Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-27-94MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 1994 C/~LL TO ORDER: ROLL 7:05 p.m., City Council Chambers Present: Weil, Butler, Baker, Kasalek Absent: None Stracker 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. 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 June 13, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Stracker moved, Baker 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. 2. Variance 94-004, and Design Review 94-003 APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL 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) Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 2 STATUS: REQUEST: VARIANCE 94-004 - 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. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve Variance 94-004 by adopting Resolution No. 3270, as submitted or revised; and 2. Approve Design Review 94-003 by adopting Resolution No. 3271, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Becky C. Stone, Assistant Planner Commissioner Kasalek asked why the proper height fence was not installed in the first place given the fact that the industry standard is higher. Staff did not know that answer but stated that a different developer has owned it before the present owner. Commission Baker - Stated that the Specific Plan notes a height of 40 feet and the request is for 50 feet. He has seen evidence of a person who had an eye put out by a ball going over a fence and asked what the experience has been here with only the 20 foot high fence in place. The Public Hearing opened at 7:12 p.m. Buck Page, General Manager and Head Golf Professional at Tustin Ranch Golf Club, stated that at the time the golf course was built by the Irvine Company his group was not the management company and when they took over that was one of the first questions at issue. He stated that he had no idea why only a 20 foot fence was installed. Regarding the question of Commissioner Baker the 20 foot fence is not adequate and it even goes down as low as 12 feet in the middle of the driving range. There have been two head and three shoulder injuries in the last three years at this facility as a result of balls going over the fence. Statistically, 800 balls infiltrate the golf course playing area on any given Saturday and at peak business times. Commissioner Baker asked how many balls are going over the fence. Buck Page stated 800 are going over the fence. Commissioner Baker asked if the people being protected are the people playing the course. Buck Page stated that the primary protection is for the people who use the golf course but secondarily a lot of unauthorized use is made of the course by people using it as a passageway, as a short cut and even to walk their dogs on weekends. He stated that he personally has escorted off the course, woman with baby buggies, bike riders, and skateboarders. Because they have access to the golf course, some of the homeowners have put gates in even though Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 3 that is not permitted. He stressed that there was no benefit for his firm to put in the fence but feels it is a serious safety hazard. Commissioner Kasalek noted that she had gone out there today and observed that a few areas are in the 20 foot range but most are 12- 15 foot range height. She inquired if the fence to be installed would be a maximum of 50 feet at the highest point. She also asked how far apart the poles would be. Buck Page stated it would be 50 feet straight across, he was not sure of the exact footage of the width of the poles. Commissioner Weil asked if the netting could be seen through and if the fence that was there now would remain in place. Buck Page stated that the netting could be seen through and presented a photo of a similarly installed fence and that the fence that is now there would remain. Commissioner Stracker would be. asked what the highest point of the fence Buck Page stated it was to be 50 feet straight across. Jan Brindle, Tustin Ranch Golf Course, stated that the ground was level with only one dip and that the knoll will be taken out, one section will be 15 feet higher. He stated that the maximum height above the ground would be 50 feet at the highest point following average topography. Commissioner Stracker asked if contact had been made with the homeowners who spoke at the last Planning Commission meeting. Buck Page stated that they were invited to the Homeowners Association meeting and that they also met with them apart from that. Commissioner Butler asked if it was staff direction that suggested the additional tree installation and if the fencing was being put in, as had been suggested by some homeowners, to make more money for the Tustin Ranch Golf Course. Buck Page stated that the trees were in the original landscaping design, and that actually trees would obstruct the view even more. Further, he stated that there was no added value for business that the fence is strictly a safety issue. He stated that what is adding more business for the course is the actual development of the Tustin Ranch area. As homeowners move in it has become more of a family place and that is also what has driven the safety concern. Commissioner Weil asked if all golf courses had driving ranges. Buck Page stated that it has become almost a part of a golf course with about 90% of the courses containing them. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the telephone poles were the best option aesthetically. Buck Page stated that this was a question of engineering that it was the best material to withstand the technical requirements. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 4 Commissioner Kasalek asked if one of the options could be to move the driving range. Buck Paqe stated "no". Leslie Gerber, 2562 Aquasanta, spoke of her concern on the height of the proposed fence and resulting decrease in property values. She wondered why now, only one and one-half months following the sale of the last unit in Corte Villa, was the fence now going to 50 feet from 20 feet. She feels that this was misleading to property owners, that the dark green polypropylene material being proposed will decrease the view. She further mentioned that in Japan aluminum fencing is used successfully and thinks this could be an option. She is in favor or a 30 day delay on this decision in order for the homeowners to have time to form a task force along with Golf Enterprises Inc. to look at other options. She realizes that for insurance reasons the golf course needs to protect itself. She stated that her husband, Scott Gerber, would be glad to head the task force. Commissioner Weil asked what Mr. Gerber did for a living and if it involved golf courses. Leslie Gerber stated her husband was an architect and did not work on golf courses. Warren L. Gamble, 2571 Tequestra, likes living on the golf course but does not like looking through a chain link net fence that would completely block the view. He referred to the structure on MacArthur as grotesque and felt that the proposed fence would be close to looking like that. He distributed photos to the Commissioners and a sketch that he had made showing what the scene would appear like with the large fence and telephone poles. He stated that he could sympathize with the golf course but someone had made a very bad design and did not feel that the homeowners who had invested a great deal of money should be burdened with the possible decrease in property value because of it. He felt more thought had to go into this decision, he appreciated the report on the fence and poles but stated that no one seemed interested in the skyline and that the view was the real issue. He felt there were other alternatives for the property use such as putting greens, or a short driving range, that other golf courses permit woods and he did not see why this one couldn't do the same. Pete Loconto, stated that he has lived at Corta Villa for the last 9 months. He relocated from Boston, Mass. and choose the location he settled in very carefully, in fact he is right across from the driving range. Had such a fence been in place at the time of purchase of his home he would not have considered purchase since the view would have been obstructed. He stated that California Pacific had presented the view and included the golf course in the presentation and the hospitality of the golf course itself but also the view of the mountains in the distance that can be seen through the existing fence. He appreciates that safety is important but feels there must be alternatives to this fence. He stated that the driving range is short and narrow and the actual drive pedestals are set above so that balls are actually driven into the range. He feels it is a tenuous issue for both the golf course and the neighbors. He stated that he has spent a lot of time in Southeast Asia where they use aluminum fences and they have restricted space but handle situations like this without destroying the view. He noted that this golf course was owned by Sanyo Foods which is a Japanese company. He was in favor of a delay of this decision to allow enough time to present alternative ideas. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 5 Commissioner Weil asked Mr. Loconto to explain what the aluminum fence looked like that he had alluded to. Pete Loconto stated it is just a different structure, relatively high about 30-40 feet, but much more picturesque because it can be seen through. He feels that the net fence being proposed cannot insure transparency. Commissioner Stracker asked if there was a noise produced when the balls hit the aluminum fencing. Pete Loconto stated there was a noise produced when a ball hit anything, even the existing fence but it was not obtrusive. He stated that he had bought in that area with a certain expectation, and would not like to see things change. Co~missioner Butler asked for elaboration on the aluminum fence idea. Buck Paqe stated that he was not aware of such aluminum fencing in the United States, that they operate 28 facilities across the country and are not aware of any with aluminum fencing. He stated that if it was an alternative that could be explored he would be open to it but that he felt with the checker-board affect and noise issue of the aluminum that the netting would be better. The netting would even have less noise than the current fence. He stressed again that the fence was not a cost factor but strictly a safety issue. He felt that on the wood/iron issue that it was the height of the balls that need protection not the length of the drive. Commissioner Stracker asked if the proposed fence would also be used for security and would a perpendicular fence arrangement be an answer. Buck Paqe stated that the reason for the original existing fence was for security, that in the first six months of the course' existence there was not fence at all and it was put in to keep golfers from walking onto the driving range. The height is the issue of the fence to stop the balls, there are perpendicular fences which are around the tee boxes and they have planted trees to protect the homes in this area but they would not stop the balls from going over the fence. Commissioner Kasalek asked what the color of the netting was at the Meadowlark Golf Course as shown in the photos provided by the Tustin Ranch Golf Course and also asked the homeowners in the audience to look at these photos. Buck Page, stated the color was green, the same color as being proposed for this fence. The Public Hearing closed at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Butler asked if staff knew the height of the netting recently installed at the ballpark at Prospect and Irvine Boulevard as it is a good example of what the City has allowed to be installed. He stated that comparing safety to aesthetics was a horrible situation and that since the golf course would be able to construct a fence of 40 feet in height without even coming before the Commission, what is being considered here was only a ten foot difference. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 6 Staff was not sure of the height of the ballpark netting but thought perhaps it could be 35-40 feet and that the netting was a darker color. Commissioner Butler stated that he did not see the difference in the woods to irons ratio and that personally for the homeowner, he was more concerned about more trees being put in. He supports the fencing, does not feel it will depreciate the property values. He felt that none of the homeowners would want to be named as part of a liability for someone being injured on the golf course and was also concerned that the City could also be held liable. Commissioner Kasalek stated she could not support this idea the way it is, that she liked the idea of the task force especially since the owners of the golf course have been there three years in which time nothing has been done. She felt that there should be time for staff, the golf course and the residents to work together to come up with something that will work where everyone feels comfortable with what is going on. She felt that there was another option and that was for the golf course to remove the driving range altogether. Commissioner Baker stated that he did well with neither woods nor irons but was impressed with the number (800) balls going over the existing fence. He is not sure that the situation is that the golf course waited for the last house sale before the fence was put up. He is in support of the safety issue. Commissioner Stracker asked if there was any liability issue for the City. Lois Bobak, City Attorney, stated that a California Government Code Section provides absolute immunity for cities in the granting or denial of permits. Public property is not private property and there was little chance of liability arising out of a dangerous condition on private property on this issue but that she would never rule out what a creative attorney can do. Commissioner Stracker stated that he has seen community action work and would like to see a task force work on this issue to work out a compromise. Commissioner Weil stated that she agreed with both Commissioners Stracker and Kasalek. She felt the existing fence blends into the landscape. She appreciated the photos that were presented showing the proposed netting and felt that with the added landscaping the poles will blend in. She is very much in favor of the continuance. Commissioner Butler stated that he had no objection in allowing another 30 days to see the problem worked out but was not sure if he liked the idea of continuing the continuance from the golf courses' standpoint. He stated that he did not think it was an issue that the golf course had waited until all the projects were sold to do this. Commissioner Stracker moved, Kasalek seconded to continue this item for thirty days, to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on July 25, 1994 and instructed staff to coordinate a meeting between the applicant and residents of Corta Villa and Montecito.Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 7 Commissioner Weil called for a 5 minute recess at which time she invited anyone in the audience who wished to be a part of the committee to leave their name with the secretary. Those persons leaving their names were Buck Page, Jan Brindle, Warren Gamble, Pete Loconto, Barry Mitchell, and Leslie and Scott Gerber. 3. Conditional Use Permit 93-038 and Siqn Code Exception 93-003 APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ALL STAR SERVICE PLUS CORPORATION ATTN: AL SWEARINGEN, PRESIDENT P.O. BOX 17135 IRVINE, CA 92713 EDGAR E. PANKY 320 WEST MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 13922 RED HILL AVENUE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2) DISTRICT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1. APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FREESTANDING OFF-PREMISES MULTIPLE BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN. 2. APPROVAL OF A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A FREESTANDING OFF-PREMISES MULTIPLE BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN AT AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT WHICH DOES NOT OFFER GASOLINE FOR SALE, LOCATED WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET OF THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE, AT A HEIGHT OF SIXTY-EIGHT (65) FEET AND SIZE OF 237.5 SQUARE FEET. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue this item for thirty days. Presentation: Scott Reekstin, Assistant Planner The Public Hearing opened at 8:09 p.m. Commissioner Weil gave direction to the applicant that discussion should center around the pole sign and the process the applicant may want to pursue in that regard, if they want to come back with revised plans since the applicant had withdrawn the original pole sign plans, but may not discuss the applicants position on the off premise sign. A1 Swearinqen, President, Ail Star Service Management Corp., thanked Mr. Baker and Mr. Butler for calling his building high- tech. He stated that the single pole sign that Mr. Stracker had wanted was withdrawn and Mr. Swearingen asked if any of the Commissioners had seen the withdrawn submitted sign. Staff noted that since the application had been withdrawn the Planning Commission had not been provided with that information. Mr. Swearingen stated that the sign was withdrawn with the idea that the owner wanted to put a multiple tenant sign on the pole. The sign pole would have to go back to a double pole sign to withstand wind velocity etc. which is what is already in place. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 8 The Public Hearing closed at 8:12 p.m. Commissioner Butler stated that he was not adverse to the sign but with some exceptions of how there could be a restrictive sign to someone who owns all the properties being advertised; signs identifying businesses, not sold for advertising. Commissioner Weil asked for a definition of an off premises sign. Lois Bobak stated that an off premise sign is one that advertises a business or activity that is not conducted on the property upon which the sign is located. Commissioner Weil asked for a definition of "not on the property". For instance, if Taylors and All Star are on an undivided lot but there are different owners of the businesses. Staff stated that if it operates as a center that is, on one parcel not separate parcels, and has more than three businesses under provision of code and operates under the setback requirements under the freeway adjacency as outlined in the sign code then there are opportunities for them to be considered by the Commission. There is a more detailed definition of an off premise sign in the staff report. One of the problems with a number of court decisions with the signs having to be content neutral is that there can be no differentiation between business identification and purely outdoor advertising. Size and development standards of the poles can be regulated but once you start permitting off premise business identification you open up a potential window for all outdoor advertising. The City has had some exposure issues recently, and so have been very cautious in designing the off premise outdoor advertising sign ordinance to ensure that the City is legally protected. The prohibition on outdoor advertising in the City goes back to 1964, off premise and outdoor advertising have been prohibited, even though there have been some illegal installations that have occurred. Most cities are moving in that direction, they are not uncommonly prohibited in most of the new sign codes adopted in the southwest over the last 10 years or so. Commissioner Weil asked if Mr. Pankey's properties were legally divided into three different legal parcels and for the sign to be considered off premise would it have to be used just for the business on one of those parcels. Staff stated that there are also certain restrictions on pole signs adjacent to freeways, for certain types of uses only in the code, which could be excepted through the sign code exception process but the off premise issue would require the code to be amended. When Mr. Pankey raised this issue when the applications came in for Denny's and All Star, three or four months ago, staff asked for a written legal opinion on this and the City Attorney had done a lot of work on it. Lois Bobak stated that the only thing she would add concerning what Commissioner Weil had brought up was that the courts would look with real skepticism because there is a difference between two types of off site advertising and it gets down to totally subjective criteria. What is the rational basis for allowing one property owner to advertise a business not located on his property, just because he owns another piece of property vs not allowing a second property owner to advertise a business that is not located on his property where it just so happens that he does not own the underlying piece of property. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 9 Staff noted that it gets down to, does the City want off premise signs and that includes outdoor advertising, or not, and there had been a lot of input from a resident survey and the results indicated that residents wanted to retain the off premise sign prohibition. Commissioner Weil stated that as far as freeway oriented signs for Key Inn or Denny's are concerned they are allowed for they are aimed at the traveling public. With the Key Inn so close to the freeway and yet there is a street there also, the wording in the sign ordinance was changed to say, "any business or motel or so forth that is adjacent to land adjacent to the freeway would have the ability to put up a freeway oriented sign." Signs cannot be lumped together across the street on the other property. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she was also involved when the sign code was being reviewed and she recalls that there was strong opinion against off premise freeway signs, in fact some of the commissioners wanted to just have the little Caltrans signs that indicate "gas, food and lodging ahead." She has a major problem with a sign advertising a slew of businesses with everyone in town wanting to do it. She personally thinks these types of signs bring down the area. Commissioner Weil stated that the City should try a little harder to obtain those Caltrans signs and wanted to go back to the original idea of a single pole sign for All Star saying it would be a much better direction. Commission Stracker is disappointed that there was not a single pole sign plan offered. He stated that it had been said he had supported that and it was not necessarily that he supported the single pole idea but he wanted to see something to give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant and wanted to see what it looked like. He does not like the two poles sitting up in the air like they presently are. Commissioner Butler would like to see this particular sign work, not a billboard but sign identification. Thinks that talking about separate pole signs for each of these businesses (4 signs in that area) would produce sign clutter. He would like to explore the possibility of one sign identifying several businesses on the same sign. He asked that if Mr. Pankey were to make this into a center could he keep the present sign. Staff stated that if Taylors and Ail Star were one property he could look at a freeway sign for those two businesses which in some manner combined them. If lot mergers were done signs could be consolidated. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Butler seconded, to continue this item for thirty days to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on July 25, 1994 and recommended that the applicant submit an application for one on-premise sign only as originally suggested at the meeting of June 13, 1994. Motion carried 5-0. 4. ADpeal of Conditional Use Permit 94-009 APPLICANT: OWNER: MERID MANIAZEWAL 12972 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 JOHN A. SIEGEL 1841 LA COLINA DRIVE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 10 LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: 12972 NEWPORT AVENUE C-1 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. APPEAL OF CONDITION 3.7 RELATED TO THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF TRASH BINS WITH A SURROUNDING ENCLOSURE AND CONDITION 3.11 RELATED TO THE REQUIREMENT TO REPAIR ALL DAMAGED AND CRACKED AREAS OF THE PARKING AREAS AND WALKWAYS. Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's action related to Condition Nos. 3.7 and 3.11 of Conditional Use Permit 94-009 by adopting Resolution No. 3281, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Scott Reekstin, Assistant Planner Commissioner Stracker asked what the use was on the property now and what was the property zoning. Staff stated there was an existing Mobil Service Station on the property with a small cashier area in which they are proposing to sell convenience items and that the property was zoned Cl. Commissioner Kasalek stated that it seemed the whole parking area needed repair and asked if the trash enclosure had to have a slump stone wall. Staff noted that the Red Hill Center is owned by one entity and they are going through a process now to restripe the parking lot and provide added handicap spaces to meet ADA requirements. The Mobil Station is a separate ownership. Staff stated that there is a standard detail for block walls around trash enclosures which has been coordinated with Great Western Reclamation. Commissioner Stracker asked the dimensions of such a trash enclosure. Staff noted it was 6 feet x 8 feet. The Public Hearing opened at 8:45 p.m. Philip Sikorski, 11142 Wickford Drive, agent of the applicant, stated that the reason for the appeal had to do with prospective. The service station does auto repair, is a good neighbor, takes good care of their property and are nice people. They just want to sell some candy and soft drinks. He found that in order to allow this the City had some strings attached. His clients do not own the store, but lease it and the profit they will make on these sale items will not compensate for the cost to put in the trash enclosure and fix the parking lot. He does not feel the parking lot is in need of repair. He stated that there were no other trash enclosures at any other building in site or walking distance of this place. Merid Maniazewal, station owner, stated he has been a dealer at that location for the last 10 years and believes he has given good service to the community. Mobil was going to upgrade the facility but previously the City did not allow them to do this because the city wanted to have the pumps moved in 14 feet. He lost the opportunity to make a better facility. He now thought he could do a little more business by selling these convenience items but feels Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 11 that there is no way he could generate that kind of money within the next three year lease to justify the expense. Commissioner Weil asked what he was using for a trash bin now. Merid Maniazewal showed the Commissioners a photo of the trash bin he is now using. He stated that he locks his bin and they alone use it and it is kept on the back side of the station. Another problem he has is that where the building is located, the trash truck would not be able to pick up the trash, as it is now the truck rolls out the container to load it. Also this is the only alleyway so that when the gas drop is made, with this trash enclosure in, there would be no way to get the gas truck back there. Commissioner Kasalek asked if he had spoken to the landlord and was there any possibility of them helping out with the parking lot repair. Merid Maniazewal stated that Mobil has the lease, and since Mobil did not get the approval for the upgraded facility, they just don't want to spend any more money. Commissioner Weil asked if there was any kind of wall or division around his property. Merid Maniazewal stated "no" that the main entrance to the health club was through his area and in the interest of being good neighbors he has left it open so the whole shopping center could use it. Commissioner Stracker asked if this was considered a small piece of property by Mobil and doesn't Mobil like to see larger pieces of property for their stations. He asked if the tanks had been changed out and wasn't the pavement resurfaced at that time. Merid Manizewal stated that when he bought the business he put all of his money into it and has been waiting for ten years to have the station improved. He said fiberglass tanks had been put in and the paving area was resurfaced two years ago. Jerry Nail, 12772 Elizabeth Way, spoke in support of Merid Manizewal, stating that he has been his satisfied customer for ten years, that Merid was honest and a man of his word. He feels the City should support good businessmen in Tustin. He stated he could not understand why this situation was being forced on him with conditions that seemed to have no bearing on the operation of a convenience store. Georqe S. Griffith, 14075 Dryden Lane, stated that as a background he attended Tustin Union High School 1928, he had three letters in athletics, was on the honor society, and was student body president, so he was not here just for fun but to show the Commission that he has empathy for what is going on in Tustin. He stated that Merid Manizewal was the best neighbor and a good community booster and that he thought nit-picking went out with the 30's. The Public Hearing closed at 9:08 p.m Commissioner Kasalek stated that she had gone to the station and didn't think the pavement was in too bad a shape. She observed that the station was on a very small and odd shaped lot. She also observed while she was there that people park right next to the existing trash bin which takes away what little space there is Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 12 left. She realizes that these conditions are asked for to help improve the City but does not feel that in this case it was the time to push on these two little issues. She was in favor of going against the Zoning Administrator decision. Commissioner Baker stated that he understood where the Zoning Administrator was coming from, agrees with Commissioner Kasalek about the pavement not looking too bad, does not like going against staff but would consider it on this item because the economy is a little rough at this time. Commissioner Butler stated he has always been a pro-business person and is in full support of the appeal. He stated that he feels it is important to support the Zoning Administrator but that this is also the reason the applicant is informed that he has a right to appeal. Commissioner Stracker asked if there was another type of design besides slumpstone that would be less expensive to install and with regard to repairing the cracked areas does staff know where they are. Staff said "yes" there are other materials to be used for pure enclosures but this is a matter of location and recognizing that there are some accessibility issues around the property that was left to be worked out should the condition be imposed. Staff stated that there was general cracking but no major pot holes. Commissioner Butler moved, Kasalek seconded, to modify the Zoning Administrator's action as follows: Resolution No. 3281 shall be retitled as "modifying the Zoning Administrator's Action" rather than "upholding the Zoning Administrator's Action"; page 2, Section I,E. 6, shall read, "As conditioned, the applicant and property owner will properly maintain the subject property in a safe, clean and sanitary manner". Section II shall read, "The Planning Commission modifies the Zoning Administrator's Action to delete Condition Nos. 3.7 and 3.11, of Conditional Use Permit No. 94-009, a request to authorize the establishment of a convenience store at 12972 Newport Avenue, subject to all other conditions contained in Exhibit A of Zoning Administrator Action 94-002." Motion passed 5- 0. 5. Conditional Use Permit 94-010 APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ARCHITECTS DESIGN CONSORTIUM 1920 E. KATELLA AVENUE, SUITE S ORANGE, CA 92667 EMS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 14081 YORBA STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 ENDERLE CENTER: 17240, 17260, 17300, 17320, 17350, 17390, 17420, 17440, 17460 & 17502 E. SEVENTEENTH STREET; 14081 YORBA STREET; AND 14032 ENDERLE CENTER DRIVE PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PC-C) DISTRICT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO AMEND THE RESTAURANT SEATING RESTRICTION STATED WITHIN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 74-9. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 13 Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 94-010, amending Condition No. 2j of Planning Commission Resolution No.s 1409 and 1634, removing the restriction of the amount of restaurant seating permitted within Enderle Center, by adopting Resolution Number 3283, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Stracker noted that previously there was a similar situation which came before the Commission at Tustin Plaza where the number of seats did not match the parking spaces and he asked if there was going to be a general overall review or was this a special circumstance. Staff stated that Tustin Plaza was at it's parking maximum based on the types of tenants they have right now, they have no excess parking based on the parking rates approved for that center. That center is also in a Planned Community District in which the parking rates are dictated by the plan itself. They also have a shared ratio that discounts parking and they have the ability to come back also to consider more restaurant or retail space. This particular development has a built in assumption of 85% or discounting 15% for the mixed use factor. Based on the amount of parking spaces that they presently provide on site and the amount required by the tenant mix they do have an excess of parking. Tustin Plaza does not have that luxury. If Enderle Center uses up these 50 extra spaces they will also have to come again before the Commission unless they can provide parking somewhere else. Commissioner Stracker asked where else in the City this condition existed. Staff stated that Oak Tree Plaza which is just up the street has a shared parking with the office building to the rear of the property and in a sense the Tustin Market Place with different rates for different major village areas. Typically throughout the City we have always counted restaurants based on seating capacity and retail space on a square foot capacity. Tustin Plaza has a limit on restaurant space since traffic analysis identified some problems during peak hours on site. One other situation with a maximum threshold on parking through a variance procedure, is Plaza Lafayette. There is also a similar situation in Larwin Square although there is no limit on restaurant space there is a mixed use calculation. Commissioner Weil clarified that the question was the removal of the 2j clause and asked if anywhere else in the City the 2j clause existed. She also inquired if there were really only six compact spaces in all of Enderle Center. Staff stated it was correct that all that would be removed was the 2j clause at this time and as far as other places in the City, none with that number of units but Tustin Plaza did have a restaurant seating requirement that is a maximum limit. It was correct that there were only six compact spaces in Enderle Center. Commissioner Baker stated it did get crowded at Enderle Center but there seemed that there was enough overflow parking. Also parcel nine has not even been developed and he was very comfortable with it. The Public Hearing opened at 9:30 p.m. ! ........ q ................. ' 11 ......................... Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 14 Craig Oka, Architects Design Consortium, stated that when the center was first designed they tried to balance the parking according to the parking ratios. Parcel six, presently a parking lot for 110 cars was originally to be a professional office building which was never developed and this is one reason for excess parking on this property. Parcel one and two areas, west of Yorba, northern half, now has a two story office building and that is where the six compact parking spaces are. He wanted to stress that the intent of this application was not for a proposed building but just to bring the parking situation up to standard and give staff a guideline to follow. Presently according to plan and approved parking ratios there are 53 excess parking spaces not including the six compact spaces. He feels that Enderle Center is a good representation of a mixed use. The Public Hearing closed at 9:34 p.m. Commissioner Stracker stated that staff reports that Conditional Use Permit 74-9 established a multi use parking adjustment factor and asked where that was shown and asked if there was a particular study that determined the 85% of capacity. He asked what justification there was for coming up with that number. Staff stated it was found on the approved development plans. Consistent with recording keeping at the time there was not a lot of conditions or discussion as a whole. What staff is also doing is now formalizing that parking ratio by adding another condition that spells that out. There was an EIR done for the project in 1974 that dealt with the whole planned community. Staff noted that there was a traffic study done at that time which evaluated the impacts of parking on the site. The approval of this action would clear up a lot of confusion in applying the standard. The .85 is what must be used, the one condition that is a clarification is removal of the maximum restaurant seating and this is the only place this factor is being used. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Baker seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit 94-010, amending Condition No. 2j of Planning Commission Resolution No.s 1409 and 1634, removing the restriction of the amount of restaurant seating permitted within Enderle Center, by adopting Resolution No. 3283, as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Zone Change 94-002 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: GLENN G. RILEY 1432 S.E. SKYLINE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 13641 RED HILL AVENUE R-4 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM R-4 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) TO R-3 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT). Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3282, recommending to the City Council denial of Zone Change 94-002, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Scott Reekstin, Assistant Planner Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 15 Commissioner Stracker asked if there had been other requests for zone change in this area. Staff noted that there was rezoning about three years ago on the south side of San Juan which was to one of the lower designations but consistent with property in that vicinity and not spot zoning. Commissioner Weil asked is there was a garage on the property and was it to be removed and if the house that was there was going to remain. Staff stated there was a garage on the property and the house would remain. The Public Hearing opened at 9:46 p.m. Glenn Riley, applicant, stated that he had been a property owner in Tustin for 45 years and owns about eight units in that same area. In the last 20 years his place borders Red Hill, Utt, San Juan and Lance. He was instrumental in annexing this whole property into Tustin in 1978-79. He cited other existing lot sizes in comparison to his present request and stated that everything there is of a higher density than what he is requesting today. He stated that the two duplexes adjoining the one he is now working on must have been spot zoned. He feels that his property is R3 zoning but asked why he goes from R3 to R4. He is asking to get a zoning change to allow four units on an R3 lot that is just a little short but not as short as the lot next door to it. He feels that the tax base must also be considered. He feels that the area, but for what he has put in, is broken down. He has purchased the Veeh property on which the 1933 house, which is sound, only needed modernization, which he did. His plan included the original house to remain, the orange trees to remain in the front and he wants to build four units on the side. He stated that his rental units have 100% occupancy. Lois Bobak reminded the Commission that this was a zone change issue not a design review. The Public Hearing closed at 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Butler asked staff if five units could be put on the property. He asked if the applicant could accomplish what he was asking for with R3 2700. Staff stated that with a zone change the lot area and density would accommodate five dwelling units but would still need to comply with development standards or variances would have to be applied for. Commissioner Weil asked when the area was annexed. Staff stated in 1979-80. Commissioner Butler asked if the current zoning was done with the General Plan. Staff stated that the properties have not been rezoned. Commissioner Kasalek asked if there has been any spot zoning. Staff stated "no" but that along Green Valley there have been variances to the lot width standards but that has not changed the underlying zoning determination. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 16 Commissioner Butler clarified that the only way to change this situation is with a zone change. Staff stated that it was explained to Mr. Riley that he really needed to go through this process first to save him money rather than preparing his full set of construction drawings and that staff had not made any assurances to him about support but pointed out some of the issues as has been done for the Commission this evening. The Public Hearing opened at 10:05 p.m. Glenn Riley stated that the units next door are far more dense than what he wants to put up. Staff stated that they were bigger and wider lots. The Public Hearing closed at 10:06 p.m. Commissioner Baker stated that he understood it was difficult for the applicant to consider things in the future when he was dealing with the present. Commissioner Weil stated she had a problem with spot zoning and the idea of trying to put more in the area than it can absorb. Thinks if is left at R4 the three units on the property would be more compatible with the area. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she feels the Commission has gotten some real clear direction from Council also, to lower density whenever possible. Commissioner Butler asked for a definition of spot zoning. Lois Bobak stated that spot zoning was picking out a parcel and making it different from the surrounding area. Commissioner Stracker moved, Butler seconded, to recommend denial of Zone Change 94-002 to the city Council as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Glenn Riley, voiced his opinion that he felt he had been misinformed about applying for a Design Review and asked the Commission to direct staff to return his money. The Director stated that if Mr. Riley would contact her she would work with him on the fee issue. 7. Interim Urqency 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 Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 17 Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue consideration of this Interim Urgency Ordinance to their July 11, 1994 meeting. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded, to continue consideration of this Interim Urgency Ordinance to the July 11, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS: 8. Parkinq Requirements In East Tustin Recommendation -Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Weil made some suggestions for changes in the residential off street parking requirements. She stated that her concern was sparked by her own daughters purchase of a patio home in Huntington Beach in which they cannot even fit the vehicle into the garage and she did not want this to happen in Tustin. Commissioner Butler asked how many parcels were left yet to develop in East Tustin. Staff stated that it could vary, that 20% of the land area was left to be developed and it would depend on the elementary school issue. Staff noted that none of the changes suggested could be made by the Commission under the present development standards. Suggestion was made that changes could be made only with the agreement of the Irvine Company and that a workshop could be set up similar to that as was done with the patio home discussions, and if they were agreeable than something could be done. Commissioner Kasalek thought it a good idea if there were some sort of documentation to identify if there was a problem in this regard. That perhaps the problem could be found to be with the homeowners themselves. Staff agreed that part of the issue could be that homeowners are using their garage areas for storage and that in some instances when the CC&R's were enforced the problem went away. Following discussion on the above subject, it was decided that Commissioner Weil would continue further research on the matter. 9. Status Reports Receive and File Commissioner Baker moved, Stracker seconded, to receive and file this report. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS: 10. Report on Actions taken at June 20, 1994 City Council Meetinq Staff asked the Commission if there were any questions concerning the agenda items. Commissioner Weil asked when the results of the Planning Commission Interviews would be made known. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 Page 18 Staff replied that the results should be scheduled for the July 5, 1994 City Council meeting agenda. Lois Bobak, City Attorney Office, noted that Lois E. Jeffrey has been appointed as the new City Attorney following the resignation of Jim Rourke. Ms. Bobak also made a summarized report on the latest Supreme Court ruling concerning the case of Dolan vs City of Tigard in which the court ruled on regulatory taking as a result of conditions of approval. Ms. Bobak stated that her office is preparing a report to be presented at the next regular meeting of the Commission explaining the full issue. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Stracker Expressed concern about the Rally's Restaurant at Norwalk and the problems that city is having concerning the removal of flags and paper signs. He asked that when the Rally's goes in here in Tustin that the situation be monitored. Commissioner Baker Asked what was happening with the traffic situation at the Tustin Market Place near Home Depot. He noticed a large hole in the roadway with a yellow line painted around it. Staff replied that Public Works, the Irvine Company and Home Depot are working together to resolve the problem. The project will be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration as soon as a complete application is received by the applicant. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 10:46 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on July 11, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber~ a~ 300 Centenr~al Way, Tustin. ~~ Secretary Kathy Wei~ Chairperson