Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-22-95MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 22, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Baker, Kasalek, Lunn, Mitzman and Weil 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 May 8, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Well 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 Meeting May 22, 1995 Page 2 Z. Conditional Use Permit 95-005 APPLICANT: OWNER/CONTACT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ALLIANCE FOR THE MENTALLY (AMIOC) 621 "B" STREET, SUITE B TUSTIN, CA. 92680 ILL OF ORANGE COUNTY MS. NANCY WEIR 621 "B" STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 708 EL CAMINO REAL C-2 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO OPERATE A NON-PROFIT THRIFT STORE IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL CENTER LOCATED AT 708 EL CAMINO REAL. Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 95-005 by adopting Resolution No. 3359 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Robert Delgadillo, Assistant Planner The Public Hearing opened at 7:06 p.m. The Public Hearing closed at 7:06 p.m. Commissioner Weil asked if the applicant knew that the location is in a Redevelopment area and that the shopping center was going to be remodeled. Nancy Weir, representing the applicant, stated, "yes". Commissioner Kasalek moved, Well seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit 95-005 by adopting Resolution No. 3359 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Conditional Use Permit 95-007 and Sign Code Exception 95-004 APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. 1342 BELL AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 THADDEUS J. MORIARTY, JR. 1447 GALAXY DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 14042 RED HILL AVENUE RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-i) AND JAMES G. WHITE This project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt (Class 11) pursuant to the provisions of Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a freestanding freeway sign; and 2. Approval of a Sign Code Exception to exceed the maximum allowable height. Recommendation - Pleasure of the Planning Commission. Presentation: Sara Pashalides, Associate Planner Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1995 Page 3 The Director stated that an additional issue the Commission had raised was for the applicant to contact the billboard owner to see if there was potential for sharing the billboard space. The current owners, Auto Spa, indicated that they were not interested in sharing the space. Since the alternatives defined for the height will obstruct the billboard, she noted that the Commission might want to take this into consideration when looking at the findings which may impact adjacent property. Commissioner Weil asked if the sign could be moved so that it was closer to the edge of the billboard. Staff stated that doing so would put it in the drive-thru lane since they are right at the edge of the property. Since there is such a large sign face on the billboard, moving it left or right within the setback without obstructing the drive-thru lane could still obstruct the billboard. Commissioner Kasalek asked how far away the sign was from the billboard. Staff stated approximately 75 feet away. The Public Hearing opened at 7:17 p.m. Scott Duffner, Fancher Development Services, representing Taco Bell, stated that the material provided in terms of the analysis of site lines was intended to indicate visibility and decision time of motorist to see, exit and access the proposed Taco Bell. He concluded that the sign would only be visible to northbound traffic and would be effective for picking up future business. The reason for requesting 40 feet as opposed to 35 feet is that it works. He disagrees with the staff report that this sign sets a precedent, stating that the 35 foot Carls Jr. sign erected in 1990 had already set the precedent and since that time there had not been that many applications as a result of that decision. Richard Gall, representing the owners of Cafe Auto Spa, stated their primary concern was that their billboard would be blocked. Stated they were sensitive to the needs of Taco Bell and happy to have them as a neighbor but encourage them to relocate their sign to a different portion of their property. Commissioner Mitzman asked why they did not want to share their billboard with Taco Bell. Richard Gall stated the sign belongs to one of the partners who did not want to make an issue with the City over it and risk loosing it for they know the City really does not want billboards of this size. They would agree to putting the Taco Bell sign on the top but not sharing the billboard copy area. The Public Hearing closed at 7:27 p.m. Commissioner Kasalek agrees that the precedent was set with the Carl Jr. sign and feels that less than a 40 foot sign would not do them much good. She is concerned with the location of the sign and feels the sound walls make special circumstances for the applicant. She is opposed to putting anything on top of the billboard. Commissioner Mitzman does not support the sign, as proposed, and would prefer to work on a better solution. Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1995 Page 4 The Director pointed out that the language in the Carls Jr. application required re-examination of that height and a reduction in height to 25 feet at the time all the construction is completed along the I-5 freeway so that this was not a precedent in her estimation. The staff report referenced as precedent the two vacant parcels within a defined intersection of Red Hill Avenue at the I-5 Freeway immediately abutting the north and south bound ramps which if developed would then have a 40 foot sign as a precedent. She did not know if the applicant had explored the full potential of Caltrans signage. The sign for both north and south bound traffic is visible in adequate time and distancing from the ramps to allow exiting decisions. In certain locations Caltrans is allowing Corporate symbols and staff would be more than prepared to work with Caltrans in that regard. Commissioner Weil stated the Sign Code was passed before the freeway widening and consideration had not been given to the sound walls at that time. She feels that business along the freeway should be considered differently than other locations and that the more business Taco Bell brings in, the better it is for the City. She feels that possibly the sign should even go up to 50 feet to take it above the billboard and that the idea of talking to Caltrans is excellent. Commissioner Lunn agreed and wants to see something worked out to have the visibility they need without interfering with Cafe Auto Spa. Commissioner Baker asked if there was any place to relocate the sign, and firmly believes in the Caltrans signs. Commissioner Weil stated that it would be better to delay this decision for more input so that a better solution could be found. Commissioner Kasalek stated that a 50 foot height would be asking for trouble. Commissioner Weil stated that there was a problem out there, with extenuating circumstances and blinders should not be put on in this issue even if it means setting a precedent. Commissioner Mitzman stated that when the item comes back before the Commission he would like to see a better illustration as to how the proposed sign is going to look, perhaps even an artist rendition on it's location. Commissioner Well moved, Kasalek seconded, to continue this public hearing to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting, June 12, 1995. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Code Amendment 95-002 (Continued from April 10, 1995) APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CITY OF TUSTIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92680 CITYWIDE CITYWIDE IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. AN AMENDMENT TO THE TUSTIN SIGN CODE TO AMEND REGULATIONS RELATED TO POLITICAL SIGNS. Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1995 Page 5 Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3347; and Recommend to the City Council approval of Code Amendment 95- 002 by adopting Resolution No. 3348, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Rita Westfield, Assistant Director Community Development Department Commissioner Kasalek asked if staff knew why the City of Irvine was proposing to change it's time for political sign removal from seven to ten days. Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney, stated she did not know if Irvine had done a study to determine if seven days was insufficient but that Irvine has a much shorter time that signs are allowed before election. Commissioner Baker asked if staff had checked on other City Sign Codes. Staff stated that most cities have not done comprehensive revisions to deal with some of the constitutional issues being dealt with here, and most of the Sign Codes of other cities are antiquated. Commissioner Kasalek was in favor of leaving the time at five days to see what happens. Commissioner Weil believes that five days is not enough and thinks that 90 days prior to election is too long. Since certain candidate signs tend to disappear, if they go up early that only doubles the cost for them. She believes that 60 days before an election is more than adequate. Lois Bobak stated the City Attorney is very concerned that a shorter time frame could be challenged as being un-duly restrictive. She stated that at this time there is no data to justify restricting or narrowing the existing regulations of 90 days. Commissioner Weil stated that the Ordinance as written is harder to understand. She suggested that after working with the Code document some simple, straight forward, easy to understand guidelines should be developed as a handout to candidates. She is really concerned about enforcement especially written permission by the property owner when the Ordinance states it is an infraction to remove a sign. Lois Bobak stated that the intent was to treat political campaign signs the same as other non-commercial signage so that political signs become a subsection. Written permission gives the property owner the right to choose who may place signs on his property. Code Enforcement can be employed if there is no written permission and the property owner objects to the signs. Signs cannot be removed if they are installed in accordance with the Ordinance. Commissioner Kasalek asked if "written permission" was something new. Staff stated "no" it has always been in the Code. Commissioner Weil quoting from the Ordinance asked if a sign can be put in a tree well in a public parkway. Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1995 Page 6 Lois Bobak stated "no", that "except in public parkways as permitted by Section 9303D13" is really intended to modify "on any public property or right-of-way." Commissioner Weil asked if this could be made a separate sentence since it is confusing. Commissioner Baker agreed. Commissioner Lunn feels that five days was a little restrictive and thinks ten days would be better, but she is willing to try it. She still believes that allowing signs in the public parkway between the curb and sidewalk, where the homeowner is responsible for maintenance, is not a good idea. The Public Hearing continued at 7:55 p.m. Matt Nisson, 14462 Red Hill Avenue, feels that 45 days is plenty of time before an election and would like to see a restriction for a shorter term. Berklee Maughan, 14331 Green Valley, referred to the proposed redrafted Ordinance, page 2, Item J1, "no more than 3 non- commercial signs shall be permitted in the parkway abutting any one parcel of property". He believes this will be hard to enforce since there would be no way to prove who put up the fourth sign. He also stated that most of the public parkway along the streets where most of the signs are posted are cemented in. Since the Ordinance now prohibits the placing of signs in the tree wells this prohibits a lot of signs in the high traffic areas and because most signs appear in the federal elections the allowable space in Tustin would be very limited. He believes this allows free speech on a first come first served basis and could be challenged. He believes