Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-08-94MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 8, 1994 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers ROLL CALL: Present: Baker, Weil Absent: None Kasalek, Lunn, Mitzman and 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. Philip Bettencourt, 110 Newport Center Drive, Ste. 150, Newport Beach, wanted the public record to reflect his appreciation to the Commission and staff for the swiftness with which the project was completed for his applicant, Union Bank of Switzerland, for the Tustin Industrial Complex lot split on Dow Avenue permitting the subdivision of two existing established buildings. 1. Re-orqanization of Planninq Commission Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission follow procedures to elect a Chairperson and Chairperson Pro-tem. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Weil seconded, nominating Commissioner Baker as Chairperson of the Planning Commission. Motion carried 5- 0. Commissioner Well moved, Lunn seconded, nominating Commissioner Kasalek as Chairperson Pro-rem of the Planning Commission. Motion carried 5-0. 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.) 2. Minutes of the July 25, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 Page 2 3. Sign Code Exception 94-003 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. WILLIAM TAYLOR TAYLOR'S RESTAURANT 1542 EL CAMINO REAL TUSTIN, CA 92680 EDGAR PANKEY 320 WEST MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 1542 EL CAMINO REAL CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-2) CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) SECTION 15301 TO PERMIT AN EXCEPTION FROM TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION 9403hd REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL SIGNAGE TO BE SUBORDINATE TO BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION, AND TO ALLOW SUPPLEMENTAL SIGNAGE TO EXCEED 25 PERCENT OF THE ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA. Recommendation -Pleasure of the Commission. Co~missioner Well moved, Mitzman 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. 4. Variance 94-004 And Design Review 94-003 APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. JAN BRINDLE GOLF ENTERPRISES INC. 1448 FIFTEENTH STREET, SUITE 205 SANTA MONICA, CA 90404 SANYO FOODS CORP. OF AMERICA 11955 MONARCH STREET GARDEN GROVE, CA 92641 12442 TUSTIN RANCH ROAD PLANNED COMMUNITY-RESIDENTIAL (ETSP) VARIANCE 94-001 - CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 4) SECTION 15301 DESIGN REVIEW 94-003 - CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) SECTION 15303 1. TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF THE TWENTY FOOT (20') HIGH SCREEN FENCE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DRIVING RANGE ON THE TUSTIN RANCH GOLF COURSE TO FIFTY FEET (50') IN HEIGHT FOR SAFETY PURPOSES; AND 2. TO AUTHORIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DRIVING RANGE BUILDING FOR THE TUSTIN RANCH GOLF COURSE. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 Page 3 Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Approve Variance 94-004 by adopting Resolution No. 3270, as submitted or revised; and Approve Design Review 94-003 by adopting Resolution No. 3271, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner The Public Hearing opened at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Baker stated that an excellent job had been done in handling this matter to the satisfaction of the neighboring residents. The Public Hearing closed at 7:11 p.m. Commissioner Kasalek echoed Commissioner Bakers comment and stated she was impressed with the patience and cooperation on everyones part in setting up the meetings. She questioned how the height of the trees would affect visibility in the future when the trees have grown to their full height of 60 feet. Staff stated that it would not be a factor because of the random placement of the trees. Commissioner Mitzman asked the color of the concrete poles. Staff stated that they would remain a natural concrete composition which will tend to disappear into the background. Commissioner Weil wished to acknowledge the letter received from Scott Gerber which reflected the whole mode of cooperation between staff, the golf course and the neighborhood. Commissioner Lunn was glad that the residents were able to be satisfied. Commissioner Well moved, Kasalek seconded, to approve Variance 94- 004 by adopting Resolution No. 3270 revised to remove Condition 2.1 and 2.3 of Exhibit A, page 2, renumbering accordingly. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Weil moved, Kasalek seconded, to approve Design Review 94-003 by adopting Resolution No. 3271 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. 5. Large-Family Day Care Home (lfd 94-003) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: LESLIE ANN MITCHELL 13762 MALENA DRIVE TUSTIN, CA 92680 13762 MALENA DRIVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-i) DISTRICT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE-FAMILY DAY CARE HOME Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 Page 4 Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve LFD 94-003 by adopting Resolution No. 3295, as submitted or revised, if no formal protest is made by a notified property owner within 100 feet of the proposed large-family day care home based on adverse impacts. If a protest is received, based on specific factual adverse impacts as defined by State law, it is recommended that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on this item and instruct staff to return on August 22, 1994 with responses to the issues or conditions to mitigate the issues raised by the valid protest. Presentation: Joann S. Lehmer, Associate Planner Commissioner Lunn thanked staff for addressing the concerns raised at the previous meeting on a similar item. Leslie Mitchell, applicant, asked if the Commission had any questions of her. Commissioner Kasalek commented that she thought the letter Mrs. Mitchell had provided her neighbors was a very positive way to begin the day care operation. Commissioner Kasalek moved, well seconded, to approve LFD 