Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-12-67CALL TO ORD~.K II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HF2%RING$ MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION June 12, 1967 The meeting was called to order at 7:38 P.M., by Chairman Marsters. Present: Commissioners: Brand, Bacon, Halus, Marsters, Ludwig, Sharp, Oster Absent: None Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney James L. Supinger, Planning Director Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary AMENDMENT to tge May ~2~ 1967 Planning Commission Minutes. Mr. Oster requested that the statement made by Mr. Federwipch during the receps~ on Pa~e 4t line..26, t~at he was in favor of Application No. UP-67-232 be stricken from the record. Mr. Oster felt that any comments made during the recess at the hearings should not be included in the minutes. ' ~t was moved bv Mr. ~ster~ seconded by. Mr. Sharp that the Minutes of May.~2~ 1967 be approved as amended. Motion carried 7-0. V-67-187 Melvin McReynolds - UP-67-232 Service Station and Shopping Center (continued from May 22nd Planning Commission Meeting) To permit a wall with a maximum height of four (4) feet in the required setback area along the southwesterly side of Bryan Street between Main and Newport and a reduction of the required number of off-street parking spaces for a proposed shopping center bounded by Newport, Bryan and Main Streets. Mr.~ SupinKer presented the s:aff report, giving a detailed report on parking requirements for the area. The Planning Department opposes the establishment of another service station and the reduction of re- quired parking spaces, but supports the proposal to locate a four (4) ft., wall in the setback area of Bryan Avenue. Mr. Oster asked if it had been determined what the other cities of Orange County are doing with the "mall" concept relative to the gross building area for required parking spaces. Mr. Supinser stated that he had not contacted any of the other de- partments as to specific requirements but commented that to his knowledge, the usual practice is to base it on the gross floor area, however, Costa Mesa may have used some other standard, but he did not know. Chairman Marsters opened the p~blic portion of the hearing on V-67-187 at 7:40 P.M. stating that th~ortion of the ~ublic hearing UP-67-232 on was closed. Mr. Jones, architect, stated that he did check with Cost Mesa in regards to the South Coast Plaza and that they do not require parking for the mall. He stated that his plan has sufficient parking with the exception of the mall. Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 7:50 P.M. It was moved ~y Mr. ~ster,.seconded by Mr._Sharp that at this time the hearinE on V-67-187 be c~ ttinued and considered as a part of and in conjunction with UP-67-232 . The above motion was voted by roll call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Ludwig, Mmrsters, Halus, Bacon, Brand. Motion carried 7-0. -1- PC Minutes - June 12, 1967 la. UP-67-232 - Melvin ~RHynol~%,. Service Station and Shoppin~ Ceqter. (This is a closed hearing continued from the May 22nd meeting) To permit the construction of one (1) service station and exclusive shopping center. ~. Supinger stated that a letter from the applicant regarding this matter had been submitted to the Commission just prior to the meeting. }lr. Halus felt that although a letter from the applicant had been given to them, that they had not had an opportunity to study it, but did notice some disturbing factors that were not consistent with the intent of som~ of the conclusions that had been reached at the last meeting. He felt that a little more time should be allowed to con- sider some of the problems. Chairman Marsters felt that the Planning Department should analyze the letter and give their opinion on the matter. Mr. Halus was concerned over the discrepancies that appeared on the revised plot plan and the detailed plot plan of the service station and noticed that there is now a sign that is coming into the plan for the service station for the first time. He felt that there may be several inconsistencies in areas that need to be more clearly defined. Mr. Halus asked the staff to prepare an analysis of the letter and of the various stipulations of the plot plans and criteria that are being considered. It was moved by Mr. Halus,..seconded by Mr. Brand that Application UP-67-232 be postponed to the next re~ular_meetinK pendinK a st~ff ~eport. The Commission felt that they would like some discussion on the matter before continuing the hearing to the next meeting. Mr. Oster felt that if they could have a few questions answered at this meeting, it might eliminate a lot of discussion at a later meeting. The above motion was voted by roll call: Ayes: None. Noes: Oster, Ludwig, Sharp, Marsters, Halus, Bacon, Brand. }~otion denied 7-0. Questions