Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-24-69CALL TO 0 RDE R II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1969 The meeting was called to order at .7:36 P.M. by Chairman Halu~ L__e~ by Mrs. Ludwig Present: Commissioners: Oster, Ludwig, Halus, Sharp, Larnard, Mahoney, Webster Absent: Commissioner: None 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. Mahone~, seconded by Mr. Larnard, that the~ minutes of Februar3 10, 1969, be approved as corrected. Carried unanimously° It was moved by Mr. Mahone~, seconded by Mr. Larnard that the minutes of Febr__u_a_r.y 24, 1969, be approved as submitted. Carried unanimously_~ CORRECTION OF PLANNING COmmISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 10, 1969. Mr. Oster asked that hi~ reason for abstaining on hearings No. 1 and 2, (UP-69-286 - Diversified Shopping Centers, Inc)' and (V-69-234 - Eugene F. &Rita Tutt) be incorporated in the minutes of March 10, 1969. Reason being that he was absent .for the 'Febzuary 24th meeting and the above hearings were presented at that tim~ and then continued to the March 10th meeting. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Sharp that the minutes of March 10, 1969 be approved as corrected. Carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. V-69-240 - ALPIIA BETA-ACME MARKETS INC. To permit two (2) free standing signs identifying a service station which is proposed to be a part of a 5.7 acre commercial complex. Location: Property is located at the southwest corner at the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and Walnut Avenue and fronts approximately 620' on the north- west side of Red Hill Avenue and 400' on the south- west.side of Walnut Avenue. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report recommending two conditions: 1. That the sign, footing and poles be designed in such a manner as to avoid conflict with the proposed storm drain to be constructed in the immediate area. 2. That final design elevations and locations be §ubject to the approval of the City Engineer. Tho proposed signs that have b~n ~mquested are to have a 'height of 2]' ' ,,,~'. r~. or n .... ft. each s£~e e~d a total area of 96 sq. it. ¢,: ¢ , '1 Chairman Ha]us opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:40 P.M. Those in opposition were represented by a letter submitted to the Planning Commission, written by Mr. Thomas Woodruff, President of Tustin Meadows Homeowners Association, 14552 Emerywood Rd, on behali of the Tustin Meadows Homeowners. The letter ~tated that to allow two free-standing signs for the Standard Oil Service Station is strongly opposed by the Tustin Homeowners Association, although they would not oppose one (1) pole sign provided it measures no more than 150 sq. °ft~ of surface area with a height somewhat less than 21 feet. This letter is on file in the Planning De'partment. Mr. Gary Pavan, Secretary of the Tustin Homeowners Association residing at 14521 Westfall, Tustin, verbally opposed the re- quest, asking what reason was a sign needed other than one on the building identifying the Standard Oil Station. Mr. John Ginos, 3401 East Chapman, Orange, representative, described the structure and the design and stated th.at he would answer questions if the Commission so desired. There being no further comments or discussion from the audi- ence, Chairman Halus.declared the public portion of the hear- ing closed at 7:44 P.M. The Commission discussed the signs relative to size, design, the traffic flow along Red Hill and Walnut Avenue, the sur- rounding properties and the location' of residential sections. Chairman Halus and Mr. Shar_~ voiced disapproval of subject .request for the following reasons: 1. An excessive amount of signs cause clutter. 2. Size, height and dimensions exceed the Sign Ordiqance requirements. 3. Two (2) signs are.excessive. It was moved by Mr. Webster, seconded by Mr. Mahoney that Resolution No. 1062 be adopted, conditionally approving Application No. V-69"240 for the followin9 reasons: 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. e That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance will deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. 3. .That the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by reference and made a part of the motion. Condit.ions of approval:. That the sign footing and poles be designed in such a manner as to avoid conflict with the proposed storm drain to be constructed in the immediate area. That final design elevations and locations be subject. to the approval of the City Engineer. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Mahoney, Larnard, Webster, Ludwig, Oster. Noes: Halus, Sharp. Carried 5-2. I'C Minutes - March 24, 196!) 2. V-69--239 - ,SACK POI'Il.iRS ZAI1M - To permit: ae be A swimming pool on the front one-half (%) of the lot and less than 50' from the front property line with filter and ]]eating systems less than 30' from an adjacent dwelling not on the subject parcel. A 6' wall within the fron~ setback area surrounding the proposed pool. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that the · applica~{s justification relates to enhancing the beauty of his property and also to elimi'nate any problems which might be caused by existing eucalyptus trees along the rear or southerly property line which would result in de- bris falling into any pool constructed in the backyard area. Mr. Suping~ recommended denial, feeling that a hardship was not shown by the applicant. Chairman Ha!us opened the public pQrtion of the hearing at 8:10 P.M. Mr. Jack Zahm, applicant,' residing at 17592 Westbury Lane, described the layout of the property and stated that because of the trees in the backyard shading his property, it made swimming uncomfortably cool, plus the extra maintenance care from falling leaves and debris caused by the trees. He men- tioned that the adjacent neighbors would not be able to see any activities from their homes regarding the pool and its location. Mr. David E. Ilonadle, 17612 Westbury Lane, presented a petition to the Co]~nission, consisting of 28 names by ad- joining neighbors opposing subject application for the following reasons: 1. It is not in conformity with good planning. A wall on the front of the property might result in an unattractive feature, causing the value of surrounding property to lessen. There is not sufficient justification shown for the granting of a variance. The petition is on file in the Planning Department. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:25 P.M. The Commissioners discussed the trees in question, restric- tions or covenants on the property, noise factors, distance involved from adjacent property owners and regulations of such.a request. Commissioner Oster'stated that all other requests relating to swimming pools have shown a definite hardship due to the layout of the property and called attention to any corre- spondence that has been submitted opposing such a request, stating that this is the first application that has had any opposition voiced in regard to approving a swimming pool. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Larnard, that ApplicatiOn No. V-69-239 be denied for the followin9 reasons: That the adjustment applied for will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the property is situated. PC Minutes - March 2~., ].969 That special circumstances applicab].e to the sub- ject property, including size, shape, topography, locatJ, on or surroundings, do not, because of the strict application of the zoning ordinance, deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other prope~.ties in the vicinity and. under identical zone classification. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by reference and made a part of the motion. The above motion carried 7-0. 3. V-69-237 - M. H. DEVINE ON BEtIALF OF HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY - First & Tustin Avenue To permit replacement of one (1) free-standing sign and two (2) roof signs, all three of which are exist- ing and non-conforming, as follows: Height: 28'2", area per side 93 sq. ft., total area 186 sq. ft., located within the r~quired setback area and revolving. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating that a building permit was recently refused because the proposed sign would not comply with the provisions of the'ordinance "and involved removal of existihg non-conforming signs and replacement with a non-conforming sign. He recommended conditional approval as follows: 1 That the proposed sign have a maximum height of 23' be stationary, and have a maximum total area of 186 sq. ft~ .- 2. That two street trees ~e installed on the Tustin Avenue frontage as per the Master Street Tree Plan. Chairman Ilalus opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:30 P.M. Those in favor of subject application, attending the meeting were Mr. M. H. Devine, applicant on behalf of Humble Oil, 923 E. Arlee Place, Anaheim and Mr. Wayne A. Goodell, Humble Oil Company representative, described the signs, explained the proposed locations and asked that the Commission give careful consideration to their application. There being no further discussion from the audience, Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:37 P.M. Commissioner Oster stated that in prior occasions, signs have been t'raded for signs that~ are being taken down and felt that this should be encouraged to eliminate "clutter" of signs. It was moved bX Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Mahpn~y, that Resolution No. 1063, be adopted conditionally approving Application No. V-69-237 for the followin~ reasons: That the adjustment hereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special privilege incon- sistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicini'ty and district in which the subject property is situated. PC Minutes - March 24, 1969 That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, %opography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance will deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other propertie~ in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. 0 As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence are included by reference and made a part of the motion. · Conditions of approval are: That the proposed sign have a maximum height of 28'2", be stationary, and have a maximum total area of 186 sq. ft. 2. That two (2) street trees be installed on Tustin Avenue frontage as per the Master Street Tree Plan. The above motion was voted by roil call. Ayes: Oster~ Mahoney,'Larnard, webster. Noes: Halus, Ludwig, Sharp Motion carried 4-3. 4. V-69-236 M. H. DEVINE ON BEHALF OF IIUF~LE OIL & REFINING COMPANY - 14982 North Prospect Avenue. To permit the removal of an existing non-conforming free-standing sign and replacement with one (1) free- standing sign with a height of 28'2", 93 sq. ft. per side, total area of 186 sq. ft., located within the required setback area and revolving Mr. Supinger presented the'staff report stating that a ................. building permit for the removal of.the.existing sign and replacement with the subject sign was recently refused because the sign replacing the non-conforming sign would not comply with the Sign Ordinance relative to height, area, location and that the sign was proposed to revolve. ~e recommended conditional approval as follows: 1. That the sign have a m~ximum height of 26'6". 2. That the sign have a maximum area of 186 sq. ft. 3. That the sign be stationary. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:40 P.M. Those in favor of subject application, attending the meeting were Mr. M . H. Devine, applicant on behalf of Humble Oil Company, 923 ~..Arlee Place, Anaheim and Mr. Wayne A. Goodell¢ Humble Oil representative, 500 South Main Street, Orange. Mr. Devine stated that this request is substantially the .same and stated that the canopy signs will be removed. Mr. Goodell stated that the large fin sign at the inter- section corner is now supported on 2 steel poles extending at some unusual angle and will be cut off at the ground, removed and a new pole (straight pole) will be used. He also stated that the leading edge of the canopy is now painted red and will be repainted white. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman d~clared the public portion of %he hearing closed at lm,M , ; PC Minutes - March 24, '1969 it Qas movo3~b_~. Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Webster~ that Resolution No. 1064 be a~o_gpted, conditionall~ approving. A}?plication No. V-69-236 for the follqwin~ reasons: That the adjustment hereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special privilege incon- sistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated. That because of special circumstances applicable 'to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance will deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties' in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. As additional grounds, th~ minutes and evidence are included by referencg, and made a part of the motion. Conditions of approval are: 1. That the sign have a maximum height of 28'2". 