Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-26-69MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 26, 1969 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M., by Chairman Halus. ~ OF lANCE Led by Mr. Oster. · IALL Present: ~AL JUTES Commissioners: Mr. Oster, Mr. Larnard, Mr. Halus, Mr. Mahoney, Mrs. Ludwig, Mr. Webster. 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 Moved by Mr. Larnard, seconded by Mr. Webster, that the minutes of May 12, 1969, be approved as submitted. Carried 6-0. 1. AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 157 AND THE SIGN ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 305. (Continued from 5/12/69). To provide for the establishment of a Development Pre- view Committee. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report, stating that the latest revision of the proposed ordinance, Draft IV, in- cludes review of single famil~ structures and public build- ings and that comment~ have bDen' submitted by the Chamber of Commerce relative to Sections '5.240, 5.250, 5.260 and 5.270. Mr. Supinger stated that, in his opinion, the members of the committee should have a demonstrated knowledge in the visual arts, regardless of their' affiliation. Relative to "Scope of Jurisdiction" - he did not feel that single family dwellings should be reviewed by the committee, Section 5.260 - he did not agree with the. Chamber's comments of de- leting the words "and colors" in the ordinance, feeling that the colors are an intregal part of the design of the building. Section 5.270, "Application and Action" - he concurred with the Chamber that preliminary drawings be stated rather than the term plans. The'Commissioners discussed certain aspects of the ordinance relative to the appointment of the members, background and knowledge in certain fields, compensation for members, scope of jurisdiction s~ch as'single family residences and struc- tures, conditions of aRproval and the application and action on such matters. In answer to Mr. Mahoney's question, Mr. Supinger clarified the difference between Building & Real Estate Industry and persons with demonstrated knowledge in the visual arts as a situation where design concepts would not be as easily under- stood by the Builders & Real Estate Industry as they would be by someone in the architectural field, although this does not preclude the Bui14ers and Realtors from being a r~liable source an~ help to the Those speaking from the audience were Mr. Fred Waitman, Manager of the Chamber of Con~erce, Mr. Bob Hall, Realtor, 370 West Fourth Street, Tustin, and Mr. Gared Smith, architect, 2043 Westcliff Drive, Newport Beach. Mr. Waitman read a letter from Mr. Barletta requesting a contin- uance of the hearing. He explained the Chamber of Commerce's comments on the sections that were p~esented to the Commission. Section 5.240 - It was the feeling of the Chamber that a person from the Building Industry would have some concern and knowledge of the.costs of materials and a person from the Real Estate In- dustry would have a knowledge .of the economics of a particular area. This was explained as an attempt to keep a balance of the Committee. Section 5.250 - Mr. Waitman stated that the reason for review of single family structures was "what is fair for one is fair for all." Section 5.260 - The words "and colors" in a preliminary drawing would be too early to decide in this type of a review. Section 5.270 - It was felt that the appeal should be made directly to the Council instead of the Planning Commission and then to the Council to eliminate loss of time'and delay. The Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors concurred with the re-. port that the .Blue Ribbon Committee submitted to the Commission. Mr. Hall felt that there was an advantage to creating this com- mittee, which is sort of a non-codified government control, but also stated that the make-up of the committee could create some disadvantages in that a builder does not know exactly where he 'stands until a decision is made by the committee, and if the com- mittee is composed of too much city-type control where there are certain types of trade-offs of materials and standards it could destroy the atmosphere for a good city development on the part of the building industry. Mr. Smith stated that it appeared in the proposed draft that there was more concern over aesthetics than economics and felt that the economics should be 6onSidered add that the overall plans should be taken into consideration of a Certain area and not just a particular use. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:00 P.M. The Commission discussed aspects of requiring a time limit to applications after the Committee's review and approval. If ~heir project was delayed or not carried out for some reason within a certain length of time, that they would have to sub- mit a new application. Chairman Halus recommended such an action to be taken under consideration in approving the proposed ordi- nance. Mr. Oster stated that it was his understanding that the need for a Development Preview Committee was due to developers being con- fronted with a situation after having started a project and find- ing out that architecturally or City ordinances were defeating their preliminary plans which was causing an economic burden and other problems that could be solved by a review of this type and felt that it may prove beneficial, both to the city and the builder. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Halus, that Resolution No. 1084 be adopted, recommending to City Council the adoption pf the Development Preview Committee Ordinance as follows: Sections 5.230 and 5.260 as stated in Draft IV, dated 5/22/69. Section 5.270 from the Chamber of Commerce recommendation. Al?.pl..i_c_9_tli_(_~.n__ an(] A~tion - Applications fo~ Development Prcview shall be made on forni~' provided by the Planning Department, togekher with two (2) sets of [3reliminary_ drawings, at least one (1) day prior to the day of the meeting at which said plans are to be considered. The decision of the Development Preview Committee shall be final unless appealed in writing stating the reasons for said appeal, to the City Council within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the action taken by the com~itte0e. Section 40.50 - Development Preview - as stated in Draft IV. Section 5.240 Ap~in~ment of D~velopment Previe~Committee The City Council shall appoint a Development Preview Committee which shall consist of five (5) members, of whom two (2) shall be either licensed architects or building designers, one (1) shall be a landscape architect and two (2) whenever possible, · shall include one member reconm~ended by the Chamber of Commerce who shall be in Real Estate and Building Industries - both members wherever possible, having had experience in the visual arts. Alternate members of similar qualifications shall be appointed to serve in the absence of regular members. Committee members shall be appointed for two (2) year staggered terms. Of the first members appointed, two (2) members shall be appointe~ for a one (1) year term and three (3) members shall be appointed for a two (2) year term. Thereafter each member shall be appointed for a two (2) year term. Section 5.250 Scope of Jurisdiction - basically 'the wording would be altered to include "single family residential" in accordance with the Chamber of Commerce recommendation. "Prior to the issuance of a building permit for single family residential dwellings, multiple family, commercial, industrial structure, or public buildinss ....... " The recommendations of the Development Preview Committee as approved will car~y n~ longer than eighteen (18) months, at the end of which time, if the'building (or buildings) is (are) not completed or under construction, applicant must apply for a new permit and repeat the review process. Discussion of the appointmemt of the committee was continued and Mr. Oster explained that the two (2) member that were to be appointed by the City Council, that are not architects or professional business men, although persons from the building industry or real estate industry might be a guideline for the Council to go by, but stated that the Council could select whomever they felt would be the most beneficial to the committee Mr. Oster also clarified Section 5.260 as to the term "colors" being left in the proposed ordinance The above motion carried 5-1. Mr. Sharp - absent. Mrs. Ludwig voted "No". Mrs.·Ludwig explaiDed that in Section 5.240, she felt strongly that a lay person should be included in the Committee, whether it be in the form of a Con~issioner, Councilman or resident with no particular knowledge of the visual arts, building code, etc., but someone of artistic feel to balance the control and eliminate an all professional committee. It was moved b~ Mr. Webster, seconded b~ Mr. Larnard that the ~o~~- be informed ~%~' it is the C6nsi~eration o--~' ~K~ Plan- nJ.n~ CommiskJ.on, as a.~licy g~-~e~-, that compensation be ~rovided for members of the Developmeg~ Preview Con~ittee. That for the reason of balancing the approach to the review of mll planned d~velopments in this community, that it seems strated ability and knowledge in the building industry and/or real estate profession. The abe.ye' mo~J on qar~e__d._.~.7.1. Absent: Sharp. Mrs. Ludwig voted "No". PC Minutes - May 26, 1969 A five (5) minute recess was declared by Chairman Halus. 2. UP-69-301 ~RANCIS D. LOW N~NG ON BEHALF OF COLLINS'S - FOOD IN'I'ERNATIONAL, INC. To permit the use of an existing non-conforming structure for a Chinese take-out food establishment. Location: complex fr6nts 100 feet on the south side of First Street and is the site of existing building #418 east First Street. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that the subject building has been vacant since Kentucky Fried Chicken moved to its new building earlier this year. He stated that the take-out restaurant would be a short term usage and a relatively quick turnover relative to parking. Mr. Supinger recommended conditional .~pproval. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:45 P.M. Mr. Edward Laird, 900 North Broadway, Santa Ana, Attorney representing the applicant, stated that they would be willing to conform to the staff's conditions stipulated in the report and gave a brief description of the proposed use. He stated the hours that the business would be operating, discussed the parking contiguous to the other businesses in the complex and gave a brief background of the owner, Mr. Low Nang. There being no other comments from the audience, Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at ~:48 P.M. The Commissioners discussed ~iefly, the parking and the non- conforming use. It was moved by Mr. Larnard, seconded by Mr. Webster, that Resolution No. 1085 be adopted ap~rovin~ UP-'69-301 for the followin~ reasons: The Commission finds that 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 property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. As additiQnal grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by refer- ence and made ~ part of the motion. Conditions of approval: That adequate fire protection (extinguishers) be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. That an automatic fire extinguishing system be installed in the kitchen vent hood and duct. The above motion carried 6-0. Absent: Mr. Sharp'. PC Minu~c-~ - ~lay 2u, i9u9 3. V-69-247 TUSTIN CARl?ETS - To permit: a.) A roof sign, 10' X 15', 150 sq. ft. each side, 300 sq. ft. total area and 16 ft. above the parapet. b.) Total sign ~rea on the site exceeding the 300 sq.ft, permitted by the ordinance. Location: 610 West First Street Mr. Supinger presented the staff report, stating that the proposed sign would project from the front of the building (8) eight feet into the existing right-of-way of First Street. In order to comply with the previously granted Use Permit, a setback of 50 feet is re- quired from the centerline of First Street to any sign and based upon the 50 ft. setback, the proposed sign would project 18 feet into the ultimate right-of-way. He also stated..that the proposed sign, in addition to the two (2) wall signs would result in total sign area of 540 sq. ft. The Sign Ordinance permits total sign area on the site of 300 sq. ft. for the 150 ft. property. Mr. Supinger recommended denial. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:55 P.M. Mr. J. Engoren, representing Advance Neon Sign Company and Tustin Carpets, 960 North Broadway, Los Angeles, stated that they desper- ately need identification and would be willing to move the sign back, although they would like to have the sign project from the face of the building as far as the Sign Ordinance allows. He stated that they would compromise. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Halus closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:07 P. M. The Commission discussed tke size of the signs, the location, set- backs, justification of the application and the best source of identification. Mr. SuRiqger explained that one solution would be to permit a roof sign at a certain height above the roof and then they would only be required to meet the 300 sq. ft. requirements and that would be all that is necessary. It was moved b~_~2 Mahoney, seconded ~y Mr. Webster, that Resolution No. 1086 be adopted, approving Application No. V-69-247 to permit: One (1) roof sign 10' X 15', 150 sq. ft. each side, total area not to exceed 300 sq. ft. The sign shall not pro- ject further into the public right-of-way than two feet back from the face of the curb. The sign shall not ex- tend more than 16' above the top of the parapet. e The two wall signs of 120 sq. ft. each side be removed from the east' and west walls. The motion carried 6-0. Absent: Mr. Sharp. NONE 1. APPROVAL OF PArdfING FOR PROPOSED STENOTYPE SCHOOL Location: 436 West Sixth Street. Mr. Su~in9gr. presented the staff report stating that the City Attorney has ruled that this use is permitted in the Industrial District, but that the Planning Conm%ission must approve the park- ing layout and location. PC ~inutus - ~ay 26, Mr. Tom ]'~o~y_]..e~, 12631 Kenwood Lane, Tustj.n, representing Foster Art Service, stated that Smith Printers and Foster Art Services are in no way connected other than by property lines, lie stated that Smith Printers have a parking problem but Foster Art Service has adequate space for the parking needs of the s. tenotype school. ~rs. ~etsy J. Adams, 12741 Newport, Tustin, applicant, stated that the students will be required to park in areas designated by the director or teacher of the school, which is herself and she will not allow on-street parking which will eliminate traffic congestion. Mrs. Adams stated that because of the nature of this technical training, she will keep the classes small with a student body of not more than 10 or 15 students. She stated that this will only require no more than 15 to 17 parking spaces and the present area provides 25 spaces. .. ~ was moved, by Mr. Oster~ seconded by Mrs. Ludwig, that a minute order be adopted approving the,parking layout proposed ~y the stenotype school. Mr. Webster voiced concern relative to this type of use being permitted ~n an industrial district. He felt that if this proposed use is permitted.to a great degree, the parking re- quirements that were set for.industrial zoning would diminish in its entirety and felt that problems would develop immedi- ately. The Commissioners discussed the hours of operation, Sixth Street parking, business flow from Smith Printers and the existing parking spaces for the Foster Arts Service. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Larna.rd. Noes: 'Ludwig, Halus, WebSter. Absent: Sharp. Abstained:' Mahoney. Motion failed 3-2. 2. TENTATIVE TRACT 6617 - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION.- TUSTIN SAVINGS & LOAN Location: Between First Street and Irvine Blvd. (Fourth Street) west of Holt Avenue. Mr. Orville Myers, City Engineer, submitted a report to the con~isk'ioh stating that subject tract was approved by the Planning Commission on June 24, 1968. Section 18-14 of the Tustin City Code provides that a Final Map must be filed with- in one year unless a written request for extension is made by .the subdivider and approved by the Council and Planning Com- mission. Mr. Myers recommended .that a minute order be adopted recom- mending to the City Council that an extension of time for filing a final map on-Tentative Tract 6617 be granted to June 24, 1970 subject to conditions of approval as contained in the original approval. After a brief discussion of subject request, It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Webster that a minute order be adopted recommendin_q to the City. Council that an extension of time for filing a final map on Tentative Tract 6617 be ~ranted to June 24, 1970, subject to the followin~ conditio'ns: Granting of 60 foot width for street right-of-way with 40 foot curb'to curb distance and 10 foot park- ways on those portions of interior streets within the tract. PC Minutes - May 26, ].969 2. Provide adequate street lighting on First Strcet, Fourth Street and interior tract streets and annex entire property to Tustin Lighting District. 