Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-09-69· .~:'.; MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING .;:.~ TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 9, 1969 TO GE OF SIANCE CALL )VAL INUTES £C £NGS The meeting was called to order at 7231 P.M., by Chairman Halus. Led by Mr. Oster. Present: Commissioners: Mr.. Oster, Mrs. Ludwig, Mr. Halus, Mr. Mahoney, Mr. Webster, Mr. Larnard Absent: Commissioner: Mr. Sharp. 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. Ma~oney~ sgconded by Mr. Oster~ that the ~inutes of May 26, 1969, be approved as submitted· Carried· AMENDMENT TO SIGN ORDIN~NCE'~ ORDINANCE NO. 305 - Continued from May 12, 1969 Proposed amendments' to the Sign Ordinance. M_r. Supinger stated that a workshop meeting was held May 21st with the Chamber of Commerce and othe~ interested parties to review the proposed ordinance and that Draft VI is the result of that meeting, lie stated that there were two corrections to be made at the.prgsent time; on page 16 - Section 4, sub- section "c", line 2, the words ."or (if permitted to be illum- inated).'' should be omitted. SecOnd correction is on page "A" of Illustrations in the back of the ordinance, in reference tO the roof line relative to canopies is also eliminated. Mr. Halus recommended that the second sentence on page 1 of the last paragraph be deleted regarding Development Preview, feel- ing that the statement is not consistent with the recommenda- tions of the Planning Commission, in that it did not include "single family residences", as had been their wishes when the Development Preview Committee Ordinance was recommended to the City Council for adoption. Chairman Halus opened the p~blic portion of the hearing at ~':35 P~M. Mr. Nick Barletta 105 South Prospect, Tustin, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated that they have no official objection to make regarding the p~oposed ordinance and feels that it is a great improvemen~ over the one now in force. He complimented the people involved on their cooperation and did ask that in six months or after a certin length of time, it be reviewed again in parts that the Chamber is concerned with. Mr. Barletta stated that it was his own personal opinion that more time should have been allowed, but he was not speaking on behalf of the Chamber regarding this disapproval relative to the Development Preview. portion of the ordinance. Mr. Mahone~ asked Mr. Barletta to point out the sections that he wished to be reviewed at a later date. Mr. Oster suggested that a letter or other form of correspondence be submitted to the Plannin~ Department from the Chamber of Com- merce specifically calling out the concerned areas to be reviewed at a later date so this could be implemented into.the Minutes. PC Minutes - June 9, 1969 Mr. Barletta stated that a letter has been submitted, but would briefly outline the problem areas. 1. ~age 1 - Development Preview - The Chamber has no ob- jection but he felt personally, that this area needed more time. 2. Page 4 - Frontage - As Basis For Maximum ~ign Area - }Ie felt that there was an area for clarification rather than a disagreement of this portion. His concern was relative to what comparable is being used for the square footage of sign per lineal foot of street frontage as opposed to the street frontage on one side and where in the case of a corner, using it for both sides. He asked what these numbers meant in comparison to other cities. 3. Page 14 - Section ~ - Non-conformin9 Existing Signs - He stated that the Chamber would prefer to see it as it was originally drafted in Draft V. 4. Page 15 - Section 2 - Directional Signs - Subsection f. Mr. Barletta stated that he did not know where or when the present proposed change in Draft VI was originated and sug- gested that this be another item to keep in mind at the time of a future review. 5. ~age 19 - Allowed Signs in Commercial & Planned Industrial Districts - He stated that the Chamber would supply the Commission and Planning Department with a copy of their comments regarding this portion at a later date. 6. ~age 20 - Allowed Signs in Commercial & Planned Industrial District - Section 34.03 - Subsection (b) The Chamber of Commerce's recommendation was that Ground Signs should be changed to free standing and increase maximum size to two (2) square feet per lineal foot of the building frontage; if there is no street frontage then increase to four (4) square feet per lineal foot, the frontage abutting the street. Height increased to 50 f6.,'maximum., tie urged the rewriting of this section in accordance with the new definitions. ~ag~ 23 - Allowed Signs in Professional ~i~icts Subsection (d) Areas of concern are: (a) Building Directory Wall Signs (b) h-uilding Name Wall_ Sign (These items were corrected 'in Draft VI.) Mr. Edward Cronin, 12695 Barrett Lane, Tustin, representing the Santa Ana, Tustin, Orange, Board of Realtors, concurred with Mr. Barletta, urging that after a certain period of time, the Sign Ordinance be reviewed again. He felt that this would allow changes to be made, in the event the present ordinance is too liberal or too restrictive, causing a detrimental effect by certain clauses or standards in the outlined sections presented by Mr. Barletta. Mr. Cronin concluded by commending the City and other parties involved for their dexterity, patience and cooper- ation in this matter. There being no further comments ~rom the audience, Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 7:50 P.M. It was moved by Mr. Ostert seconded b~ Mr. Mahoney. t that Reso- lution No. 1087 be adopted, recommending to City Council the ~doption of the pro.posed S~99 Ordinance, Dr~f~ V~-, ~ith-the ~ol!