. Recommendation of Staff
would be that this Use Permit application be granted, subject to
the condition of a rezoning action from the R-2 and C-1 to the P&I
District~ with it being further determined that by the granting of
a Use Permit for this site~ additions and/or modifications shall
not require a public hearing.
Public portion of the hearing was opened at 8:50 p.m. by Mr.
Larnard.
Mr. Jack Harrison, City Parks and Recreation Director, stated this
park had been talked about for many years, and with the recent un-
animous approval of the Park Bond issue, we now have the ability
to develop this park. Preliminary plans and details have been
reviewed by Staff, Parks and Recreation Commission and the Develop-
ment Preview Commission, wi~h their unanimous support.
¥irginia Carlson, 320 West 1st Street, Tustin, inquired whether
First Street would be widened where the park is to be located,
and if the house on the property would remain.
Mr. Fleagle advised the one 'house on the site will be removed, and
regarding the widening of First Street, the first phase of the
First Street widening will run from the Newport Freeway to a point
westerly of the park site; the second phase will cover that area
by the Park site. However, 'exactly when the second phase will
start is not know; possibly within 2 to 5 years.
Mrs. Lee Wagner inquired whether or not the park would be developed
out to the present curb on First Street. Mr. ~arrison advised the
park would be developed to the present curb, but on that portion
to be taken for the widening, only grass would be planted.
Public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:55 p.m.
Mr. Edelstein stated he did not see any particular need for further
discussion on this matter and moved that Resolution No. 1232 be
adopted for approval of subject use permit; seconded by Mr. Curtis.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 5
ZC-71-227 - Planning Commission Initiated - Authority to rezone
subject property from the C-.1 (CoMmercial) and R-2 (Duplex) Districts
to the P&I (Public and Institutional) District.
Location:
Site encompasse~ the area bounded by First Street,
Main Street, "B" and "C" Streets.
Mr. Fleaqle remarked that due notice of this public hearing had
been given, covering this property, which includes the Tustin
Presbyterian Church, Tustin Elementary School District Offices and
the proposed neighborhood park. The requested zone change is to
place these properties in the newly recommended P&I (Public and
Institutional) District. It would be effective upon the adoption
of the P&I District. ~
Mr. Curtis asked Staff what.would result in the event the P&I
District was not adopted by City Council, to which Mr. Fleagle
replied, it would require a zone change then, to an R-1 Distr~t
on the area involved.
PC 9/13/71 ~ -6-
- Pc 9/13/ 1
Mr. l,arnard._ opened the t)ublic portion of the meeting at 9:00 p.m.;
seein(t and hearing no one to speak for or against the issue, he
closed thc: public portion at 9:01 p.m.
Mr. Curtis stated that inasmuch as earlier in the evening they had
recommended adoption of the P&I District to the C~ty Council, it
would follow that subject zone change be approved'by adoption of
Resolution No. 1231, recommending approval by the City Council;
seconded by Mr. Dukleth.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 6
UP-71-367 - Bernard Spengler ' Request to permit an off-site sub-
division directional sign in a residential district.
Location:
Site is located on the northeast corner of Red Hill
and Walnut Avenue.
Mr. Brown presented a summation of the Staff Report, stating the
Sign Ordinance allows two tract identification directional signs,
but they must be located within two miles of the property being
advertised. However, such signs are not permitted on residentially
zoned property without the granting of a Use Permit by the Planning
Commission. The existing sign structure was originally permitted
under a variance, but the present applicants have contracted with
a new sign company to advertise an entirely different subdivision
than that originally advertised, hence the requirement for a use
permit. The Development P~eview Commission gave preliminary review
to this matter, approving the proposed copy and felt the location
was also appropriate. It is recommended the Planning Commission
approve UP-71-367 by adoption of Resolution No. 1230.
The public portion of the hearing was opened at 9:03 p.m. by Mr.
Larnard.
Mr. Bill Wynn of B & L Advertising, representing the applicant,
stated he had no comments at this time, but would be willing to
answer any questions.
Public portion of the hearing was closed at 9:05 p.m.
Mr. Edelstein moved that Resolution No. 1230 be adopted, approving
subject use permit.since this particular use has been in existence
and there were no technical problems invoiCed; seconded by Mr.Curtis.
Mr. Brown added that when the Development Preview Commission gave
preliminary review to this sign, they wished to advise that if the
Planning Commission approved subject use permit, it would not be
necessary for the applicant to re-appear before them for final
appmoval.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0
OLD BUSINESS
Proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 157, as amended - elimi-
nation of dual wall requirements on property liens, between commer-
cial or professional districts and residential property.
Mr. Fleagle remarked that the Commission had been apprised of th,'.
controversy that has arisen when a property owner wishes to devel
on, "Pr" or industrial zoned prozac.
"C" multi-family residential,
, ·
th~
zoning ordinance requires a 6'8" wall be constructed at the
property line when it abuts single-family developments. The concern
arose where a wall already existed on the adjacent property prior
to the new development, thus creating a dual wall situation. In
the majority of cases, not only is an unnecessary physical redun-
dancy created but an unjustifiable economic burden is placed on the
new owner/developer. Staff.conducted a survey of all the cities in
Orange County on this matter, and from the responses received, it
was noted from the 12 replies, all jurisdictions require a wall of
some kind, when abutting "R" zoned property. There is, however, a
decid(,d lack of consistency relative to the problem at hand, but
apparent they arc.:~l? ~ac~,d with ~ same pr0i)~m as Tustin, and
t'~. ~,.,~ ~ , ~ - "
-- PC 9/ 13/71
Staff's recon~nendation to the Commission for consideration, is
that the ordinance be amended as follows:
That Section 5.11 (C), Zoning Ordinance No. 157, be amended
by the addition of th~ .~f~.p!~.Q~.i~g statement: '~
"Furthermore, that the Director, Community Development Depart-
ment, shall have the authority to administratively waive or
modify any wall requirements as specified under Sections "B",
~ (1), (2), or (3), Ordinance No. 353, which amended the Zoning
Ordinance No. 157, where there is a solid masonry wall(s) ex-
isting on the adjacent property(s), upon finding that:
(a)
Existing wall meets, or can be modified to conform
to the intent of this section; and,
(b)
Suitable landscaping shall be installed adjacent
to existing wall(s) to supplement and enhance the
environmental buffering; and,
(c)
Protection is afforded the existing wall to prevent
vehicle damage; and,
(d)
Concurrence of the~ adjacent property owner(s) is obtained
when necessary to modify an existing wall to meet the
requirements of this section.
It is further recommended that the Planning Commission, by minute
order, set this item for public hearing for October 11, 1971.
A discussion followed among the Commissioners regarding the main-
tenance, vehicle damage, landscaping, etc., on the existing wall,
as the responsibilities of the new developer and the residential
owner. Staff explained the ~ifferent aspects involved and the
protection to be afforded the residential property owner.
Mr. Edelstein moved that this item be advertised for public hearing
at the October 11, 1971, meeting of the Planning Commission; seconded
by Mr. Curtis.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0
NEW BUSINESS
Item 1 - Real Estate Signs
The Commission was advised by Mr. FleaGle that the matter of real
estate signs was brought to their attention at the last meeting and
is for discussion this evening, without benefit of public hearing,
The matter was brought up as a result of many of the real estate
companies, agents, etc., going to g~eat expense, time and effort to
design and install realty signs for residential property use adver-
tisement, and said signs are in violation of the sign ordinance.
Rather than arbitrarily say these signs are not allowed, the matter
was brought to the attention of the offending realtors and they
were invited to attend the meeting tonight to show cause why the
ordinance should be amended, .if such be the case, or why they
should not comply with the ord{nance as now written. Four options
are offered to the Commission, listed below, or the Commissioners
may have other options to offer.
That the new style of sign violates the present pro-
visions of the Sign Ordinance, which at the time the
Sign Ordinance was adopted, were deemed adequate, and
therefore, said sign.s should be prohibited;
That the real estate companies utilizing these new styles
could initiate an amendment to the Ordinance to provide
for the increased area and height, if they feel strongly
enough about their aesthetic and advertising necessity; or
PC 9/13/71
-8-
The matter could bc referred to th(: Tustin-$anta
Ana-OL'ange Realty Board for their comments and
reconune..ndations; or,
The Planning Commission, if it feels the Sign
Ordinance is in need of amendment relative to
this matter, could initiate action on it~ own
behalf, to amend the Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Flea~le stated there were several realtors in the audience who
wished to speak to the Commission voicing their thoughts as to why
some action should be taken regarding the Sign Ordinance. Although
not a public hearing, the Commissioners are requested to hear tko'.
matter out to determine whether a public hearing should be call.
for, and at whose initiation,' or if the matter should be referr.
back to the realty board for their resolvement.
The following realtors, representing various firms, spoke advocating
a change in the Sign Ordinance.
