Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-26-71 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 26, 1971 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 26th day of July at the hour of 7:30 p.m. of said day in the Council Chambers, 275 South "C" Street, Tustin, California. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sharp. The Invocation was given by Commissioner Edelstein. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Others Present: Larnard, Curtis, Edelstein, Sharp Mahoney James G. Rourke, City Attorney R. Kenneth Fleagle, Asst. CA - Community Development Director Pat Brown, Assistant Planning Director Jean M. Smith, Planning Commission Recording Sect'y. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 12, 1971 Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Sharp, that the minutes of the July 12, 1971, meeting be-approved, as submitted. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1). UP-71-363 - Timothy L. Metzqer, DVM, on behalf of Southern California Financial Corp. Request for construc- tion and use of a veterinary medical hospital. Location: Site fronts approximately 170 feet on the north- east side of Bryan Avenue and approximately 365 feet southeast of the centerline of Newport Avenue, (approx. 15,400 sq. ft. in total area). Mr. Fleaqle presented summation of Staff Report, stating subject property is a small part of a large triangular shaped parcel of land bounded by Newport, Bryan: and Main Street, and is zoned C-1. A Parcel Map (PM-71-46) proposing a three-lot split of this large parcel was approved by the Planning Commission at their July 12, 1971, meeting and subject property is Parcel 2 of said map. The applicant proposes to construct a 2800 sq. ft. veterinary hospital structure on the site, employing two doctors, two assistants, and two receptionists with sufficient parking, as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. The plans indicate all activities associated with the facility will be located within the main structure itsel" and all animals shall be kept within an enclosed air conditioned, soundproofed building. No correspondence has been received by StaI~ opposing said use on this parcel. The Engineering and Fire Departments' recommendations are speci- fied in their reports, and Engineering recommends that any approval of this Use Permit be subject to recording of the Parcel Map and meeting the conditions imposed on Parcel 2 thereof. Staff would recommend the Planning Commission grant approval of subject Use Permit by adoption of Resolution No. 1224, with the additional requir~?mo, nt that the architectural design of this structure be made compatible with other prol)osed and future developments of this area, which would give the Development Pre- view Commission additional leverage in assuring compatibility with future developments. '.' ...... ' :.- The p~blic portion of the hearing was opened by Choir~gn Larnard at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Morris Iverson, 13452 Cindy Lane, Tustin, inquired if this veterinary hospital would occupy the entire triangular piece of land; also stated he.had not received a Notice of.Hearing. · He also wished to confirm that the building was completely air con- ditioned with no outside kennels. Mr. Larnard advised that Mr. I~erson apparently was not within the 300 ft. radius of the hospital, also that the building was to be air conditioned with no outside kennels. Mr. Eden Milroy, 2127 National Avenue, Costa Mesa, representing Dr. Metzger, questioned the "compatible" design requirement, in- asmuch as there are no other developments on this triangle. He requested clarification on this point, so their final plans might be formulated. In reply to Mr. Milroy, Mr. Fleaqle advised that the Development Preview Commission will review all of their plans for all phases of development, which will establish the pattern for all future developments. Inasmuch as the Development Preview Commission has given preliminary review to the design plans as submitted by this applicant, it may well be this will be the design plan for the entire development. A final'ruling has not been made as yet. Mr. Brown advised that Mr. John Siegel, owner of an apartment devel- opment southeasterly of this proposed project, on Main Street, called him voicing concern for the provisions in the Ordinance as to odor and noise abatement in relation to this project. As he was unable to attend the meeting tonight, he wanted the Commission to be aware of his feelings on the matter. The public portion of the hearing was closed at 7:45 p.m., by Mr. Larnard. The Commissioners discussed at length the signing requirements and allowances for this parcel as well as the other two parcels covered by Parcel Map 71-46. Staff advised that this is a single business on a single lot and would be entitled to one freestanding sign, certain wall signs, but no roof sign, without approval of a use permit. This would not be considered a complex as it is only one business on one site. However, each individual parcel on the tri- angular piece of land of this parcel map would be entitled to a freestanding sign. Mr. Sharp moved for adoption of Resolution No. 1224; seconded by Mr. Edelstein, approving Use Permit UP-71-363. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0. 2) PZ-69-11~ -~George L. Argyros, 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, ~lifO~ni~; re-advertisement, requesting an amend- ment to Ordinance No. 435 for waiver of the re- quirement for a 6 ft. 8 in. block wall to be con- structed along the north property line. Location: Site fronts approximately 150 ft. on the north side of Irvine Boulevard and approximately 465 ft. on the west side of Yorba Street. A snynopsis of the Staff Report was given by Mr. Brown statinq that Ordinance No. 435, which granted prezoning on subject property to the PC (Planned Community) District, stipulated under Condition "B" that a 6 ft. 8 in. block wall be constructed along the north prop- erty line. ~e also stated that the Zoning Ordinance automatically required such a wall be constructed adjacent to the common boundary line whenever commercially developed property abuts sinqle-family residential property. PC 7/26/71 -2- Thc. ai~licant has requested a waiver for construction of this wall as the three single-family residential parcels abutting his property ]lave existing masonry walls, although not to the 6 ft. 8 in. heiqht requirement, It is ]]is feeling it would be physically and economically redundant to contruct an additional w~ll. Also, he -- has planted trees and other landscaping for an additional buffer and they might possibly be endangered or have to be removed if another wall were to be erected. It would be Staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission, by adoption of Resolution No. 1225, recommend the City Council delete Condition No. 2 - b) of Ordinance No. 435, subject to the applicant obtaining the written concurrence of the three adjoining property owners to the north. The public portion of the hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Larnard. Mr. George_Argyros, the applicant, stated he would be more than happy to answer any questions, and felt the Staff Report was quite comprehensive covering all points of concern. He did add that the existing walls measured from 5 ft. 10 in. to 6 ft. 3 in, and-that at the request of the Development Preview Commission, additional landscaping and trees had been planted, as it was their feeling another wall would be redundant. Major Lewis Zeigler, 17282 Roseleaf Avenue, Tustin, California, stated he was one of the three abutting property owners and did feel that another would be redundant, but did suggest that the present wall should be extended to an 8 ft. height. His feeling was that the three families were deprived of their privacy with the present situation, and a higher wall would assure them of some privacy, at least from ground level. Chairman Larnard closed the public portion of the hearing at 8:20 p.m. A brief discussion ensued among the Commissioners regarding any possible legal ramifications, if said ordinance was amended, and also, what the City Council's action might be if the Planning Com- mission denied or approved said amendment. The City Attorney advised he knew of no repercussions {hat might arise from such an action, and added the City Council could take whatever action they so decided, regardless of the Planning Commission action. Mr. Edelstein made a motion that Resolution No. 1225 be adopted for approval, recommending the City Council delete Condition 2 - b~ of Ordinance No. 435; secoqded by~Mr._Shar~. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0. OL~ BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS - Pending ~pplications ZC-71-226 - John H. Sieqel - application to rezone subject property from the R-3 (1600) (Multiple-family Residential) Dis- trict to the C-1 (Retail Commercial) District and P-C-C (Planned Community-Commercial) District. Location: 515 East 1st Street; on the north side of First Street at the intersection of Centennial Way. UP-71-364 - Eugene F. Tutt- application for temporary use permit % establish an outdoor plant nursery, with limited retail sales of plant materials. Location: Site fronts approx. 310 ft. on the northeast side of Nisson Road and located approximately 435 ft. southeasterl~ of the centerline of Red Hill Avenue. PC 7/26/71 -3- Notice of a public hearing before the City Council on August 2, 1971, to consider applications for appointment of a member to the Tustin Planning Commission. Mr. Sharp's term as a member of the Comm~ion will be expiring. "' ' ~ STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Brown advised the Commission that four D~veloDment Preview Commissioners' terms would also be expiring on September 2, 1971, with only one indicating a desire for reappointment. Any recom- mendations your Body might have to offer for members of that Com- mission would be appreciated..Residency in the City of Tustin is not a requisite to serve on that Commission. Mr. Fleagle expressed the feeling that it was good to be back, and that he had prepared a report of his activities at the Urban Affairs Institute. After the Commissioners had reviewed it, if they wished to schedule a workshop, he would be glad to present the material to them. COMMISSION CONCERNS Mr. Curtis inquired as to the new building that had been moved onto the property adjacent to the Police Station. Staff advised it was to be used for a special study on alcoholism, plus there would be a large conference room available for meetings of different com- mittees, etc. It is through the courtesy of Mercury Savings & Loa~ that we will have the use of the building for about two years. Mr. Curtis also queried as to the status of the new library and civic center site, with the County. Mr. Fleagle advised he had it on his calendar for the next day and hopefully would have a report for the Commissioners at the next meeting. Mr. Shar~ voiced much concern over the problems that arise when the Commission approved a use permit covering a structure or a place of business and have no indication or knowledge of the signing that will go along with it. It was his feeling the signing was an integral and extremely important part of the overall picture, and wondered what might be done so their Body might review the signing along with the plot plans, renderings, etc., instead of reviewing it piecemeal. Mr. Fleagle advised the Commission that it would not be necessary to have a change made in the Ordinance. When plans are submitted to the Development Preview Commission for preliminary review, the ap- plicant will be advised that the signing plans will also have to be submitted at the same time. When the use permit application is presented to the Planning Con%mission the entire package will be subject to their review. Mr. Sharp made a motion that the Planning Commission request that the Development Preview Commission make it a condition, that sign plans must be submitted with the architectural plans for presenta- tion before their Body on an application for a Use Permit; seconded by Mr. Curtis. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0. Mr. Larnard expressed concern over much abuse of the window signing in many business establishments in the City. He felt that some establishments with large window areas are completely covering the windows with~si~ns, and felt it was in violation of the Sign Ordinance. He questioned whether the Staff might do some research, and also if the City Attorney could offer any advice, as to the possibilities of enforcing the Sign Ordinance relative to signs painted on or affixed to windows, w, PC 7/26/71 PC 7/26/71 Staff advised that the Public-Services Assistant does much policing on the window signs, but that signing on the inside of a window is not covered by the Sign Ordinance, only those ow the outside of a window. The City Attorney stated that if the Planning Com- mission wished to change the ordinance to include "inside window" signs, it would be necessary to conduct a public hearing, and it would also have to be presented before the City Council for a hearing and their approval. It seemed to be the consensus of opinion that policing inside signs would pose a difficult problem, that is determining what are "directional" signs, what are "wall signs",etc AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None ADJOURNMENT Mr. Edelstein moved for adjournment of the meeting at 8:50 p.m. P~IN~ COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY PC 7/26/71 -5- ERRATA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 26, 1971 The following is a correction, i.e., addition, to the Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, July 26, 1971. CORRESPONDENCE - Pg. 4 - Reads as follows: Notice of a public hearing before the City Council on August 2, 1971, to consider applications for appointment of a member to the Tustin Planning Commission. Mr. Sharp's term as a member of the Commission will be expiring. FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE ADDED: Chairman Larnard, with the unanimous concurrence of the Commission, stated that he had thoroughly enjoyed working with Mr. Sharp, and hoped that he would apply for re-appointment to the Planning Commission.