arose from the Commission regarding identification, p~rking requirements, how many pole signs were allowed, could the service station be reversed and why were there discrepencies at this ti~e in the plans. Mr. Schlese~, attorney, stated that the service station would require an additional pole sign. Mr. Jones, architect, commented that they could m~d would not reverse the service station and said it was unfair that they had such a short time to review the staff report before the scheduled meetings and this was causing some of the discrepencies in the plans. Mr. SupinEer stated that he had made it very clear to the applicant and others involved that a meeting should be called to clear up all the questions and problems and at this time had not been contacted by the various personnel involved. He explained that the staff reports were only mailed out on the Friday before the meeting because the staff did not receive all their information in time to get the reports out any earlier. He stated that with the lack of cooperation on this particular application, the staff had too much work on other applications to keep dragging this out. Mr. Oster very strongly expressed dissatisfaction on the part of the applicant and othars involved, by not being more precise and consistent in exactly whet their proposal called for and strongly suggested that they meet with the Planning Staff and Chairman Marsters to solve the problems before returning to have their application reheard. He felt that an injustice has been done to the staff and wanted to stress the amount of time wasted by such a piece-meal type of plan. -2- 'PC Minutes - June 12, 1967 ".' .... ""<~ Mr. Schlegel stated that he was very willing to comply with this request and stated that he would do whatever was necessary to finalize any action with the Staff and Con=nission. }ir. Birnev B. Truitt, 1202 Letty Lane, Tustin Realtor, spoke in ~ehalf. of Col. and Mrs. Robinson and Mr. Griggs, residents in the immediate area, stated that their concern was due to a steam laundry at the Bryan }lain intersection and liquor and beer being served in the proposed restaurant. He stated that personally he was in favor of a C-1 shopping center over some other form of development such as apartment develop- ments and was not against the application. He did not feel that the people he was representing were against it, but were concerned about some of the features mentioned above. Due to a steam laundry or the restaurant being located too close to the residential area, it was not desirable to the residents in their opinion. It was moved by Mr. Halus,.sec.onded by Mr. Brand that Application No. UP-67-232 and UV-67-187 be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting, following a meeting with the. applicant and Planning Staff for review and analysis of the information submitted. Mr. Halus stated that he would rely on the staff to post the next regularly scheduled meeting when they have the information that they feel is appropriate to present to the Cc~m~ission. The above motion was voted by roll call: Ayes: Oster, Ludwig, Sharp, Marsters, Halus, Bacon, Brand. Motion carried 7-0. 2. V-67-184 - Federal Sign and Signal Corporation - Bank of America To permit the modification of an existing non-conforming sign on the building location in Larwin Square. Mr. Su~inger presented a brief staff report stating that it seems that the Bank of America has a self-created hardship through the creation of standard signs and did not feel that the justification is adequate for the approval of the requested variance, therefore, recommending denial. After a brief discussion on requirements of sign sizes, Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:30 There being no comments from the audience the hearing was immediately declared closed. After a brief discussion among the Commissioners, they did not feel that a hardship had been shown in which to grant the approval of the application. It was moved by ~r. Oster~ s~conded by Mr. He,us that Application No. V-67-184 be denied. The above motion was voted by roll call: Ayes: Oster, Ludwig, Sharp, Ymrsters, Halus, Bacon, Brand. Noes: None. Motion carried 7-0. 3. V-67-186 - Kal-South Development Corporation (a) Approval of specific plans for the construction of a 119 unit apartment project in the PD (Planned Development) zone. (b) To permit a variance to allow: Accessory structures (carports) which are not connected to a main building and which do not meet the sideyard setback requirements for a main building. 2. Zero foot sideyard setback for accessory structures along the northerly and southerly property lines. A waiver of the requirements for 90 sq. ft. of lockable storage area in the 16 carport spaces on the northerly side of the private alley, at the south side of the development. -3- · PC Minutes - June 12, 1967 }ir. Supingcr presented the staff report stating that sufficient detail is not provided for a decision on thc following items: 1. f~rchitectural treatr, ent of the carports (should be compatible w~th main buildings). 2. Adequacy of the fence surrounding the property. 3. The type of recreational facilities and their location. 4. Landscaping. However, it was felt that these items could be adequately handled by the Architectural Committee. The Planning Staff recommended that V-67-186 be granted, subject to Architectural Review including, but not limited to the above mentioned items. Chairman }~arsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:40 P.M. Mrs. MarR McDonald, homeowner, was concerned about the wall surrounding the development in respect to the design and appearance of the wall. Mr. Ervin Winesuff representing Kal-South Development, stated that a specific answer that they would agree with on the staff recommendation was that they do propose to meet the four points that Mr. Supinger brought out when they meet with him and the Architectural Committee. He stated that the treatment of the wall would be in accordance to the requirements of the Code and the Building Department. He said that they would meet with the recommendations of the Fire Chief for fire exits between their project and Tustin Village II. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:4~ P.M. It wes movcd by Mr. Brand, seconded by Mr. Bacon, that Resolution No. 891 for A~p~lication V-67-186, Kal-South Development Corp.~ be approved to include the recommendations of the Fire Department and the Plannin~ Staff. The above motion was voted by roll call: Ayes: Oster, Ludwig, Sharp, Halus, Bacon, Brand, Marsters. Noes: None. Motion carried 7-0. Chairman Marsters called a five minute recess at 8:50 P.M., and re- convened at 8:55 P.M. 4. UP-67-233 - Robert E. Wilde To permit service station signs with a total area of 300 sq. ft., on a proposed service station to be located at the northwest corner of Seventeenth and Carrol Way. Specific requests are for: (a) A pole sign with the maximum height of 35 ft., containing a total of 282 sq. ft. of area. (b) A wooden wall sign mounted between canopy support posts at the outer pump '~sland containing 14.5 sq. ft. of area. A chevron hallmakk sign mounted on the roof of the building containing an area of 3.5 sq. ft. (Sign Ordinance would per- mit a maximum of 150 sq. ft., total area on the site and a maximum height for pole sign of 24 ft.) Mr..Supin~er presented the staff report stating that because the site is located where a sign will not give freeway exposure and because of the orientation of the si~n (parallel to the freeway), the staff does not see a justification for increased height and area under the subject provision of the Sisn Ordinance, and recommended denial of UP-67-233. After a few technical questions pertaining to the normal size of the ~hevron signs amd why this wao necessary to increase the height and go beyond the Sign Ordinance requirements, Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 9:08 P.M~ .PC Minutes - June 12, 1967 }ir. Robert Wilde - Developer of the property and owner, explained the justification of the request. He felt that this is not going to be a short term operation and they have complied with the architectural standards with a Spanish motif. Basically the large sign seemed to be the problem and remarked that the whole image of the Standard Stations is based on the red, white and blue signs and station. He felt that the small 3% ft., hallmark sign is the only touch of color that is on the building. He mentioned t.~at the proposed sign is the standard size sign on all the Standard Servica Stations all over the United States. He felt that the station would bring business from the freeway and needed this type of sign so it could be visibly seen. Mr. Wilde presented pictures of the signs to the Commission for their review. He stated that he made the application on the basis of Section 35.00 of the Sign Ordinance, which states that signs larger or in excess of the standards may be permitted under this section for applicants that are within 200 feet of the freeway. There being no other comments or further discussion from the audience, Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 9:17 P.M. Questions arose from the Commission as to the distance from the station to the freeway, the landscaping requirements and if they met with the City policy, the height of the station and the location of the signs. The Commission expressed their feelings on maintaining the Sign Ordinance requirements and that they should hold to the Sign Ordinance in square footage and height requirements in this regard. Mr. Wilde opined that they could probably reduce the sign in height, but it would be difficult to reduce the size of the sign~ Mr. Sharp voiced his