Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-11-71 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 1971 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the llth day of January, 1971, at the hour of 7:35 p.m., of said day in the Council Chambers, 275 South "C" Street, Tustin, California. The Pledge of Allegiance was given by Commissioner Sharp. The Invocation was given by Chairman Larnard. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Others Present: Larnard, Edelstein, Curtis, Mahoney, Sharp NONE James G. Rourke, City Attorney Pat Brown, Assistant Planning Director Carol L. Culver, Planning Commission Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 28, 1970 .~ Moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Sharp, that the Minutes of December 28, 1970, be approved as submitted. MOTION CARRIED - 5-0 V-70-277 - UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA Authority is requested to erect a 90-foot high, 628-square foot display area free-standing sign exceeding the maximum permitted height and display area for a given service station site. Location: Subject property is located at the southwest co~ner of Redhill Avenue and Nisson Road and is zoned 100-C-1-10,000. Mr. Brown stated that this case had been continued from the December 14, and December 28, 1970, Planning Commission Meetings, due to inclement weather. He went on to say that a flag test was finally held on December 29, 1970, with ~hree members of the Planning Commission and one member of the Staff present, in addition to the applicants' repre- sentatives. The results of the flag test clearly indicate that the originally requested 90-foot height and 628-square foot display area was inordinate, and that the reduced 60-foot height and 245-square foot area would not only be adequate for' freeway identification purposes, but would also be far more appropriate to the surrounding area and commensurate with other freeway-oriented signing approved in that area. Mr. Brown further stated that the most advantageous location for this proposed sign would be in the northwest corner of the property, adjacent to the Nisson Road frontage, rather than at the rear southwesterly corner as originally proposed. Mr. Brown went on to say that it is the recommendation of the Staff that the Planning Commission approve Variance 70-277 by adoption of the attached Resolution (#1199).. 1-11-71 - 1 - PC Minutes-January 11, 1971 Mr. Shar~ inquired of Mr. Brown the following -- Items 4 and 5 on Page 2 of the Staff Report, where it is stated that Staff recommends that a second pole sign be allowed on the property. Would a site like this, according to the Ordinance, be restricted to one pole sign? Mr. Brown replied that, under normal circumstances, this would be a restriction of the Code -- one free-standing sign. However, the Staff feels that this station is, essentially, freeway-oriented, that the She~ station on the northern side of the freeway was allowed to keep its exi: ing free-standing sign, although it was, again, required to make it non. revolving and, also, Mr. Up's Shell station directly across the street from this site has two free-standing signs. Mr. Sharp then asked: "There are then two parts to the Variance --. one is to allow a free-standing sign exceeding the height and area and the other is to allow a second free-standing sign on the same property." Mr. Brown replied that that was essentially correct. Mr. Sharp then inquire~ -- was this all based'on the hardships that have been indicated here as a justification for the request for a Variance? Mr. Brown then replied that was correct. Mr. Mahoney then inquired of Mr. Brown about the 35-foot free-standing sign -- if it wasn't already there at the present time and being cut down to 20 feet. Mr. Brown replied "yes" that it is existing at 35 feet and it is revolving at the present time. He further stated that it's right at the northeast corner on the Redhill frontage. Chairman Larnard declared the public portion open at 7:45. Mr. R. B. Franks, Union'O~l'. Company (Real Estate Department), 18911 South Studebaker Road, Cerritos, stated that he was in full accord with the Staff Report. Mr. Edelstein wanted it clarified that this particular sign would be limited to a single-column, as well as to height and display area. Mr. Larnard then inquired of Mr. Franks if this was feasible from an engineering standpoint with tkis height of sign that the Staff is recom- menc%ing. Mr. Franks replied "yes" -- it would be the same sign that they have at Trotter and Edinger. Chairman Larnard declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 7:46. Mr. Curtis brought up two points -- Staff Resolution indicated that it is still essentially freeway-oriented -- wasn't sure if he agreed with the wording "essentially." -- preferred to see it deleted. Mr. Curtis further stated that the ~taff Resolution indicated that the Variance was being granted "as applied-for" -- thought that portion should be deleted, as that was not what it was originally applied for. He went on to say that the flagging on December 28, 1970, convinced him that a 60-foot height is adequate and should provide a very good identifi- cation for the people. Also, the size of the sign should provide ade- quate visibility. Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that V-70-277 be approved in the form of attached modified Resolution No. 1199. The above motion was voted on by roll call: AY~s La~na~, Edol~e~n, Cu~l~, Mahono¥ NOES: Sharp MOTION CARRIED - 4-1 1/11/7] - 2- PC Minutes-January 11, 1971 Mr. Sharp asked Mr. Franks why it has taken over a year for this matter to come to the City's attention for correction? Mr. Franks replied Ghat after the City of Tustin was annexed, that they were just a little short of funds and also short of signs, etc., so they did not want to come before the Planning Commission at 'that time, since they were not able to follow through with the installation. V-70-278 - LE D. NUTTER Authority to permit the temporary use (for a period of up to six months) of three, portable, automobile lifts not located within an enclosed structure; and, a portable, 64-square foot sign exceeding the maximum Code permitted area and use time period. Location: Site fronts approximately 193 feet on the northwest side of Newport Avenue, approxim~telyJ67 feet on the east side of E1 Camino Real, and approximately 92 feet on the north- east side of the Santa Ana Freeway on-ramp. Mr. Brown stated that this petition was continued from the December 28, 1970, Planning Commission Meeting,.at the applicants' request, to permit time to design minor esthetic modifications to the portable automobile hoists. He went on to say that the schematic plans submitted indicate the three hoists are approximately 10 1/2 feet in maximum height and this would include the car that would be sitting on the hoist, and approxi- mately 8 1/2 feet wide. They would be installed or located on the Newport frontage.adjacent to that street. He went on to say that there are similar such hoists located throughout the area, but until the'pre- sent time, these hoists have only been used for parking areas where two cars could utilize these and save space -- this is the first request to be used on this particular use basis. A customer could change his own oil, replace mufflers, and perfor~ other under-body maintenance and repair functions at a substantial 'savings to himself. Mr. Brown further stated that the applicants requested the case only on a temporary basis in order to determine its market feasibility. If proven feasible, the applicants have indicated that a permanent struc- ture of some type would be located around the hoists so they would not be visible. The applicants further indicated that they felt this par- t~cular use would eliminate thousands of motorists spilling their oil on City streets and vacant lots, etc. The applicants are also requesting authority to permit a 4 x 8 (64-square foot - total display.a~ea) portable sign mounted on a small trailer, to advertise the hoist operation. This sign would be located adjacent to the Newport Avenue frontage and would be placed inside the main service station structure after operating hours. Mr. Brown stated that the Staff has mixed feelings regarding the requests and feels that the Rla~ning .Commission should give careful consideration to some of the following factors prior to any determination: (1) Permitting an out-door use at this particular site would grant this service station a privilege not enjoyed by other service stations throughout the City, and could set a precedent for many other types of out-door, retail activities; (2) The proposed operation is essentially automatic in nature, wherein the customer d~pos~ts the prescribed fee which then operates the hoist for a g:ven period of time. Without full-time attendants, there is a good possibility that discarded parts, such ~s mufflers, etc., could accumulate and present an unsightly appearance; - 3 - PC Minutes-January 11, 1971 (3) (4) The proposed location for these three hoists is fully exposed to heavy traffic on Newport Avenue, which creates an undesirable visual situation; and, The portable 64-square foot sign proposed would exceed the 150-square foot aggregate for free-standing or roof signs permitted at a service station site. The Development Preview Commission, at their meeting on December 16, 1970, analyzed this case and indicated to the Planning Commission that they did not feel, at that particular time, they should make any serious recommendations feeling the Planning Commission should determine whether the use is appropriate or not. They did, however, feel that if the Commission did approve this petition, their body would wish the authority to establish temporary screening so that the hoists weren't exposed to Newport traffic. The Development Preview Commission also felt that the large portable sign was not appropriate or desirable for the area. Chairman Larnard declared the public portion of the hearing open at 8:00. MR. LED. NUTTEd, 1661 Indus, Santa Ana, pointed out that the Staff had indicated there would be no full-time attendants at this site in ques- tion. Mr. Nutter stated that they do have a commercial dump bin for this type of operation at this particular site, and also there is a full-time attendant at all times during operation. He further stated that they would like to put this equipment in to "field test" it to find a public acceptance. Mr. Nutter went on to say that there are thousands of cases of oil and filters being sold to people, a week, in the Long Beach-Orange County area, who change their own oil, thus draining the oil into the street or on the ground, thereby creating an ecological problem. He stated that their services provide an easy, fast, convenient way of changing oil and filters without the corresponding damage to property or the ecological situation. Mr. Edelstein asked Mr'. Nutter if.t~ere wouldn't be a certain fee charged and if so, what would that fee be? Mr. Nutter replied that it would be about $.50. Mr. Edelstein %hen inquired if these people would be obligated to buy products from Mr. Nutter's station. Mr. Nutter replied "no". Mr. Mahoney asked ~x. Nutter how many hoists there were inside the station. Mr. Nutter replied "two" -- that they are used for major repairs. He went on to say that their hoists are just set up for minor repairs, i.e., draining oil, etc. -- not major work like muffler jobs. Mr. Sharp inquired of Mr. Nutter what the average labor cost would be for having a service station change a person's oil. Mr. Nutter replied approximately .75-.90 a quart and the labor is in- cluded in the price. He further stated that in several of the "self- service" type stations, oil is sold for about .39 a quart. Thus, one quart of oil would be the cost of the lift. He went on to say that thc normal service station charges a person around $10.00 and $11%00, which includes the cost of filter and also the labor. Mr. Nutter stated that with their system if a person could buy their oil and filter at better prices, that person could actually.do the entire job, including changing - 4 - 1/ll/T1 PC Minutes-January 11, 1971 Mr. Edelstein stated that Mr. Nutter had mentioned one of the reasons he felt this hoist facility would be useful was from an "ecology" stand- point. He went on to say that he could not be in agreement with this -- that this equipment would prove to be an unsightly appearance and cer- tainly would not add to the ecology of the area. Mr. Edelstein asked Mr. Nutter what he had in mind with regard to some type of amenities to block off this area, other than an enclosed building. Mr. Nutter replied that they had some portable screening which could be used. Mr. Edelstein then inquired of Mr. Nutter if there would be any land- scaping involved, i.e., planter units, etc. He went on to say that most of the new service stations that have been built have been care- fully screened by the Development Preview Commission which gives careful consideration to the best-looking type of buildings with proper land- scaping. Mr. Nutter said they could put up some ~creening on the side of the equipment to take away from the unsightly appearance. Mr. Edelstein stated that the reason for his concern in this matter was that if this use in question was approved, this would go before the Development Preview Commission and they would be quite strict on the type of amenities that would be put in. . Mr. Nutter replied, again, that they would be happy to put up portable screening where needed. MARI KNOX, 13471 Falmouth Place, Tustin, stated that she has been a- resident of Tustin for about six years, and she would like to see Tustin remain a beautiful, clean City with additions like parks, etc. Chairman Larnard decla~e~ ~he public portion of the hearing closed at 8:20. Mr. Sharp inquired of Mr. Nutter how he came to choose Tustin as the area in which to test thi~ device. Mr. Nutter replied that he has been living here for several years and that his research was based on the schools, the number of people in this area, and also the number of people who are changing their own oil, based on the sales at discount houses and grocery stores in this immediate vicinity. Mr. Mahoney asked Mr. Nutter if he had ever thought of possibly taking this type of service right to the people, i.e., possibly to a large apartment complex, in the rear of their parking area where it would not be seen by anyone, but it would be'advantageous to a person right there where he lives. Mr. Nutter replied "~es" that they had considered that possibility, and are even trying to do j~st t~at at the present time. He went on to say that if they could establish the public acceptance on this, this would be exactly one of the directions that they would choose -- large apart- ment complexes and large housing districts. Mr. Curtis asked Mr. Nutter if he was familiar with the City Engineer's comments regarding street improvements. Mr. Nutter replied "yes" he was. He wanted to know if these improve- ments would be put in when this would become a permanent installation or while they were running this temporary market analysiS. 