2. That the sign have a maximum area of 186 sq. ft. 3. That the sign be stationary. 4. That the signs on the canopies be removed. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Sharp, Mahoney, Halus, Larnard, Webster. Noes: Oster, Ludwig. Carried 6-1. 5. V-69-238 M. H. DEVINE ON BEHALF OF HU~L~ OIL & REFINING CpMPANY - Walnut Ave. & Newport Ave. To permit the replacement of two (2) existing non-conforming free-standing pole signs with one (1) free-standing pole sign with a height of 28'2", an area of 93 sq. ft. per side, a total of 186 sq. ft. total area, within the required set- back and revolving.- Mr. Supin~er presented the staff report stating that a building permit for the construction of subject sign was recently refused because the proposed sign replaced two (2) existing nonconforming signs and does not comply with the ordinance provisions relative to free-standing signs for service stations. He recommended conditional approval as follows: That the sign have a maximum height of 22'6", a maximum area of 186 sq. ft. all sides and be s~ationary. That one 'street tree be installed in the Walnut · Avenue frontage in accordance with the Master Street Tree Plan. Chairman Halus declared the public portion of the hearing open at 8:45 P.M. Mr. Devine and Mr. Goodell again spoke in favor of subject application, stating.that the fin sign that is located on top of the canopy and the pole sign located at the north- westerly corner of the property will be taken down. Chairman Halus decla=ed the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:50 P.M.. PC Minutes - March 24, 1969 Commissioner Oster commented on the "painted tire sale sign" on the window and Mr. Goodell stated that he thought that could be removcd or replaced with a better sign. He also asked who would be responsible for the installation of the one tree required by the Planning Department. Mr. Gill stated that the City would be happy to install the tree but that there would be a fee required. Mr. Goodell agreed with that arrangement. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. Webster, that "Resolution No. 1065 be adopted, conditionally ap~rovin~ Application No. V-69-238 for the followin~ reasons: That the adjustment hereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special privilege incon- sistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated. . .2 · That'because of special, circumstances'applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, ' topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance will deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other "properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing are included by reference and made a part of the motion. Recommended conditions of approval are: That the sign have a maximum height of 28'2", a maximum area of 186 sq. ft. all sides and be · stationary. - That one street tree be installed in the Walnut Avenue frontage in accordance with the Master Street Tree Plan. That all signs on the canopies and above the building line be removed in accordance with the · representation of the Humble Oil representative. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Mahoney, Larnard, Webster, Oster. Noes: Halus, Sharp, Ludwig. Carried 4-3. Chairman Halus expressed the City's appreciation to the applicants for their sign beautification and the removal of some of their signs in helping to eliminate sign clutter. D BUSINESS I. ~ BUSINESS II. ~RESPONDENCE NONE NONE !. COUNTY CASE UV-6184 - FIRST WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY To permit the modification of Condition ~11 in con- nection with the establishment of a 118 unit apart- ment complex in the R4-3800 "Suburban Residential" District. ~ou~hwest side of Mitchell Avenue, approximately 620 ft. southeast of ~ew~t Av~, ~ ~hm ~e east Tustin area. PC Minutes - March 2,'~, ].969 .M_].'_._._.S.?.~i.~j!~_~_e_r~ prescl~ted the staff report stating that the applicant is proposJ, ng to remodel the rear wall of the carport and construct wall extensions which will have a Spanish character inqreasJ, ng the height from 3%' to a maximum of 8'. He felt that this proposal will increase the visual attraction of the area and would be an attrac- tive addition to the project. He ~ecommended approval of subject application. It was moved b~ Mr. Larnard, seconded.b~ Mr. Mahoney that ~ letter be directed to the County voiqin~ no objection .and encouraging, the modification of. condition #11 as ~ro- posed by the applicant. Carried 7-0. [ER NEW FORMAT FOR STAFF REPORTS The Commissioners felt that the new format is better and can be more readily reviewed than the old form and expressed appreciati6n for the shorter and yet concise report. Mr. Gill suggested that clear concise plans be en- couraged as the plans are submitted to the Planning Department regarding applications. He suggested that if the exhibits are not legible that they be refused. He stated that ~is makes a hardship on the Co.hunissioners and if this procedure is acceptable, that it be enforced Chairman Halus concurred. Commissioner Webster expressed concern regarding corre- spondence being submitted after the Commissioner's books have already been prepared and sent out. He felt that it was to6'confusin9 .and did not allow enough time to read and review .the la~e incoming information. He suggested that there be some cutoff time for submittal of any pertinent information regarding the meeting and after that deadline, the staff could read that infor- mation during the hearing for the benefit of the audi- ence as well as the Commissionerg. 2. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE MEETING - (re-scheduled) The Architectural Committe rescheduled their meeting of March 19th to March 20th, 4:45 P.M. 'OURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, It was moved by Mr. Webster, seconded b~ Mrs. Ludwig, that the meetin~ be adjourned. Chairman H~l~s declared the meeting adjourned at 9:05 P.M. CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING/COMMISSI -RI'~ARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION