Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-09-95MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 9, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers Kasalek, Lunn, Mitzman, Bone and Vandaveer None PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) At this time members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items not on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission (NO action can be taken off-agenda.items unless authorized by law). IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE SO THAT YOUR REMARKS ON THE TAPE RECORDING OF THE MEETING CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU. WHEN YOU START TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY AT (714) 573-3105. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALLMATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the September 25, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Bone moved, Vandaveer seconded, to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM CONSIDERED AT A PUBLIC HEARING IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS AGENDA, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995 Page 2 Conditional Use Permit 95-015 & Desiqn Review 95-030 APPLICANT/ OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: SANDERSON J. RAY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 2699 WHITE ROAD, SUITE 150 IRVINE, CA. 92714 ATTN: GARY MIERAU ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES 128 S. GLASSELL AVE. ORANGE, CA 92666 ATTN: RICHARD ANDERSON 13221 JAMBOREE ROAD (TUSTIN RANCH PLAZA) PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL; NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A FREESTANDING BURGER KING FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE AND OUTDOOR SEATING AS PART OF THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3399; and Approve Conditional Use Permit 95-015 and Design Review 95-030 by adopting Resolution No. 3400, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, AICP, Senior Planner Commissioner Vandaveer - Noted that the exit to the drive-thru was very close to the entrance to the parking aisle and inquired if this would cause a traffic jam. Staff stated that the drive aisle is a cross drive aisle and off the primary entrance drive and the traffic analysis concluded that it would not cause a traffic conflict. Commissioner Bone - Asked for clarification of the parking dedication for the outdoor patio and how did Lot No. 5 tie into this pad. He also asked if the applicant would have to come back for approval of the outdoor seating. Staff stated that parking for the entire Center is calculated as a whole and the parking spaces for the restaurant have been provided for on-site and accounted for in the parking tally for the Center so as to give the property owner more flexibility in allocating parking spaces to the various tenants. The applicant will not have to appear before the Commission a second time since tonights action will approve the outdoor seating and the actual seating plan and layout can be handled administratively at staff level review. Commissioner Kasalek - Asked if the Police Department had any concern about adequate visibility. Staff stated that there had been no comments from the Police Department and that the store front faces the interior of the parking lot. The Public Hearing opened at 7:10 p.m. The Public Hearing closed at 7:10 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995 Page 3 Co-missioner Bone moved, Vandaveer seconded, to approve Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3399, as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Co--issioner Bone move, Mitzman seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit 95-015 and Design Review 95-030 by adopting Resolution No. 3400, as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Variance 95-010 PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. KEITH W. BAGUE 1521 COPPERFIELD DRIVE TUSTIN, CA. 92680 1521 COPPERFIELD DRIVE R-l; SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THIS PROJECT IS DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT TO CONSTRUCT A FIVE (5) FOOT TALL WROUGHT IRON FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance 95-010 by adopting Resolution No. 3396, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Gregory Gubman, Assistant Planner Commissioner Vandaveer - Asked how the gate would be kept closed without a lock and what would prevent a child from running out into the street. Staff stated that the gates would be latched and if locks were provided, a Condition of Approval would require Fire Department approval. The Director noted that the Commission might take into consideration that child care is not the request here but the use of the fencing as protection from vehicular movement and pedestrian activity on Red Hill. The Public Hearing opened at 7:15 p.m. Carlene Gates, 1592 Copperfield, Tustin, stated that she is a realtor by profession and is concerned that driving potential buyers into an area with a five foot wrought iron fence would be a deterrent to property values. Gerald Gates, 1592 Copperfield, stated that the neighbors he has spoken to are outraged feeling that if one fence goes up they are afraid there will be more, which will ruin their beautiful neighborhood and make it look more like Santa Ana than Tustin. He believes there must be other ways to safeguard the child than to build a fence. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995 Page 4 Ed Eloe, 1542 Copperfield, stated he lives opposite where the proposed fence is to be installed and feels the fence will lower the value of property in the neighborhood. There are no other fences like this in the Summerfield area and he is opposed to it for he feels the fence is too high and too close to the sidewalk. He questioned how the fence would be effective if one side of the yard is not proposed to be enclosed. Maria Engle, 1612 Copperfield, stated that her child plays in the backyard; their neighborhood is nice and clean and a fence would make it look like south Santa Ana. She also questioned the reasoning for not enclosing one side of the yard with the fence if the objective was to keep the child in. Della Decker, 1581 Copperfield, stated she lives five houses from the home in question and is also opposed to the five foot wrought iron fence. Becky Harris, 1591 Copperfield, feels a fence would give a negative first impression for anyone traveling into the tract. Keith W. Bague, the applicant, stated that he did not intend to put a lock on the gate since he planned to put a latch on the gate that would be too high for the child to reach. Concerning fencing of the yard, he wishes to fence the grass area only and the gate will be hinged to encompass the driveway if more play area was needed. The Public Hearing closed at 7:22 p.m. Commissioner Lunn - stated she reviewed the letter which accompanied the request and she feels that a gate without a lock will not accomplish what is being requested. She also agrees that five feet is too high for a fence in this area. Commissioner Mitzman - Is in opposition to the request since he feels it would ruin property values and set a bad tone for the neighborhood. Commissioner Vandaveer - opposed, stating it will not accomplish what the applicant wants and will not be good for the neighborhood. Commissioner Bone stated that the residents were correct that there were no other fences in the neighborhood and he is opposed to the fence also. He also wondered if the neighbors across the street had any of the same problems as the applicant. Commissioner Kasalek stated that although she would like to see a lower, more ornamental fence she is concerned about the reasons for the applicants request and believes he has some real problems because of the location on Red Hill and proximity to the bus stop. Commissioner Vandaveer moved, Bone seconded, to deny approval of Variance 95-010 subject to a confirming resolution to be presented at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Kasalek opposed. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995 Page 5 REGULAR BUSINESS: 4. Appeal Of Desiqn Review 95-036 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: IMAGE ARCHITECTURE 1157 RED GUM ANAHEIM, CA. 92806 ATTN: CRAIG SMITH JOHN CONNELLY 18262 ALEXANDRA PLACE TUSTIN, CA. 92680 18262 ALEXANDRA PLACE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT APPEAL OF CONDITIONS 3.2 (A) AND (C) OF DESIGN REVIEW 95-036 RELATED TO RELOCATING A FENCE AND LANDSCAPE EASEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE A GARAGE ADDITION Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission uphold Conditions 3.2 (a)&(c) of Design Review 95-036 and deny the appeal by adopting Resolution No. 3397, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Robert A. Delgadillo, Assistant Planner Craig Smith, the applicant and architect, distributed a photo board and graphic exhibit to the Commission to illustrate his two main points. He stated they do not have a problem re-recording a different easement but do have a problem with removing 15 feet of block wall. He stated that Mr. Connelly's intent was to enhance the appearance of the his home. If the 150 square feet of landscaping is an issue for the City he suggested paving with a paver that will allow the grass to grow through. The second point is that Mr. Connelly feels his property is already surrounded with landscape and if he were to give the 150 feet up he would have no side yard. John Connelly, the land owner, stated that he does not feel the 150 feet of landscaping is any great benefit or loss to the citizens of Tustin but by providing the elevation the architect has proposed he feels the view would be greatly enhanced. He has offered to put in pavers to maintain the lush appearance. He stated that he has invested a considerable amount of money in the patio area and without a side yard, there is no place to even conceal a garbage can when guests are present. Commissioner Bone - Asked if the Homeowners Association approved this plan. Jerome Greubel, 12805 Newport Avenue, developer, stated he was the original developer and there were only four homes in the Association. Only one other homeowner would be involved and has no problem with the project. His personal feeling is that motor homes look better behind a structure and he applauds Mr. Connelly for doing this. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995 Page 6 Commissioner Bone - stated he had gone to the site and had spoken to Mr. and Mrs. Connelly about the project. From this conversation Mr. Connelly had told him he was under the impression that he could not contact any members of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bone hopes staff will make sure that applicants in the future would be advised of their right to contact any of the Commissioners. He agrees with the applicant. Commissioner Vandaveer - Inquired if the paving will withstand the weight of an RV and asked staffs opinion on using these turf pavers in the driveway versus moving the wall. Staff stated that this project is turf block and it was developed for conditions such as these. Staff stated it would look better since turf block is hollow and when the grass grows through the block cannot be detected. Staff has no comparative figures on the cost of the block versus removing the wall. Craiq Smith stated he would be more in favor of puttting money into something that will help rather than tearing something down. Commissioner Lunn agrees with the applicant, she elevation looks very nice and he already is responsibility for a lot of landscaping. feels the taking on Commissioner Kasalek Stated she has no problem with the new garage but inquired what the next step would be for the applicant if the Commission approved his request. Staff indicated that the original conditions of the tract map would have to be amended which specifically identified and referenced a landscape easement on the parcel map; this would require a public hearing before the City Council. At design review level the Commission's action can be conditioned to approval of a modification to the tract map. Com-issioner Vandaveer moved, Lunn seconded, to approve the appeal to modify Condition 3.2 (a)&(c) so that there would not be a need for altering the masonry wall nor for providing an alternate replacement to the landscape easement that will be removed as a result of the proposed garage addition, subject to City Council approval of Tentative Map amendment which would modify the configuration of the landscape easement. Motion carried 5-0. General Plan Amendment 94-001, Zone Change 94-004, Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement & Tentativ~ Tract Map 15055 (Irvine Company) Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and provide a recommendation to the City Council on the revised project proposal submitted by the applicant, pursuant to Government Code Section 65857. Commissioners Lunn and Mitzman abstained due to conflict of interest. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995 Page 7 Michael LeBlanc, Irvine Company representative, explained the reasons for their advocating alternative #4. He feels it represents the best reuse plan for the site which responds as much as possible to the concerns expressed by the community and at the same time gives the Irvine Company an appropriate level of flexibility to provide the best quality development at that site. He proposed some specific limits such as an attached product at the intersection of Irvine Boulevard and Tustin Ranch Road and no more than 16 dwelling units per acre, they will retain the park and feels this is the best location for it. The 3.6 acre park, given their 12 percent reduction in units, would fully satisfy all of Tustin Ranch park program. With alternative #4, while they don't believe they can provide all the improvements on the park they would be willing to talk to the City Council about an appropriate contribution toward the City budget for the park. Howard Mitzman, as a resident of Tustin Ranch, stated he has a lot of problems with land use alternate #4. It was clear to him from the previous public hearings that the residents wanted no apartments and lower density, now the Irvine Company has gone from 12.4 units per acre to 13.3 units per acre. If what is proposed now is an unimproved park and higher density he suggested scrapping the idea and just going for 10w density single family homes and foregoing the park. Commissioner Bone - feels that the best plan is alternative #3 with the patio homes and the L shaped configuration with the apartments in the northeast section and the 3.6 acre park. He feels that the 3.6 acre park should not only be dedicated but also developed and paid for by the Irvine Company with input on the design from the Parks and Recreation Commission. Commissioner Vandaveer likes alternate plan #3 with a fully constructed park. Commissioner Kasalek - believes that lower density is needed on Tustin Ranch Road. She is not prepared to recommend this plan to the City Council. Commissioner Bone moved, Vandaveer seconded, to recommend approval to City Council of the Irvine Company's Alternate 3, with a condition for dedication and improvement of the 3.6 acre neighborhood park site, and include increased parking rates as origlnally recommended by the Commission by Minute Motion. Motion carried 3-0. Commissioners Lunn and Mitzman abstained. 6. Discussion of Invocation Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission Commissioner Mitzman - stated that he was concerned that these things make a lot of people very uneasy especially those people who don't believe in a God and he feels it gets too close to church and state matters therefore, he would like to see the invocation eliminated. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995 Page 8 Commissioner Kasalek stated she had given this a lot of thought and disagrees with Commissioner Mitzman. In all the years she has been involved in the Planning Commission and attended Council meetings she has never heard of this being a concern or an uncomfortable situation for anyone. She stated that both the Pledge Of Allegiance and the coinage of the country mentions God, an invocation is something the Supreme Court and Congress does and she feels that is what our nation was founded on. She volunteered to give the invocation herself if no one else wanted to do it. Commissioner Lunn - stated she had also thought about it and agrees with the Chairperson. She feels that anyone who does not want to take part in it does not have to, but she too has never heard any objection to it from the public. Commissioner Vandaveer stated he had no problem leaving the invocation in. He feels it does not violate any rights. Commissioner Bone believes that the Planning Commission should follow the lead of the the City Council on this matter. At several recent meetings the mayor has announced that there would be no invocation since there was no pastor to give it. He feels that perhaps the Council needs to make their position clear so that the Planning Commission can follow their lead. Commissioner Kasalek- does not feel that a clergy person must give the invocation, but she does believe it is merely a matter of asking for blessing, help, and support and is an important part of decisions made for the nation and City. Commissioner Mitzman reiterated that he was uncomfortable with an invocation and getting clergy to do it would make him extremely uncomfortable. He feels that this is like prayer in school, it does not belong there nor at the Planning Commission nor in his opinion at City Council. Commissioner Lunn stated it was a cop out to ask the Council for direction, she feels they would tell the Commission to do whatever they felt comfortable with. Commissioner Bone stated he feels the Chairperson should decide if the Commission should do the invocation or not. Commissioner Vandaveer agreed with Commissioner Bone. By consensus the Commission agreed to retain the invocation· STAFF CONCERNS: Report on Actions taken at the October 2, 1995 City Council Meetinq~ Staff reported on the subject agenda. COM~ISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Vandaveer Thanked City staff for help given during the Tustin Tiller Days event. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995 Page 9 Commissioner Bone Wanted to notify everyone that waste scavenging is now illegal in the City of Tustin and that the Police Department has informed him that they will start citing. He inquired on the status of the stickers for the garbage cans. Staff stated they will get a report to him on this. Commissioner Lunn Stated she has taken photographs over the weekend of conditions at the convenience store at Newport and Sycamore to pass on to Code Enforcement. Boxes are piled high and three and four year old children are playing in and on the boxes. The Commissioner is concerned that the children may come to some harm from the contents of the boxes. Staff will follow up on this matter. Commissioner Mitzman - Challenged the Commission to join the Dinosaur Dash as a team. He proposed that the Commission form team "TPC". Commissioner Kasalek Stated that the Dinosaur Dash is a very worthwhile event, that the money goes directly back to the schools in Tustin and that the Irvine Company is matching dollar for dollar and they are working toward the "imagine a million campaign". Stated that the Tustin Tiller Days parade and festival were very successful. She noted however, that the trees at Main and E1 Camino tend to drop thrips and asked if the trees can be trimmed to help avoid this problem. Staff stated that the trees had been sprayed last week. Reported that the Rotary Club had put up a banner across the street during Tiller Days which was too low and knocked the tepee over. Staff stated that a letter will go out from Community Services staff on the banner so that the situation does not occur again. Commissioner Lunn moved, Vandaveer seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Motion carried. 5-0. .......... T" rT lil ....... - I! Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995 Page 10 i~O~ENT ~ The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission is on October 23, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the city Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Recording Secretary Chairperson