1/ll/T1 - 5 - PC Minutes-January 11, 1971 Mr. Curtis replied that it would depend, in part, on the action taken at this Planning Commission, tonight. Mr. Larnard asked Mr. Nutter if he had discussed this with the Lessor, with the property owner? Mr. Nutter replied "yes" he had. Mr. Larnard then inquired if it was the feeling of. the property owner not to put the improvements in, himself, but that it would be Mr. Nutter's responsibility? He went on to ask Mr. Nutter if he felt he couldn't put in the street improvements at this time? Mr. Nutter replied "no" -- he could not do it at this time with their present situation. Mr. Larnard asked: "The property owner has indicated that he would not make these necessary .improvements as are outlined by the City Engineer?" He went on to inquire if Mr. Nutter had 'discussed this with the property owner? Mr. Nutter replied "no" that he had not discussed it in this light. Mr. Mahoney inquired of Mr. Brown -- "How much problem do we have in the City with people throwing oil in the gutters -- how many complaints? Mr. Brown replied that from the Comm. unity Development Department stand- point, he had heard of nothing -- there had been no complaints from other citizens or. agencies. Move~ b~ Mr. Edelstein, seconded by Mr. Sharp, that V-70-278(Attach~dA ~esolutlon NO. ±~UU~ De denied. MOTION CARRIED - 5-0 SECTION 23-9 - MASTER STREET TREE PLAN ORDINANCE OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE, AMENDMENT THERETO Mr. Brown stated that the Pa~ks and Recreation Committee feels that they should no longer be involved in variations or modifications to the Master Street Tree Plan, but this authority should be delegated to the Development Preview Commission, since they, normally, are involved in a total development function. Therefore, it would provide greater con- tinuity and eliminate an extra step for any applicants in any new develop- ments. He went on to say that both the City Council and the Development Preview Commission have concurred with this suggestion. Mr. Brown stated that the Staff discussed these recommendations with the Development Preview Commission at their December 23, 1970, meeting and it was their unanimous opinion that any modifications or alterations of the Master Street Tree Plan should lie within their province for the same reasons as indicated by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Chairman Larnard declared the public portion of the hearing opened at 8:35. There being no comments from the audience, Chairman Larnard declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:36. Roved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Curtis that Resolution No. 1201 (attached) be adopted approving. Section 23-9.. MOTION CARRIED - 5-0 1/ll/71 PC Minutes-January 11, 1971 NEW BUSINESS FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 7332 (REVISED MAP) - ANDREWS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Location: North side of Irvine Bouelvard between "B" Street and Prospect Avenue. Mr. Brown stated that the property in question is slightly over 12 acres in size and is comprised of 33 lots. He went on ko say that 32 of them would be the PC R-1 development in the northern half of that property -- the other lot would be the single, large Pr zone lot located along the Irvine Boulevard frontage. Mr. Brown recommended that the Final Map of Tract No. 7332 be approved subject to final approval by the City Council and the City Engineer. Mr. Larnard stated that he understood there have been some problems as to the trees that have been removed from this property. He wanted to know if these problems had been resolved}' and, also, if this was related in any way to the approval of a Parcel Map? Mr. Brown replied that that particular instance would have no reflection on this action at tonight's meeting, as far as the Tract Map, itself, is concerned. He went on to say that on the evening of January 6, 1971, Mr. Andrews, one of the Councilmen, the Development Preview Commission, the Staff, and representatives of Homeowners' group to the north held a meeting over this tree problem.' Mr. Brown further stated that there seemed to be some confusion on Mr. Andrews' part just what trees were originally approved for his immediate removal for grading purposes, etc. It was Mr. Andrews' assumption that he could remove all the trees in the R-1 portion. Mr. Brown stated that it was resolved at the Development Preview Com- mission Meeting that the.damage had already been done and could hardly be corrected (most of the trees ha~.bCen pretty badly pruned for removal). However, the Development Preview Commission did indicate that any li~e, healthy orange trees that were still left on the site would stay there and that