opinion stating that the size of the propose sign would be disproportionatly large if it were 24 feet off the ground. He felt that whether or not a sign of that height and size would conflict with the elevations of the bt~lding would depend a lot on your point of view, whether you were on the off-ramp or the surface street and did not see that this point was a major consideration. M~. Sup~D~er explained that his recommendation was predicated oh what he interpreted as the intent of the Sign Ordinance, which was the fact that if the business was in proximity of the freeway and if by getting additional height and additional area, that if some additional business could be derived from that, then it would be justified. He explained that this was his own interpretation of the Sign Ordinance in this case. Mr. Bacon opined that he felt there should be something in the Sign Ordinance that would take care of a standard sign rather than having all these hearings, feeling that if one of the Standard Service Station's signs were cut down, it would entail additional expense and hardship. He felt that the Sign Ordinance could be revised to handle signs that are used regularly. It was moved by Mr. O~ter? seconded by..Mr. Bacon, that Resolution No. 892 for Application UP-67-23~:be granted. Mr. Ha lus stated that the areas of the ordinance that are subject to interpretation act as a guide and policy statement. For all practical purposes, he felt that the freeway was really not a consideration for the service station. He did not feel that the 200 feet from the off- ramp to the freeway should be blindly accepted without considering the total location and stated that he is opposed to the application. Chairman Marsters and Mr. Sharp concurred with Mr. Halus. The above motion was voted by roll call: Ayes: Oster, Bacon. Noes: Ludwig, Sharp, Marsters, Halus, Brand. Motion denied 5-2. -5- PC l.[inutes -June 12, 1967 5. V-67-185 - General Maintenance - Southland Corporation (SighS) To Permit: (a) Sign area exceeding that permitted by the Sign Ordinance for a wall sign and one pole sign totalling 311 sq. ft. (b) The construction of a free-standing sign in the required building setback area. }~r. Supiq~er presented the staff report stating that there are no objections to the location of the pole sign in the setback area provided that the advertising surfaces of the sign are a minimum of 10 feet above grade. >Ir. Su~inger recommended that the request for sign area in excess of that permitted by the Ordinance be denied and that a pole sign, com- plying with the overall area requirements, be permitted in nhe setback area if the advertising surfaces are a minimum of 10 feet above grade. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 9:50 P.M. Mr. Jim ~u~yis, representing General Maintenance Company, stated that they could comply with the Planning Staff's recommendations and ex- plained that they would like to substitute a different size sign for the originally proposed one. Mr. Supinger explained that based on the applicant's suggestion, he felt that a motion in agreement with the staff's suggestion would be in order, then the sign now proposed by the applicant would comply with these re- quirements. He stated that all that would be necessary at this point would be to approve the sign in the setback area. There being no further comments or discussion, Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 9:53 P.M. It was moved by Mr._ Halus, seconded by Mr. Sharp that Resolution No. 893 for. Application V-67-185. that the request for sign area in excess of that permitted by the Ordinance be denied and a pol~ sign comolying ~.~ith the overall area requirem~nts,..be, permitted in the setback area as lonR as the advertising surfaces are a minimum of 10 ft. above grade. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Ludwig, }~rsters, Halus, Bacon, Brand. Noes: None. Motion carried 7-0. 6. ,~:ENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 157 Relative to location of Accessory Structures. Mr. SuRinger presented a copy of the proposed amendment to the ordinance uo the Commission that had been requested by the Commission pointing out the key aspects. He recommended that the proposed ordinance be approved and recommended to the City Council for adoption. A letter was also received, signed by various people in the area, suggesting that a one (1) foot setback would be more appropriate than the three (3) feet setback as proposed in the ordinance. Chairman Marsters opened the public portion of the hearing at 9:57 P.M. Mr. Robert Windolph, 336 East First Street, Tustin, spoke in behalf of the amendment remaining at a one foot setback. He felt that by amending it to a three (3) ft., setback, it was creating more unusable space on the property. There being no further discussion, Chairman Marsters declared the public portion of thc hearing closed at 10:00 ~.