Eddie Nahigan, Red Hill Realty, 18002 Irvine Blvd., Tustin
Don Bird, Donald M. Bird Assoc., 17802 Irvine Blvd., Tustin
Reuben Kvidt, Westland Realty, 17332 Irvind Blvd., Tustin
Larry LeBlanc, Walker & Lee, 17221 17th Street, Tustin
John McCormick, Hallmark Realtors, 12781 Newport Ave., Tustin
Charles Gerenraich, Red Ilill Realty, t8002 Irvine Blvd., Tustin
John Briscoe, Forest E. Olson, Inc., 13250 Newport Ave,Tustin
In summary, the main points brought out by the realtors speaking,
were as follows:
The present Sign Ordinance should be amended, leaving
the overall face of the sign to be 6 sq. ft., but allow '
the bordering frame to be larger, and not count it as
part of the square footage of the sign.
Smaller signs as allowed can be easily broken; easily
removed; cannot readily be seen by passerbys behind
parked automobiles.
The framed type signs are more aesthetic and pleasing
from all viewpoints, more substantial, and durable in
heavy winds.
e
To properly merchandise homes in the Tustin Area, averaging
the $40,000 bracket, a more aesthetic sign with adequate
exposure to the public is needed.
The response from the public with these larger framed
signs has been remarkable.
Also displayed to the Commission was a representative metal sign
holder used by many of the realtors, as well as the smaller type
real estate sign.
Mrs. Lee Wagner, owner of Lee's Lamps, stated that if the Sign
Ordinance was to be amended for real estate signs, then it was her
feeling a change should also be made in the signing allowed for
business signs in commercial areas. She said that it would appear
there was an imbalance when you compare the size of these real
estate signs to those allowed for business establishments. Also,
some of the signs displayed would be taller than some of the trees
on the properties being offered for sale.
Mr. Ilarry Wagner, 17331 Jacaranda, Tustin, stated the signs look
good, but asked the question, when all the signs were the smaller
size, who sold the houses?
Mr. Richard Jones, Landscape Architect, remarked if signing on real
estate sales is allowed to continue to increase size by size, then
it is a matter of competition to see who might put up the bigger
sign. If all signs were made to conform to the Sign Ordinance as
written, one or two realtors would not have a decided advantage.
PC 9/13/71 -9-
· PC 9/13/71
A len~tthy discussion follow('d amon(I the Commissioners and Staff
bringing out the point of thc structural stability of the sign
duc to its height; the danger involved of people injuring them-
selves on the sign; questioning whethe~ the sign is as sturdy and
as _~.able as stated; remaxkingi:.t~at the City of T.nstin... has a sign
criteria that they are trying to follow, involving all signs, not
just real estate signs; opinions of the Development Preview Com-
mission~ It would also be desirable to obtain a majority opinion
from the Tustin-Santa Ana-Orange Realty Board as to the feelings
on the proposed signing and our Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Curtis stated, in an effort to close this matter, that he would
move to instruct Staff to communicate with the Tustin-Santa Ana-
Orange Realty Board, request{ng they review the entire matter with
their members, arriving at a majority opinion as to what changes
they would desire in the Sign Ordinance. At that point in time,
with all the other information contributed, we would attempt to
come up with an answer or perhaps another solution to the problem.
Mr. Edelstein declared he would second that motion, however, would
like to further request that the realtors come up with substantial
justification for the changes requested, and relay to them the
feelings of the City of Tustin concerning signing, suggesting they
establish a Committee to work with Staff in this regard.
Mr. Larnard suggested that Staff meet with the realty board to
explain objectives of the City and that considerable justification
would have 5o ~e forthcoming to allow an increase in signing.
ABOVE MOTION WAS VOTED ON.
MOTION CARRIED: 4~0
NEW BUSINESS - Item 2
Master Plan of Development (Industrial)- International Rectifier
Location:
Area bounded by Valencia, Red Hill, Bell Avenue and
ATSF Railway.
Mr. Fleagle advised the Commission that at their last meeting Parcel
Map 71-47 was approved, with a condition of approval being the sub-
mission of a Master Plan for the development of the entire industrial
tract under the control of International Rectifier Corp. This Master
Plan has been submitted, showing access to the rear of the property
for vehicle control; does meet Staff requirements; has been reviewed
by the City Engineer and the Community Development Department. (A
copy of the Master Plan was.presented to the Commissioners for their
review). Staff's recommendation would be that the Co~mission find
that the Master Plan as submitted does satisfy the requirement
an~ condition of approval for Parcel Map 71-47. In addition, Mr.
Fl~agle, stated that if the Commission determines the Master Plan
does meet the requirements, the second recommendation of Staff would
be that the Planning Commission, by resolution, authorize the notice
and public hearing for the adoption of a Specific Plan for the
Development and Division of the property for development. In this
case it would be a public hearing, adopted by ordinance of the City
Council, and by precise alignment identify and require the develop-
ment of the streets. In conjunction with the second recommendation,
a third action would be required, that on Parcel 3, as shown on their
Master Plan, that building ~ermits be withheld mending the submission
of a revised parcel map, which was submitted this date, and will be
presented to the Commission at their next meeting.
Mr. Curtis moved that the Master Plan of development be approved and
accepted as satisfying the ~onditions of Parcel Map 71-47; seconded
by Mr. Edelstein.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0
PC 9/13/71 -10-
~'C 9/13/71
Mr. I.:~i(,]nt(~in mov(~d that Staff advertise for a public hearing for
adoption of a ~';p~:cJfic Plan for the development and division of
the property in question, in accordance with the Master Plan as
submitted; seconded by Mr. Curtis.
MOT/ON CARRIED: 4-0
Mr. Curtis made a motion that a Minute Order be issued instructing
the Bullding Department to withhold all Building Permits on Parcel 3
of said Parcel Map 71-47, until it is combined with the new parcel
map to be submitted; seconded by Mr.. Dukleth.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0
Mr. Fleagle advised the Commi§sion he was in receipt of a letter
from Hall & Foreman, relating to the matter just discussed. The
letter requests that their client, International Rectifier Corp.,
be allowed to remove a plan~er which exists in the driveway along
the northside of Lot #2 (in the Master Plan), to allow access to
Red Hill Avenue. This is contrary to Staff's recommendations;
contrary to the intent of the Development Preview Commission~
Planning Commission's initial approval of the precise plans and
use permit for development on this parcel; and contrary to the
intent of the Irvine Company. It has been the intent of Staff,
the Orange County Road Department, and the Irvine Company to
preclude Red Hill Avenue as a major access point, especially for
heavy vehicles. It is brought to your attention at this time for
your action.
Mr. Curtis stated it was the original intent to restrict the
vehicular access to Red Ilill Avenue, in keeping with the overall
desires of this parcel and other parcels along Red Hill in the
industrial complex, so his feeling would be no action to be taken.
It was the consensus of opinion that no action would be taken on
this matter.
NEW BUSINESS ; Pendin~ Matters
PZ-71-126 - And ~mendment to the Tustin Area General Plan (A Re-
advertised public hearing for September 27, 1971 meeti
Location:'
Subject properties are generally bounded by the Santa
Ana Freeway to the northeast;.Myford Road to the south-
east; the Santa Fe Railroad main line and Moulton Park-
way to the southwest; and, the Santa Fe Railroad Venta
spurline to the northwest.
CORRESPONDENCE
County Case - ZC-71-57 - Zone change from the R1-18,000 "Single-
Family Residence" District, including the Ri-10,000
"Single ~amily Residence" District to the R1-15,000
"Single Family Residence" District.
'Locat'ion:
Property is located on the extension of Overhill
Drive between Miravista Drive and Sirrine Drive in
the Cowan Heights Area.
Mr. Brown stated this item had not been set for a public hearing
as yet, by the Orange County Planning Commission; we have been
advised that it is an upcoming case. Any action on the part of
the Co~mission is at your pleasure.
Mr. Curtis inquired if any comments had been received from the
Foothill Ilomeowners' Association, to which Staff replied nothing
had been received. Inasmuch as there was not enough specific
information as to the topography of the area involved, it was the
desire of the Commission to wi~hho].d any action until additional
information and notice of hearing was received.
STAFF CONCERNS - None
PC 9/13/71 -11-
PC 9/13/71
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Mr. Curtis inquired whether Staff had any information as to the
development of the property at Irvine and Newport where the
packing houses were being demolished. Staff stated unfortunately
the~:'was no known development plans for the area. .~he.~e are
three separate property owners plus the County Fire Department.
The ultimate removal of the fire station holds the key to the
development of the land, and it still is, and has been in the
planning stages for some time.
Mr. Curtis inquired if anything had been resolved on the County
Library. Mr. Fleagle replied, he had been in contact with several
people in the County, and as of now, he is awaiting a reply from
Supervisor Clark's assistant; hopefully we will obtain a written
response from the Board of Supervisors shortly.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Edelstein moved for adjournment at 10:25 p.m., seconded by
Mr. Dukleth.
P~ING COMMISSION RECORDING
SECRETARY
PC 9/13/71 -12-