94-003 by adopting Resolution No. 3295 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Amendment To Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14669 APPLICANT/ LANDOWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. JON ROBERTSON CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES 5 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 TRACT 14669 (LOT 8, TRACT 12870) - SAN MIGUEL PLANNED COMMUNITY - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THIS PROJECT IS A MINOR ALTERATION OF A PRIVATE STRUCTURE/FACILITY WHICH DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE USE BEYOND THAT PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED AND IS THEREFORE CONSIDERED A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. MODIFY CONDITION 2.2 OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3078 RELATED TO THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE A PASEO LINK FOR PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14669 by adopting Resolution No. 3297 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Weil asked if this request was made because of a perceived need for more security. Staff responded that it was more a duplication of access points. Originally both properties were to have to different product types with two different homeowners associations acting independently of each other. Now that the lower portion of the property has been re-sub divided and there is only one homeowner association they would be better able to control the centralized access. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 Page 5 Commissioner Mitzman asked reviewed paseos and their approved this change. if the Police Department regularly locations and had they reviewed and Staff stated, "yes". The Public Hearing opened at 7:25 p.m. Mr. Jon W. Robertson, California Pacific Homes, stated that the reason for the application was in response to guidance given to them by staff to provide much more access for the residents of the San Miguel, San Rafael and San Marino projects. He stated also that the paseo would be lighted and maintained by the association of San Miguel. The Public Hearing closed at 7:27 p.m. Commissioner Well moved, Lunn seconded, to recommend approval to City Council of Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14669 by adopting Resolution No. 3297 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS: 7. Sign Code Exception 94-004 OWNER APPLICANT: MARSHALL BENNET KRUPP 1891 BEVERLY GLEN DRIVE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 REPRESENTATIVE/ AGENT: H.A. INTERNATIONAL ATTN: LYNN CATHCART 11589 COLEY RIVER CIRCLE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708-4291 LOCATION: 730 EL CAMINO WAY ZONING: CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH A PARKING OVERLAY (C2-P) ENVIRONMENTAL: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUEST: TO ALLOW A MASTER SIGN PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY WHICH INCLUDES CERTAIN DEVIATIONS FROM THE TUSTIN SIGN CODE. Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Sign Code Exception 94-004 by adopting Resolution No. 3293, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Scott Reekstin, Assistant Planner Commissioner Weil requested a recess of 10-15 minutes to allow the Commission time to read a letter which was presented to them from the applicant. Commissioner Baker asked if this information changed the material that was presented in the staff report. Staff stated that Mr. Krupp's information basically referred to some issues he has with some of the conditions. Commissioner Mitzman asked for a summary of the information from staff to see what the issues were. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 Page 6 Commissioner Weil stated she would like to read the letter herself. Commissioner Baker stated he would like to hear what staff has to say as well as reading the letter. The Director stated that there were two substantive issues in the letter from Mr. Krupp. Staff suggested that if there are no tenants in all 6 tenant spaces that the cans should come down since the Sign Code requires this. The applicant has requested that the cans stay up since he believes that removal, patching and replacement would pose an undue hardship. Staff believes that the restriction should apply to the building identification "CSA" on the top left of the southerly elevation and what staff has identified in a condition is that if there is a name change of the building identification that sign can be altered as long as it does not increase in size, area or design, subject to the City's approval. The applicant is representing that "CSA" is not a business identification name and that they not only want to be able to have "CSA" up on the building but also on one of the 6 cans and on one of the tenant spaces on the monument sign. "CSA" while identified on their logo is not inclusive of their entire logo and not really a business identification in that sense. Staff does not agree with the applicant's position on this portion of the sign code exception. The meeting recessed at 7:39 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Weil asked staff if as stated in Mr. Krupp's letter he purchased the property in 1991 after it was known that E1 Camino Way was to be closed off. Staff stated that the City was aware but could not know of Mr. Krupp's knowledge of the situation. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she had a problem with putting all the signage toward the freeway because his business is not geared toward the traveling public and she does not feel that freeway signs will help direct traffic toward the building. She feels that the problem is finding the building after reaching E1 Camino Real. Marshall B. Krupp, applicant, stated that in 1991 when he and his wife purchased the building he was aware of the imminent closure of E1 Camino Way. He stated that several tenants in the building moved out because there was not adequate signage, one being, Page America, which is now located on Newport Boulevard. He stated that he has had many prospective tenants for the building but lost them because they did not have street frontage identification. He stated that the only facade that fronts on a street or freeway is the south facade and feels that proper use of identification signage (not advertising) will allow him to get tenants in the building who intend to capture an audience beyond the local jurisdiction of the city. Without this, he feels he will have to close his doors and allow the building to go into foreclosure since it has been vacant now for two and one half years. Concerning the issues he has raised on the conditions, he believes there is a problem with Condition 1.3 since the code requires the can signs to be removed if there are no tenants within 12 months and is inconsistent with condition 2.3. He has a problem with removing the cans on the building since it is cost prohibitive. He uses "CSA" as a building identification sign just as the Koll Company identifies it's properties. He stated that the way it is stated, Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 Page 7 any tenant with the same initials (CSA) would then be precluded from having a sign on the building or the building owner would have to remove their "CSA" logo from the building. He stated that by his stationery it can be seen that "CSA" is not the logo of the two companies that he operates. He stated it was as difficult for them to develop a sign program for the building as it was for staff to evaluate it because there was a transition period from the old sign ordinance that applied to the building at that time v/s the new one which applies to the building now. Mr. Krupp presented a story board of photos to the Commission showing the building from every elevation and explained the reasons that signs would not be effective except for the south and east elevation and that the east elevation is obscured by overgrown trees. He stated that there was a medical office building at the corner of E1 Camino Real with the same address as his building, 730 E1 Camino Real, which adds to the confusion. He felt that if the Commission would support his position his building would be a catalyst for the growth of the downtown area. Commission Kasalek asked if the tenant identification sign on the freeway was important to him, and if a sign was placed on the east side elevation, where would it be placed. She asked that if he had 7 tenants would he remove one of the cans. Marshall Krupp stated that the freeway oriented sign is critical to Newport ramp. He wished to reserve one tenant sign for any potential tenant in Suite 100 on the south side of the building because of the tree situation. He will limit the signs to 6 for the entire building. Commissioner Weil stated that this still does not solve the problem since once one gets off the freeway the building must still be found. Marshall KrupD stated it was not so much finding the building as finding the tenant. The monument sign will help people coming down E1 Camino Way but he still feels that the regional identification is important just as the Elizabeth Howard Theater has a sign on the back of their building and as other commercial and office and industrial developments have signs facing the freeway. Commissioner Weil stated that she has a problem with the amount of sign based on the amount of square footage. She feels that all that signage will look like a billboard. The sign code only addresses signage oriented to the freeway for the traveling public. The Director stated that the freeway orientated restrictions in the code apply to pole signs. A property owner on site can define what they deem to be primary and secondary elevations and that can be any of the elevations around a building including elevations which orient themselves toward the freeway. On site situations are different from pole sign freeway oriented signs which are restricted to the size and type of business. There are also master sign plans that can be more restrictive which are adopted under the conditional use permit process that prohibit any freeway oriented signage on the rear of buildings (example Tustin Market Place). Commissioner Lunn commented that she understands that no one would want to be a tenant without identification and she feels that for the building to have a viable use it has to have the signage and that taking the cans up and down can be very expensive. Marshall Krupp stated that it is not only costly but also damaging to the building. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 Page 8 Commissioner Baker asked if there were any other examples of buildings in Tustin like this. He recalls that Irvine Boulevard has buildings with numbers on them and some with no exterior signage. Staff stated that the professional office code has a restrictive code provision that prevents individual business identification, except for a small 6 square foot tenant directory and a building identification sign and which in many cases can be applied to primary tenants. The tenants themselves do not have signs placed on the exterior walls of the buildings and these are limited to non second floor buildings. The old code was designed so that the use dictated the type of signage not the district. Marshall Krupp in regard to location, his building has no through traffic and feels the signage is critical to the freeway frontage. Dane Cardone, Sign Methods, wanted to point out that this was the most low keyed signage available for this building that would save the building from damaging it. The Director commented on the new information which was received today through the letter of Mr. Krupp in relation to the "CSA" on top of the building. The applicant claims that it is not a legal name for any of the tenants but the letterhead shows it to be the same design. There are apparently two companies owned by the owner of the building which use "CSA" in some form in their business identification, so that it does provide a tremendous amount of advertising for those two prospective tenants. If they are to be tenants and want to have the tenant space on each of the individual business identification signs, then staff would recommend eliminating "CSA" in its size and that building identification which is permitted by the code (the address) be identified on the building rather than provide