Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-14-66CALL TO ORDER II. ROM CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION November 14, 1966 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M., by Chairman Marsters. Present: Commissioners: Brand, Bacon, Halus, Marsters, Hefner, Sharp, Oster Absent: Commissioners: None Cthers Present: James Rourke, City Attorney James L. Supinger, Planning Director Jo Ann Turner, Planning Secretary Mr. Oster asked for his vote to be corrected and recorded as sbstention and not sffirmative on UV-5793 of the October 24th, minutes. It was moved by Mr, Sharp, seconded by Mr, Oster, that the ~inutes of the October 24, 1966 meeting be aoorovedas corrected. Motion carried. 1. UP-66-2~4 r SIZZLING BROILER - Sign To permit the construction of a double faced roof sign. Site is location of existing structure No. 17261 Seven- teenth Street at the intersection of Yorba and Seventeenth Streets. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report recommending denial for this application. Mr. Su~lnger read a letter from Mr. Richard Ralphs, Executive Vice President of Ralphs Industries stating his approval of such a sign. Chairman Marsters opened the hearing to the public at 7:48 P.M. Mr. Robert Whelan - plans to occupy the site of Ralohs Shopping Center - We feel it is necessary for the success of our business and although we have the term of :'Sizzling Brciler':, it is un- like any other that you have been acquainted with. We have gone to a great deal of trouble and money for this and it will be difficult for anyone to know that the restaurant is there with- out this type of sign. It will compliment the neighborhood and will not distract from the Shopping Center. We offer a family style service and do not plan tc sell liquor. If we do not have this type of sign, the people may think it is closed due to the cther shops closing at a specific time. Again, without the sign it will be a definite hardshin. Mr. Bruce O'Dell, representing Raloh's Industries, West Third ~%~et, Los Angeles 5, stated that' they do not want additional ~ylon signs for the other businesses in the Shopping Center because he felt it would be detrimental, but felt that this particular situation could be much more successful with the roof sign and would substantially help the rest of the Shop- ping Center. -1- Planning Commission Minutes n/1 /66 Mr. Bricsemeister - 3225 Lacy St., Los Angeles - Applicant, described the sign saying it consisted of two (2) panels identifying the Sizzling Broiler. The sign would have a lamp at the top, but there would be nc flashing of lights or animation. It is amber in color and 18' x 18" above the roof line. It had a yellow panel with red letters and read "Childrens ~lato 69¢.:' We feel for such a building, this sigr~ is an absolute ~ust, and we do not feel that we are setting a precedent. Mr. Willian Scott - 3225 ~,acy St., ~.os Angeles - The only thinE I want to mention to ycu is that it took a considerable number of designs which these gentle~en feel would be favor- able. Our original intent was to put in pole signs, but I conferred with Mr. Supinger and he said this would not be allowed so we went for a roof sign. GLO was very cognizant of your by-laws. Without an adequate sign they may lose business. There being no further comments or objections the hearing was dec].ared closed at 8: P.i.i. Mr. Oster - The way I look at it, thc roof sign is subject to granting of a Use Permit on Section 35, but then we go on further and find it only in lieu of a ground sign. The only other way is to get a variance under the following con- ditions. Mr. Oster read the conditions from the Sign Ordinance. His feelings were that they would have to go on a Variance stating that it was more strict than a Use ~ermit. Mr. Rourke stated he did not believe it could be considered a Variance, although it would still be necessary for the applicant to follow it up with a variance. Mr. Oster ~sked :.Ir, W~neLan how zany other Sizzling Broilers were they operating and was told two, although they were not completed, one was in San Fernando Val~ and the other one in Inglewood. Mr. Whelan said they had not been granted a roof sign yet by the other cities, but they did not anticipate any problems. Mr. Brie~emeister - reported that he was familiar with the other two ordinances in San Fernando Val~y and Inglewood and in both cases the roof sign would be permitted. Mr. Oster asked Mr. O'Dell what would happen if other businesses came in wanting roof signs and Mr. O'Dell stated that Ralphs would oppose it. He said as of now it is our intent, we have