Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-12-66MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION December 12, 1966 CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Marsters. Present: Commissioners: Marsters, Halus, Bacon, Brand, Sharp, Oster Absent: Commissioners: Hefner Others Present: City Clerk Ruth C. Poe City Attorney Kenneth Bryant Planning Director James Supinger Moved by Sharp,.seconded by Oster, that minutes of the November 28, 1966 meeting be approved as mailed. Carried. 1. V-66-177 - SIZZLING BROILER - SIGN TO PERMIT A SECOND FREE STANDING SIGN WITHIN A COMPLEX, RALPHS SHOPPING CENTER, EXCEEDING THE IIEIGIIT AND AREA PERMITTED BY THE ORDINANCE. SITE FRONTS 107 FT. ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SEVENTEENTH STREET AND IS THE LOCATION OF EXISTING BUILDING, #17261 SEVENTEENTH STREET. Hearing opened at 7:32 P.M. Mr. Supin~er presented staff report with the following recommendations: The Planning Department recommends denial of V-66-177 for the following reasons: That the subject property is not deprivgd of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. ® That the granting of subject application would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. Upon questioning by Mr. Halus, Mr. Supinger stated that he had met with two representatives of the Sign Company and gone over provisions of the Sign Ordinance with them prior to this application. Mr. Michael and Mr. Bill Scott of Heath & Co., and Mr. Robert ~elan of the Sizzling Broiler spoke bringing out the following points: 1. Presented rendering representing the finished development. 2. Sign necessary for this type of business and as the restaurant is open after the satellite Planning Minutes 12/12/66 Pg. 2 stores are closed and is set back 75 feet, it is mandatory that some sign other than that provided by the Sign Ordinance be installed. 3. At the time negotiations for this restaurant were started (one year ago) the new Sign Ordinance was not in effect and they had not anticipated this problem. 4. With the present state of economy they are competinq fcr the "eating out dollar" and without this sign they will be losing a tremendous opportunity for the success of the business. 5. With a $75,000 investment, they naturally want it as beautiful as possible. This sign would be more in keeping architecturally than signs on the building overhang which would be an afront to the people in the restaurant - looking at the back of a front face sign. 6. They are paying a premium price for this location, which they feel is ideal and they have a fine landlord. It is hoped that the Commission will consider their position and allow the sign. There being no further comments or objections, the hearing was declared closed at 7:4" P.M. In answer to questioning by M~. Oster, Mr. Supinger said he understood the situation has changed in the past year. In the old Sign Ordinance there was provision for a sign per business subject to a use permit due to the size of the complex, and that the present Sign Ordinance was adopted August 6, 1966. Mr. Halus stated that he felt that as Seventeenth Street deadends and becomes an entrance to the foot- hills, most people traveling Seventeenth Street are local residents and there is not a high value of transient trade. This tends to decrease the need of this type of sign and he did not feel the need of a sign of this nature. Mr. Sharp asked the applicant if they have investi- gated the possibility of placing identification on the existing pylon sign of Ralphs. Applicant stated that this was not applicable and that the value of the sign was having it at the point of the building. If Ralphs sign was highe~ it could possibly be incor- porated. Mr. Bacon asked if it would be possible for the applicant to lower their sign and remove the lower portion relating to children% prices. Mr. Whelan explained that this was important to the concept of the family style restaurant. Planning Minutes 12/12/66 Pg. 3 OLD BUSINESS Vi. NEW BUSINESS VII. CORRESPON- DENCE After consulting with the City Attorney, Mr. Oster stated he d~d not feel that a v~riance was in order with the interpretation of Section 38 of the Sign Ordinance regarding hardship and, therefore, he could not vote for approvai of this sign. Mr. Mars'kers staaed he agreed with Mr. Oster and coul~ no% see how this variance could be justified. Moved by Haius, 2econded by Brand, '-~ V-66-177 be denied. Carried by Roll Call. Ayes: Marsters, Bacon, Halus, Brand: Sharp, Oster. Noes: None. Absent: Hefner. Mr. Supinger informed the applicant of their right of appeal to the City Council. None None 1. COUNTY CASE UV-5828 - COAST CAN COMPANY TO PERMIT THi: CONTINUED USE OF A NURSERY C~N ;UPPLY BUSINESS IN THE AR AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Staff report presented by Mr. Supinge£. Moved by ::aLus, secondcd by Oster, that this Commissio] request the Planning Director to transmit a letter to ~h.~ O~.an~a Countv Planning Commission stating that this oDdv has no cbjections to UV-5828 but reconm:end$ a___~_on_e_~ear._i.5.~:%it~tion. Carried. 2. UV-5829 - ROB£RT T MA~KEY AND JACK D. SHAFER - 1451 E. MCFADDEN ~VENUE, SANTA ANA Staff report presented by Mr. Supinger. Moved b~ Oster, seconded b~ Bacon, that the Planning Director be instructed to send a letter to the Orange County Planning Commission stating that this Commission has no objections to UV-5829. Carried. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Report of City Administrator Relative to Si~n Ordinance Interpretation. 2. South Tustin Zonin~ S~dy Mr. Supinger informed the Commission that he bad met with the Orange County Planning Director and he ha~ agreed to a joint study of the South Tustin Area. Planning Minutes 12/12/66 Pg. 4 IX. ADJOURN- MENT Moved by Halus, seconded by Oster, adjourned. Carried. that meeting be