any removal of such trees would be dependent upon their Com- missions' decision. Most of these trees are located in the Pr portion of the.property. Mr. Brown stated that Mr. Andrews has quite a grading problem and this has been part of his difficulty in establishing a two-to-three-foot differential between the northern and the southwestern portion of the property. Essentially, the Development Preview Commission did say that everything that is live on that southern parcel will be retained until they give further word. Mr. Sharp brought up the fact that there were some drainage problems on the overall site, and wanted .to know if these had been resolved. Mr. Brown replied that these problems had not completely been resolved, that they are still working on ~hem, but, essentially, most of the major problems have been resoTved. Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Sharp, that Final Map of Tract No. 7332 be approved~ revised as submitted by Staff. MOTION CARRIED - 5-0 - 7 - 1/11/71 PC Minutes-January 11, 1971 CORRESPONDENCE COUNTY CASE - ZC-69-46 - WILLIAM ZINK, JR. Mr. Brown stated that the above case is a parcel located at the south east corner of Newport Avenue and LaColina Drive. He went on to say at the original proposal was for an R-2-2,200 on this slightly-over 2-ac size lot. Mr. Brown stated that when this was last brought before the Planning Commission in October of 1970, it was the Planning Commission's recommendation, based upon the Staff's Report, that the density, as proposed, would be too high both from indications of the General Plan and, possibly, having to re-designate LaColina to a higher arterial status with the increased densities involved. Mr. Brown pointed out that it was his understanding that the Orange County Planning Commission wante¢ to change the request from 2,200 to 2,750, and the Board of Supervisors have sent it back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of the 2,200, again; thus, the reason for this case. being continued. He went on to say that from the Staff's Standpoint, they feel that either density is still too high for that particular area, which is essentially low- density, single-family in nature. At the last Planning Commission Meet- ing, they recommended an objection to County Case ZC-69-46 be forwarded to the Orange County Planning Commission. Mr. Edelstein inquired of Mr. Brown if there was any particular way that in the next correspondence to the Orange County Planning Commission that the wording could be directed somewhat stronger to alleviate any misunder- standings? Mr. Brown He went on to say that he would like very much to strengthen the repo. but felt that it was fairly strong in its language at that time, or at least, its intent. Mr. Curtis pointed out that this is in' direct conflict with the Zoning designation and the General Plan for that particular parcel. replie~ that he had discussed this with Mr. Fleagle, recently. Mr. Brown concurred with Mr. Curtis' above statement. Mr. Curtis stated that the Orange County Planning Commission are going to require a change to the General Plan at some future time as a result of this action which is contrary to what both the City and the County determine, through public hearings, to'be appropriate. Mr. Brown stated that he would definitely bring out that point. He further stated that in talking to the County Staff, they have mixed feelings about this matter. The County is proposing a third amendment which will bring the General Plan up to more apparent indications of what is actually existing on the ground at the present time. Mr. Sharp inquired if the Foothill Homeowners' Association had taken any position on this before the Orange County Planning Commission? Mr. Brown replied that they hadn't, to his knowledge. Moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Mahone¥, that the Staff direct the strongest possible communication to the Orange County Planning Commission stating the Plannin~ Commission's ~osition and justifying it with refer- ence to General Plan indications, and also that the Orange County Plan- ning Commission grant a continuance so that a ~oint worksho~ session could be held. MOTION CARRIED - 5-0 1/11/71 PC Minutes-January 11, 1971 SECOND AMENDMENT ~O TIIE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN Mr. Brown stated that the properties in question are primarily located southeast of Redhill Avenue, north and south of the Santa Ana Freeway, about 40 acres to the north and approximately 28 acres to the south. He went on to say that the zone change involved to the north is not too significant at this time since it only added to the larger area r~-zonin~ of the past -- it's re-zoning some commercial and professional property to R-3. Mr. Brown further stated that there are tremendous problems with the fact that most of the cross streets in the above-mentioned area are local, not arterial, thus, affecting traffic circulation, our school systems, park systems, etc. Mr. Brown