~Wi.ng c~a.nges~ Pa_ge 16 - Section 4 - Subsection "c" - The words "or ~i-~ permit'ted"~ b-6 ~l~m-i,-at~d.)'" Omitted, Illustration #A" (in ba~k of ordinan~e) ~e~&~$~ ~ee6 lines be changed. ~ .~nute~ - June 9, 1969 3. The con~ents of the Chamber of Commerce and their representatives shall be forwarded with'~ recom- mendation to the City Council .as part of the minutes. Mr. Webster stated that he felt it is incumbent on this body to not only be aware of the letter of the ordinance as it is drafted, but felt that individually, as a body, they should mak~ son~ attempt to go out and view for themselves, what the impact of this is on the community. He stated that it is one thing to look at a miniscule version of what the sign is going to be . represented as in life and another thing to see the same sign on the site. He felt that in some cases it is much less than anticipated and in othe~ cases it is horrendously larger than indicated. He recommended that the Planning Commission, as a body, avail itself of the necessary site inspections of signs that do conform or do not Conform so they will know what they are looking at when they see it in writing. Chairman Halus expressed appreciation to the Chamber of Commerce for their cooperation, perseverance and many man-hours contri- buted for this particular study. Mr. Supinger asked Mr. Oster if it was his intent to revise the proposed draft to comply with M~. Halus's recommendation on Page'. 1, as stated earlier regarding the Deuelopment Preview or to delete the second sentence as suggested by Mr. Halus. Mr. Oster amended the motion so that Section 3, Permits Required ~s finally drafted Should concur with the Cit~ Council's action. The Second of the motion concurred. Mr. Halus commented that it was the intent of his suggestion that the reference that was not consistent with the Development Preview Ordinance, adopted'at the last meeting, be deleted, keeping a consistency of the Sign Ordinance and the Development Preview Ordinance. Chairman Halus r~quested of the staff, that once this proposed change is adopted and bec~mss law, he would like to charge the staff with keeping a record o~ log of variances that are set for public hearing by the Planning Commission, dealing with the Sign Ordinance and they be classified as to type; where there is a problem of size, height, etc. so that at some period in time, six or eight months, if they wish to evaluate the situ- ation with the Sign Ordinance, the record would be readily available rather than have to research all files. He felt that this would help the Commission to be more aware of the nature of the problems. The above motion carried 6-0. (one member absent - Mr. Sharp) 2. PZ-69-118 - SOMMERVILLE-CONZELMAN COMPANY For prezoning'of a 5.11 acre parcel to the R-3 (1800) (Multiple Family Residential - 1800 sq. ft. of lot area per dwelling unit) District. Location: S~t~ fron'ts approximately 665 ft. on the southeast side of Utt Drive and 335 ft. on the northeast side of Mitchell Avenue. Mr. Supin~r presented the staff report stating that this property ~s part of the Red Hill Avenue - Mitchell Avenue North Annexation which will become effective September 1, 1969. He stated that the General Plan designates ~%is property for High Density Residential (12 d.u./acre.) Mr. Supinge_r suggested that a good solution would be R-2 along Utt Drive and R-3(1800)°on the remainder of the subject parcel. It was recommended that PZ-69-118 be approved as shown on the submitted plot plan and~subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer. " C Minutes - June 9, 15.69 Mr. Oster called attention to the Orange County Planning Department's letter, and Mr. Supinge~ explained that they are in accord with the Staff Report suggestions. Chairman IIalus opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:02 P.M. Mr. Bob McClure, 14121 Utt Drive, Tustin, presented a petition ~i~h' approximately 49 names opposing subject application. The reasons for opposition are as follows~ R-3 zoning is of higher density thant the. Tustin Area General Plan. R-3 zoning would increase the flow of traffice to pro- portions which would endanger the many children now living in the block and would present safety hazards to the many children that a~-~-c~,~ ~.-swick School at the foot of Utt. 3. Any on-street parking created by multiple family dwellings would be most undesireable to neighborhood residents. 