Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-25-95MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER ZSv 1995 CALL TO ORDER: 7:07 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL~ Present: Absent: 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~ (ALL MATTERS 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.) Minutes of the September 11, 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. ............ T '" 1. 1111 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 2 Code Amendment 95-003 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92680 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITYWIDE C-1 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL), C-2 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL), C-3 (HEAVY COMMERCIAL), CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL) AND M (INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICTS. IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ZONING CODE REVISING DISTANCE SEPARATION REGULATIONS FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES ESTABLISHMENTS AND AMENDING THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES POLICY GUIDELINES. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3375; and Recommend to the City Council approval of Code Amendment 95- 003 by adopting Resolution No. 3365, as submitted or revised; and Adopt Resolution No. 3366, establishing policy guidelines to be followed for consideration of alcoholic beverage sales establishment applications. Presentation: Dan Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Bone asked staff to explain the last paragraph of Resolution 3365, Draft Ordinance, Section I, iA. He believes that Page 2, Section I A 2 sounds like the City is trying to be "big brother" and asked how who came up with the wording on sensitive uses. He also questioned the wording on outdoor seating. Staff stated that if a store is larger than 15,000 square feet and devotes less than 10% of their floor area for alcoholic beverage sales they would be exempt a Conditional Use Permit requirement; if larger than 15,000 square feet and devoting more than 10% of their floor area for alcoholic beverage sales, they would be subject to the distance requirement. Concerning sensitive uses, staff stated that this language was from previous Planning Commission direction. Commissioner Bone stated that he has a real problem with the wording "any requests which do not meet the minimum distance regulations are prohibited from applying for a Conditional Use Permit" as stated on page 4 of the staff report and he cannot support this for he believes that this is discrimination against small business. Staff stated that this reference is for a liquor store or a bar but does not apply to restaurants. Once the distance requirements have been met then, the Guidelines are a starting point from which the specific request can be analyzed and reviewed, then the Planning Commission and staff have the ability to determine if it is an appropriate use, given the individual circumstances. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 3 Commissioner Kasalek stated that there must be some sort of criteria set and asked Commissioner Bone what type of criteria he would come up with. Commissioner Lunn stated that the previous Ordinance contained that same provision because the Commission was concerned with the proliferation of convenience stores or gas stations which might apply for take out liquor. Commissioner Kasalek asked staff to explain the guidelines for specialty stores which might want to include liquor in gift baskets etc. Staff stated that the Planning Commission has approved a Conditional Use Permit for a business in Enderle Center that limits the sale of alcohol to be included in gift baskets. However, by definition the ABC would consider them as having an off-site liquor license. There is no clear way to define a specialty gift boutique as different from another off-site sales establishment. As proposed, those types of uses would have to comply with the distance requirements. The Public Hearing opened at 7:25 p.m. The Public Hearing closed at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Vandaveer has no problem with the distances. Commissioner Lunn this point. is in full support and glad it is finally to Commissioner Bone stated further that he believes that the stores know best where to put their products and he has a problem with the City trying to micro manage with such statements in Resolution No. 3366, page 2, Item 8, which states where the refrigerated single services should be placed within the store. Commissioner Kasalek believes this criteria was based on Police Department input and these rules were set for the safety of the citizens in general. Commissioner Lunn moved, Mitzman seconded, to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3375 as submitted. Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Bone opposed. Commissioner Lunn moved, Vandaveer seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of Code Amendment 95-003 by adopting Resolution No. 3365 as submitted. Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Bone opposed. Commissioner Lunn moved, Vandaveer seconded, to adopt Resolution 3366 as submitted, establishing policy guidelines to be followed for consideration of alcoholic beverage sales establlshed applications. Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Bone opposed. ..... -1"- Ti lll .............. I ............ I !IIIitl Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 4 ITEM NO. 4 WAS TAKEN OUT OF ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE APPLICANTS SCHEDULE. REGUL/~R BUSINESS: 4. Sign Code Exception 95-006 PROPERTY OWNER WALLACE OWENS ENDERLE % THOMPSON, CR 14081 SO. YORBA STREET TUSTIN, CA. 92680 APPLICANT: CORPORATE DESIGNS LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ATTN: JEFF REUTER 2102 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE IRVINE , CA. 92715 17320 EAST 17TH STREET PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PC-COMM) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA EQUALITY ACT (CEQA) TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN AREA FOR TENANT IDENTIFICATION ON A NEW A CENTER MONUMENT IDENTIFICATION SIGN FOR ENDERLE CENTER° Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Sign Code Exception 95-006 by adopting Resolution No. 3389, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Robert Delgadillo, Assistant Planner There was no discussion by the Commission. Commissioner Bone moved Vandaveer seconded, to approve Sign Code Exception 95-006 by adopting Resolution No. 3389 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14410, Design Review 95-008, Hillside Review 95-001 and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 91-008 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: LEWIS HOMES MANAGEMENT CORP. 1156 NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE P.O. BOX 670 UPLAND, CA 91785-5008 ATTENTION: MR. PATRICK LOY LOTS 7, 8, "N", "O" AND "U" OF TRACT 13627 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/HILLSIDE DISTRICT - 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. 1. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE 171 NUMBERED LOTS AND 52 LETTERED LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING 171 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING UNITS; Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 5 APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT; AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE "CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT" STANDARDS OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT; AND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLANS FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF HILLSIDE REVIEW. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 2. 3. 4. 5. Approve the environmental determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3390; Approve Hillside Review 95-001 by adopting Resolution No. 3391, as submitted or revised; Approve Design Review 95-008 by adopting Resolution No. 3392, as submitted or revised; Amend Conditional Use Permit 91-008 by adopting Resolution No. 3393, as submitted or revised; and Recommend to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14410 by adopting Resolution No. 3394, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Sara Pashalides, Associate Planner Commissioner Mitzman stated for the record that he was related by marriage to the Lewis Homes family but that he felt he could be fair and had no financial interest in the project. Commissioner Bone asked where the mailboxes would be located. Staff stated that the City mailbox design guidelines would be followed. The Public Hearing opened at 7:42 p.m. Patrick Loy, representing Lewis Homes, stated that the market changed considerably since the original plans had been approved and they believe that this current product would be better received in today's market. They have kept the key elements of the original plan and have changed the lot size about 10% from the original proposal, increasing the density. He asked that three items be considered concerning the proposed Conditions of Approval. 1) Resolution No. 3392, Condition 4.11, referring to all perimeter landscaping improvements. They have a 40 acre site, with a 3500 lineal frontage on Pioneer Road and Peters Canyon Road. They are proposing an alternate phased landscaping scheme on the perimeter which will not be such a hardship on them at this time; 2) Resolution No. 3394, Condition 1.7, limits construction access to the main entry access point. They propose using the emergency access on Pioneer Road as a temporary access during the final phase of construction so that residents occupying homes already built will not be disturbed and the enhanced gate entrances will not be damage; 3) Resolution No. 3394, Condition 2.10, requires completion of the recreation facility prior to the models being granted Certificates of Occupancy. He stated this is an elaborate facility and the model home construction might get ahead of the recreation area. He proposed tying the recreation facility to Phase I occupancies since these would be the people who would be using the facility. I ....................... r l iilll .......... --r- .......................... I! I ....... Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 6 Nancy Kuwada, 2701 Timmons, Tustin, asked exactly where the gate on Pioneer Road was to be located and if there was any research done concerning traffic stacking up at that location. Staff stated that the main entrance drive was opposite the entrance for Cantada and as far as the vehicular stacking at the gates, they have complied with the Orange County EMA standards. David Thaler, 11850 North Riviera, Tustin, asked how much guest parking would be on the premises and if street parking was considered guest parking. He believes that the development plan is too congested. He stated there were very few restaurants in that area and believes that the city should have more commercial development. He asked what the price range of the homes was and what Lewis Homes was giving back to the community. Staff stated that the guest parking was well distributed throughout the complex and this is not a type of single family home development which typically has parking problems; there were 33 separate guest parking spaces and 50 on-street guest parking areas which are not in front of anyone's home. Staff stated that the East Tustin Specific plan designates the site between Portola, Tustin Ranch Road and Jamboree as commercial. Patrick Loy stated the lot size was nearly 5,600 square feet and under this zoning classification they were allowed to go down to 3,000 square feet but have decided to put in the park area because they are concerned with presenting value to the buyers. He stated the base price would be $290,000 to $330,00. He stated that the development is parked comparatively to a standard public County or City street. The Public Hearing closed at 8:10 p.m. Commissioner Lunn asked for staff comments on the changes proposed by the applicant. Staff stated that the perimeter landscaping is a typical condition used throughout the specific plan and in all cases the requirement for the entire perimeter to be completed with the initial phase was to give a completed look to the neighborhood. This is not a code requirement but a policy decision however, since this project does have an exceptional amount of street frontage the applicants proposal is acceptable. Concern is only with the balance of Pioneer Road from the paseo and staff suggests that at least that portion be completed. Staff does not recommend using the emergency access for construction especially since there has been comments received subsequent to the noticing related to construction issues. Release of the model complex with first phase would be acceptable to staff. Commissioner Bone asked how long the phases would take from start to finish. Staff stated that this is driven by the developer and how well the homes sell. The Public Hearing opened at 8:00 p.m. Patrick Loy stated that their intent was to sell 3-4 homes per month as they see the market today so it might be 4-5 months separating the phases and this is the proposal they have presented to the Irvine Company and feel confident they can achieve. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 7 David Thaler asked that the Commission not approve the project at this time and look at it six months from now. Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the 1991 Vesting Tentative Map approval gave the developer the vested right under State Law to develop the existing project. If this project was tabled the developer could go out and construct the existing project tomorrow. She believes that what Mr. Thaler is talking about is a moratorium on development and this type of discussion would be more appropriately focused during a comprehensive General Plan Amendment discussion which the City has just gone through. Nancy Kuwada lives in the Seranno Development and would not want commercial development across the street. She is in favor of the developer using the emergency access road. The Public Hearing closed at 8:25 p.m. Commissioner Mitzman stated that he believes this project is better than the original proposal and will look better over time for the community. He believes that price is not a planning issue. He feels homes are needed before commercial development. He feels the parking is in excess of the code and agrees with the developer on the construction access use. Commissioner Vandaveer agrees with the emergency construction access and likes the proposed changes. Commissioner Lunn feels that this project is better than the original and concedes to the construction entrance. Commissioner Kasalek pleased with the project; glad they are leaving the hillside and trying to create some common open space. As far as the three requests, she would like to see some temporary screening in the upper portion rather than requiring the landscape construction all the way up because of the undue hardship. She feels the emergency access request is reasonable. Commissioner Bone moved, Vandaveer seconded, to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3390 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Bone moved, Vandaveer seconded, to approve Hillside Review 95-001 by adopting Resolution No. 3391 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Bone moved, Vandaveer seconded, to approve Design Review 95-008 by adopting Resolution No. 3392 revised as follows. Exhibit A, Page 7, Condition 4.11 shall read, "Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for Phase I, the developer shall install all landscaping on perimeter Lots "M", "N" and "O" and a minimum six foot high chain-link fence with opaque screening on Lots "C", "K", "L" and "V". Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for Phase III, the developer shall install all landscaping on perimeter Lots, "R" and "S". Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for Phase VII, the developer shall install all landscaping on perimeter lots "C", "K", "L" and "V". The phasing plan shall be revised to include these improvements. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Bone moved, Vandaveer seconded, to amend Conditional Use Permit 91-008 by adopting Resolution No. 3393 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. ...... T ' I 111 .................. [ .............. TI-- Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 8 Commissioner Bone moved, Vandaveer seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14410 by adopting Resolution No. 3394 revised as follows. Exhibit &, Condition 1.? shall read, "Should the developer choose to file multiple final maps for this project, the recreation facility (Lot B) shall be included in the first map and constructed with the model complex or first phase of development". Condition 2.10, shall read, "Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the first unit in Phase I, the developer shall complete the installation of and receive final building inspection for the Community Recreation Center and various site improvements located within Lot "B"." Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS: 5. Design Review 95-027 APPLICANT/ OWNER: ARCHITECT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: PRICE COSTCO INC. 10809 120TH AVE. NE KIRKLAND, WA 98033 MULVANNY PARTNERSHIP 11820 NORTHUP WAY E300 BELLEVUE, WA 98005 ATTN: ANGIE YUSUF 2655 EL CAMINO REAL PLANNED COMMUNITY MIXED USE - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 1 PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A 2,880 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RETIAL BUILDING Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Design Review 95-027 by adopting Resolution No. 3395, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner There was no discussion by the Commission. Commissioner Mitzman moved, Vandaveer seconded, to approve Design Review 95-027 by adopting Resolution No. 3395 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. General Plan Amendment 94-001, Zone Change 94-004, Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement & Tentative Tract MaD 15055 (Irvine ComDan¥) 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. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioners Lunn and Mitzman abstained due to conflict of interest. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 9 Staff recapped the workshop discussion. The Irvine Company presented five alternative proposals for the members of the public and the Planning Commission to consider. Alternatives 3 and 4 received the most consensus at this point. It was the Irvine Company's desire to refine these proposals and present it one more time for the Planning Commission to consider. Bryan Williams, 12863 Maxwell Drive, Tustin, stated he and his wife were totally opposed to an increased number in the percentage of apartments anywhere in Tustin. Commissioner Kasalek stated that the 25% cap is being kept on the original units but not increasing beyond that. Commissioner Vandaveer stated he would like to see a proposal from the Irvine Company on both proposal 3 and 4. Michael LeBlanc, representing the Irvine Company, stated they were leaning toward alternate 4 but that they could present a proposal on both. Commissioner Bone stated he prefers proposal 3 because of the lower density figure than 4. Michael LeBlanc, stated they would have to do the calculations but some land would be devoted to lower density but the total number of units. Commissioner Kasalek believes that a higher density is more appropriate near Irvine Boulevard however she is adamantly for lower density. She believes that if something were done to develop the park it would show that they were willing to work with the community. Commissioner Vandaveer moved, Bone seconded, to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of October 9, 1995. Motion carried 3-0. Commissioners Lunn and Mitzman abstained due to conflict of interest. 7. Status Report Receive and File Commissioner Vandaveer moved, Bone seconded, to receive and file the status report. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS: Report on Actions taken at the September 18, 1995 City Council Meetinq. Staff reported on the subject agenda. The Commissioners were asked to check their calendars for Wednesday, October ZSth or Wednesday, November 8th to schedule approximately three hours of time for a Public Workshop with the Consultants on the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. A consensus of the Commission showed that the members preferred to schedule such a meeting before a regular Planning Commission meeting instead of another separate evening. Staff will check with the Consultants and report the available dates to the Commissioners. [ .............. [ I[ ill ........ 1' I !IIill Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 10 COI~IISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Lunn Reported that she had seen people working with welding torches to repair cars and boats on Kenyon Drive and is fearful of a fire starting. She inquired if some enforcement could be used to prevent auto repairs for what appears to be a regular weekend business in a residence. Staff will forward this item to the Code Enforcement staff for investigation and appropriate action. Commissioner Mitzman Inquired about the status of the community service sign project that was introduced about 6 months ago. Staff stated that research has been on-going and that the Chamber of Commerce was also developing a proposal. A meeting with the Task Force will be scheduled soon. Asked the status of the convenience market at McFadden and Tustin Village Way. Staff stated that building permits had been issued. A new owner had taken over the project which will include a Shell Service Station/convenience market. Commissioner Vandaveer - None Commissioner Bone Reported that the news racks near the car wash next to the Post Office which he had previously reported seem to be increasing. Doug Anderson, Public Works Department, will provide the Commission with a report on this matter. Commissioner Kasalek Stated that it was nearing the 30 days that Public Works Department had given for a response from the railroad on the situation at Walnut between Myford and Franklin Avenues and wanted to give a reminder to follow up since the crossing is still a nightmare. Stated that she had read a letter to the editor which appeared recently in the L.A. Times concerning danger to vehicles from golf balls at Irvine Boulevard and Tustin Ranch and asked if this could become a legal problem for the City. Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney, stated that such a situation would not make the City liable. Asked the status of the Taco Bell on Red Hill and Nisson. Staff stated that Taco Bell planned to begin construction and anticipates being open for business at that location by mid December. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 11 ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Vandaveer moved, Lunn seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9~00 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission is on October 9, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Cha irpek~son Recording Secretary