one long row of shops and this will be the only roof sign re- quired on that. Under the circumstances, I do not feel we can agree for other businesses to have this. I can not fore- tell the future but I would recommend opposition for any otb ~. Mr. Oster said he was not on the Planning Commission when Ra ~s was approved but in his opinion he thought it should come under a variance and he felt that the ?lanning Commission is running a risk of the next set of shops wanting the roof signs. Mr. O'Dell said he did not expect this form of logic and said they would not approve of any more roof signs, l{e commented that two-thirds (2/3) of their space is occupied but in the event they should come up, he would recommend that you tur~l them down. -2- Plannir~ Go~nission Hinutes ll/l / Mr. Halus asked ~. Scott, after he was informed that a pole sign would not be allowed, did he pursue the aspect for a sign consistent with the other buildings. Mr. Scott, said that they did - We die a survey by walking and feel that due to the fact that the Shopping Center will not be operating at the same hours as the Sizzling Broiler, if the people do not s~ a sign for this they will be under the impression that the restaurant will also be closed. He thought one of th6 things here, is a restaurant is not a normal service in a Shopping Center and needs a stronger identification. Mr. Halus commented that he was surprised to see [.Ir. O'Dell from Ralphs at the meeting and said he thought Ralphs was an aesthetically pleasing Shopping Genter but did feel that a roof sign would very definitely destroy what we have strived for and felt we should not have a roof sign. Mr. Hefner- I do not know if the people that are making the application are aware of the agonies over the work done ou the Sign Ordinance. We know that it was not the ordinance that the Planning Commission desires, we would llke to have it a more restrictive ordinance but this one turned out to be a pretty good one. Here we have a request for a sign 49 feet high, which is above the limits and I think this in itself would be inconsistent with the ordinance. I sympathize with your problem - we should explore a face sign on tho building, I think this might be an answer and might be more digestible. Mr. 5upinger briefly cleared the matter of other Shopping Centers Signs that seemed to'be of concern to the representatives cf the applicant and stated that this cane in to being before a Sign Ordinance was adopted, but stated the control of the signs in the City of ~stin was the Planning Commission's main concern and felt they should adhere to the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Brand said he was in accord with this and felt that the Sign Ordinance was very clear. It w~s moved by Mr, Brand, seconded by ~. Hefner that Resolution No. 868 denying UP-66-2~4 be p~ssed and adonted. Chairman Marsters asked Mr. Whelan if he felt that transient trade was essential to his business. Mr. Whelan - In answer to your question, very definitely - I realize you cannot totally appreciate what makes this business successful and it is not our intent to change your ordinance, but we feel the restaurant will complete the Shopping Center and make it a benefit to the conmunity. Without a sign of this nature it is creating a real hardship. Mr. Halus said it was his understanding that the existing Sign Ordinance stipulates that the wall sign can be 20% of the square footage on the portion of the building facing an arterial highway and as~e~.. Mr. Su~iuger if this was correct. -3- Planning C~lssion Minutes Mr. Supinger said it not only permits 20% of the frontage, but ou the West front also - consequently it would be permitted two (2) signs. Chairman .~rstors suggested that the applicant explore some other means. Mr. Bacon st%ted hi~ feeling was that :~we are denying these people their business by denying this sign." The above motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp~ Hefner, Marsters, i{alus, Brand, Bacon. Noes: None. Absent: None. Motion carried ?-0 2. HOME GCCUPATIO!':S To consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance providing for the addition thereto of a definition of "Home Occupation" and the addition of home occupations. Mr. Supinger presented the staff reoort stating that the key provisions of the rovised ordinance are: 1. Requi~ment for the issuance of a permit is eliminated. 2. Criteria for the conduct of a Home Occupation are contained in a definition. 3. llome Occupations are nade permitted uses in all residential districts. Mr. Supinger suggested that the proposed ordinance be approved and reeomnended to the City Council for adoption. Mr. Halus questioned the clause "...no activity which generates excessive pedestrian traffic or vehicular traffic or parking in excess of that othen.~ise normally found in the zone..." He asked would this be subjective. Mr. Rourke, said it may require more judgement, however, "I believe this was considered. Something should be placed in the ordinance to the amount of traffic." It is highly ob- Jective for a lot of cars to be flowing in and out. Mr. Ihlus asked how it would be enforced iT a complaint was made to the law agencies. Would we hold a public hearing? Mr. Rourke said this proposed ordinance come back for another hearing, it would matter. would not have to be an administrative Chairman [hrsters opened the hearing to the public - there being no comnents, the hearing was declared closed at 8:30 P.M. Mr. Brand commented that this ordinance had been presented several times and he was at a loss, as it has changed con- siderably. One phrase that bothered him was a clause in 2-"b" - this seems to limit the poss~b%]~.ty to such an ex- treme, that only washing~ ironing and child care would be oermitted. This could be used to the extent it would put everyone out of business. Another thing of concern was the provision for the blind had been omitted and he felt these people needed it more than the others. Plannin§ Commission Minutes ll/l /66 OLD BUSINESS Mr. Rourke said he did not remember that conversation, but as far as the provision of not allowing stock and trade, that was was left up te the Commission and could be deleted. Mr. Brand said he could visualize so~e old gentlemen retiring and tying ~'!ies and I do not see this *~ be a great disturbance to the neighbors. How do you altow one thing and stop another - where dc you d~'aw a line. Mr. Bacon was concerned about the clause in 2-"b" stating ':...no mechari~al or electrical equi?.eut used for house- keeping purposes..." Ym. Hefner agreed with 'fr. Brand and said enough time has been spent on this ordinance. He said basically this gives us what we have been trying to do, without working a hardship on the little eld lady that doe:~ ironing. I think people are going to ~eave it alone and with this t.,vpe, I am in favor of passing the ordinance. It was mcved by Mr. !{efner, seconded by Mr. Sharp, that Resolution No. 869 recommendinM to the City Coungil sdoption of the orooosed Home Occuostion Ordinance. Mr. Oster said he was glad now, to see M~. Bacon and Mr. Brand have their doubts about it and even though it does not require a permit he would still have to vote "no". The above motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Sharp, Hefner ¥mrsters, Halus. Noes: Oster, Bacon, Brand. Absent: None Motion carried 4-3 COUNTY CASE UV-$793, re: 200 BED. HOSPITAL (Continued from the October 24th neeting) Mr. Supinger read a letter from Mrs. Merrill asking for a continuance of this hearing due to her attendance to the National Association of ~ ~ ..ea, Estate Boards in Miami, Florida. Mr. Supinger then presented the staff report recom~ending denial based upon the reasoning included in the report dated October 21st, 1966. Reasons being that such a hospital would generate a great deal of traffic and be a strong justification for land use changes to commercial uses in the area. The City of Tustin has historically opposed the extension of commercial uses North of Wass Street. It is also traditional that a strong need for multiple family uses is generated in the immediate area of such facilities. Mr. Supinger continued saying that from the Planning standpoint, we are still concerned with traffic generated by such a use. Mr. M~rsters wanted to know the County's report on this and Mr. Supinger said it is still not available for public infor- mation, although the report as it presently stands indicates that there is not a need for a hospital in this area. Mr. Supinger felt if the Planning Commission is not ready to give an opinion at this time, they might want to wait until after the Orange County Planning Commission and the Hospital Planning Association had made a more definitive report. -5- n/1 /66 Planning Comission Minutes Mr. Sharp asked if ther~ would be more information on this and did the Commission feel they needed another meeting on the case. Mr. Supinger said he knew of no other information other than the revised plans frcm the applicant. Mr. Rourke asked if the ori~ina! con,,ittee's decision would be o~ any im?ortance to the Gc~nis~ion. ,,ir. Su~inger opined that this af>~li.-ation seems to have taker', the courre of no one ~.;auting '.~ mak{ the f.~rst decision. Mr. ~lus said, ever since the m%ddie of Segtember, when this case was oresented he ha~ beer. beg!~in~, ~ieading and asking for a more concrete preposal ard detailed plan on this partic- ular matter and until hc received :~ubstantial information he felt he ccu~d not make an intelligent opinion. He was interested in the results of the Hospital Associations report and felt that the County should be asked to postpone it until more adequate inf:)rmation has been received. Mr. Baccn asked if there had been a Committee of Doctors appointed to investigate the need for a hospital. Mr. Supinger said it was his understanding that there had been great anticipation of getting a community hospital some- where. Mr. Sharp said his feelings were the same as Mr. ]~lus and asked if the presentation they heard at the Board of Supervisors, was the County's report. In essence, he thought that they had received all the iufcrmation on the case from the applicant that they were going to get. Mr. Supinger stated that it was his understanding that the report was an actual finding based upon a need study utilizing the State Hospital Association studies and is net a final re- port to their Commission and is not official. Mr. Sharp said it seemed to him that the Planning Commission is being asked to give their cpir:ion when they do not have much to base it on. He fei% a final hearin~ was in order. Mr. Supinger said he did net know what the final report would be to the Orange County Planning Commission, hut that Mrs. Merrill wanted a continuance of this tc the 21st of November because she felt the necessary plans would be ready. Dr. Harrold Hall, Vice ?resident ot' the f'oothill Home C~ners Association, spoke saying he had really net exnected to do anything but observe the proceedings tonight but wanted to point out two things: 1. It seems tc me that there is a substantial burden nlaced upon the applicant to present all of the affirmative information required to support their application, but I have never seen community acticns being treated in such a careless haphazard method. These repeated requests for a continuance of hearings is a reflection of an essential lack of information on the part of the applicant. There is this problem of property and I assure you that I represent this as an important piece of community business and poor location are ccstly. I would not think it is incu%~bent upon you gentlemen to {~ive Mrs. Merrill the ordinary burden of proof that you would zive the ordinary business men. Planning Commission Minutes ll/l / VII. CORRESPON- D~CE 2. There are a number of hospitals of this sort of which applications are being made. By all the yard sticks of needs, we have a sufficient number of beds at the present time. The need that has been expressed to me by the medical opinion is for established hospitals for substantial size - large enough to contain tae ccstlv equip~mt. The application revised as it is, is moving in quite the wron!~ direction. It lacks all the credenti~ls o£ uniform con,unity spen~ ~rshi9 therefore, it seems to me it is the least attractive of the applications that are being received. D. The ~oecific parcel that is involved is not the only site for the hospital. There is adequate acreage which will not jeopardize the General Plan which was recommended. This tends to violate the General Plan and this is far from satis- factor~ for our comnunity. The specific variance in the land use represents an undesirable deviation for the General Plan. Mr. Hefner stated that he did not feel the rough two (2) page drawing of the hospital plan represented what he feels is re- quired for the Planning Commission to approve this ~lan for the City cf Tustin. He said he felt that it would be obnoxious to the two sides of tenants that are of single family area. As this would be a twenty-four (2~) hour operation and requiring vehicular traffic on the streets that are not designed for it, it would be undesirable. He did not feel there was a need at this time for a hospital, since there is three or four more in a five (5) mile radius. He felt this was a direct violation of the General Plan. Mr. Sharp agreed with Mr. Hefner but said he would like to base his opinion on information and not lack of it and wanted to know if there was going to be more information. Mr. Sharp felt that Mrs. Merrill should have attended the meeting if she felt it was important. Mr. Supinger said he did not know of any additional information from the applicant, but felt that there will be more from the Orange County A~lanniug Department's staff. Mr. Sham opined if there was something the Planning Commission should hear then we ought to hear it. Mr. Marsters said he fel% that the staff has given us the whole presentation and in his opinion felt that it is in violation of the Tustin Area General Plan and thought the Planning Commission could ~ke positive action on it tonight based on facts they had heard during the evening. It was moved by Mr. H~lus, seconded by M~. Share that a letter be directed to Orange County ~l~nnin~ Commission recommending denial of UV-5?~. The above motion was voted by Roll Call: Ayes: Sharp, Hefner, Marsters, Halus, Brand. Noes: Bacon. Abstained: Oster. Motion c~rrSed 5-1. COUNTY CASE UV-5721, ~ROPOS~D CHURCH - FIRST ASS~2~BL¥ OF GOD To permit the rearrangement of the proposed church buildings and the addition of a temporary structure to be used for church purposes in the iO0-C1 10,000 Local Business District. -7- Planning Co~mission Minutes ll/l / VIII. OTHER BUSINESS .r. Suninger presented the staff report recommending approval since the application met al1 of the requirements of our ordinance. ?ir. D~vid 'lhcma~, pastor of the church, said in Aoril we subT~itted a o!ct plzn and this p~an that we submitted at last Wednesday's meeting (Orange Count.y Planning Commission ~..eet~ng~ has just a few minor variations. Because of the financial situation and inability to get loans, we need the aDprcval f:~r a ~empcrary structure and in time this temporary structure will be torn down. This would ffive us time to locate on the property and we are very close to getting our funds for our first phase. You asked that the elevation and architectural plans be shown to you for your approval and I do have them here tonight, i4r. Thomas then displayed the exhibits for the Planning Commission. Mr. IIefner asked about the residential area around the church and Mr. Thomas answered by saying that cnlv to the back of the church there was a trailer park. It was moved bT Mr. Oster, seconded by Mr. ~lus that ~ letter be directed to the Oran6e County ?lanning Commission stating that we h~ve no ob.iectioqs to U~-5721 being ~r~nted. Mr. Hefner asked if this would have any affect on the other architectural buildings oozing into ~stin and felt that architectural approval should be considered for the buildings as a complex. Mr. Supinger said that this did not include that condition and the Planning Commission should inc].ude that in the motion. It wa~ moved by Mr, Hefner, seecnded by Mr. Shard that the shove uoticn be amended to resd "We have no ob.~ections to UV-~?21 after architectural sooroval." [.'etlon csrried unanimouslV. The above motion was voted by Ro:l Call: Ayes: Oster, Sharp, llefner, Marsters, Halus, Bacon, Brand. Noes: None. Absent: ~,~ one. 1. Workshop for C.ty Ccuncil and 7lanning Commission [{embers of the Planning Commission were reminded of the Workshop meeting that is to be held 7:~0 P.M., November 17th, (Thursday) at the Lo~a Linda Building located at 520 East Fourth Street. All members reported that they would be there with the exception of Mr. Helmet, due to out-of-town business. 2. Chairman Marsters extended the appreciation of the Planning Commission to the Tustin High School students that turned out for the meeting in lieu of the "Youth and Government Week" participation. 3. Anart~ent Bulldin~ Psrking Mr. Oster asked what could be done about tenants parking in ally-ways of apartments. Mr. Rourke said a survey was under way to relieve this problem and would be solved in the near future. He thought this would be brought to the attention of Planning Commission through a hearlng. Planning Commission '4inutes n/l /16 4. Snlo of Firewood, Seventeenth and Prospect Mr. Halus expressed his desire to have something done about the sale o~' firewood at Seventeenth and 4:respect be- cause of the hazards of auto:~obiles backing into the traffic flow aha was opposed to the spread of commercial uses along Seventeenth Street as recently exemolified by the recommend- ation for the adoption of the Tustin krea General Plan. The ~lanuiug Commission requested that a letter be submitted again to the Orange County Planning Commission voicing their disapproval of this activity. 5. Resolution No, 867 Resolution No. 867, was read by Chairman Marsters, commending ;~r. Donald Hefner for his outstanding activities in conducting himself and the meetings of the Planning Commission of the City cf Tustin. IX. ADJOURN- MENT It was moved bV Mr, $~on, seconded by Mr, Shsrp that the meetinK be ~djourned. Motion carried There being no further business before the Planning Commission the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. ~ SECRETARY CHAIRMAN -9-