went on to say that they will undoubtedly be annexed to the City under many of the new Annexation Laws that are now before the Legislature. He further stated that the Staff is still deeply concerned with the letter which was submitted at the Planning Commissions' request to the Orange County Planning Commission, which strongly recommended a workshop session between both the Tustin Planning Commission and the Orange County Planning Commission. To date, no such workshop session has been mutually suggested by their body. The Orange County Planning Commission Staff seems to feel that they don't want to become involved with this matter. Moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Curtis, that the Staff direct the strongest possible correspondence to the Orange County Planning Com- mission indicating a very deep interest and concern over these zonin~ matters stated in'the Staff Report -- also that the Orange County Plan- nin~ Commission would ~rant a continuance in this matter for the purpose of holding a workshop session. MOTION CARRIED - 5-0 COMMISSION CONCERNS Mr. Shar~ asked Mr. Fleagle to summarfze, for the next meeting, the various actions which took place in the last week or so -- just exactly how the Planning Commission's position has changed or how we, as a City and as a Planning Commission, have been affected by those actions that LAFCO and other agencies took regarding Irvine Company's General Plan proposals. Mr. Sharp went on to say that he would like to get our own professional Planner's opinion on these and a brief report on the same. Mr; Edelstein concurred with Mr. Sharp's above comments. Mr. Brown replied that he was sure Mr. Fleagle would be happy to accom- modate the Planning Commission in this matter. Mr. Larnard mentioned that the Planning Commission has official By-Laws that govern the Commission, and among the By-Laws, there must be a general meeting (the second meeting in January), which will take place at the next Planning Commission Meeting. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mr. Webber, California Star ~ight (a searchlight company), no address given, wanted to check on the Ordinance in running searchlights in the City of Tustin. He mentioned that in most cities, all a person needs to do is just buy a City License, and then they can run search- lights. Mr. Webber had been told-that it was Ordinance No. 438 (adver- tising) -- wanted to know if this would come under "Use Permit"? 1/ll/T1 PC Minutes-January 11, 1971 Mr. Brown replied that recently Staff proposed an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relative to Use Permits. IIe went on to say that there was a section which stated the Planning Director had the authority to issue Temporary Use Permits for 30 days or less, and the Planning Com- mission could also grant Temporary Use Permits of up to six months or less. The only problem with this certain part of the Ordinance was that it did not indicate what fee should be paid, whether the full $100.00, or a lesser fee, so up until the present time, it has always been the $100.00 fee charged. Also, it did not indicate whether a public hearing was necessary for that particular temporary use of less than 30 d~'ys. Mr. Brown pointed out that searchlights, normally, come within the province of a few days' duration. He further pointed out that the Amendment, as it presently stands, states that the Planning Director has the authority, or his designee, to issue Temporary Use Permits for a period of up to 30 days. The fee would normally be $25.00 and no public hearing would be necessary. Also, the fee could be waived com- pletely, or in part, if the Business License had not required a fee, or only a portion of .a fee. ~ Mr. Webber said.usually their runs are, possibly, two or three days, or only a grand opening for one night. He went on to say that it's quite competitive with the other towns -- a reasonable price must be given for their services, and he didn't feel it to be very practical with such small runs as noted above. Mr. Webber further wished to know if a 30-day permit would allow inter- mittent, 2-3 day use during that period, without a new permit or fee being charged, for said short period of use. Mr. Brown stated that, as it now stands, Mr. Webber could obtain such a permit either through him or Mr. Fleagle, the Community Development~ Director, for up to 30 days, and the fee would be $25.00. Mr. Brown pointed out ~ha~ the FAA. should be notified when searchlight operations are going to be conducted, 'what hours, how long, etc., and that the beam never exceed 45 degrees in elevation. Mr. Webber concurred with Mr. Brown's above statement. Mr. Rourke stated that he, Mr. Brown and Mr. Fleagle would discuss this matter and bring it up to the City Council. There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was moved by Mr. Mahoney that the meeting be adjourned at 9:30 p.m. PI~NNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY PB:cc - 10 - :/11/i1