}i. Mr. Supin5er explained that the reason fire walls had not been included in the ordinance, was uhat the Building Code would adequately cover this. -6- PC Minutes - June 12, 1967 OLD BUSINESS ;I. ~EW BUSINESS VII. CORRES - PONDENCE Mr. Halus opined that one of the concerns of the staff and Planning Commission is the inability to maintain a wall if you have a zero foot setback. Mr. Charles Greenwood - 336 East First Street, Tustin, gave an example of this type of setback that he had seen in another City and stated that there was no need for any maintenance area. He felt that if you do build right next to the property line with the fire wall he did not see any objection to it. He opined that a block wall should be required if you build right against the property line and have a zero foot setback. During the discussion back and forth regarding the proposed amendment, ~lr. Sharp opined that this seemed to be a case where it would take a little while before they could come to an agreement and felt that a workshop or additional studies could be made before agreed upon and suggested that this be done if there was no demand rush on the amend- ment being approved. }~r. Halus did not feel that Paragraph "d" in the amendment served any useful purpose. It was moved by Mr. Ha lus~ seconded by Mr. Brand that Section ~.~5, Accessory Structures be recommended to City Council to read as follows: Paragraph "a" - no change Paragraph "b" - no change Paragraph "c" - no change Paragraph "d" - eliminated in its entirety Paragraph "e" - no change, but to be redesignated as Paragraph "d" Chairman Marsters concurred with Mr. Sharp's suggestion and felt ~hat they could possibly meet with the developers and get more insight of their feelings on the matter. Mr. Oster agreed with Mr. Sharp and Chairman }larsters also and felt that Paragraph "d" at this point was not going to serve any purpose. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Halus, Bacon. Noes: Oster, Sharp, Ludwig, Brand, Marsters. Motion denied 5-2. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded bv Mr. Sharp that the public hearin8 on the ~roDosed amendment to the Zonin~ Ordinance relative to Accessory Structures be continued until the July. 10th Planning Commission Meeting, and that the Planning Staff be directed to arrange a workshop for dis- cussions with the interested developers, along with obtaining a copy of the Orange County"s ordinance for review. The above motion was voted by roll call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Ludwig, Ymrsters, Halus, Bacon, Brand. Noes: None. Motion carried 7-0. Mr. Supinser suggested that a date be set for the workshop meeting. The date was set for June 21st at 7:30 P.M. in the Planning Department of the City of Tustin, City Hall. NONE NONE 1. County Case UV-5900 - First Assembly of God of Tustin To permit the establishment of a church in the IO0-CI-iO,O00 Local Business District. Mr. Supinger stated that it is felt that the present plans are an Ymprovement and would suggest that the County be informed that we have no objections [o this development. -7- PC Minutes - June 12, 1967 It was moved by ,X:r. Bacon~ se.condad.bv Mr. Brand, that the Planning Director notify the County of Orange Planning Commission, that. tlAere' are no objections to granting approval of UV-5900. VIII. OTHER BUSIneSS IX. ADJOURN- MENT 2. County Cases UV-5902~ UV-5903LL~-5904~ Influential Square, Directional Signs To permit the continued use of tempo=ary directional signs for a period of one year to direct traffic to the sale of homes in Tract 5415 in the R4 Suburban Residential District. }~. ~upinger presented a short staff report on these signs and their location and recommended that the Orange County Planning Commission suggest a limitation of one year or until the 18 units are sold and subject to this condition, the Tustin Planning has no objections. The Commission expressed hope that the County of Orange would seek to secure conformity in the areas in close proximity to Tustin, with our Sign Ordinance regulations. It was moved bv Mr. Brand,.seconded by Mr. Oster, that the Plansing Director be requested to direct a letter to the County to the extent that we do have objections to signs of this size bein~ continued and that we recommend a six (6) month extension and no further extension beyond the six (6) months from the date of the last expiration. The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Sharp, Ludwig, Marsters, Brand. Noes: Halus, Bacon. Motion carried 5-2. NONE It was moved by b~r. Bacon~ seconded by Mr. Sharp~ qhat the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. There being no other business before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:31 P.M. SEC,~TARY OF THE P~%NNING CO~ISSION CthlIP~MAN CLOTHE PLANNING COMMISSI[ON -8-