Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-14-017:01 p.m. Given All present Staff present Approved Continued 7:03 p.m. Ludi Davert Staff Davert Staff MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 14, 2001 CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Doug Holland, Deputy City Attorney Doug Anderson, Senior Project Manager-Transportation Karen Peterson, Senior Planner Minoo Ashabi, Associate Planner Lori Ludi, Associate Planner Justina Willkom, Associate Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS -- None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -APRIL 23, 2001, REGULAR MEETING It was moved by Davert, seconded by Kozak, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-025 A REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-024 THAT ESTABLISHED A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR ENDERLE CENTER. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 17260 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET IN THE PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PC-COMM) ZONING DISTRICT. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3751 approving Conditional Use Permit 00-025. The Public Hearing opened. Presented the staff report. Asked for confirmation that the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit 98-024 was based on a promise to remove seven existing signs and add three new signs. Answered that the application before the Planning Commission was for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit 98-024. Asked if there are now more signs at Enderle Center than before the 1998 approval. Responded affirmatively. Minutes - Planning Commission May 14, 2001 - Pago 1 Jennings Asked if the proposed El Torito sign will be the same size as the existing sign. Staff Answered that the new sign will be 32 square feet, which is approximately the same, but smaller than the Hof's Hut center identification sign. Kozak Asked if the El Torito sign will be within the same design theme as the other monument signs. Staff Responded affirmatively. Hamilton Asked when the ground leases underlying signs 2, 3, and 4 expire. Staff Responded 2023; and, indicated that verification in writing will also be required by the property owner in order to enforce any removal. Kozak Asked if staff knows the terms of the tenant leases. Staff Responded negatively, but suggested the applicant may have that answer; stated the intent of the condition was to run with the tenant leases rather than the ground lease; and, suggested this may have been miscommunicated in the staff report and/or the condition. Pontious Asked if the report should read "at the expiration of the tenant leases." Staff Responded affirmatively. Dave~ Asked for verification that this means no extensions, no renewals, no rights of extending the leases or options to renew--from the current term. Staff Responded affirmatively. Jennings Asked what would happen if one tenant expires in one year and another in five years. Pontious Stated herunderstandingthateach sign mustcome down independently whenthatlease expires. Jennings Asked if that meant one tenant would be without a sign for some period of time. Staff Responded affirmatively; and, suggested this might motivate the other two tenants to take action. Hamilton Referred to the seven signs which were nonconforming in 1998; and, asked if sign 5 is now conforming. Staff Replied affirmatively. Ed Soltis, representative for Enderle Center Asked if staff had contacted Mr. Allen. Staff Responded there has been no contact with Mr. Allen since the February 26, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Soltis Stated that Mr. Allen has not been willing to resolve the matter. Pontious Reiterated the Planning Commission made a decision based on the removal of a certain number of signs which Minutes - Planning Commission May 14, 2001 - Pago 2 Mr. Soltis Jennings Mr. Soltis Pontious 7:17 p.m. Kozak Davert Jennings Hamilton Davert Hamilton Davert Director Pontious Jennings has not happened; stated the Planning Commission is trying to help resolve the situation; and, stated there has to be a time definite that is not 23 years in the future. Restated the difficulty he and staff have encountered trying to deal with Mr. Allen; suggested, instead of going to 2023, including a provision providing for action at the time tenant leases expire. Asked Mr. Soltis if Mr. Allen was contacted prior to the 1998 conditional use permit. Responded that he is not sure when Mr. Allen met with staff. Stated the problem was putting in the new signs without removing the nonconforming signs; and, asked if anyone else wished to speak to this item. The Public Hearing closed. Stated the proposal from El Torito is a step in the right direction as is Chin's willingness to consider a sign change; stated it is important that Chin's remain consistent with other signage on Enderle Center Drive; asked that staff make the correction in Condition 2.1 clarifying ground lease and tenant lease; added for consideration recommending 2005 or upon termination or renewal of the first lease, whichever comes first; and, stated that the Union 76 building facing Yorba has the price-per-gallon numbers posted on the building faCade and should be removed. Stated this situation is disturbing because there are more signs on the property than before the original application; there has been no cooperation from Enderle Center; the situation has existed for two years; strong language should be implemented such as within 7 to 10 days the total number of signs must be reduced to the 1998 number. Stated agreement with Commissioner Davert's suggestions. Suggested giving the applicant an additional 90 days, consistent with the El Torito proposal. Asked what the procedure would be if nothing happens within the 90-day period. Suggested nonconforming signs 2, 3, and 4 must come down as was promised in December 1999. Stated for the record that the new signs are a vast improvement over what was there and do enhance the Center. Suggested the Planning Commission provide clear direction if a 90-day extension is the Commission's decision; and, noted that a monument sign at the comer of 17th and Endede Center Drive is still a possibility. Indicated her understanding that was the plan originally. Stated the burden falls on the applicant, not staff. Minutes - Planning Commission May 14, 2001 - Page 3 Director Hamilton Holland Hamilton Holland Davert Jennings Davert Mr. Soltis Davert Kozak Davert Director Holland Concurred that it is up to Enderle Center and Mr. Allen to work out the details; noted that if Mr. Allen does not agree to remove the three signs on their ground lease, the City cannot force them to do so; and, stated the City can force the issue of removal of two other signs. Stated removing the three nonconforming signs should be the focus. Emphasized that those signs are legal nonconforming signs; stated the City cannot compel the removal of those signs; and, concluded the City can opt not to modify the conditional use permit if the applicant does not fulfill his part of the bargain. Asked if the Planning Commission could postpone any decision for 90 days to allow El Torito to get their new sign in, then enforce the 1998 conditional use permit. Restated that enforcing the conditional use permit would require the removal of the two new signs, not the three nonconforming signs. Stated for clarification that Mr. Allen has no legal obligation to comply with anything because he was not a party to the transaction; stated his feeling that it is unacceptable to allow that line of signs to exist for 20 years; and, stated it is necessary to reach a solution allowing for the net number of signs originally agreed to. Asked if the signs that must be removed are the two new signs which were allowed by the 1998 conditional use permit. Suggested that it would be far more expensive to throw away the new signs than to buy Mr. Allen a new monument sign; that burden falls on Enderle Center. Asked if the new signs are acceptable; stated there is considerable expense involved in those signs; stated all the merchants participated in those signs; and, asked for other suggestions from the Planning Commission to take back to Mr. Allen. Disagreed with Mr. Soltis' contention that the Planning Commission is going to hurt the merchants if the 1998 conditional use permit is enforced; stated it is not the intention to hurt the merchants or the Center or to see the new signs come down; and, reiterated that the Planning Commission wants to see compliance with the 1998 conditional use permit. Suggested allowing an extension of the item for 90 days. Asked staffs preference. Responded that it would be beneficial to offer a 60- or 90- day continuance with strong direction that if something does not happen within 90 days, staff can bring back a resolution to the Commission revoking the earlier permit and directing applicant to remove the two new signs; consolidation or removal are the options. Stated that revocation may not be the action required because compliance has not taken place; denial of the application before the Commission now or to become effective in 90 days would be the proper course of action; Minutes - Planning Commission May 14, 2001 - Page 4 Davert Director Davert Holland Kozak Pontious Mr. Soltis Pontious Mr. Soltis Director Pontious Director Approved, as amended the Director's suggestion gives staff options to be presented in 90 days. Asked if staff should be directed to come back with a resolution of denial or the Planning Commission should put this application over 90 days before taking any action. A 60- or 90-day continuance would allow an opportunity for a solution between Mr. Allen and Mr. Soltis; if the three signs at 17th and Enderle Center Drive are not consolidated or the two new center identification signs are not removed within 90 days, the proposal can be denied at the end of that period. Asked if an appropriate action would be for the Commission to direct staff to come prepared at the 90- day meeting with a resolution denying this application. Responded affirmatively. Stated this application is requesting an amendment to the original 1998 conditional use permit, so it would be necessary to deny this amendment application. Stated her agreement that would be the proper course of action. Asked how long it will take El Torito to put up their new sign. Stated her understanding that under the oridinal sign program the El Torito sign was still permitted; replacement of that sign by a conforming sign would fall under what has already been permitted; no additional action is required to allow El Torito to replace their sign. Asked if El Torito has submitted a plan. Indicated preliminary plans have been received from El Torito. Asked if Planning Commission action this evening would have any effect on El Torito. Responded in the negative; and, stated her understanding that the Planning Commission is suggesting consolidation of the three signs into one and removal of the two new signs if such consolidation does not take place. It was moved by Davert, seconded by Jennings, to continue this item to August 13, 2001; direct the Enderle Center property manager to remove the three signs on 17th Street at Endede Center Way and install one (1) replacement sign for three tenants or remove the two new center identification signs, consistent with Condition 2.1 of Conditional Use Permit 00-025, by August 13, 2001; and, direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial if the applicant does not remove the signs and initiate revocation of Conditional Use Permit 00-025. Motion carried 5-0. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-022, ZONE CHANGE 99-003, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-077, AND DESIGN REVIEW 99-066 REQUESTING: Minutes - Planning Commission May 14, 2001 - Page 5 7:44 p.m. Willkom Davert Director GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-002 TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROVIDE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE SITE; ZONE CHANGE 99-003 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-4) TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO PROVIDE FOR A 54-UNIT SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-007 TO CONDITIONALLY PERMIT A 54-UNIT SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT IN THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT; AND, DESIGN REVIEW 99-006 FOR REVIEW OF THE BUILDING DESIGN, SITE PLANNING, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS HARMONIOUS WITH THE SURROUNDING IMPROVEMENTS. THIS PROJECT IS AVENUE IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. LOCATED AT 1101 SYCAMORE R-4 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission: Adopt Resolution No. 3783 recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration as adequate for General Plan Amendment 99-002 and Zone Change 99-003 and adopting the Negative Declaration as adequate for the development of a 54- unit senior housing project through Conditional Use Permit 99-007 and Design Review 99-006. Adopt Resolution No. 3784 recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 99- 002. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 3785 recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change 99-003. Adopt Resolution No. 3786 approving Conditional Use Permit 99-007 and Design Review 99-066 to allow for the development of a 54-unit senior housing project. The Public Hearing opened. Presented the staff report. Stated this project is what the Planning Commission had in mind when recommending approval of the Density Bonus Ordinance; stated that since this is a densely populated area, it is his hope that this project will not revert to multiple-family living or anything other than what the project is designed for; and, asked if that is what "in perpetuity" means. Replied affirmatively; indicated that the project on Mitchell Avenue was planned as 62 years or older which was not complied with because no deed restriction was recorded on that property; and, stated there is a deed restriction now, requiring an annual compliance report. Minutes- Planning Commission May 14. 2001 -Pago 6 Davert Asked if there will be monitoring of the four-foot striping allowing for the added turning radius referred to in Condition 1.35. Anderson Responded that the intent was to provide an area for large vehicles to turn around; since it is private property, it will be self-monitored; and, stated there could be a requirement to paint the curb red. Davert Asked if there will be individual trash can service for 54 apartment units. Staff The intent is a shared trash enclosure for the complex; individuals would set trash outside a unit to be picked up by the complex management; the City's trash hauler will not be going unit to unit. Davert Asked if Sycamore Avenue will be widened. Anderson Answered there is a future plan to widen Sycamore as part of the Base project. Kozak Asked, relating to Sycamore Avenue, whether on-street parking will be addressed. Anderson Answered that long-term, on-street parking will be retained in the future. Kozak Stated there may be a line-of-sight problem relating to cars exiting; and, suggested perhaps red striping may be necessary. Anderson Stated those issues are reviewed when the street improvement plans are submitted. Kozak Referring to Condition 1.9 and Condition 1.10, suggested this project will probably be funded by mortgage revenue bonds which typically have a 10-year call; suggested a guarantee of affordability for not less than 30 years; and, stated his support of the project. Hamilton Stated he had measured 118 feet between this project and the apartments to the east which provides a good buffer and mitigates any noise, echo effect, air conditioners; and, stated his support of the project. Kozak Suggested that, in view of the energy crisis, this would be a good application on which to encourage energy- efficient fixtu res. Pontious Asked if this suggestion can be conditioned. Director Responded that Title 24 covers energy concerns. Davert Suggested caution in terms of conditioning it on this project without some guidelines. Pontious Invited speakers to come to the lectern to speak to this item. Roger Davila, representing American Senior Living Thanked staff for their assistance; stated that the project is being financed with Federal tax credits and with tax- exempt bonds through an allocation from the County and the State of California; three different agencies will make the affordability requirement exist for 55 years; stated that energy conservation is very important to the development; the tax credit and bond programs have Minutes - Planning Commission May 14, 2001 - Page 7 Kozak Director 8:06 p.m. Director Pontious Davert Hamilton Director Pontious Holland Approved, as amended incentives that will push the project to about 15 percent above the Title 24 requirements. Asked if the annual compliance report mentioned above is also a requirement of this approval. Responded that it is not; it is difficult to require such a report; it became a requirement in the Mitchell case via a settlement agreement. The Public Hearing closed. Recapped the suggestion regarding incorporating "not less than 30 years" in Condition 1.10; stated the City Attorney provided language regarding Condition 2.27 as follows: "The applicant/owner shall comply with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element and other recycling requirements established by the Director of Public Works." Suggested making the foregoing a standard condition. Stated his support and enthusiasm for this project. Referred to Mr. Markwitz's concern regarding the echo effect; and, asked if there is some way to solve the noticing problem. Responded that staff can provide additional advance notice; the difficulty is in sometimes not being able to do so far in advance for every project and being held culpable; there was more than a 10-day notification on this project because it is going to the City Council; Mr. Markwitz can submit another letter before the Council meeting; the public notice sign size and numbers of locations posting notification are over and above what is required by State law Asked if would be appropriate to cover all the items in this application with one motion. Responded affirmatively. It was moved by Davert, seconded by Hamilton, to adopt Resolution Nos. 3783, 3784, and 3785 with the corrections noted in the staff report and Resolution No. 3786 with the following amendments: Add to the first sentence of Condition 1.10 "not less than" before thirty (30) years. Add the following sentence to the end of Condition 2.27: "The applicant/owner shall comply with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element and other recycling requirements established by the Director of Public Works." Motion carried 5-0. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15993, DESIGN REVIEW 00- 046, HILLSIDE REVIEW 00-001, AND ADMINIS- TRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 01-001 REQUESTING: 1. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15993 TO SUBDIVIDE AN 18.95 ACRE VACANT SITE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWENTY-TWO (22) ESTATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON 22 Minutes - Planning Commission May 14, 2001 - Page 8 8:12 p.m. Ashabi Kozak Pontious Davert Staff Davert NUMBERED LOTS AND FOURTEEN LETTERED LOTS; APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 00-046 AND HILLSIDE REVIEW 00-001 FOR SITE, ARCHITECTURAL, LANDSCAPE, AND LANDFORM DESIGN FOR TWENTY-TWO (22) RESIDENTIAL UNITS; AND, APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 01-001 TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF WALLS AND PILASTERS AT THE SECONDARY ENTRANCE GATE FROM THE ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SEVEN FEET SIX INCHES (7' 6") TO NINE (9) FEET. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3781 recommending that the City Council adopt Final Initial Study and Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map 15993, and adopting the Initial Study and Negative Declaration as adequate for Design Review 00-046, Hillside Review 00-001 and Administrative Adjustment 01-001 for development of twenty-two (22) home sites; That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3782 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 15993 for subdivision of twenty-two (22) numbered lots and fourteen (14) lettered lots for the development of twenty-two (22) residential units; and, That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3787 approving Design Review 00-046 and Hillside Review 00-001 for the site, architectural, landscape, and landform design of twenty-two (22) residential units and Administrative Adjustment 01-001 for an increase in the permitted height of entry walls and pilasters to a maximum height of nine (9) feet. The Public Hearing opened. Presented the staff report, pointing out revisions in recommended conditions. Stated this is an excellent up-scale project; stated the issue of homeowner association disputes regarding locked gates is not addressed on the site plan; and, asked if there is a way to avoid such situations. Referred to staff's survey of requirements for gated communities in other cities and the need for the City Council to make a policy based on the results. Asked if it is staff's contention that this project will be retroactively subject to the policy. Responded that staff is proposing the pedestrian gates remain unlocked consistent with Phases I and II; and, stated that when the policy established by the City Council comes forward, the builder and homeowners association would be eligible to make this project consistent with that policy at that time. Stated his recollection of the Council's decision as being unlocked pedestrian gates not being the current scheme Minutes - Planning Commission May 14, 2001 - Page 9 Staff Jennings Davert Staff Davert Staff Davert Staff Davert Staff Hamilton Davert Director Thom Olson, Standard Pacific Kozak Mr. Olson representing in Phase I, while the new gate being constructed will be locked. Responded that is correct, but the front gate of Phase I is required to remain unlocked. Pointed out this project has only a front gate. Asked for clarification regarding all three phases being open to each other. Responded there are open space areas connecting the three phases; however, residents would have to walk across landscaped open space to accomplish this. Asked if walking into one gate allows entrance to any part of the tract. Responded affirmatively. Stated his desire for consistency in all projects to alleviate contentious situations in the future; and, asked if it would be possible to require a signed document from each purchaser agreeing to pedestrian gates remaining unlocked. Responded affirmatively. Asked if there will be reforestation in the eucalyptus groves. Answered that reforestation has been implemented in Phase I and is planned for Phases II and III. Asked about the reference to a secondary entrance in Resolution 3787, Condition 3.3. Suggested the proposed new gate is a secondary entrance, and the primary entrance is the one at Pioneer Middle School. Indicated that is correct but it could be clarified, "the entrance from Peters Canyon." Stated that the gate situation was disclosed to the buyers in Phases I and II and documents were signed to that effect; however, it came back to the Board (of which Standard Pacific is member) that it was the responsibility of the Board members to represent the fiduciary responsibility and the homeowners' best interests; Standard Pacific sought counsel and was advised to pursue the issue; stated he has no problem with adding language to preclude that from happening again; stated excitement regarding the architect involved in this project; and, stated that 55 more trees than originally planned will be saved as a result of the elimination of the equestrian center. Asked if elimination of the equestrian center poses any problem with the homeowners in Phases I and II. Responded that the CC&Rs stated the equestrian center might never be built and could be subdivided into additional units; added this will be a separate association; and, stated Standard Pacific would not resist additional fencing. Minutes - Planning Commission May 14. 2001 - Page 10 Davert 8:28 p.m. Jennings Staff Director Davert Director Davert Approved, as amended Stated that more fencing is not his goal. The Public Hearing closed. Asked what the Hillside District is. Answered the Hillside District refers to the sloped areas called out in the East Tustin Specific Plan. Provided a point of clarification between Phases I and II and this project in that there is no access from either of those phases to this phase, unlike Lot F which was never intended to be a pedestrian access between the two; Lot F was perceived by separate homeowners that such be the case; there is no trail, no roadway, nothing connecting Phases I and II to Phase III; moving between these phases would require moving over landscaped slope areas to do so; a perimeter fence could be put around all of Phase III disallowing entry without jumping the fence. Stated his concern is not with limiting access but with open access and advocates no fence of any sort. Stated that the Planning Commission should be aware a fence could be erected unless the Commission chooses to address the possibility. Stated there is no need to create a problem where one does not exist. It was moved by Davert, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution Nos. 3781, 3782, and 3787 with the corrections indicated in the staff report and the following additions/corrections: Resolution No. 3782: Add Condition 6.1 F. as follows: "The developer shall provide the City with an information notice, as approved by the City Attorney, indicating that the pedestrian gates at the front entrance are required to remain unlocked." Resolution 3787, Condition 3.3, remove the word "secondary" from the first sentence. Motion carried 5-0. 5. CODE AMENDMENT 01-001 A REQUEST TO: AMEND THE DEFINITION SECTIONS OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO INCLUDE A DEFINITION FOR "SPECIALTY STORES." AMEND SECTIONS 9232B, 9232C, 9234C, 9235C, AND 9242B OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATED TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-1), CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2), HEAVY COMMERCIAL (C-3), COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG), AND INDUSTRIAL (M) DISTRICTS TO INCLUDE "SPECIALTY STORES" AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE. 3. AMEND SECTIONS 9232B(P), 9233C(V), 9234C(10), 9235C(DD), AND 9242B(G) OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATED TO DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF-SITE ALCOHOLIC Minutes - Planning Commission May 14, 2001 - Page 11 8:32 p.m. Ashabi Jennings Staff Jennings Staff Hamilton Director Davert Pontious Director Kozak Director Holland BEVERAGE SALES IN RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C- 1), CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2), HEAVY COMMERCIAL (C-3), COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG), AND INDUSTRIAL (M) ZONING DISTRICTS TO EXEMPT "SPECIALTY STORES" FROM THE MINIMUM DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF-SITE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES ESTABLISHMENTS. AMEND THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES ESTABLISHMENT GUIDELINES TO INCLUDE A DEFINITION FOR "SPECIALTY STORES" AND RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission: Adopt Resolution No. 3777 determining that the Final Negative Declaration for the project is adequate; and, Adopt Resolution No. 3778 recommending that the City Council approve Code Amendment 01- 001 and amend the Alcoholic Beverage Sales Establishment Guidelines. The Public Hearing opened. Presented the staff report. Asked if this would apply to the kosher market previously approved as a convenience store by the Planning Commission. Answered the kosher market would qualify to become a specialty store. Asked if the Type 20 and 21 ABC licenses change the 15 square feet of retail space and refrigerated beverages requirement. Replied those would be the types of licenses required by the State regardless of the quantity. Asked if no refrigerated alcoholic beverage sales could be added to Condition 2.8. Answered affirmatively. Questioned the distance restrictions from schools. Asked staff if that would be difficult to accomplish. Responded there are numerous schools in commercial districts. Asked if this proposal is to allow for the sale of some specialty alcoholic beverages only and not be a mass- produced brews outlet. Stated the ABC does not distinguish between religious or ceremonial alcohol versus typical commercial alcohol; this is the reason staff chose the square footage element. Stated that restriction cannot be placed here but can be dealt with when applications for conditional use permits are submitted, putting the burden on applicants to Minutes - Planning Commission May 14.2001 - Page 12 Davert 8:45 p.m. Approved 8:47 p.m. Ashabi Jennings Staff Hamilton Davert Director Jennings explain what it is they will be selling and show how it is unique. Noted that would avoid the problem of having someone open a store not otherwise eligible and call it a specialty store. The Public Hearing closed. It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Jennings, to adopt Resolution Nos. 3777 and Resolution No. 3778, amended as follows: Add to Resolution 3778 at the end of the last sentence of II A: "and no sales of refrigerated alcoholic beverages." Motion carried 5-0. CODE AMENDMENT 01-002 A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION 9271 TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES LISTED IN THE HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD SETBACK FOR A NEW ADDITION IF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS CAN BE MET. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission: Adopt Resolution No. 3779 recommending that the City Council find the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the Code Amendment 01-002 is adequate; and, 2. Adopt Resolution No. 3780 recommending that the City Council approve Code Amendment 01-002. The Public Hearing opened. Presented the staff report. Asked if this code amendment applies to larger than narrow lots. Answered affirmatively. Noted a missing word: add "setbacks" between "existing" and "would" to Letter D, bullet four, of Resolution 3780. Asked if the Cultural Resources Advisory Committee (CRAC) has reviewed this code amendment. Responded that CRAC meets only four times a year, which limits the Committee's ability to formally review proposals; stated there are members of the Committee who are familiar with what is being proposed; and, noted this amendment provides the most flexibility for homeowners. Stated she would like to see these types of proposals presented to CRAC; indicated she served on CRAC; and, added she believes CRAC should meet more often. Minutes - Planning Commission May 14, 2001 - Page 13 Pontious Richard Blackburn, homeowner, 150 Mountain View Drive 8:56 p.m. Director reported Jennings Agreed with Commissioner Jennings' comments and suggested that perhaps staff could provide information to CRAC by mail and ask for their input. Stated he is the homeowner involved; and, thanked staff for their assistance in allowing some flexibility while ensuring compliance. The Public Hearing closed. It was moved by Jennings, seconded by Hamilton, to adopt Resolution Nos. 3779 and 3780, with the following correction to Resolution 3780. Add the word "setbacks" between "existing" and "would" in Item D, Line One, Bullet Four. Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS -- None STAFF CONCERNS The City Council was to consider the aboveground telecommunications facilities ordinance but continued that item, pending public review; and, stated that staff is doing outreach and will report back to the Planning Commission. Staff will be taking a number of the items considered this evening, with the Planning Commission's recommended actions, to the May 21, 2001, City Council meeting. The Bagel Me awning has been removed; staff does not yet know what is going up in place of the awning; this has become a code enforcement matter that was referred to the City Attorney's office; a letter sent by the City Attorney to the property owner rather than the business resulted in this action; in the event that modifications are not made, staff will ask them to remove the structure. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commented on the death of John Sauers who was a third-generation Tustinian, a man who served on the City Council and Planning Commission; indicated she served with him on the Cultural Resources Advisory Committee; and, noted John did a lot for the City and will be missed. Stated she attended a conference on smart-growth alternatives at UCI, "Envisioning Orange County's Future"; indicated that the presentation was very well done; she learned the following: Orange County has more people than 15 states and is more dense than Los Angeles County; in 25 years Orange County is expected to increase by 600,000 residents--not by immigration but by birth; a gentlemen from Riverside County indicated a survey conducted there revealed that Riverside citizens do not want to be "like Orange County;" they want downtowns with town centers and community centers; and, concluded that Tustin is fortunate to have those already. Stated the Thai Specialty Restaurant on Newport Avenue has a tattered awning. Minutes - Planning Commission May 14, 2001 - Page 14 Davert Director Anderson Director Davert Director Kozak Director Director Jennings Reported that the Tustin Area Historical Society's Home Tour was well attended; the preservation of Tustin's historic structures is a pleasure to observe. Asked what is being done about the burned out stores in Larwin Square. Answered that they are proceeding with obtaining permits to reconstruct the buildings. Indicated he had received a question from a neighbor regarding the curb ramps in older areas; and, asked if something is being planned. Responded that those areas are considered as part of the annual curb and gutter program; as funds become available, areas are investigated and corrected. Indicated a portion of the CDBG funds are also being made available for this use. Asked if there is anything that prohibits cars for sale being parked on public roadways; and, indicated there were four parked on Yorba Avenue today. Answered that is a very difficult issue; the best way to restrict these parked cars is to require they be moved every 72 hours. Noted that on 17th Street, Oaktree Plaza, the monument sign in front of what used to be Conroy's and is now a dress shop has been broken apart for some time; and, asked for code enforcement action. Noted that the Quick Sign building on the south side of I-5 near Cad's Jr. has had the box-channel signs removed, which leaves a series of what look like bullet holes on the side of building, creating a bad impression for commerce along that corridor. Stated that also along that corridor a gray, tilt-up building near the monopalm has had a series of windows facing the freeway vandalized. Stated that a neighbor had pointed out that near the intersection of Irvine Boulevard and Holt Avenue there is a gap in the sidewalk. Asked about the Planning Commission's review of the Capital Improvement Program. Responded that the Planning Commission did a General Plan annual review last June or July and will be doing that again; the Planning Commission only reviews the General Plan and Housing Element Annual Report to show consistency or fulfillment of the General Plan. Noted that Mr. Surfas has hung a banner on his building. Mr. Surfas has no permit for either the monument sign or the banner; staff will be addressing this. Congratulated Commissioner Hamilton on the birth .of his daughter. Minutes - Planning Commission May 14, 2001 - Page 15 Pontious Indicated there is graffiti on walls, cabinets, fire hydrants, and streets at Nisson between Red Hill and Blue Boy Swim Club. Hamilton Asked that the weeds below Edinger on Red Hill Avenue on the right-hand side be removed; and, stated there is a building about a quarter mile to the right of that location which looks like it has been vacant a long time and needs attention. 9:11 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Pontious asked for a motion to adjourn in the memory of John Sauers. It was moved by Davert, seconded by Kozak, to adjourn the meeting to June 11, 2001, at 6:00 p.m. when a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Workshop will be held in the Council Chamber conference room. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Monday, June 11,2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Chairperson Elizabeth A. Binsack Planning Commission Secretary Minutes - Planning Commission May 14, 2001 -- Page 16