that in the last 20 years there never has been a problem with trees dying from signs staked in the tree wells. The Public Hearing closed at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Mitzman believes that no matter what is done, when the elections start the signs are going to end up all over the place anyway and is indifferent to the whole item. Commissioner Kasalek stated that as far as enforcement, Commissioner Mitzman is right, it will always be a problem, but the guidelines of only three signs will send a message that the City does not want sign clutter. She thinks that since the old Ordinance guidelines worked, they should not be changed. She feels that perhaps Mr. Maughan is right and that there would be a lot more illegal signs posted. Staff believes that the wording "within any tree well", Section 13B of the proposed Ordinance, should be deleted from the Ordinance. The intent has been to clean up the Ordinance as far as free speech and constitutional issues as well as to deal with the proliferation of signs after the election. She does not believe that any trees have been lost from staking in the tree wells. Commissioner Weil suggested leaving the tree well issue alone and opening some of the more visible public parks for sign display. Lois Bobak stated it would be permissible to open the parks for this use however, then all non-commercial signage would have to also be allowed. Commissioner Kasalek does not think this would work because children in the parks would take down the signs. She suggested that instruction for placing signs in the tree wells should be included in the guidelines rather than in the Ordinance. Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1995 Page 7 Staff stated that in routing this issue to Field Services there were no known problems noted about the tree wells, the only issue would be actual staking on the trees. Engineering did however, have concern with placement due to handicap accessibility. Commissioner Lunn stated that the biggest problem for her was that after the election the signs stayed up too long, and she was in favor of allowing posting in the tree wells. Commissioner Baker agrees with Commissioner Lunn and thinks a guideline booklet which would incorporate other Ordinances associated with it would be an excellent idea, he feels that 60 days before an election should be enough time and ten days following election maximum. Lois Bobak read suggested wording correction for Section 13B, "No person shall affix a sign, (strike comma) on any public property or right-of-way including a street median island or sidewalk except in public parkways as permitted by Section 9403D13, Subdivision J. Nor shall any person affix a sign on a traffic signal, utility pole, traffic control device, or tree or upon any manmade structure located within the parkway. Item G, second to bottom line modified to say, "Before ten days after the election for which the sign pertains." She also noted that staff can convey to City Council that the Commission has a concern with the 90 day time limit prior to an election. Staff also noted that in Ordinance Section 13J4 the words "or within any tree well" should also be deleted. Commissioner Weil stated that in writing up the guidelines it should be specified that placement of signs in the tree wells would have to comply with all of the other regulations. She also asked if Section 6 of the Ordinance concerning the City Clerk certification, would be an appropriate place to note that guidelines be provided to candidates. Staff stated that what appears is standard certification language. Lois Bobak stated that an additional finding be added to the Resolution which would forward this matter to the City Council suggesting that the Council direct the City Clerk to include appropriate guidelines in all election materials provided for candidates. Commissioner Well moved, Lunn seconded, to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3347 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Well moved, Lunn seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of Code Amendment 95-002 by adopting Resolution No. 3348 revised as follows: Section II added to read, "The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Community Development Department prepare an informational handout summarizing and graphically depicting the proposed Ordinance provisions as they might apply to an election and that the City Clerk include the handout in all election handout materials provided to political candidates." Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1995 Page 8 REGULAR BUSINESS: Desiqn Review 95-006 (The Home Depot) (Continued from April 24, 1995) Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Design Review 95-006 by adopting Resolution No. 3358, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Sara Pashalides, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasalek asked if mention of holidays should not also be added to the conditions. Staff will add this to expand for the holidays. Commissioner Baker asked if this was what the applicant was asking for. Staff stated that they would rather have seven days a week but they had indicated they could live with the present request. Commissioner Mitzman asked if Home Depot has actually agreed to Friday, Saturday and Sunday with the addition of the holidays. Staff stated that the applicant was not present but the last time they had been spoken to they had agreed. Commissioner Weil is delighted with this progress and feels that receipt of the traffic study indicates that there has been some good faith shown. Debby Frost, General Manager of Tustin Marketplace, representing Donahue Schriber, indicated that they had been part of the discussion and are in agreement with the temporary application through September as long as the conditions were met by Home Depot. Commissioner Mitzman asked if Ms. Frost was speaking on behalf of Home Depot. Debby Frost, "no", just Donahue Schriber. Commissioner Weil moved, Kasalek seconded, to approve Design Review 95-006 by adopting Resolution No. 3358 revised as follows: Condition 3.1 modified to read, "Outdoor displays shall be limited to the weekends (Friday, Saturday and Sunday and may be permitted on the holiday weekends of May 26 through 29, June 30 through July 4 and September 1 through 4, 1995. Display areas shall be cleaned and free of dirt and debris no later than the morning after the weekend or holiday period." Condition 3.5 modified changing the date of September 1, 1995 to September 4, 1995 and in all parts of the Resolution where September 1, 1995 is referenced, change to read September 4, 1995. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Design Review 95-026 APPLICANT: OWNER: CONTACT: PARTIES UNLIMITED 13721 NEWPORT AVENUE, SUITE 10 TUSTIN, CA 92680 THE CARLSON COMPANY 3 CORPORATE PLAZA, SUITE 104 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BRILLIANT SIGNS 1648 NORTH O'DONNELL WAY Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1995 Page 9 LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ORANGE, CA 92667 ATTN: MILTON SOLOMAN 13721 NEWPORT AVENUE, SUITE 10 PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL AN EXPOSED NEON SIGN WITHIN TUSTIN PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3362 approving Design Review 95-026 to authorize the installation of an exposed neon sign on a storefront within Tustin Plaza Shopping Center, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Sara Pashalides, Associate Planner Commissioner Lunn asked if this was the first neon sign in the shopping center. Staff indicated it was not, that Spoons and the Warehouse also have neon. Commissioner Kasalek thinks the design is very attractive. Commissioner Weil delighted that the designs from the Marketplace are appearing within the City. Commissioner Baker asked if this business had been in the Marketplace. Staff stated "yes", but the Marketplace operation was now vacant and they have opened for business in this new location. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Well seconded, to approve Design Review 95-026 to authorize the installation of an exposed neon sign on a storefront within Tustin Plaza Shopping Center by adopting Resolution No. 3362 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. 7. Design Review 95-012 and Sign Code Exception 95-003 APPLICANT: OWNER/ CONTACT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: FOODMAKER, INC. 100 N. BARRANCA AVE., SUITE 200 WEST COVINA, CA 91791-1600 MIKE WALTERSCHEID 14002 NEWPORT AVENUE (C-2) CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) TO AUTHORIZE A FACADE REMODEL WITH EXPOSED NEON, ALUMINUM FACIAS, AND REPAINTING AT AN EXISTING JACK IN THE BOX RESTAURANT. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Design Review 95-012 and Sign Code Exception 95-003 by adopting Resolution No.3360 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Robert Delgadillo, Assistant Planner Commissioner Lunn commented that it was a great improvement on Newport Avenue. Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1995 Page 10 Commissioner Kasalek moved, Lunn seconded,to approve Design Review 95-012 and Sign Code Exception 95-003 by adopting Resolution No. 3360 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. S. Discussion of Tustin City Sign Code By Commission consensus, this item was held over for discussion at the meeting of June 12, 1995. 9. Discussion of Zoning Administrator Authority By Commission consensus, this item was held over for discussion at the meeting of June 26, 1995. STAFF CONCERNS: 10. Report on Actions taken at the May 15, 1995 City Council Meeting Staff reported on the subject agenda. The Director introduced, Greg Gubman, who comes to the City from the City of San Bernardino and has begun work as the newest Assistant Planner in the Community Development Department. The Community Development Department has submitted four applications for the American Planning awards, the General Plan, the Old Town Video, the Old Town Redevelopment Guidelines and Columbus Tustin Park. The City has a good chance of winning the APA Orange Section and the Commissioners were invited to attend the presentations on June 8 beginning at 6 p.m. at the Newport Dunes. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Kasalek Thanked staff for action on getting the Taco Bell at Red Hill and Nisson boarded up and alleviating this safety hazard. Asked the status of a Roller Hockey rink in the City of Tustin. Staff stated that a great deal of time had been spent on this project with no cooperation from the School Board. City Council had not given direction to pursue any alternative locations until such time as the School Board wishes to work with the City. Announced that she had completed the citizen Police Academy course and thought it was an outstanding program for which she encouraged others to sign up for. Commissioner Mitzman Noted that a very noticeable large red balloon was located at the 5/55 Freeways. Staff stated that it had been removed at the request of Code Enforcement but has recently reappeared and staff will follow up. Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1995 Page 11 Commissioner Weil Stated that she had spoken to one of the Police Department officers over the weekend who was interested in the purchase of a home in Tustin but felt he could not afford it. She asked if the City's First Time Home Buyer's program had been promoted among City employees. Staff stated that the program had been presented at briefings but perhaps vacation or sick leave was the reason some had not heard of the program. Asked if there was any progress on the Palm Reader sign on Red Hill. Staff stated that a Notice and Order had been issued and the owner of the sign had not appeared so that the matter will now be referred to the City Attorney. Commissioner Lunn Asked if there was a time table for the Shea project at the old Cosmopolitan site. Staff stated that grading has begun and that within the next 3-4 weeks the mechanism for financing will be in place. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Lunn moved, Weil seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission is on June 12, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin.×/ -/ Chairperson Secretary