Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-28-66MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION November 28, 1966 CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M., by Mr. Ealus, Acting Chairman, in Chairman Marsters absence. Present: Commissioners: Brand, Bacon, Halus, Hefner, Sharp~ Oster Absent: Commissioners: Marsters Others Present: James Rourke, City Attorney Harry Gill, City Administrator James Supinger, Planning Director Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary It was moved by Mr, Sharn, seconded by Mr, Oster that the minutes of the November 14, lq66 meeting bT ~noroved as.mailed. Motion carried. IV. PUBLIC 1. UP-66-225 - STANDARD OIL SERVICE STATION To permit the construction of a Standard Oil Service Station, located at the Northwest Corner of East Seven- teenth Street and Carroll Way. Mr. Supinger gave the staff report recommending that UP-66-225 be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. That street improvements be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, That a fire hydrant be installed at the southwest corner of the property, type to be approved by the Fire Chief, 3. That plans will be submitted for approval by the Architectural Committee including: a. Plot Plan b. Elevations of the building c. Specific landscaping That all provisions of Council Policy 30-1, Service Station Minimum Site Development Guide, shall be com- plied with, except as specifically provided on the approved plans. Mr. Supinger then read the recommendation made by the Orange County Planning Commission - It was the opinion of the Commission that the proposed service station was in keeping with the develop- ment of this particular portion of 17th Street, but recommends the storage of busses and trucks, renting of trailers and equip- ment and the selling of any products not related to normal service station operations be prohibited on the premises. Mr. Sharp referred to the 3rd item of the recommendation and asked Mr. Supinger if the Architectural Co~ittee would be bound in any way by the plans submitted by the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes 11/Z8/66 Mr. Supinger said that the Architectural Committee will be bound to a certain extent by the policy guide, reflected in the plans which were submitted this evenln§. Mr. Sharp asked if this is the elevation submitted tonight and Mr. Supinger said he assumed the same elevation plan will be submitted. Mr. Sharp asked what if the Architectural Conmittee feels there should be a change in these and Mr. Supinger answered by saying that the Architectural Committee is charged with reviewing the plans and should recommend as they see fit as the plans are submitted. Mr. Rourke said that the Architectural Com~.ittee may make changes that are more detailed. Mr. Sharp opined that it seemed superfluous to review plans later if they are the same as has been submitted. Mr. Brand referred to item 2 and asked for a clarification of the Fire Chief§ recommendations. Mr. Supinger said it should be at the southwest corner and not southeast, as has been recommended in the staff report. Mr. Halus opened the hearing to the public at 7:45 P.M. Mr, Bob Wilde - applicant - 1943 E. 17th Stroet, Santa Aha, said he would only comment that Mr. Supin~er's report covers the situation pretty well and could see no problem that could uot be worked out by the Architectural Committee. He stated that the small drawing that he submitted was ~erely trying to indicate what would be on that corner. This will be a Standard company operated station so that in the usual pattern they are well kept and a first-class operation. He commented that he had held them to restrictions to operate the station as it should be. There being no further comments or objections, the hearing was declared closed at 8:07 .~.M. Mr. Oster felt that the linltations that are set forth in the County letter were not included in the recommendation, ! through 4 and wanted to know if the Planhing Commission wanted that as a condition. Mr. Supiuger explained that it is covered in the policy guide of service stations. Mr. Halus commented that there was no indication of a pole sign other than the :'Chevron" sign and wanted to know if there would be others. Mr, Wilde, answered yes, there would be one (1) free standing sign and it would be a typical service station sign. Mr. Halus asked if this would be in keeping with our Sign Ordinance. Mr. Wilde said if they wanted to exceed the requirements that he would file for a variance or use per, it. It was moved by Mr..Oster, seconded by Mr, Sharp. that Resolutio9 No, 870 ~ranting ~f-$6r225 be p~ss.ed.and adopted subject to She followin~ conditions: 1. That street improvements be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, 2. That a fire hydrant be installed at the southwest corner of the property, type to be approved by the Fire Chief, -2- Planning Commission Minutes 11/28/66 3. That plans will be submitted for approval by the Architectural Committee including: a. Plot Flan b. Elevations of the building c. Specific landscaping That all provisions of Council £olicy 30-1, Service Station Minimum Site Development Guide, shall be comolied with, exceol as soocificall¥ provided on the approved plans. 5. That the Architectural Commibiee shall not be bound by the elevations submitted before the Planning Commission. e /'hat the storage of busses and trucks, renting of trailers and equipment and the selling of any products not related to norma~ service station oporatiors shall be prohibited on the premises. It was moved ~y Mr, ~efner. seconoed bv Mr, Oster that recom- mendat~pn No. 4 be amended to feud - trees should conform with the 5trent lree i.~aster 21an and should show additidnal land- soaping at the northeast corner and west side of the property, adjacent to tho resins-ant and service station., Motion carried. The above original motion was voted by Hell Call: Bacon, Halus, Hefner, Sharp, Oster. Noes: None. Marsters. Motion carried 6-0 Ayes: Brand, Absent: 2. V-66-176 - LOg.\ LiNI)A BUILDI;,~G SIG',~ To permit the construction of a si~;n which is proposed to be located in tho roqu'~rod :~otback area, exceeds the permitted height, permits the -~dvertising of a snecific business o~. a ~'complex" sign ~nd retains a second free- standing s'~gn on the site. Site is !ccation of existing office buildin~ ~520 E~st ].'ourth Street. Mr. Supinger cresonted the staff report and recommendation that a free-standing sign, 20 Feet in height, identifying the complex be permitted within the front setback area and that the existing reader board be retained. We recommend against the permission to exceed the height limit and to allow the Red Hill sign on the complex sign. If a problem exists, as suggested by Mr. Brook, the ordinance should be amended to alleviate the problem. The variance, how- ever, should not be utilized as an amending tool. Mr. Haius opened the hearing to the nublic at 8:10 P.M. Mr. F~ N~h%gan, 520 'East Fourth Street, owner cf Red Hill property - I a~ in complete accord with you gentle~en that you have gone to a lot of work on the Sign Ordinance and any- thing that we can do to beautify the Iustin area, I am for it. I have a resale real estate office and the problem is creating a tremendous hardship. Previous to moving to our oresent location, about 25% of our business was "drop-in" customers and now we have lost every bit of this type of contact. We have been hit hard by our sign identification. There is no ag~ressive real estate office that can exist under these conditions. -3- Planning Commission Minutes lZ/Zs/66 In a complex development, if you do not want a good sign ident- ification, you are almost demanding that they leave - referring it back to a complex, if this is denied, I will have to move my location. If I had known this situation existed I would not have moved here. It can be a beautiful thing and I think signs can b$ beautifu~ and it will not be a hazard to the City at all. We did apply for a Building ?ermit and it was granted. I asked them to rush it, because my pco~.e are in a difficult situation and I can not maintain then unless I can get proper identifica- tion. We must have a sign large enough to catch the fast moving traffic as it's going bv. Mr. Halus explained that there was a clause allowing an addition- al 6~' for evory 30 ft. removed from a residential area. Mr. Bob Rockman, Federal Sign and Signal Corp., said that his business has been in existance for 65 years and in behalf of his company he must say that the dollar volume involved is minimum. He stated that he was approached by Mr. Nahigan to solve this sign problem and that he was not out soliciting. In the common interest of the applicant, I took the time to talk with the Building Director in hopes that I Might be able to erect a sign that we can put up in the City of Tustin. We we~ going to put a sign at the southeast area and as we got into. the contract, Mr. Nahigan decided to relocate the sign, which was fine with me, because I am not a oermit Ketter, but a sign salesman. We visited the Building Department with the final plans and we were ~iven a building per, it. Mr. Halus instructed the Commission to direct their attention to the application'and to consider the previously iesued permit as secondary. There being no further comments or objections, the hearing was declared clcsed at 8:22 P.M. Mr. Oster directed a question to Mr. Rockman asking if there would be a problen, noving the sign to the other side of the driveway. Mr. Halus mentioned that a sign could be lowered in that structure and still ~eet the requirements of the ordinance - He asked if this would pose a problem. Mr~ Rockman said they would have no objections to lowering it to eight (8) feet, but it poses a vandalism problem, because it makes a perfect target for youngsters. Mr. Oster asked if they felt they needed the 20 ft. sign and Mr. Nahigan said they needed the height on the sign. Mr. Oster then came back with the question of what if everyone wanted a sign like that. Mr. Halus commented that he was very sensitive to the Pandora's Box type situation and said they had a number of tenants and did they envision other tenants wanting the same type of identi- fication. Mr. Nahigan said the other tenants do not need it. Mr. Bacon asked on what end of the property is it going to be. Mr. Rourke said it would not have to be renoticed to move the sign in a different location. Mr. Hefner wanted to know if the five (5) ft. sign would be removed. Planning Commission Minutes n/ls/66 Mr. Supinger explained that there was only one (1) sign on the Westerly. edge of the property and it would have to be removed to erect the proposed sign. Mr. Hefner felt that this should be reconsidered to be made one of the conditions. He went ahead to say that we do have residential property adjacent to it and the lighting could be obnoxious. Mr, Rock,an said that they are not a glaring light and absolutely no exoosure. When you put this lame ir~stde a cabinet, it reads the amount of transnls~io~'. We are talking about an i~pregnated plastic. Mr. Bacon asked if this light would be on all night or would there be a timer - Mr. Nahigan assured him there would be a ti~er. Mr. Oster asked Mr. Rockman if he was familiar with the present sign. Mr. Rockman, said the new sign is basically the sase material and if they could put up the new sign, they will take the old one down. Mr. Halus said if the sign is going on the Westcrl'y side, it will be limited to 20 feet, but if it is going on the Easterly side, it could be taller than 20 feet and the other sign be re- moved. M:'. Oster - If the sign is moved to the side clese to the build- ing, will the 3 ft. 8 inches be solved. Mr. SupinEer said it would have to be moved further than that. Mr. Halus suggested that it be moved from the Wester%y ?roperty to the Easterly approximately 190 ft. He said by moving it to the Easterly. edge of the property it would alleviate some of the lights. Mr. Oster commented that this is a case efa 10 ft. high sign which is safe. I for one, am for putting ~t on the other side of the property. Mr. Brand - it is not offensive te ~e, hcwever, I am leery of grant- ing it on this basis. I think it edens the door for others and I think this is a poor way of running a business and I am not sure what wculd be the best way to go with this. What would stop the next complex wanting an equal consideration. Mr. Oster - I believe the sign now existing there, indicates Loma Linda and Red Hill Realty. We are actually trading an existing sign for a new one. Mr. Bacon expressed his feelings were with Mr. Oster. It was moved by Mr. Oster, seconded bY Mr. Bacon that Resolutio~ No, 87~ granting V-66-176 be passed and adooted subject to the following conditions: 1. That the location of the sign be at the Fasterlk portion of the property. 2. %hat the present sign on the Westerly portion of the property (the 10 ft. high sign) be removed. That the present sign in the center of the building be used as a community reader board for non-commercial advertising. Planning Commission Minutes n/28/66 VI. BUSINESS 4. That the illuminous sign meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. 5. That the sign, if it has not been fabricated, be subject tc review to the Architectural Committee. Mr. Rockman said he would be most happy to submit to the Planning Conmission anything they needed for review. Mr. Brand asked if this was satisfactory to the applicant and was told, this will be fine. Mr. Sharp asked if the Architectural Committee would have to review anything different from the present diagram. Mr. Oster withdrew his 5th ccndition in the previous motion. The above motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Brand, Bacon, Hefner, Halus, Oster. Noes: Sharp. Absent: Marsters. Motion carried Mr. Halus stated that a problen as indicated by ~-~. Brook, Build- ing Director's recommendation was that he did not think it was the intent of the ordinance to proscribe specific business signs with- in complex signs, if in good taste but felt that variances should not be used as tools for piecemeal amendments of the ordinance. Mr. Halus asked Mr. Gill to prepare a recommendation for the Plan- ning Commission. 1. PROPOSED COUNCIL POLICY RE: DEADLINES FOR 'IME SUBMISSION 0~' APP I,ICATIOI'I.S Mr. Supinger told the Planning Commission that this pro- posal was to formalize the ?!auning Commission and Archi- tectural Committee deadlines for the submission of the applications. He commented that it is rather a routine thing but urged them to recommend approval to the City Council. Mr. Sharp asked if 13. b:oon, the day before the meeting, for submittal to Architectural Conmit%ee allo,~ sufficient tine. Mr. Supinger said it wou!d. It was mow~d bv Xr. SharD, seconded by Mr. Oster that Policy ~o. 30-2, Deadlines for submission of aoolications and olans for Use Permits, Variances, Amendment and Architectural review, be recommended and forwarded to City Council. Motion carried unanimously. 2. PROPOSED COUNCIL POLICY RE: A2POINIMENT OF COMMISSIONS Mr. Supinger suggested that the Planning Commission set a tentative date for appointment of co~missions Council Policy. Mr. Oster preferred a workshop on this - Mr. Halus felt that a joint workshop with Parks and Recreation Commission would be digestible - Mr. Sharp also thought that a work- shop would be the best solution. It was moved by Mr. Bacon, seconded by Mr. Share. that this matter be tabled until 8fter the 1st of the year, January 1967. Motion carried Mr. Hefner felt that the Planning Commission should think in terms of where the information is going and what they are doing. What is the Tustin Planning Commission and what is wrong and what is right. -6- Planning Co~missio~ Minutes VII. 1. OTHEM BUSINESS 3. PROPCSED COUNCIL POLICY RE: EARLY CALIFORNIA ARCHITSETURE Xr. Supinger said that the Commercial and Industrial Comnittee has submitted a p~licy relative to ^rchitectufal Policy and recommended that the Commission work as a whole or set up a comnittee to work with the Commercial and In- dustrial Committee tc work out the kinks to submit to City Council for adcption. Mr. Oreonwo?d, Chairman, Commercial and Industrial Committee - We need a policy which we can all work with, sc when someone comes in anti decides to build a new office or complex building, right away he will know about this and we are hoping if we could get something like this it would certainly help our commercial area. The Architectural Conmittee, Messrs. Sharp and Bacon, plus Mr. Brand were appointed to review the Chamber of Co~erce proposal for an architectural policy. Mr. Sharp proposed that the Architectural Comnittee have a review of this at the next Architectural Committee meeting - He said he was delighted by this proposal and when it is completed it will give a more pleasant committee. RESOLUTION 867 - DON HEFNER Mr. Halus presented Mr. Don Hefner, outgoing Chairman, with a Resolution commending him for his fine services as the Chair- man for the past two years for the Planning Commission Chair- man of the City of Tustin. 2. SOU~M~W_N CALIFORNIA PL~3]KI;]G CC:,;GRL"SS Xr.'.F. TING It was p~inted out that the next Southern California Plan- ning Congress meeting was being held at Disneyland Hotel, December 8, 1966 and the topic would be .'Impact of Tourism on Community Planning". it was felt that the last meeting was of great interest and the Planning Commission was urged to attend, i.!r. Supinger volunteered to make reservations for all members planning to attend and asked them to confirm their attendance with the r~lanning Secretary. 3. FR~DRiCKS DEVELOPMk~T Mr. Brand said that now, since the Tustin Area General Plan has been adopted by City Council, wouldn't it be appropriate for the Planning Commission to express their feelings on this case. Mr. Oster said it was before the City Council now and import- ant for us not to get involved at this time. .Mr. Sharp agreed with Mr. Oster. Mr. Brand said "I think we should re-affirm, since at that time we merely said we would like to see the Council's action". Mr. Hefner- I realize we did not make a stand, but it is pretty poor timing now. I think we could ask the City Council if they would care to have our opinion at this time for the consideration. Mr. Rourke said initially the Planning Commissioners did make a recommendation on this. -7- Planning Commission Minutes n/zs/66 IX. ADJOURN- Mr. Halus felt that each of tho Planning Commissioners could pursue this with City Council, but will not take any formal action at this time. It was moved by Mr. Bacon, seconded by Mr, Oster that the mgeting be sdjourned. Motion carried. There being no further business before the Planning Commission the meeting was adjourned at 9:27 ?.M. ~ SECRETAR~