Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-08-71MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1971 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 8th day of March 1971 at t~e hour of 7:30 p.m. of said day in the Council Chambers, 275 South "C" Street, Tustin, California. The Pledge of Allegiance was given by Commissioner Mahoney. The Invocation was given by Chairman Larnard. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Others Present: Larnard, Edelstein, Curtis, Sharp, Mahoney None James G. Rourke, City Attorney R. Kenneth Fleagle, Ass't CA - Comm. Development Director Pat Brown, Ass't Planning Director Jean M. Smith, Planning Commission Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1971 Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Sharp, that the minutes of February 22, 1971 meeting be approved, as corrected. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 UP-71-359 - LUMINART DIV. OF AD-ART INC., ON BEHALF OF GREINKE PETROLEUM CORP. Location: Approximately 67 ft. on the southeast side of Newport Avenue and approximately 200 ft. on northeast side of Laguna Road. Mr. Brown read summation of Staff Report to the Commission, indicating applicant wished to install a roof sign on top of three existing fuel tanks located in the approximate center of subject property. Sign to be single-faced and would face in a general westerly direction towards Laguna Road and the Santa Ana Freeway. It is required that a Use Permit be filed and approved where a roof sign is pro- posed in lieu of a free standing sign on any given business site. As the proposed sign would be the only signing of any consequence on the property; it does not exceed the height of the existing structure; and it is aesthetically designed, Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 1207 approving UP-71-359. Also, we have a report from the City Engineer relative to this matter, regarding the need for improvements on this street in the area of'Greinke Petroleum. Mr. Edelstein requested 'a transparency, showing proposed sign. These were exhibited to the Commission. PC 3/8/71 PC Meeting 3/8/71 Mr. Mahoney stated that one of the problems we can run into is when we have the center line of the street dividing between the City of Tustin and County of Orange, and the vehicle is parked on the County side; ~We will have no control over the County side. ~._+ Mr. Fleagle stated all we can do is ask the County to adopt comparable sign enforcement. Mr. Sharp stated he feels this is going to be a very difficult ordi- nance to police, especially in conjunction with that part dealing with a vehicle being used by a'business which requires no such vehicle in the normal use of its business. Mr. Rourke stated that the ordinance will be difficult to enforce, but the Staff feels they are faced with a problem, such as this latest example, and if you don't have something to back you up, then a mockery is made of the Sign Ordinance. Staff would like to have something to work with when this type of situation arises again. Mr. Edelstein asked if we can make a distinction as to what is a temporary display and what is not. Maybe we ought to have some clarification, in terms of what type of signing is permitted within this realm, as far as the actual business is concerned. Basically, some of these tripod type signs that fold up, and signs that are just used on the backs of trucks, when it is obvious the sign is not part of that truck. Mr. Rourke stated I think we are referring to those signs temporarily placed on a vehicle and obviously parked strictly for advertising purposes. Some vehicles have been parked on private property as well as on public streets. Mr. Sharp stated that the issue warrants a public hearing, and for that reason moved approval of advertising a public hearing for the purpose of amending Sign Ordinance; seconded by Mr. Curtis. Mr. Larnard stated that the Staff would have an opportunity to do further research and might better resolve some problems mentioned. Mr. Fleagle stated he was certain there was no way to possibly cover every situation we might envision. The City Attorney has prepared a proposed ordinance for our consideration, which will give a good starting basis, and we will present the best solutions available. MOTION.VOTED ON BY ROLL CALL: AYES: Sharp, Larnard, Curtis, Edelstein NOES: Mahoney MOTION CARRIED: 4-1 2) PENDING APPLICATIONS ZC-71-224 - SANTIAGO COMMERCIAL BANK Zone change request for approximately 4.8 acre parcel from Pr (Professional) to C-1 (Retail Commercial-Restricted) District. Site fronts approximately 970 ft. on north side of Irvine Boulevard, and approximately 217 ft. on east side of "B" Street, and approximately 217 ft. on west side of Prospect. CORRESPONDENCE 1) Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. request to install additional~ telephone booth at Standard. Oil service station at 14501 Red Hill Avenue in Diversified Shopping Center. PC 3/8/71 .-3- · , l'C Mec. tll~g 3/U/'/I Mr. Flea~le read Staff Report which indicated usage studies warranted an additional phone booth at this location, and he stated it would be recommendation of Staff that subject request be granted, with the condition it be in conformance with plans as submitted by Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., i.e., adjacent t~ the existing booth. Moved by Mr. Mahone¥, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that permission be ~ranted to Pacific Telephone to install second telephone booth. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 2) COUNTY CASE - Zone Change from R-4 to R~2 (1500) (Group Dwelling. ZC-71-8 District, approximately one half acre of land. Location: Southwest side of San Juan Street, opposite Farmington. Applicant: Church of the Latter Day Saints Mr. Fleagle read communication from Orange County Planning Commission, requesting any comments or communications should be received by them by March 12, 1971. Mr. Fleagle stated the matter was brought to the attention of the City Council, and they have elected to authorize the Planning Commission to respond. Mr. Sharp inquired as to the permissiveness of development in the County R-2 (1500) District as compared to present R-4. Mr. Flea9le answered that the R-2 (1500) is a group dwelling district that would authorize one dwelling unit for eack 1500 sq. ft. of land area Vs. 3000 for the R-4 District. Mr. Sharpe asked how many units they could get out of a half acre in the R-2 District. Mr. Flea~le said about 15 units. Mr. Sharp asked about the density approved for the surrounding apartments. Mr. Fleaqle stated the Orange County Planning Commission. had authorized a total density of approximately 21 units per acre, which was a com- promise between that portion that had R-3 zoning along the freeway and R-4 zoning on San Juan. Moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Curtis, that we advise the Oraq~e County Planning Commission of our opposition to this proposal. Mr. Curtis: for purpose of discussion would like to add that we might be somewhat more positive in our statements to the County; recognizing the Sphere of Influence of the ultimate boundaries of the City of Tustin, %t is incumbent on the County to work with the City in maintaining the density and development patterns as set forth in the General Plan and as mutually agreed upon, through periodic reviews. This is another of the many steps over the past years to ignore the General Plan and proceed w~th developments anywhere from from 2 to 5 times the density called for on the General Plan. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Fleagle: For a pool hall located in Jamestown Village the Com- mission required a Use Permit. If it was considered an amusement center this would require commission approval. In the Market Basket shopping center there is a bicycle shop with a coin operated pool Pc 3 8/71 PC Meeting 3/8/71 table and they contemplate additional tables for a total of three and some pin ~a~ machines. The question to be resolved by the Commission is wh~ther or not, in your opinion coin operated pool table~.are a use similar to such other uses requiriDg a Use Permit. If a 0~ Permit is required, the owner should be put 6~""~tice. The other determination is, the number of pool tables that make it a pool hall. The particular shop in the MarkC~c Basket Shopping Center is the Schwinn Bicycle Shop. Mr. Edelstein inquired if the operator set up a recreation ~oom for the amusement of his customers? Mr. Larnard asked if it is inofdental to the operation of his basic shop. Mr. Rourke stated that the thing is, there are a number of uses per- mitted only in C-1 and C-2 zones requiring a Conditional Use Permit, which are like a pool hall and I think at one time or another the Commission determined that a pool hall did require a Use Permit. For these reasons we have to determine whether a bicycle shop becomes a pool hall by having one table. Mr. Edelstein replied, that in his opinion, if it is a money making unit, one, two or three tables, a Use Permit should be required. If it is a table just set up with no charge involved, for people to use while, their bicycles are being fixed, that is different, But, when a charge is involved, he would be inclined to go in the direction of a Use Permit. Mr. Brown stated that there are actually two buildings involved with a common door and common wall. The room with the pool table and four pin ball machines, is at least 60% used for warehousing and stock of bicycles. Recreational items'are placed in what open space is.avail- able, but not in the main retail store. However, as pointed out by the City Attorney, nearly every bar in town has one of these coin operated pool tables, which are different than a regular pool hall operation. Mr. Curtis stated that most cities require some kind of a permit for coin operated items. Mr. Brown replied that in this particular location they have a bona- fide city license, and pay so much rental for each machine that is installed.. B & B Amusement Company own and install the equipment. Mr. Sharp stated in this case it seems there is very little chance of it turning into a pool hall. It is a matter of deciding how many pool tables make a pool hall; maybe the business license approach is better. Mr. Fleagle replied it is a matter for the Commission to determine what is reasonably a permitted use and what constitutes a pool hall. Mr. Sharp recommended, with unanimous concurrence, that the Staff present for consideration at the next regular meeting a definition of a pool hall and appropriate recommendations for Use Permit determinations. COMMISSION CONCERNS Mr. Sharp invited the Commission's attention to a plgnning course being offered by UCI on "The Physical Environment". He inquired if other Commissioners were inter6sted in attending the course, if the City would pay the tuition fee. Mr. Mahoney said that he had an interest in attending the course. PC 3/8/71 '-5- Mr. Larnard suggested that the Council be queried to determine if they were agreeable to paying the tuition costs for one or two Commissioners to attend this course. Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that a letter be sent to the City Council requesting approval and payment of tuition fees for Commissioners Sharp and Mahoney to'attend the UCI Course in "Planning the Physical Environment". MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 Mr. Edelstein stated he didn't know if it was the appropriate time, hnt would like to discuss reconsidering the Meredith matter (PZ-71-125) taken up at the last Commission' meeting. Would like to see what the general feeling is. Do we want to ask the City Council to send it back to us for reconsideration? Mr. Sharp stated that at the last meeting, his motion requested denial of the Meredith application on the basis that it did not seem to be timely, and was based on an almost complete lack of information as to the nature of the application, as to plans, etc. Now that there is a somewhat clearer picture, it may be worthwhile reconsidering, if the Council so desires. Mr. Mahoney inquired if he would be able to vote on the matter if it were to be reconsidered since he was not present at the hearing. Mr. R~urke said that if Mr. Mahoney were to review all of the material that was available at the prior hearing, he could, on this type of matter participate in the voting. This is simply a legislative matter rather than a variance. Mr. Larnard said that there was very little in the way of information when this came before the Commission at the last meeting. We do have more definite data now as to construction, uses proposed, standards of construction, etc., and with that in mind, he would personally like to convey to the Council that we would like to hear this additional information prior to their decision. Mr. Sharp believed that it would help cast some light on the matter and get the Commission's position in writing, if there is definite information now available. Moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Curtis, that such a message be prepared and sent to the City Council. Mr. Edelstein wanted to clarify that this is to be only a communica- tion to the Council informing them of our particular feelings and desires at this time; not a formal request for the item to come back to u s. W, MOTION VOTED ON BY ROLL CALL: AYES: Larnard, Sharp,Curtis, Mahoney NOES: Edelstein MOTION CARRIED: 4-1 Mr. Mahoney inquired if the Staff might direct a communication to the County Road Dept. requesting completion of the paving project on Holt Avenue, near Warren, in the County. There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was moved by Mr. Mahoney, and seconded by Mr. Edelstein, to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m. PLANNING COMMI SS I~CHA~ RMAN ~ PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY PC 3/8/7]