4. High density dwellings would tend to downgrade the value of our'homes. The increased level of noise, already at a relatively high level due to the proximity of the Santa Ana Free- way, would be undesireable to the entire neighborhood. Mr. McClure,speaking on behalf of the homeowners, urged the Commission to direct further construction on Utt Drive to maintain the conformity already in existence in the entire developed area and prezone the property R-1. (The petition is on file in the Planning Department.) Mr. Bill Sommerville, applicant, gave a brief history of the property, stating.tha~ they do not have any plans to submit at this time but their intent'is .to build single story homes along Mitchell and along Utt Drive to help keep compatibility with the R-1 to the west. Mr. Sommervilte stated that he has an economic interest in the subdivision as well as the pro- posed 5 acre piece of property and would not want to deterio- rate anything in the area. He stated that 2 story apartments would be built back from the street, allowing single story structures to be built along the street frontage. IIe stated that he received the st~ff report earlier in the day and has not had time to study and review the recommenda- tion to see if he liked it or not. He felt that a well develop- ed project could be constructed to aesthetically please and enhance the contiguous properties. He stated that he would rather have the lots cut down to 7200 sq. ft. Mr. Mike Ilammitt, 14092 Utt Drive, concurred with Mr. McClure's statements and stated that he would like to emphasize strongly the location of.th~ Beswick School being right across the street from the proposed apartments and felt that the adjacent streets were too heavily travelled by small children to allow such a project. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:20 P.M. Chairman Halus stated that since this was a double transition type of zoning, he suggested that a Planned Community prezone might be in order where the applicant would have to come in with precise plans and the plans would have the fleRibillty where auggsste~ and allow the t~ansit~on at some appropriate ~evel of multiple to the C-1 district. ~'C ~inu~es - June ~, 1909 .~ Mr. Supi. n~er stated that Planned Community would be appropriate as long as the restrictions placed upon Planned Community are as restrictive as tl~ose for..which the hearing was noticed, tie felt that it would be important to limit the development along Utt Drive to single family or duplex type of development to en- sure that the single family character would be maintained along the area. lie felt that R-2 zoning does have more of a single family character than a multiple family character. He did not feel that Planned Community should be placed on it just to re- view plans prior to approval. Chairman Halus stated that his concern was to establish a ~ehicle that perhaps could satisfy both criteria of the home- owners and Mr. Sommerville. Mr. Mahoney felt that a continuance of subject hearing was in order, to allow time for. the applicant to review and discuss the staff's recommendation with the appropriate parties. Mr. Son~erville felt that R-3 and R-2 zoning together,-would create a problem. He did not know at this time what kind of a project he would be able to establish,, Mr. Oster.asked if this particular property has been before the' County for prezoning in the past 2 years. Mr. Supinger stated that it has not, to his knowledge, but that the annexation has been approved and the property will come i~ to the City as of September 1, 1969, but if the application is denied at would remain R-4. Chairman Halus asked if a stipulation could be made for R-2 to be placed along the south and west edge of the property and R-3 (1800) on the balanoe without specifying the depth of the R-2 zoning. Mr. Webster stated that he was opposed to rezoning on a whim and especially when the applicant hasn't had a chance to review the report recommen~ati6n. He ~e~ that a further .review by the applicant and %he Commission, along with consideration of a Planned Community District with standards more specific and re- strictive than that found in the Rv3 District would be in order, but did not feel that he was prepared to make a motion on the. application this evening. 4 It was moved by Mr. Larnard, seconded by Mrs. Ludwig, that APplication No. PZ-69-118 be continued to July 14, 1969. Motion carried .6-0. (one member absent - Mr. Sharp) ~. V-69-248 - Robert Hall - Fish & Chip Take-out Restaurant To permit: a. A fish and chips take-out food establishment along with commercial 6ffices. Location: b. Reduction of the required off-street park- ing spaces for the above uses. Eighty (80). ft. on the north, side of First St., approximately 90 ft. on the east side of Ilall Circle (proposed) and approximately 600 ft. east of the centerline of Prospect Avenue. Mr. Supplier presented the staff report stating that a take-' out fish and chips food establishment in the C-1 District re- quires a use permit and that a variance was requested for a reduction of required parking because the plans originally submitted did not provide parking which complied with City requirements, although revised plans were submitted and they do provide adequate parking for the proposed uses. My. Supin~Qr called attention to the amount of fish & chips estab'lishe~nts already in the area, feeling that this would create a cutthroat situation similar to the service station s~.~.,, i~ ~]~,~f~ ~,..,;~ ~n~ ~ ~ ~ felt by the staff, that the applicant is trying to put too much business on this small parcel. The result is a design with a less than desirable parking and traffic circulation design. Based up- on the stated opinions, it was recommended that V-69-248 be denied. The Engineering. report called out that the proposed site is Parcel 91 of Parcel Map PM-68-13 and was approved by the Planning Commission September 23, 1968. The City currently holds surety bonds guaranteeing the installation of all street improventents and Mr. Myers, City Engineer, recommended that any approval of the variance is subject to the completion of · the improvements prior to any store or office opening for business. The Commission discussed the improvements stipulated by the Engineering DeparI:ment, the parcel map, contiguous properties, the need or justi[ic~tion for the establishment along with the cutthroat situation .ii .-ay or may not cause. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 8 ~5 P.M. Mr. Bob Hall, 370 West Fourth Street, applicant, gave a brief report regarding the establishment relative to the architec- turally styled structure, parking situation, hours of operation, and the overall plans of the proposed request. Those in opposition were: Mr. H. Burke, H.M.S. Briny Fish & Chips, 436 E. First St. Mr. Jim Bisho. ~, owner_ . 'of Bi~ ~n Fish &' Chips, 610 E. First Street (Larwin Square). They felt that the area was slowly becoming saturated with the. Fish & Chips businesses and could see no rea]. reason for allow- ing another one in the area. Mr. Ioria, 6922 La Coolina Blvd.,' Hollywood, representing McDonald's, owner of propert~'a% First and Prospect, voiced no objection to subject use and felt that it is a good project for the area. There being no further comments from the audieDce, Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 9:00 P.M. Mr. Webster stated that he appreciated the stsff's concern relative to free enterprise and competition, but stated that his objection to servic~ s~ation locations hss nothing to do with economics as far as competition is concerned but relates to the special use building that is created by them and are not taken out or not able to be used readily for other uses. He felt that the proposed project is much less a ~pecial use building than service stations are. He stated that if H. Salt Esquire Fish & Chips business could not succeed then the build- ing could be used for other uses. His feeling on the competi- tion was that he did not recall the Co~nission taking up this question with the second establishment of a Fish & Chips before permitting it and did not feel that he was willing to try and become the economist for the community and decide who was to .be allowed or to decide how many should be permitted. It was moved by Mr. Webster, seconded by Mr. Larnard, that Reso].ution No. 1. That the. adjustment hereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special privilege incon- sistent with the limitations upon other proper- ties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated. PC M~nute~ -:June 9, 1969 As additional'gr~t~n~s;,.the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing shall be included by reference and made a.part of the motion· Condition: Approval of V-69-248 is subject to the completion of the improvements prior to any store or office opening for business. Mr. ~upinger asked Mr. Webster to clarif~ which plan he was approving and Mr. Webster answered that it was the re- vised plan that does not include the reduction of the park- ing spaces. The above motion carried 6-0. (one member absent - Mr. Sharp) ZC-69-196 - PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATED - To permit: Rezoning of a parcel totailing approximately 10 acres from the R-4 (Suburban Residential) District to the R-1 (Single Family Residential) District. Location: Site fronts approximately 660 ft. on the southwest side of Mitchell Avenue, approximately 330 ft. west of the centerline of Browning Avenue. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that Appli- Ca'ti6n V-69-241 (R. K. Elliott on behalf of Parkridge Homes) was granted May 12, 1969 relative t° setback reductions for proposed single family residential development. The deve.loper agreed to the City initiating rezoning to R-1 and the Commis- sion initiated the rezoning. The rezoning was initiated bY the Planning Commission to make the zoning conform to the approved plans and maps for develop- ment of this 10 acre parcel for single family residences. The proposed single family development has 43 lots for a gross density of 4.3 dwelling units/acre. Approval was recommended. ............... Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at · 9:05 P.M. There being no comments from the audience, the hearing was declared closed at 9:06 P.M. It was moved by Mr. Larnard, seconded by Mr. Mahgney, that Resolution No. 1089, be adopted, recon~ending approval to City Council for adoption of an ordinance rezoning subject Property to'the RJ1 lSingle Family Resident~al)'D~s'trict. Above motion carried 6-0. (one member absent - Mr. Sharp) VI. OLD BUSINESS VII -~NEW BUSINESS NONE 1. PARCEL MAP PM-69-20 - SANTA FE LAND IMPROVE~ENT CO. To divide parcel for purposes of sale and future development. Location: West side of Del Amo Avenue, 500 ft. North of Valencia. Mr.__~.ers, City Engineer, submitted a report stating that t~e p~-C-~'l is currently zoned 100-M-20,000 and that curbs and full paving have. been constructed on Del Amo Avenue. The Engineering Department recommended that a minute order be adopted approving, the parcel map subject to conditions. PC Minutes - June 9, 1969 It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded ~by_ Mrs. Ludwi_~ that a ml----~ute 'or, l-er-be adopted a,p..provih~' the parcel map_ subject. to the following: Upon development, an underground electrical service shall be installed from the building to the existing Edison power supply in preparation for a future con- version to an underground utility district. Upon development of the property, the installation of street trees in accordance with the Master Street Tree Plan. Final approval by the City Engineer and recordation of the map. The above motJ. on carried unanimously. Mr. Sharp.) (one member absent - PARCEL MAP PM-69-21 - DIXON W. TUBBS To divide parcel for purpose§ of sale and future development. Locatioh: East side of Tustin Avenue, 200 ft. north of First Street. Mr. Orvil].e Myers, City Engineer, submitted a report stating that curb and full paving have been constructed east of the centerline of Tustin Avenue and, sidewalk has been con- structed on Parcel 1. The Engineering Department recommended adoption of a minute order approving the parcel map subject to construction of full sidewalk on both Parcels 2 and 3, 2 drive approaches on Parcel 3 or ~lose curb openings, planting of a street tree on Parcel 1,'~nd upon ~evelopment, on Parcels 2 and 3 and final approval by the Cits,'Engineer and recordation of the map. It was moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Webster that a minute order be adopted subject to the Engineering Depart- ment's recommendations. The above motion carried unanimously. Mr. Sharp.) (one member absent - 3. PARCEL MAP PM-69-22 - SANTA FE LAND IMPROVE~ZNT CO. To divide parcel for purposes of sale and future develop- ment. Location: South side of Santa Fe Drive, at the west side of Red Hill. Mr. Orville M&ef~, City Engineer, submitted a report stating that the parcel as currently zoned 100-M-20,000. Curbs and full paving have been constructed on Santa Fe Drive and on Red Hill. The Engineering Department recommended adoption of a minute order approving the parcel map subject to conditions. It was move~ ~y Larnard, seconded by Mr. Mahon9y, that a minute order be adopted, approving PM-69-22 subject to the followiq~: Upon development, an underground electrical service shall be installed from %h~ ~mi].~ %~ the e~isting ~dison power supply in preparation fo~ a future ~- version to an underground utility district. PC Minute~ - June 9, 1969 Upon de.velopment, the installation of street trees in accordance with the Master Street Tree Plan. · 3. Final approval by the City Engineer and recordation of the map. The above motion carried unanimously· (one m~mber absent - Mr. Sharp.) NONE 1. MODIFICATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE, NO 157 Chairman Halus asked that the Planning'staff prepare, for consideration of the Planning Commission, modifications of the Zoning Ordinance to set a time limit for zone change applications. Within this time period, if it is not impli- mented, the the zone be reverted to its prior use. Chairman Halus stated that in the past, this sit%ation has developed and felt that in certain instances, it has been detrimental to the City. 2. ABANDONED SERVICE STATIONS.SITES Chairman Halus asked if an ordinance was being prepared relative to abandoned service station sites being returned to their prior use and requested that this be pursued. 3. SIGNS - SECURITY TIRE STORE. Chairman Halus stated that he had noticed a proliferation of paper banners at this location, feeling that it defeated everything that had been strived for in the Sign Ordinance. BILL~OAF, D SIGN - SOUTH SIDE OF FIRST STREET, ~EST OF PROSPEC~ Chairman Halus stated that it se~med to him that this situation was in direct violation of the existing Sign Ordinance. 5. BILLBOARD SIGN - PROPOSED LLOYD'S FURNITURE STORE - located on the south side of Fourth Street. Chairman Halus asked if this item could be pursued, feeling that it certainly did not, aesthetically, add to the community. There were some dicrepancies as to the definition of a bill- board sign regarging this particular sign. 6. OVERSIZED ANTENNAS IN TIlE COMMUNITY Mr. Mahon~, commented on Obnoxious television antennas located ~n re~lde~=--n~ial areas and felt that a closer check should be kept. 7. LETTER OF RESIGNATION BY JAMES SHARP FROM PLANNING COM31ISSION Chairman IIa].us read a letter of resignation submitted by Mr. Sharp, stating that due to other duties, he did not feel that he could render services for the necessary time needed. to be beneficial filling the position as a Commissioner.. PC Minutes - June 9, 1969 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Mr. Webster, seconded by Mrs. Ludwig, that the meeting be adjourned. Carried 4-2. There being n~ further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Halus declared the meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M. ;ECRE/~'ARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION