Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-13-65T. C~LL TO ORDE~ II. ROLL C~I~ III. APPROVAL OF IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS V~ PONDt~CE : MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1965 Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M., by Chairman Hefner. Present: Commissioners: Hefner, Brand, Marsters, Halus, Sharp, Oster. Absent: Commissioners: Bacon. Others Present: James Rourke, City Attorney Harry Gill, City Administrator Edward Haworth, Planning Director James Taylor, Planning Technician Clara Pomaville, Secretary Moved by Halus, seconded by Brand that Paragraph 3 of the minutes of November 22, 1965 be corrected to read: "Moved by Marsters, seconded by Sharp that VIII., Item 3, etc." Carried unanimously. None 1. CP-1223 - County Case · Moved by Oster, seconded by Sharp that the Planning Commission direct a letter to the County of Orange Planning Commission, stat- ing that we have no objections to granting CP-1223, requesting that the County of Orange review the traffic flow in this area. Carriedunanimously. 2. SADDL~R~K NATIONAL. BANK - SIGN APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION. Mr. Haworth presented the Staff Report, stating that Saddleback National Bank proposed to construct two (2) pole signs, one on Newport Avenue and First Street. The signs would be 28' in height and 60 square feet in area, with a maximum of two (2) faces per sign. Mr. Hawortb explained that the Architectural Committee re- commended a 20' height limitation and ~0 square feet per face. Mr. Bob Schoeffler, President of Saddleback National Bank spoke in favor of Sign Appeal, stating that '~e are asking for something that is allowed under the present Ordinance". We have proposed a $300,000 structure at First and Newport and feel that we are en- titled to consideration, particularly in view of the .size of our competitors signs around us. Mr. John Siegel, spoke in favor of the $~gn Appeal. Mr. Vermeulen, one of the Directors of Saddleback National Bank also spoke in favor of the Sign Appeal. Mr. Oster stated that he personally feels that this sign i~ itself would be in no way detrimental to this area. He said he was in favor cf not upholding the recommendations of the Architectural CommitSee, but he is still in favor of the propnsed Sign Ordinance. He stated that he feels that each case should bi considered indivi- dually. Mr. Marst~rs stated that be thought that this particular sign was very attractive and in good taste; except that perhaps a smaller sign would be in better taste. Signs influence the whole general area. I would like to see a 20' height limitation on this sign. Mr. NAlus stated t~t b~ i~ in comT,'-,..te :.¢cord with comments. H~ '~' .... ' :,~.~ . '.:..t iF. + ~i' so,~r~ - the -.- ~nd~ ~.. ':~ · ~f -o. '-k s Moved by Oster, seconded by Brand, that the recommendations of the Architectural Committee not be upheld and that the Application bm permitted. -- not to exceed 25' in height and not to exceed 60 sq~r¢ feet in base - 2 faces. Ayes: Hefner, Oster, Noes: Sha,.~p, Halus, Marsters, Brand. Motion failed. " Mr. Oster at that time asked Mr. Scboeffler if he would be willing to go to 20' height limitation and 60 square feet of sign area if the motion were made? Mr. Schoeffler stated that "What if your proposed ordinance does not hole to the 20'. Then, I will be penalized. My only alterna- tive is to appeal to the City Council. Moved by Sharp, seconded by Halus that the Architectural Committee reconsider their review of these plans submitted by the Saddleback National Bank, to be continued until the next regularly scheduled meeting on December 27, 196%~ Carried unanimously. 2. TUSTIN SAVINOS & LOAN ASSOCIATION .. SIGN A?_P_EA__L. Mr. Haworth presented the Staff Report. Mr. Gaudi spoke in favor of the Sign Appeal for Tu.s'tin Savings Loan Association, stating that he thought the sign was in good lationship and good proportions. Mr. Oster asked Mr. Gaudi, ,'If the Sign were moved further to the front, what would the integrity of the building be?" Mr. Gaudi answered, stating "that he feels that this k~ a proper location for the sign. Mr. Brand stated that he was in favor of upholding ~e Architectural Committee in this particular case because the suggested sign is not in keeping with this building design. He stated that he wanted to go on record stating that he supported the Architectural Committee in their recommendations to the Tustin Savings & Loan Association. Mr. Oster stated that he feels each case falls on its own merits. He feels that the sign is a little too large in this case. He stated that he would also uphold the Architectural Committee in their recommendatiom~ to the Tustin Savings & Loan Association. Mr. Marsters stated that signs will have a tremendous influence on future developments in the area. Mr. Egan was asked if he would like to change the sign dimensions and resubmit these to the Architectural Committee. Mr. Egan requested a five minute recess. Mr. Egan stated that the steel for the sign has been fabricated and therefore, would appeal the decision ~f the Planning Co~ission, if unfavorable, to the City Council. Moved by Halus, seconded by ~rand ~hat the ~commendations of the Architectural committee be upheld. Ayes: Oster, Sharp~ ~mlus, Marsters, Brand. Noes: Hefner. Absent: Bacon. Carried. .~ County ~ase cp_122~, co 1225, cP 1226, cP 1227. cP 1228. Moved by Halus, seconded by Sharp that the Planning Staff be dir- ected to write a letter to the County of Orange, stating that the Commission has no objections to these County recommendations. Car- ried unanimously. .-cved b~ H~i'~s, ~ote~. t.~ .... ' ': d~ arst~rs, that the Planning Staff be (:-?' ~', of Orange stating that ~ ~.-~ to th~ ab~..~onment, etc. · :'.tied ~:~ar...*,~:cu$!y. VI. OTHER BUSI- NESS 'iii. ADJOURN Homeowner's Protest: Trucking Firm, located adjacent to Shake¥'s Pizza Parlor on First Street, Tustin. The Chairman asked that the Planning Director notify all interested parties of the subject protest and to come before the Planning Com- mission on December 27, 1965. Meeting Adjourned. SEC ETA2 "