3. All public improvements, sewers, drainage facilities and appurtenances shall be con- structed to City standards and approved by the City Engineer. Ail public utilities shall be installed under- ground in conformance with accepted standards of utility companies. 5. Street trees shall be provided and planted in accordance with City ordinances. 6. Provide adequate drainage facilities to serve the tract at the south end of the interior street and connect to the existing First Street storm drain. ~' Those segments of existing irrigation lines c~nflicting with or endangered by any pro- posed construction shall be removed and re- located or collapsed and backfilled, or other- wise made to conform to the specifications of the City of Tustin Building Code or to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the irrigation line owner. Se Grant in fee, title to Lot A to the City of Tustin. Minimum street grades within the Tract must be review'ed'~'ith and ~pproved by the City Engineer. 10. Include the balance of the property contain- ing the existing building as a lot within the Tract. PARKING LAYOUT - PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING - SANTA FE INDUSTRIAL PARK Location: At the southwest corner of Santa Fe Drive and Red Hill Avenue. (Santa Fe Drive intersects Red Hill be- tween Edinger and Valencia.) Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that the proposal is for parking and a loading dock to serve a 19,740 sq. ft. industrial building to be located adjacent to Red IIill Avenue. He stated that although the proposed amount of parkiDg complies with the district regulations, it is suggested that th~ plan not be approved with the parking and loading facilities adjacent to Red Hill based upon it being a major ~ntrance to the City and that eight (8) feet of landscaping, within the Red IIill Avenue right- of-way, will not be adequate to screen the' parkinq and loading areas. He did suggest that a more compatible lo- cation would be at the east or north side of thc building, fronting the most desirable part of the building on Red lIill. Mr. Selkin stated that landscaping would be provided in the front of the building to enhance the area and take away from the row of car~ that would be parked in that area, to give ~ ~0~0 ~m~l~ ~1~ ~o be ~mn from the stre~t~ lie e~- plained that the loading ~ock would be recessed and did not see any real problem with the beautification of the project. PC Minutes - May 26, 1969 Mr. Richard Carlson, President of Golden West Plastics, proposed users of the building, was in attendance. The Commission discussed the setback, parking area location, turn-around radius, landscaping, loading docks, the length of time the tr~cks would be loading, reorientati0n of the doors and the aesthetics of the project. Mr. Oster felt that if they moved the parking area in the back of the building,.it would then possibly cause another problem - people parking on the street or as close to the building as possible without using the parkihg lot. He felt that it did meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordi- nance and the Architectural Committee could set the land- scaping standards to make the project an attractive part of the plan. It was moved by Mr. Oster~. seconded by Mr. Larnard, that th~roposed parking layout be approved in accordance with t~e ~'g Ordinance and that the Architectural Committee work with the applicant relative to the landscaping. The Commission discussed the screening of the loading dock, block walls, properties contiguous to the project and the future uses of certain parcels. Mr. Oster moved the previous question, which was seconded by Mr. Larnard. Carried unanimously The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Larnard, Oster. Noes: Webster, Ludwig, Halus. tied 3-3. Mahoney, Motion Mr. Rourke, City Attorney, stated that a tie vote in this situation, with one member absent, would result in the motion failing, but that the applicant could continue his request until there was a full quorum, of 7 members present. Mr. Selkin stated that his tenant could not afford to wait due to finances and a tre~aendous amount of equipment having already been ordered. Chairman Halus declared a five (5) minute recess to allow the applicant to confer with the other parties involved in this project. Mr. Selkin stated that in view of the time limits they are involved with, after having discussed with his client, they would like to flip the entire plan and put the building at the setback line and the parking and the dock at the west side of the building and if this is the desire of the Com- mission, they would proceed with their parcel map and plans. He also co~nented that the landscaping could be worked out with the Architectural Co~ittee. It was moved by Mr. Webster, seconded by Mrs. Ludwig, that the build_in$ be flip~ped and the landsqaped area be from Red Hill Avenue to the building, and the p~rk.in~ and. logdin~ dock be located on the far side of the building, opposite of Red Hill Avenue. Discussion continued relative to requirements. Mr. Larnard moved the .previous.._question, which was seconded by Mr. Webster. CarrJ.ed unanimously. The above motion carrJ, ed 6-0. Absent: Mr. Sharp. NONE PC ~,iinutcs - ~.:ay 26, .%969 ADJOUF~gMENT It was moved by blr. Larnard, seconded, by_ blr. Oster that tile lneetJ, l.%(~ be adjourned. Carried unanimously_i There being no further business before the Commission, Chairman Halus declared the meeting adjdurned at 10:00 P.M. CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEC~TARY OF THE PLANNING CO~'SMISSION