Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-08-69MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 8, 1969 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Halus. Led by Chairman lIalu~. Present: Commissioners: Mr. Curtis, Mr. Oster, Mr. Halus, Mr. Mahoney, Mr. Larnard, Mr. Webster. Absent: Commissioner: Mrs. Ludwig Others Present: Harry E. Gill, City Administrator James G. Rourke, City Attorney James L. Supinger, Planning Director Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Curtis that the minutes of August 11 and~Au~ust 25, 1969, be approved, as submitted. Motion carried 6-0. 1. V-69-253 - TUSTIN FIRST INVESTMENT COMPANY To permit a free-standing sign to identify an existing apartment development. Proposed sign would have an over- all height of 12 ft., an area of 32 sq. ft./side, a total area of 64 sq. ft. and be located within the front set- back area. Location: Site fronts approximately 95 feet on the north side of First Street approximately 240 feet west of the centerline of North B. Street Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that a hard- ship does-exist for visibility of th~ project because of the setback from First Street and recommended conditional approv- al subject to agreement by the applicant not to install boot- leg signs within the City to advertise the project. Mr. Oster asked for a clarification of "bootleg" signs. Mr. Supinger, stated that technically, it is signs that violate the o~dinance, but he was concerned about-signs that proliferate on week ends that are put out by people that specialize in this service. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:35 P.M. Mrs. Virginia Carlson, 321 First Street, Tustin, voiced concern over "bootleg" signs and wanted to know if there is an ordinance that allows such signs% on private property. She stated that she is not opposed to the sign application that is being heard this evening. Mr. Fred Sparks, 17411 Irvine Blvd., stated that he is repre- senting Tustin First Investment Company and apologized for not applying for a building permit, but was not aware that this was required. He stated that the contractor that built the sign did not know that a variance or building permit was involved before starting construction and as a res,~lt, he did install the sign which was in Viol~ion, Mr. Sparks stated that the sign was needed for better identifi- cat'i'on du6 to the setback from First Street and the clutter of other projects hindering the view. lie described the sign saying that it is in good taste and will blend in architecturally September 8, 1969 with the project. He stated that he is agreeable with the staff's recommendation and conditions. Mr. Mahoney asked if tile sign would be lighted? Mr. Sparks answered that it would have spot lights from the ground. Mr. Oster inquired ~bout the Sign Company being responsible for this and Mr. Sparks stated that it was the Rustic Sign Shop located in Buena Park~ There being no other comments from the audience, Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing.closed at 7:43 P.M. Mr. Oster stated that the applicant has presented the Com- mission with an accomplished fact that the sign has been con- structed before a permit has even been applied for and felt that if the Commission approves this type of an application, other apartment developments could come in wi'th the same reason and expect approval. He voiced very strong objections to con- sidering signs that have already been constructed without a permit and felt that it is definitely in violation of the ordinance. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Larnard, that Application No. V-69-253 be denied. Mr. Larnard concurred with Mr. Oster and stated that even though a hardship is involved, every city ordinance relative to the sign has been violated and felt that this type of action by the applicant has certainly put the Commision at a disad- vantage. : Mr. Halus stated that the reason for the hardship, voiced by the applicant, is due to the setback from First Street and has no identification and is not due to the sign already having been ~onstructed withoub the proper procedure. Mr. Oster commented that if this application is approved, then it will very likely set a precedent for all the other apartment developers that will be coming in with applications, due to the. proliferation of apartments in the South Tustin Area. He stated that he felt the hardship was' created by the way the developer chose to split the property and chose to go into the property with an apartment complex resulting in a "self created hardship." The above motion carried 5-1. Mr. HAlus voting No. 2. UP-69-308 PBR COMPANY ON BEHALF OF ZORRO INVESTMENT COMPANY 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 located within the required front setback. A free-standing sign for freeway traffic with a height of 35 feet, an area of 308 sq. ft. per side, total area of 616 sq. ft. and located within the re- quired setback area. 3. A Mobil "Pegasus" wall sign with an area of 13 sq.ft. 4. 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: Fronts 160 ft. on the north side of Irvine Blvd. (Fourth Street) at the northeast corner of the intersection of Irvine Boulevard and the Newport Free- way. Mr. Supin~er presented' the staff report recommending denial for the following reasons: The requested total sign area, number of signs and height of free-standing signs is completely out of character with this main entrance to .the City and. to the professional office area of which the City is justifiably proud, in view of the residential areas. Justification has not been given for the signs, other than that they are typically used... Mr. Supin~er suggested that the applicant withdraw the re- quest and submit a request which would be in keeping with this main entrance to the City. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:55 P.M. Mr. Devine, Mobil Oil Representative, 923 E. Arlee Place, Anaheim, stated that they are interested in obtaining maximum signing for the service station and did not feel it would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the surround- ing properties. He stated that the largest sign that has been requested is for the Newport Freeway traffic. He explained the need for the other signs stating that the Pegasus sign is Mobil Oil's trademark. He stated that the service bays are in the rear portion of the station, complying with the City's desire and felt that the proposed signs would be beneficial to the public, indicating that this is a place for information rest stops and other forms of service.' Mr. Oster commented that since Mr. Devine was not the repre- sentative of Mobil Oil Company at the April 8,1969 meeting, when the zoning application was submitted for this property, he might be unaware of the promises made by Mobil Oil's repre- sentative, Mr. Andy Hedblom, and would like to point out that Mobil Oil promised Tustin the most attractive station around, with 9 minimal amount of signing that would be desirable and agreeable to live with. ' Mr. Halus asked Mr. Divine if he had flag tested the site of the sign and Mr. Divine said they have and that is the reason for the height request. In answer to Mr. Oster's question, he stated that a 21 ft. sign would not be visible, as suggested by the Planning Staff, but would require a height of 35 ft. to be visibly seen by the freeway traffic. Mr. Oster asked Mr. Supinger fox the results of the fla~in~. Mr. Supinger stated that He was referring to the flag testing done by Atlantic Richfield Company on a previous application last year, stating that the sign could set on the ground and still be seen by the south-bound traffic but as indicated by the Atlantic Richfield Company's flagging results, to get adequate identification for the north-bound traffic, it would require a height of 60 to 70 ft. r, Tad Lon~r~an~ partner in the Santa Ana-Tustin Medical a~~l'$'4~6'0--~est Irvine ~lvd. (400 W. 4th ~.) , Tu~tin, opposed the request stating that this is a major entrance to the City and would ].ike to ask the Commission to at least modify the requirements of the signs if they approved this request. He felt that the service station was a little out of context and inappropriate for this location, and that signs could only lead to non-conformity relative to the other buildings and structures on Fourth Street. September 8, 1969 Mr. War~en Fisher, 17332 Vinewood, Tustin opposed subject applicatio'n, specifically calling attention to the large proposed sign. ~.~...... Mr. Peter Abundis, 1101 Valley Mall, E1 Monte, representative, described the signs, the need for them and the expense that has been involved. ~Ie stated that the design of the building will be constructed to blend so well with the architecture around it that the size of the sign will be lost. He stated that the signing is very important for a successful business. Mr. Oster informed Mr. Abundis that Mobil Oil made promises to the City at the time the service station use was granted regarding signs and now they are not acting in good faith and living up to their promises. Mr. Oster stated that since Mr. Abundis was not in attendance at these prior Planning Commission meetings, it may behoove the Oil Company to talk with Mr. Argyros and Mr. Hedblom to find out what their promises were and what the Planning Commission wanted from the service station. He emphasized that the Commission is not denying them the right to have signs, but it is what the proposed signs are, the height and size of.the signs that the staff is recommending against. Mr. Oster told Mr. Abundis that there was a lot of opposition from the citizens relative to the service station and that this is the entrance to our City and now that they have .the use of the service station, the Commis- sion does not have to approve anything that is in violation of the ordinance, because the Commission did not make any promises or statements saying that they could have a 35 ft. sign or any other type of signing at that particular time. Chairman Halus stated that he and other members of the Archi- tectural Committee did meet with Mr. Abundis and discussions were relative only to the architecture of the proposed service station and that SIGNING WAS SPECIFICALLY OMITTED from these discussions, because it was to be a seperate topic of discus- sion. He stated for the records, that the City has made certain commitments to th~ homeowners in the area and busines- smen and to the best of our ability We have honored them. He concurred with Mr. Oster, in that the discussion is not whether they will be permitted signs, but it is the magnitude. Mr. Halus stated that the frustration and concern felt by the Commission is that they have not been able to see the extra effort, time and apparent desire on the part of Mobil Oil in the signing program to be consistent with the rest of the de- velopment and the stated intent and desire at this particular location. Mr. Abundis stated that Mr. Hedblom did convey the Commission's feeling and that Mr. Argyros only stated that they would not request a sign at a height greater than 35 feet. Mr. Oster clarified the above statement by sayin9 that it was a "not to exceed 35 ft." figure.' He stated that he has no ob- jection to a 35 ft. sign, per se, but felt that Mobil Oil Company has presented ~a sighing program that is far in excess of the Ordinance, showing no care or any indication that they intend to live up to the promises to make this service station one of the best looking service stations in Orange County, in- cluding the signing, lie stated that it was his understanding at a previous Planning Commission meeting with Mr. Argyros, Mr. Hedblom and the citizens in the surrounding area, that it had been agreed that they would apply only for signs in the smallest number and size that they could live with. Those in opposition were: Dr. Tad Loneroan, Santa Ana-Tustin Medical Pavilion Mr. Cornel.[u.~; Sexton, 1197' F. ast First Street Mr. 1.:d ~)riscoll, 173'72 Roseleaf Ave. Mr. Robert ~a]..[_, 17452 Irvine Blvd. Mr. W~,.rr..en !.'i..!;her, 17332 Vinewood, Tustin Septemb(:r 8, 1969 Mr. Sexton presented a petition with approximately "~'5 signatures of surrounding property owners, opposing the signs. Mr. Driscoll wanted the records to state that he concurs with the staff's report and recommendation for denial. Mr. llall felt tha~ a modification of the size of the signs was in order and felt that there is not a major need for a "price" sign out in front. The above citizens objected strenuously to the application. Mr. Don Yoder, 17411 Irvine Blvd., Tustin, partner in Zorro Investment, stated that they had complete, archi- tectural control over Mobil Oil Company on the site when the lease was made with them and felt that they exercised strong conditions. He stated that the station would blend in architecturally with the proposed office building and other structures in that area, but felt that identifica- tion was a major need. He stated that a sign for freeway identification and one sign on Fourth Street is a must, feeling that the proposed signs are not objectionable. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:40 P.M. Mr. Oster asked Mr. Supinger what avenue could be taken if the request is not approved. Mr. Supinger explained the two alternatives as follows: The applicant could appeal the decision to the City Council.or, A new application could be submitted, in which the circumstances of the request would be materially changed from what has been proposed in'the currgn~'application. Mr. Oster asked if the Architectural Committee had met with the applicants regarding the signs. He asked if the Commission is faced with negotiating signs this evening or denying the application in its inappropriate- ness. Chairman Halus stated that in terms of negotiating signs, · he has some specific thoughts in terms of height, size and other requirements, but preferred that the Commission make a determination on these signs rather than defer it to the Development Preview Committee. He stated that there have been no previous commitments or discussion on these signs other than the statement made at a previous Planning Commission meeting - "not to exceed 35 ft." Chairman Halus declared a 5 minute recess at 8:45 P.M. Meeting reconvened at 9:00 P.M. Mr. Abundis stated that at this time they would like to modify their request as ~ollows: 1. The 5' X 12' free-standing sign located on Fourth Street could be changed to a 4' X 8' and approximately 17' in height. 2. To make the sign more pleasing, they could wrap the structural column in the same type of brick veneer that would be used throughout ~e entire development. 3. The price signs could be located on a lower area W~h ~W~ ~m~;$ ~r~ek ftl%~ ~n each sade and a decorative wood structure framing ~1%~ mien, - September 8, 1969 Freeway SiQn - Rather than an area of 280 sq. ft. - The sign could be altered to 8' X 19' with a height of 35' total sign~a~ea?6~"152 sq ft Mr. Abundis stated that sufficient identification for the ~outh bound traffic would be obtained by a sign of 35' in height, although they have not flag tested for the north bound traffic visibility. He suggested that a flag testing be scheduled for this direction and if visibility is not adequate, he asked that they be allowed to raise the sign higher, keeping the overall dimensions of the. sign at an agreeable figure. Mr. Halus reiterated that ~he height limit has already been set and approved "not.to exceed a height of 35 ft." but discussion for anything under that figure and smaller signs could be considered. Mr. Oster asked if the sign could be set back 145 ft. Mr. Abundis stated that an agreeable setback could be made. ~ In answer to Mr. Oster's question, Mr. Supinge.r gave the following information as a guideline for the Commission's deoision. 1. The proposed freeway sign is not necessary for adequate identification, but could be considerably smaller. 2. The staff believes a 21' sign is adequate. 3. The pole sign for surface traffic is not necessarily needed, but the type of sign that Enco Service Station has located on Sand Canyon Road would be sufficient. 4. The Price Panel Sign is nbt objectionable and this is necessary. The size is within reason and that a proper location can be decided upon. 5. Wall Signs - One (1) is adequate, preferring the Pegasus disc, properly located at the southwest corner on the side facing Irvine Boulevard. Mr. Oster asked Mr. Supinger, if this request was contin- ued for two weeks, would this allow the staff sufficient time to obtain more information that would help in making a recommendation. Mr. Supinser stated that at the time of the application he was not aware that the applicants would consider any deviations or changes. He stated that he did not wish to attend public hearings and "hash over" the figures on signs and felt that a continuance was in order if Mobil Oil is willing to compromise. Mr. Oster stated that he would like to have the Archi- tectural Committee, Planning Staff and the appropriate representatives meet with any interested party at a convenient time and delegate the Architectural Committee to present a recommendation.to the Planning'Commission at the next regularly scheduled meeting (Sept 22, 1969.) It was moved by Mr. Oster, Seconded by Mr. Larnard that ~Applicatio!~ No. U~-69-308 be continued to the next re~ju-_ larly scheduled meeting of Se.]~tember 22, 1969., .t? ~?~.r. mi_t- the Architectural Committee of the Planninq Commission to meet with reprosentatives of Mobil Oil and nearby Dropert¥ owners to flag the site and make a recommendation to the l'lannin~2 Commission. e Chairman i[a~.us asked that the interested parties give ., ~heir name and address to the Planning Secretary for notification of the time, place and date of the meeting. Mr. Curtis pointed out that the one desire of the Com- mission that is prevalent, is the minimum signing. Mr. Oster concurred, lie requested that the lighting of the property be carefully considered. The above motion carried 6-0. Mrs. Ludwig absent. A brief recess was declared by Chairman Halus. PZ-69-119 - HESTER TRUST ON BEHALF OF HARRIET O. ENDERLE For prezoning and rezoning of a parcel of approximately 22 acres as follows: a. PC-C-2 (Planned Community - Central Commercial) District on the northerly approximately 11 acres. b. PC-R-3 (1750) (P'lanned Community - MuI{iple Family Residential - 1,750 sq. ft. of lot area per dwelling unit) District on the southerly approximately 11 acres. Location: At the southeast corner of the intersection of Seventeenth and Yorba Streets (excepting the existing com- mercial development.) Fronts 564 feet on the south side of Seventeenth Street and 1,500 feet on the east side of Yorba.o Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that a com- mercial use study prepared in conjunction with the Tustin Area General Plan in 1966, indicated that the existing commercial developments in Tustin and Santa Ana would adequately serve the ultimate area needs of the North Tustin Area.' He stated that the County intends to.mestudy and update the 1966 com- mercial study and suggested that th~ City participate in the preparation. He commented that the study will take approxi- mately 90 days. Mr. Supin~er recommended continuance of subject application ~o December 8, 1969, if this would be agreeable to the appli- cant or recommend denial to the City Council if the applicant wishes an .immediate decision. Chairman Halus opened the public pbrtion of the hearing at 9:55 P.M. It was noted that the Orange County Planning Department voiced opposition and concern with any further extension of commercial land uses along Seventeenth Street. Mr. Jack DeFries, 17351 Jacaranda Avenue, Tustin - President of the Board of Directors of the Enderle Gardens Home Owners Association, presented a petition signed by approximately 34 signatures of the surrounding area, opposing approval of sub- ject request. He stated that they urge the city to adhere to the Master Plan for this area feeling that this would detri- mental not only to the value of the adjoining homes but also to the basic concept of Enderle Gardens as a planned adult community of the relatively retired. Mr. James G. Gianulias, 2840 Monterey Avenue, Costa Mesa; stated that he is a part of the Ilester Trust in developing the property for Mrs. Enderle and felt that this is a con- tribution to the City. lie stated that the shopping center would generate an annual a benefit ~o tho City, in taxes. Ue stated that the land accessed commercially will yield a high degree of taxes in a manner des¢:ribed as highest and best use. Septcmber 8, 1969 'Mr. Gianulias stated that the firm of Morris & Lohrbach of Tustin has been hired 't'°~h6"l~ ~reate an environment that will add to the community, lie described the proposed apartment project being of a garden type for adults only. Mr. Jerry !{i~g stated that he was speaking in behalf of the prospective tenants of the shopping center and stated that considerable effort, .time and money have been spent in surveying this particular piece of property and lo- cation. He said the principal tenant, Handy Man, owned by Edison Brothers Shoes analyzed the County and felt that there is enough purchasing power, growth and need for this type of operation. Mr. Ranald A. Fairbairn, Real Estate Consultant, 850 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, stated that Mrs. Enderle owns approximately 25 acres of land and has been very con- scious of the type of .development that surrounds her property. She feels that the type proposed will blend in and be compatible with the area. Mr. ~airbairn felt that the concept is desirable since there is a buffer be- tween the residential and the commercial use. Mr. Gianulias concluded that the property would be main- tained by Mrs. Enderle and that she has been very stringent in her demands as to what she expects of the property. He stated that with the projected growth patterns, the location and the wishes of Mrs. Enderle, they feel a need has been shown for subject application. There being no further discussion from the audience Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing bioSed at 10:00 P.M. M~. Oster stated that in view of the revised commercial studies and other problems invol3ed he felt that a con- tinuance was in order, if agreeable'with the applicant. Mr. Kin9 stated that they would like to have an immediate decision. Mr. Oster felt that there should be consideration of amehding the General Plan at the same time prezoning action is taken. He felt that this is in direct con- ~lict with the General Plan. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Lar~ard, that Resolution No. 1101 be adopted, recommendin~ denial of App'~ica'tion No. PZ-69-119 to the City Council for the following reasons: 1. The proposed rezoning conflicts with the Tustin Area General Plan which designates the subject area as Medium Density Residential (4 dwelling units~per acre.) 2. Adequate evidence has not been prepared to justify an amendment of the General Plan. 3. A study of commercial use needs prepared as part of the General Plan program indicates that adequate commercial zoning exists in subject area. 4. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by reference and made a part of the motion. Mr. Webster stated that sufficient information has not been su~i-~tod by the applicant or any other source to confirm adequate justification. ~u opposed subject request. Mr. C~rtis stated that specifically there is no infor- mation relative to the population or spendable income in the immediate five mile area involved. He stated that the figures quoted by the applicant were of Orange County in general and not the immediate area. Mr. Larnard oppose~ due to there being many other aspects of the revised study that is necessary before consideration of a General Plan change should be made, other than just the economics of the shopping center. Mr. Mahone¥ asked if the current TNT Study includes the area in question. Mr..~upinger explained that the Study now in progress, is looking into the overall Tustin Area, primary market area, surrounding area beyond that and specific areas such as the Town Center Area. The information derived from 'this study is presently being compiled into a form to present to the TNT Committee in the near future. Mr. Mahoney stated that it was his understanding that be- fore a zone change can be approved, that the General Plan should be modified to reflect this change. Chairman Halus concurred stating that this is the best procedure. The above motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Ludwig absent Chairman Halus stated that this study will have to be concluded before a decision can be made relative to con- sideration of subject request and the the County's Study will be completed in. approximately 90 days. He asked that the Planning Staff participate in the County"s re- ~sed Study. NONE NONE NONE 1. BOOTLEG SIGNS Mr. Halus asked that the City take stronger and more aggressive action relative to "bootleg" signs to alleviate inconvenience of the property owners. 2. RESOLUTION RE: FRED WAITMAN, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE It was moved by. Mr. Webster, seconded by Mr...Mahoney, that Resolution No. 1102 be adopted, expressing, th~ appreciation of the Commission for the outstandin~ services rendered to the benefit..o~ the City of Tustin and all. of its residents. Motion carried unanimously. 3.. ORANGE COUNTY MEETINGS a. MOBILE HOME PARKS, SPECIAL OCCUPANCY TRAILER PARKS & CAMI~GROUN DS FOURTH ANNUAL WORKSHOP - LEGISLATION 1970 SOUTHF. RN CALIFORNIA PL~iN[NG CONGRESS "Chair]nan Il;il. un urged the Conunissioners to attend and anyone interested, contact the I'lanning Secretary. DEVF. LO~'MENT PREVIEW COMMITTEE Chairman Halus stated that the members of this 'committee have been identified and in order to maintain continuity, Larry Webster has been ap- pointed as a principal member and that he has been appointed as an alternate for a one year term. )URNMENT It was moved by Mr. M, ahoney, seconded by Mr. Larnard that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Halus declared the meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. ~, ~HAI~ OF THE PLANNING 'COMMI'SSION ' -