additional business advertising. This would also include the monument and its alteration. Commissioner Weil agreed with staff for she felt it would be better toward finding the building as she had stated before. There seems to be come confusion, however, concerning the same number of 730 on two buildings which are close by and she suggested that perhaps Mr. Krupp's building could be changed to 740. Commissioner Kasalek asked if "CSA" was a title for the buildings that they own. Marshall Krupp stated that this was the logo used for all of his investments and maintains the logo of the corporations which they invest under. He feels that to eliminate "CSA" from this building would suggest that this is not a part of the family of buildings that he owns. As regards to changing the number to 740, all of his documents and stationery materials would have to be changed and he was not in favor of this. Commissioner Kasalek was in agreement with Commissioner Lunn with the need for signage on the freeway side. As far as the monument sign on E1 Camino Way she thinks that every tenant in the building would want to be on that. She does not have a problem with the "CSA" on the building and also feels that the City should trim the trees. Commissioner Mitzman also agreed that the building needs some help; feels it is excessive to have the signs removed if a tenant moves out. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 Page 9 Commissioner Weil confused about the size of the monument sign. Staff stated it was five feet high with 25 feet of copy which does not include the supports. Commissioner Weil feels it should be a lot larger since even with freeway signage, once a person turns down E1 Camino Way the building still cannot be seen. Marshall Krupp stated he did not want a larger monument sign since it would affect the aesthetic quality of the building. He is not concerned about promoting CSA Real Estate Development and he would use only Community Systems Associates on the tenant space so that the rest of the signs would be offered to the other tenants of the building. Commissioner Weil asked if after this last statement, did that mean he would be limiting himself to 5 of the smaller signs. Marshall Krupp stated that he has the potential for 6 tenant areas in the building through demising walls and one of the tenant spaces is his, out of which he runs three businesses. He wants the tenants operating business to be on the facade. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Lunn seconded, to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of September 12, 1994. Motion carried 5-0. 8. Interim Urgency Ordinance APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92680 THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15262 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO ESTABLISH ZONING CONSISTENCY WITH THE TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN ON CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission table action of this Interim Urgency Ordinance. Consideration of the Interim Ordinance by the Planning Commission will be rescheduled and re-noticed. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director, Community Development Department Commissioner Well moved, Kasalek seconded, to table action of the Interim Urgency Ordinance. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS: 9. Report on Actions taken at August 1, 1994 City Council Meeting Staff reported on the subject agenda with highlights of planning related items. Commissioner Kasalek ask what happened to the CHP facility and wasn't it all on the same property. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 Page 10 Staff stated that the CHP process was still under way and in negotiation with the State, they are in initial design review with some negotiation problems with the state which they are trying to work out. The commuter rail station site is 3.7 acres that sits in the back through the main signalized entrance to the project which makes it very accessible and along the direct route. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Kasalek - None Commissioner Mitzman Asked if there would be a summary review of the Brown Act. Staff noted that Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney, had planned to give a full presentation at the next regular meeting which will also include discussion of the gift ban policy and a brief review of conflicts law. Commissioner Lunn - None Commissioner Weil Congratulated Commissioners Baker and Kasalek on their new appointments as Chairperson and Pro-tem respectively of the Planning Commission. Asked for clarification on a proposed land swap between the E1 Toro Base and the Irvine Company. Staff stated that there is no current provision of base closure law that would allow such an exchange without congressional action. Staff will keep the Commission informed of any new developments. Asked if there was any development planned by the County on Jamboree Road across from the Tustin Marketplace. Staff stated that the County has issued a Notice Of Preparation for an environmental impact report for the Peter's Canyon Specific Plan and County representatives would be giving a presentation to the City Council on the project September 6th. Commissioner Baker Asked about the American Planning Association Workshop information which was made available to the Commission. The Director stated that this was a tremendous opportunity and urged the Commissioners to attend since the local APA chapter is putting on a full training session for Planning Commissioners. - Asked about the progress of the Balloon Festival. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 Page 11 The Director stated that the License and Permit Board will meet on August 10 for a public hearing to decide the issue. If denied, this can be appealed to the City Council. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Well moved, Kasalek seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 8:53 p.m. Motion Carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on August 22, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the City 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Way, Tustin. Secretary