Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-22-69 MINUTES OF A REGULAR }~ETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION September 22, 1969 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M., by Chairman Halus. Led by Commissioner Curtis. Present: Commissioners: Mr. Curtis, Mrs. Ludwig, Mr. Webster Mr. Mahoney, Mr. Larna=d, Mr. Halus. Absent: Commissioner: Mr. Oster. Others present: Mr. Harry E. Gill, City Administrator Mr. James G. Rourke, City Attorney Mr. James L. Supinger, Planning Director Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary It was moved by Mr. Larnard, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, that the minutes of September 8, 1969~ be approved as submitted. Carried 6-0. 1. UP-69-308 - PBR COMPANY ON BEHALF OF ZORRO INVESTMENT CO. (Continued from 9/8/69) To permit: A free-standing sign for surface traffic with a height of 20 feet, an area of 63 sq.ft. per side, total area of 126 sq. ft. and lo- cated within the required front setback. A free-standing sign for freeway traffic with a height of 3'5 feet, an area of 308 sq. ft. per side, total area of ~16 sq. ft. and lo- cated within the required setback area. 3. A Mobil "Pegasus" wall sign with an area of 13 sq. ft. Se A "Mobil Service" wall sign with an area of 15 sq. ft. A price panel sign to be located on a pole sign with an area of 15 sq. ft. per side, total area of 30 sq. ft. and a minimum height above grade of 8 feet. 6. Total sign area on the site of 800 sq. ft. Location: At the northeast corner of the intersection of Irvine Boulevard (Fourth Street) and the Newport Freeway. Mr. Supinger presented' the staff report stating that this hearing was continued.to permit the Architectural Committee of the Planning Commission to meet with representatives of Mobil Oil and nearby property owners to flag the site and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Committee's recommendation is as follows: Fr~e~ay Identification Free-Standing Sign Number - 1 IIeight - 35 ft. ' ' Area/Side - 152 sq. ft. Total Area - 304 sq. ft. Location - Adjacent to freeway, 25 ft. setback from Irvine Boulevard. Local Identification Free-Standing Sign Number - 1 :. .Height - 20 ft. Area/Side - 32 sq. ft. Total Area ~ 64 sq. ft. Location - Mid-point on south boundary. ~egasus Wall Sign Number - 1 Area - 13 sq. ft. ~ Location - West corner on south side of building· Price Panel Sign Number - 1 Height - ? Area/Side - 15 sq. ft. Total Area - 30 sq. ft. Location - To set on the ground. The Planning Department's recommendation is as follows: 1. Freeway Identification Free-Standing Sign Number - 1 Height - 21 ft. Area/Side - 152 sq. ft. · Total Area - 304 sq. ft. Location - Adjacent to freeway, 25 ft. setback north of the northerly right-of-way line of Irvine Boulevard. 2. Local Identification Free-Standing Sign Number - ~ '~' Height - 6 ft. Area/Side - 32 sq. ft. Total Area'- 64 sq. ft. Location - Mid-point on south boundary. 3. Pegasus Wall Si~q Number - Location - 1 West corner on south side of building. 4. Pr.ice Panel Sign Number - 1 Height - 5'6" Area/Side - 15 sq. ft. Total Area - 30 sq. ft. Location: - To set on the ground. Recommended conditi6n %of approval: a® Approval of plans Dy the Development Preview' Committee. Chairman IIalus opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:35 P.M. Those speaking in favor of subje'Ct application were: Mr. Peter Abundis, 1101 Valley Mall,,E1 Monte, Mobil Oil Gompany representative. Mr. Devine, 923 Arlee Place, Anaheim, S~gn'Company representative. Mr. George Ar~yros, 17411 Irvine Blvd., partner in Zor~o Investment Company. Mr. Don Yoder~. 17411 Irvine Blvd., partner in Zorro Investment Company. - Septembor 22, 1969 They agreed with the suggested changes by the Architecturai Committee and felt that the compromise was agreeable for all'that were involved. They thanked the participants and commended them for their cooperation and consideration. Mr. Robert IIall, 17452 Irvine Boulevard, was in opposition to the free-standing surface sign for local identification. (located on Fourth Street.) IIe did not think the sign would blend in aesthetically with the ov~ral~ concept of Fourth Stroot and was concerned over the lighting of the sign. After researching other areas, he felt that the Sa~d Canyon area is a good example of service station signing. The signs are minimized, attractive and adequate for identification. As a suggestion, Mr. Hall felt that if the applicant feels that it is imperative for the sign to be seen on the Santa Ana s~de, a modification could be made on the east side to eliminate the glare of the lighted sign in the Tustin area. He Was in favor of a planter type sign. Mr. Mahoney questioned the visibility of a lower s~gn in relation to the surrounding service stations., There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 7:55 P.M. Mr. Webster stated that he was concerned with the pole sign after having a chance to view other stations and signs, with what he felt is adequate identification - signs that were minimal, simple and obvious. He stated that he would like to see the 20 ft. pole sign at a lower level. He suggested that the Pegasus sign would be as effective for advertising as the name "Mobil Oil", itself, and would be in agreement with this change. Mr. Webster stated that, at this time, his opinion is dif- ferent than what was stated at the ~ime of the flagging, but he felt that it is in the best interest'of the community that modifications be made to eliminate excessive signing and signs that are lighted; particularly in this area. He stated that this location is the entrance to the city and every consider- ation should be made to retain its proper balance aesthetically. .Mr. Halus reminded Mr. Webster ~hat no firm commitments were made at the time of the flagging; only recommendations to the CommLssion. Mr. Mahpney felt that by omitting the name of the service station from the sign, there would be no identification on the building as to the type of service station. He asked the Commission's feeling of allowing Mobil's name to be located right above the symbol, as previously requested. ~e stated that economics have to be considered and felt that adequate identification is necessary. Mr. Webster stated that'he has no objection, if Mobil Oil wants to substitute their name in place of the Pegasus symbol. He felt that the 35 ft. freewa~ sign was sufficient and did not think it necessary to repeat the name. It was moved by Mr. Webster, seconded by Mr. Larnard, that Resolution No. 1103 be adopted, conditionally approvin~ ~pplication No. UP-69-308 (PBR Com~an~) to ~ermit the fol- lowing signs: ~.reewa~ Identification Free-Standin~ Si~n Number 1 Height 35 ft, Area/Side 152 sq. ft. Total Area '304. sq. ft., adj~6ent t6 f~eeway, with ~ s~ba6k, of ~ ft. f~om Ir~ihe Blvd. 2. Local Identification Free-Standi.nQ Sign Nun~er lloight Area/Side Total Area Location 1 Not to exceeds. 12 ft. 13 sq. ft. 26 sq. ft., the sign being a Pegasus.Logo. Planter. area, mid-point on the south .boundary - the standard holding the sign to be in conformity with the canopy stand- ards. 3. Wall Sign -__"Mobil Service"_ Number 1 Area 15 sq. ft. Location Over .the l~be bays, south side of the building. 4. Price Panel.Sign Number Height Area/Side Total Area 1 Not to exceed 5'6" 15 sq. ft. 30 sq. ft. Free-standing and in a form that would conform with the architecture of the building. Condition of approval: ae Approval of plans by the Development Preview Committee. Reason for approval: The Commission finds t~at the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case'be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and.general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the' proposed use and it will not be injurious or detrimental to the prop- erty and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. As additional grounds, th~ minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are.included by reference and made a part of the motion. The above motion was voted by roll call. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Curtis, Ludwig, Webster, Larnard Mahoney, Halus Oster CARRIED 4-2 2. V-69-254 - CHARLES Ao MILES ON BEHALF OF NELLIE B. MILES To permit: a. The rental of a portion of an existing nonconforming structure for an art shop for which off-street parking does not exist. b. To permit the rental of a small, non- conforming studio apartment as a residence. Location: At the northeast co~ner of the intersection of First Street and North "B" Street· · Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that the buildings are nonconforming be~use they do not comply with mended denial for the following reasons: Septcn~cr 22, 1949 1. The previous occupant of structure "a" (Tustin You~% Employment) was an office use which was - more conforming than the proposed use because less off-street parking is required for office use than for retail use. 2. There has been more than a one year lapse in the use of the residence structure. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:15 P.M. Those in opposition were Mrs. Margaret Byrd, 158 No. "B" and Mrs. Joyce, 133 No. "B" Street, Tustin. They did not feel that the studio apartment was suitable or safe for prospective tenants and felt that the structure was not suitable for any type of use. They stated that they were not opposing the proposed art shop use for the building located on 1st Street. Mr. Charles A. Miles, 722 West Chapman, Orange, applicant, complimented the staff on the comprehensive report that was submitted. He stated that he felt the neighbors were making an undue issue over the situation and agreed that some re- pairs would have to be done. He did not feel that the pro- posed use for an art shop would generate a traffic problem, since Mrs. Cooper, the tenant would only operate the business on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. The hours being 11:00 A.M. to 4 P.M. He stated that some of the repairs have already been attended to. Mr. Robert Ha11,17452 Irvine Blvd., stated that he does have an interest in the down town area and he feels that if some of these old vacant buildings were productively used, it would be better than letting them stand empty. He felt that some type of use would be better for the communityi until the Town Center Area Study is completed. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Halus declared the hearing closed at 8:30 P.M. Mrs. Ludwi~ asked for a clarification'of the art shop. Mr. Miles stated that it would be retail sales and there would be no lessons or students involved. Mrs. Cooper will take orders for picture framing, but this will be done in Los Angeles. He stated that the electrical, wiring, called out in the Build- ing Department's report, would be complied with, although the wooden structure on the back of the property could not be de- molished, because it is being utilized by the Plumbing Company adjacent to the property. Mr. Mahoney stated that since a thorough inspection has not been made by the Commissioners and in consideration of all interested parties involved, he felt that a continuance was in order. It was moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Webster, that V-69-254'be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting, October 13, 1969, to ~l~ow time for a field trip to the prop- erty and a close inspection. Mr. Halus stated that Mr. Hall's comments were well taken, but he was concerned for the welfare, health and safety for the individuals. He commented that because the stu~{io apartment is substandard, the general feeling seems to be opposed to this use and the real consideration is relative to the art 9hop. Mr. Webster stated ~ha~ a~ this point, h9 has absolutely no property. Mrs. LudwiQ asked if the wooden shed in question, would still be used for the present use, if the variance is denied. Chairman Halus answered "yes." 6-0. Absent: Mr. Oster - Septembor 22, 1969 NONE NONE NONE V-68-206 HON DEVELOPMENT -_Request for Time Limit Extension ~ocation:' Northeast corner of the intersection of Tustin Village Way and McFadden. Mr. Su~inger presented the staff report stating that the current request is for an extension to December 30, 1970 for a Farmhouse sign. The delay has been caused because of anticipated purchase of additional land along Newport Freeway which is owned by the State Division of Highways and which, if purchased, would be integrated into the proposed development. Mr. Su~in~er stated that there is no objection by the staff. It was moved by Mr. Webster, seconded by Mr. Larnardr that Application No. V-65-206 be approved as requested. Motion carried unanimously. 'Absent: Oster 2. SIGN FLAGGING Mr. Supinger stated that'~o sign fl&~gings are scheduled for Saturday, October 4, 1969. 3. TUSTIN NORTH HOMES - DELAY OF OCCUPANCY Mr. Martin Cohen, 1212 North Broadway, Santa Ana, homeowner, stated that he has purchased a home in the Tustin North de- velopment, and within the past week, he was informed that these homes are in violation of the zoning ordinance.because of'a 3 ft. overhang of the roof to the'property line. He stated that prospective tenants have been told that their utilities will not be released or turned on until a variance is approved or until the roof is altered. He stated that this creates an undue hardship to the people that are wait- ing to move in, due to their having sold other homes, 'ex- pecting to be able to move into the new ones. He stated that Trans-Robles has agreed to write a letter of intent, stating that if the variance is not agreed upon, that they will cut down this overhang bY one (1) ft. He stated that there are other people presently living in the homes with the same violation, which was not pointed out but was ap- proved by the inspectors. Mr. Cohen asked the commission to allow them to move in, based on a letter of intent that the Corporation gives, that if this is a problem and the variance is not granted, that they will cut down 1 f~. of the overhang on each side of the houses. Mr. Rourke stated that there was no actipn that the Planning Commission could take on this matter at this time. He stated that this would be within the Building OffiCial's prerogative. He suggested that the Commission could make some request to the Building Official regarding this matter. Mr. Gi].l :;Lated that th(~ ]Tui].dintl OF. ficial i;; at present, chcckll~-~7.; to see if there: ]]ave bo. eh past violations and if so, it could ]lave ~een done at the time before Trans-Robles took over. lie stated that although a hardship does exist, he did not feel that it was his prerogative to authorize temporary use until it is resolved by the Commission. Mr. Halus stated that it.had been mentioned that this sit- uation had been brought to the attention of the tract over a month ago and wanted to know what the reasons were for not resolving it at that time. Mr. Gill stated that he was not in the City at that time and was not aware of the difficulty. He did not feel 'that it was anyone's fault in particular but due to being handled by different builders and corporations, this is the result. Mr. Skannes, 13542 Marshall Lane, stated that his family is living in an apartment and they have over-stayed one week at the present time and it appears that they are going to be forced to move because they have given their notice to the manager of the apartments. He commented that another family is having to drive their children from Riverside. to the local schools due to not being able to occupy their new residence. Mr. Sterlin~ Albert, superintendent of the tract, Trans-Robles representative, stated that the 3 ft. overhang violates the code by approximately one (1) ft. on one side. He stated that a variance application would be submitted at the October 13, 1969 meeting, but in the interim, would like someone to authorize occupancy of the homes. Mr. Webster asked if there were existing bonds on the tract now, that are still in force and is there any way of attaching such a condition, to remedy the situation if a variance is not approved. Mr. Rourke stated that the existing bond only relates to public improvements, and ahother one cgqld not be attached. Mr. Gill mentioned that one of the problems is the lot lines, and in one case, Cox Corporation had a house built that split in the middle of a lot. He stated that some of the houses are designed with an extended roof and now that there is a possi- bility of it being modified, the.owners are becoming concerned, and this is one of the problems that the City and Developer are trying to resolve. Mr. Larnard said that this appears to be a Building Code problem as well as a Zoning Code problem and that we as a Planning Commission should be careful not to be put in a positio% as we have been in the past of considering a variance to regulatory ordinances (U.C.B.), as this is not the purpose nor authority of the Planning Commission. Mr. Curtis asked Mr. Rou~ke. i f the developer could enter into a new bond to permit a solution to these problems and permit the City to authorize occupancy of the homes. He felt that an agreement could stipulate that if the variance was not ap- proved, an agreeable modification would be reached. Mr. Rourke stated that there was no provision in the Zoning Ordinance that allows or provides for deviations from the terms of the Ordinance based upon substitute of agreements. or bonds. IIe explained that there are instances when a case come up that involve some essentially mi~or variation where there is a sufficienl'- hardship involved wllere some admini- ~t~¥~ p~.~on ~ak~ ~ u~o~ thems~lf, to wor~ '~]1~ molter out. lie felt that this situation is essen~£a.lly beyond the of the Planning Commission to take action other than to in- dicate to the Building Official whatever feelings or request that they might l]ave about it. tie suggested that the Planning Commission could give snme expression of their feelings to tile - September 22, 1969 Mr..Gill clarified that, in his opinion, this matter does not violate the Building Code, but does violate the Zoning Ordinance (Section 5.12). Distance of lot lines is not covered in the Building Code. Mr. Curtis called attention to the Commission, that no legal action of any kind could be taken at this time. Mr. Gill stated that the City Staff did not want to make an administrative decision before conferring with the Planning Commission. Mr. Halus commented that this was very much appreciated. It was moved by Mr. Webster, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, that a Minute Order be written to the Building Official indicating that it is the desire of the Planning Commission that he recon- sider this problem and do those things that are within his purview to alleviate the hardship that is obvious to the buyers, however, this request in no way acts as any official action or comment on any variance application or request to come before the Commission. Carried 6-0. Mrs. Ludwig asked Mr. Albert when his most recent survey completed. Mr. Albert stated that they have had a partial survey within the last week. 4. URBAN ACTION FORUM - LONG BEACH Mr. Halus read a letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States extending an invitation to the Urban Action Forum'in Long Beach, October 1, 1969. Mr. Halus encouraged the interested parties to attend. 5. APPEAL OF THE METZ COMPANY ON BEHALF OF TANDY CORP. (V-69-251) - at the last Council meeting.(Sept 15, 1969) Mr. Halus informed the Commission that the applicant agreed to sidewalk installation, non-revolving sign and the sign height was held at 21 ft. 6 in. He stated that he felt that the City Council's position was to stay within the new Sign Ordinance requirements. 6. PZ-69-119 - ROBERT HALL & W. TAYLOR - CITY COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Halus stated that Mr. Hall, applicant, presented to the Council, a plan for a 2800 sq. ft. single story, less dens~ apartment complex rather than the R-3 (1500) plan. The Council referred the application back to the Planning Commission, to allow Mr. Hall time to prepare a more concise plan of the re- quest. Mr. Halus stated that he felt that was the appropriate action taken at this time, because the presentation to the Council was significantly different from that present to the Commission. It was moved by Mr. Curtis, seconed by Mr. Larnard, that the meeting be adjourned. Carried unanimously. There being no further business before the Commission, Chairman Halus declared the meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M. dlIAI~RM/~I OF ~llll,'. PLANN~ING~ CO~IMI-(JSION ~ARY OF TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION