Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-13-94REVTSED M T N U T E S TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 13, 1994 CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers Present: Weil, Butler, Baker Absent: Kasalek and Stracker 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 May 23, 1994 Planninq Commission Meetinq. Commissioner Butler moved, Stracker seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 3-0. Commissioner Baker abstained. 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 Desiqn Review 94-003 APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: 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 94-004 - CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT SECTION 15304 (CLASS 4) [ ................ HI .............. [" !] Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 Page 2 REQUEST: 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: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Butler asked if payment enforced by the school district. of the school fees was Staff responded that there is no option for the City in this regard and that the developer must work that out with the school district. The Public Hearing opened at 7:06 p.m. Lori Wildrick, 2502 Aguasanta, Tustin, spoke in opposition to the project stating that the Tustin Ranch Golf Course has not been a courteous neighbor, treating complaints with defiance and arrogance, are not safety conscience, disregard noise control exemption with their loudspeaker and maintenance machinery is operated before approved times according to City Codes. She also mentioned that the property has fallen into disrepair, citing the wrought iron fence at Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine which has paint peeling and is rusted through allowing entry onto the golf course. Commissioner Weil - asked if Ms. Wildrick had ever spoken to staff at the City about these concerns and safety issues. Lori Wildrick stated that she has only spoken to staff about noise issues. Meade Wildrlck, 2502 Aguasanta, Tustin, also spoke in opposition voicing his concern about property values and he questioned if the public hearing notice had been served diligently since he did not think enough of his neighbors were aware of this project. Buck Page, General Manager and Head Golf Professional,Tustin Ranch Golf Course, stated that there was only one issue and that was safety and their application had nothing to do with retrieving golf balls. He cited statistics of accidents from golf balls striking persons and seriously injuring them. He stated that the 20 foot fence is not adequate since 50 feet is the industry standard. Meade Wildrick, agreed that it would be safer but aesthetics and property values are his concern. He also asked where the proposed shack would be located. He feels that the current net and pole design fit into the area and that if the fence is higher it would affect the neighborhood. He is also concerned about lights being put on the higher poles. Commissioner Stracker would help. asked if he thought landscape screening Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 Page 3 Jan Brindle, applicant, spoke concerning the height and type of fencing. He also noted that the proposed "shack" was a building that will be designed to tie into the aesthetics of the main clubhouse, that traffic is not an issue since this is only an operational decision reorganizing the way they operate the facility and that they are planning to screen the fence with trees planted along the fairway. Commissioner Butler asked the value of the extra ten feet. Jan Brindle, stated that liability issues force most courses to go 75 feet and said that 50 feet was a compromise versus the number of balls saved and the number that will go over it. He stated that the fence was pretty tough and able to withstand winds and carries a guarantee of ten years. Buck Page, in addressing the issues brought up previously, stated that the course is on a schedule of maintenance, noting that this golf facility had received the Highest Maintenance Award as given by the Register, for two years in a row. He noted that they are addressing the noise issue by having the equipment tested and they have adjusted the times of maintenance equipment operation to accommodate homeowners. He said he has not received a noise complaint in nine months. He also stated that there will be no change to the lighting. Commissioner Baker asked if staff had received noise complaints. Staff noted that the City was not aware of any noise complaints but that Code Enforcement and Police Departments will be contacted as a follow up to see if there are any registered complaints to make sure that the Golf Course is in compliance. The Public Hearing closed at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Baker asked if the maintenance equipment was gasoline powered and if in fact notification was given to the homeowners. Staff stated that property owners within 300 feet of the project were notified as well as the Homeowners Association, the property was posted and in accordance with state law it was published in the newspaper. Unfortunately, the new tax roll information is not available until July 1, 1994 and notices were sent out in accordance with tax rolls of 1993. Commissioner Weil wanted to be able to hear from both sides with better representation for the homeowners and entertained a motion to continue. Commissioner Stracker wanted clarification landscaping being proposed for screening. of the type of Staff asked for direction on additional noticing to be provided. Lois Bobak, City Attorney, reiterated that the standard method of noticing if from the tax rolls. Staff noted that another option would be to send a generic resident letter to the homeowners for which the City has addresses. Commissioner Butler was not in favor of a continuance stating that this was a safety issue as opposed to a visual impact. Staff recommended a continuance of the entire item. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 Page 4 Commissioner Weil moved, Stracker seconded to continue this item until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion carried 3-1, Commissioner Butler opposed. 3. Tentative Parcel Map 93-176 and Variance 94-001 APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: BART DUESLER 13352 SHEPARD WAY SANTA ANA, CA 92705 WILL C. DUESLER, TR. 17762 LEAFWOOD LANE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 14311 AND 14321 GREEN VALLEY AVENUE, TUSTIN DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL (R-2) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). 1. APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FROM ONE (1) GARAGE SPACE AND ONE (1) OPEN OR COVERED SPACE TO ONE (1) GARAGE SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT; MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACKS FROM TWENTY (20) FEET TO FIFTEEN (15) FEET, MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACKS FROM TEN (10) FEET TO 9.8 FEET AND MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACKS FROM FIVE (5) FEET TO 4.9 FEET; MINIMUM BUILDING SITE FROM 7,200 SQUARE FEET TO 6,160 AND 5,940 SQUARE FEET; MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FROM SIXTY (60) FEET TO 56 AND 54 FEET; AND MINIMUM LOT AREA PER FAMILY UNIT FROM 3,500 SQUARE FEET TO 3,080 AND 2,970 SQUARE FEET. 2. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE A SINGLE DEVELOPED PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS. Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3267, certifying the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for the project; 2. Approve Variance 94-001 by adopting Resolution No. 3268, as submitted or revised; and 3. Recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 93-176 by adopting Resolution No. 3269, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Scott Reekstin, Assistant Planner Commissioner Butler abstained from this issue. Commissioner Weil asked for clarification on what could be built on that lot in the event the buildings that now exist were destroyed. Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the answer to this question depends on how the property was subdivided by the County. Commissioner Stracker asked if the two duplexes were served individually by utility services. Staff replied "yes". The Public Hearing opened at 7:50 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 Page 5 Berklee Mauqhan, 14331 Green Valley, Tustin, shares a lot line with Mr. Duesler and spoke in favor of the application for 2 reasons. As the staff report explains, 8 other lots were split was County property creating 16 individual lots there is no reason that the applicant should be discriminated against. He should be able to split his lot like the rest of the lots were able to do. The 2nd reason is he wants to get on the record and strengthen the property owner's case. The lot size is just not big enough when the County approved the project there wasn't even at that time ?,ZOO sq. ft. which is the minimum lot size and there is not adequate off street parking. Most residents use their garage and their driveway which, according to City Code, driveway parking is not counted as required off street parking. Since the applicant's duplexes are representative of the rest of the lots on that street that have gone through the County and been split, the staff report states that any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated. After Mr. Duesler is granted his lot split and there is a disaster such as fire or earthquake and the property is destroyed or whatever and has to be rebuilt, Mr. Duesler will have this right as long as he builds exactly to the original footprint. Other property owners may not have that right. Mr. Maughan stated that he went through a lot split in 1964 under the County and at the time he was not sure whether there had been a variance. If they didn't issue him a variance if there was a natural disaster he would be able to just build what he originally had before the disaster. If his property had not been annexed to the City he is sure the County would have given permission to rebuild because they originally gave permission for the lot split. The County knew exactly where the lot lines were, what the lot sizes were and what the setbacks were. Mr. Maughan also questioned if it would be fair to make this retroactive because the intent was for the County to give him what other property owners have. When the city annexed his property it had been grandfathered and had the same privileges that Mr. Duesler is requesting. Mr. Duesler's application is apparently the first lot split on that street since it was annexed and apparently there is only one more lot that could be split into the 1,017. Mr. Maughan just wants to be on the record because he thinks that if the Planning Commission votes to grant Mr. Duesler his lot split that gives him the right to use his property. He hopes that in the future no catastrophe happens or natural disaster, if it does, he hopes that this Planning Commission or future Planning Com~issions or City Council would give him and other property owners the right to build back to their footprint as long as they didn't deviate and that the Commission may want to address this because it seems like without further research the Commission may be granting a privilege that the other property owners don't have. While the City Attorney states that research of what the County granted indicated that no variance was granted, he thinks the intent was definitely there by the County and he would really doubt if the County didn't have variance forms back in 1964. That he and the other 8 property owners complied with everything that the County asked for in 1964 so if the Planning Commission has any sympathy for the rest of the property owners this is something that they may want to clarify and create a grandfather clause since they were annexed to the City of Tustin to make it very clear that the other property owners along Green Valley would have the same rights as Mr. Duesler in case of a natural disaster. -lit ............. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 Page 6 Bart Duesler, 13352 Shepard, Santa Ana, indicated he had paid an awful lot of money to draw a lot split and his father bought these lots and was too cheap to split them 30 years ago for 50 dollars the he has now paid a lot of money to do this. Commissioner Baker asked if this was something that the Commission ought to bring back to the City Council and do research for the next few weeks on the grandfather issue. Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney stated that she did not think this was necessary and went on to say that the Commission had no authority to make a determination with respect to other properties that was not an application before them. She explained that there could be many reasons why circumstances are certainly different now than when the County split the lots. Also, she mentioned that the language as it is in this instance was usually used for new developments and that the nature of granting a variance in essence does grant a special privilege but that the language in this case is in no way what this is designed to prevent. The Public Hearing closed at 7:57 p.m. Staff made some minor corrections to Resolution No. 3269 deleting old language which does not apply to this project. Commissioner Baker moved, Stracker seconded to Adopt Resolution No. 3267 as submitted, certifying the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for the project. Motion carried 3-0, Commissioner Butler abstained. Commissioner Baker moved, Stracker seconded, to approve Variance 94-001 by adopting Resolution No. 3268 as submitted. Motion carried 3-0, Commissioner Butler abstained. Commissioner Baker moved, Stracker seconded, to recommend to the Tustin City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 93-176 by adopting Resolution No. 3269 revised as follows: Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval, Page 2, Condition 3.3, strike "In the event that manually prepared plans are submitted without the required CADD files, the City will draw upon the cash deposit to cover its costs to have the drawings converted into CADD format and integrated into the City's computer base mapping system." Motion carried 3-0, Commissioner Butler abstained. 4. Conditional Use Permit 94-005 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: YOUNG NAM SUNRISE CONSULTING CO. 35 ERICSON AISLE IRVINE, CA 92720 AE KIL NOH 140 W. FIRST STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 140 EL CAMINO REAL CENTRAL COMMERCIAL-PARING OVERLAY DISTRICT (C-2P) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO CONVERT AN EXISTING RESTAURANT USE TO THREE HOTEL UNITS TO BE ADDED TO THE EXISTING BEL-AIR MOTOR HOTEL COMPLEX. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 Page 7 Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 94-005, by adoption of Resolution No. 3273, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Stracker asked if the units proposed would be the same as the existing units. Staff replied that they would be very similar to the existing units. The Public Hearing opened at 8:07 p.m. The Public Hearing closed at 8:07 p.m. Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit 94-005, by adopting Resolution No. 3273 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Conditional Use Permit 93-038, Sign Code Exception 93-003, Variance 94-006 and Design Review 93-040 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 AND OPERATION OF AN AUTO SERVICE FACILITY WITHIN THE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C2) DISTRICT AND A FREESTANDING FREEWAY SIGN; APPROVAL OF A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A FREESTANDING FREEWAY SIGN AT AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT WHICH DOES NOT OFFER GASOLINE FOR SALE, LOCATED WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET OF THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE, AND AT A HEIGHT OF 48 FEET AND SIZE OF 72 SQUARE FEET; AND APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FROM FOURTEEN (14) TO ELEVEN (11) SPACES; APPROVAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED AUTO SERVICE FACILITY, SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPOSED NEON. Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission Presentation: Scott Reekstin, Assistant Planner Commissioner Stracker asked the hours of operation. Staff noted that the applicants representative had indicated the hours to be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days a week. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 Page 8 Commissioner Butler asked for clarification on the parking area. Staff noted that the driveways were adequate to allow two way circulation. The Public Hearing opened at 8:28 p.m. Jerry Clarke, JFC Design Group, Inc., spoke in favor of the project stating that he had two issues, the orientation of the building and the freeway pole sign. He feels there is no way to hide the lube doors since it is on a corner. The nature of the operation is that there are no large mechanical devices, with cars just driving in and out over a pit area. In regard to the pole sign, they have reduced the height of the pole sign to 48 feet and also reduced size of the sign. Commissioner Butler asked if Mr. Pankey owned the Taylor's restaurant parcel and the entire parcel and if Mr. Clark knew the size of the parcel. Jerry Clarke answered that he believed that Mr. Pankey owned the entire parcel and thought it was about 17,000 square feet in size. Commissioner Stracker asked if there were other locations of this facility. Jerry Clarke answered "no. Commissioner Baker asked how many cars could be queued by the fast tune area since he was concerned about cars backing up onto the street and asked what kind of control could be put on this. Jerry Clarke stated ten cars, five in each line. A1 Swearingen, owner, Ail Star Service Plus Corp., stated that this was the first location for this facility to be built in this area but that they are building others in San Diego, Perris, Murrietta, and Marino Valley and six in Reno. He stated that there would be a capacity of 8 cars under the roof accommodating four cars at a time in 8-10 minutes. According to his experience stacking time is minimal. He showed a photo of the project which has a 50's "return to service" look with uniformed employees. Commissioner Stracker asked what the pole sign was to look like. Kevin McConnell, Signs and Services, stated that it was to be an aluminum sign cabinet which during the day would be seen in entirety but at night only the verbiage and star itself would illuminate. Richard Walt, 15415 Eiffel Cr., Irvine, stated that he works for C.B. Commercial and commented on the size of the property. After taking into consideration the dedication for E1 Camino and the widening of Red Hill the property becomes very small, making this drive through concept make sense for this parcel, also it is the only possible placement for the building. He feels it is a good use for the property and meets the needs of the community. Edgar Pankey, 320 W. Main Street, Tustin, stated that after reading the staff report he had some real problems and asked staff if dedication of the property meant that he was to give the property to the City of Tustin and if so, he was not willing to do this. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 Page 9 Staff answered that this offer of dedication was a requirement of the Public Works Department for the widening of the streets. Edgar Pankey stated that he believed that the Commission's responsibility was to make the operation of the City of Tustin better and that he was in opposition to staff recommendations. He feels that there is nothing wrong with the pole sign as it is. He stated that he does not accept staff judgement and appealed to the Commissioners for help in this matter. Commissioner Butler stated that this was the reason he asked the size of the parcel, that perhaps the parcels could be put together to allow the pole sign. Edgar Pankey, stated that he hoped Denny's would be moving in and Taylor's moving out and would like to place three signs on the pole sign. He stated that he felt terribly nervous and unhappy about this and that all the objections were news to him and because of it he now is not willing to bring the sign down to 48 feet. Commissioner Stracker asked if Mr. Pankey had read the staff report prior to this evening. Edgar Pankey stated that he had only read it 15 minutes prior to the meeting and he did not previously know about the dedication request. Richard Walt stated that he had been involved in a lease with the Texaco Station across the street from this property and believes that the City purchased from the property owner the amount of land taken for the street widening at E1 Camino. If this was the case, wanted to know why it could not be done for Mr. Pankey. A1 Swearingen noted that he did not think condemnation of the property was fair, and asked that with 35% of gas service stations being bulldozed because of EPA regulations where then does the redistribution of business go. He felt that if it goes out of the City it is a loss of revenue for the City. The Public Hearing Closed at 9:01 p.m. Commissioner Weil stated that since Mr. Pankey had leveled some heavy duty accusations at staff she submitted that she personally felt that there was not a more professional staff in all of California. She stated that the Commission could not tell staff what to do since much of what staff must do is dictated by Sacramento. She stated that dedication of land was not something unusual. Staff noted for the record, the property was not condemned and the dedication condition was included in the first letter, of incompleteness, to the applicant. Commissioner Stracker asked if there was a sunset clause in the dedication. Staff noted that the City Code requires dedication for the ultimate right-of-way for any project frontage. The need for the additional right-of-way is that Caltrans did not acquire all of the ultimate right-of-way when they widened the bridge. Since Caltrans replaces only in kind, the City will have to go back to widen and put up retaining walls to accommodate an additional travel lane and a bicycle lane. I- ...... Ill .......... Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 Page 10 Staff added for the record that the applicant was aware of the dedication requirement since January 1994 and that the plans also indicate the existing and the ultimate right-of-way which was used in support of the justification of the variance for parking. Commissioner Stracker asked if the applicant was responsible for installing the improvements as well as the dedication. Staff noted that at this time the City was asking for an offer of dedication which would not be required until the City proceeds with the entire stretch of improvements, however, bonding will be required for the ultimate improvements such as curb, gutter and sidewalks. The Public Hearing opened at 9:10 p.m. Jerry Clarke stated it was his understanding that it was not mentioned that the applicant was responsible for the improvements. He stated that he was aware of the dedication, but that the widening was going to be paid for by the City. The Public Hearing closed at 9:07 p.m. Commissioner Weil asked for clarification on the dedication of the land from Texaco. Staff stated that it is not known, at this time, how the City acquired the dedication but that Doug Anderson, Traffic Engineer, will look into the right-of-way acquisition. Commissioner Stracker noted that under the fees section of the staff report it is indicated that the applicant is to pay the major thoroughfare and bridge fees and asked what did that cover and was this part of Major M funding. Staff wished to clarify that the condition as it is worded only requires dedication of the land, the City will provide for funding for the construction of the widening in that area. The applicant would only have to pay for improvements from the set back but not in the right-of-way. Commissioner Butler stated he would like to see if the pole sign can be kept at the present height and be made applicable to surrounding properties of the same project owner. Lois Bobak stated that under the present sign regulations off site advertising displays are not permitted and a sign code amendment would have to be enacted to change this. State law prohibits a variance. Commissioner Baker likes the building and its position on the lot. Commissioner Stracker stated that he is in favor of the project but is concerned about the sign and the design of the two poles. The Public Hearing opened at 9:20 p.m. Jerry Clarke stated that his design proposes to hide the two poles to make it look more like the building itself. The Public Hearing closed at 9:22 p.m. Commissioner Stracker agrees with the parking, thinks the project looks nice but he does agree with the dedication requirement. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 Page 11 Commissioner Weil agrees with the orientation of the building, thinks that screening can be maintained with landscaping, feels the reduction of parking is adequate. The only problem she has is the pole sign since it will set a precedent. She stated that the reason for freeway oriented signs is for the traveling public not for advertising. Lois Bobak quoted from the staff report concerning the sign and asked for direction for staff from the Commission. Commissioner Baker moved, Butler seconded, to approve Resolution NO. 3274, as submitted, certifying the final negative declaration as adequate for Conditional Use Permit 93-038, Variance 94-006, Sign Code Exception 93-003 and Design Review 93-040 including required findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3275, approving Conditional Use Permit 93-038, authorizing the establishment and operation of an auto service facility within the Central Commercial (C-2) District and approving Design Review 93- 040 for an approximately 4,900 square foot auto service facility located at 13922 Red Hill Avenue. The Resolution was revised as follows: all reference to a 75 square foot free standing freeway sign was struck from the Resolution, this includes reference on page i in opening statement and in item I, A. Page 3, and in Item III. Item D struck, with item E and F being relettered. Exhibit A, page 4, Condition 3.1 struck in entirety with remaining items being relettered through Condition 3.18 accordingly. Condition 3.19 struck in entirety. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Butler, moved Stracker seconded, to approve Variance 94-006 by approving Resolution No. 3276 to reduce the required number of parking spaces from fourteen spaces to eleven spaces on the property located at 13922 Red Hill Avenue. Motion carried 4-0. Lois Bobak noted for the record that with this Planning Commission action Resolution Nos. 3274, 3275 and 3276 are final and any appeal would have to be made within seven days beginning with tomorrow. The applicant should not that the requirement for dedication is a condition for approval of Resolution No. 3275 so if the want to appeal to the City Council they will have to file the appropriate documents with the City Clerk by the close of business next Monday. The Public Hearing opened at 9:35 p.m. Jerry Clarke asked if the fact that the site was going to add alternate fuel qualifies under gasoline sales and noted that he was confused as to why the site did not qualify. Lois Bobak stated that under the sign regulations the business if considered gas station has to be for the sale of motor fuel and this situation is simply not the case. The Public Hearing closed at 9:36 p.m. Commissioner Butler moved, to approve Resolution No. 3277 denying sign code exception 93-003, a request to allow a free standing freeway sign at an automobile service establishment which does not offer gasoline for sale, in a location within twenty five feet of the easterly property line, and at a height of 48 feet and size of 72 square feet at 13922 Red Hill Avenue. Motion died for lack of a second. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 Page 12 Commissioner Butler moved, to forward Resolution No. 3277 related to Sign Code Exception 93-003 to the City Council for action. Motion died for lack of a second. The Public Hearing opened at 9:40 p.m. Jerry Clarke noted that he can come back with a redesign on the pole but would like the sign issue separate from the other issues, stating that they only wish to appeal the dedication requirement, The Public Hearing closed at 9:45 p.m.. Commissioner Well moved, Baker seconded, to continue Sign Code Exemption 93-003 and Conditional Use Permit 93-038 related to the freeway sign to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14914, Conditional Use Permit 94-003 and Design Review 94-005 APPLICANT OWNER LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DONKEY-BENNETT ARCHITECTS 14772 PLAZA DR. TUSTIN, CA 92680 ATTN: GREG BENNETT NEWPORT CAMINO PLAZA, LTD. 7 BRILLIANTEZ IRVINE, CA 92720 ATTN: JAY D. JAEGER 1011 EL CAMINO REAL (NORTHEAST CORNER OF NEWPORT AVENUE/EL CAMINO REAL) COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). 1. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 1.92 ACRES INTO 2 NUMBERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE A COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION; 2. APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT; AND AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT WITH OUTDOOR SEATING, PET STORE, AND MASTER SIGN PROGRAM WHICH DEVIATES FROM THE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION. Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Baker asked if there was a problem with students from Tustin High School loitering. Staff noted that there has not been a problem but that the Police Department is patrolling the area heavily in the afternoon and has identified a potential for loitering. Commissioner Weil asked if there was an outside telephone in the area. Staff stated there was none proposed at this time. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 Page 13 Commissioner Stracker asked if the name signs were neon and asked if there was a requirement on how bright they were allowed to be. Staff stated that the signs were neon but that there was no requirement on the brightness. Commissioner Butler in regards to the 900 square foot building, asked that if this business were to fail how large a building would the parcel accommodate or be allowed to have, for he is concerned about a future variance and was concerned that the back corner parking area held a potential for loitering. Staff noted that there could be a number of design solutions for that corner, the question would be could they provide the necessary parking. In regard to the back corner, this area will be primarily for employee parking. The Public Hearing opened at 10:06 p.m. Jay Jaeger, Development Partner for Newport Camino Plaza, Ltd., thanked staff, stated that the property has been in a family trust for the past 30 years and they wish to keep it. They are looking at this project on a long term basis. They have two national tenants, Petco and Rally's and they are quite proud of this project. Commissioner Butler asked the reason for the lot split. Jay Jeager, stated it was a financing device. Greq Bennett, Donley Bennett Architects, thanked staff and asked if the hours of operation for Rally's could be 6:00 a.m. potential start up in lieu of what is in the conditons at a 10:00 a.m. start up. He supports all of the other conditions. Commissioner Weil asked why they wished to stay open to 2:00 a.m. on weekends and if the lighting on the patio was adequate for safety. Greg Bennett stated that the lighting was also a concern of theirs but that the lighting system was dual using ground lighting as well as overhead and he felt this was adequate. Commissioner Weil asked if there would be a yield problem where the two ques merge. Greq Bennett stated, "no", since the exit width is adequate for two cars. Further, the exiting at peak time is done at an interval and there is visibility at the junction. Commissioner Stracker asked if the entire area would be lit or just Rally's and did the outside eating area have a curfew. He also asked if there was fencing around the seats. Greg Bennett stated that all of the area would be lit and the curfew would concur with the business operation. Only 25% of the business is seating area. The seats are fixed and there is a 3 foot high hedge and security bars around the seating area. Commissioner Baker asked if it were necessary to put hours of operation into the resolution. Staff noted that typically they are included to define the scope of the project. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 Page 14 Commissioner Butler does not feel the hours should be restricted but that they should be allowed the full 24 hours. Ralph Deppisch, representative of Rally's, stated that in regard to the issue of loitering or security, there is strong language in the lease that would monitor this problem. Commission Butler asked what the arrangement would be for the bathroom use. Ralph Deppisch stated that they typically lock it and provide the key upon request. Commissioner Weil asked if the menu boards were high enough and is the microphone height adequate. Ralph Deppisch stated the menu board height was not a problem but that he was not in a position to answer the question about the microphones. Commissioner Stracker asked if they anticipated using flags for the grand opening and was he aware of the Norwalk site, since flags at that location were up for a long time. He also asked if paper signs would be going up on the windows. Ralph Deppisch answered, "yes", he would like to use flags but he realizes there is a procedure that the City requires to do this. He was not aware of the Norwalk situation and they do not wish to put paper signs in the windows for they need the visibility. Gil Kveen, 1110 E1 Camino Real, asked if there would be a wall where the alley is and that he would like to request that trash containers be placed at all the exits. Staff stated that there would not be a wall since the building is five feet from the alley. Frank Greinke, applicant, stated that he has been on the same corner for 60 years and since this is a gateway to the City he is proud of the project. Commissioner Stracker stated he would have liked to see a gap study done and asked if there was a site problem at the right turn lane. Carl Ballard, traffic engineer for Robert Kahn, John Kain and Assoc. Inc., stated that there was adequate visibility. The Public Hearing closed at 10:52 p.m. Commissioner Stracker stated that he would like to see the right turn monitored for a 6-12 month period. The Public Hearing opened at 10:50 p.m. Ralph Deppisch stated that if there was a problem with queuing the whole operation would be affected. Greq Bennett stated that if staff identifies this as a concern they would be willing to do their own analysis. Changing things now in a knee jerk reaction would mean that people exiting the drive thru would have to recycle in a direction they do not wish to go. Staff agreed that the situation could be monitored. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 Page 15 Frank Greinke stated that he felt this is a problem for Rally's to solve, that market conditions would dictate traffic flow. The Public Hearing closed at 11:05 p.m. Commissioner Butler wanted to address the trash concern and asked if Rally's would be sensitive to this issue so as not to have trash in the alley. Staff noted that two trash bins were proposed for the property and patio area. Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded, to certify the final negative declaration as adequate for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14914, Design Review 94-005 and Conditonal Use Permit 94-003 including required findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, by approving Resolution No. 3278 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit 94-003 authorizing the establish-ent of a drive-thru restaurant including outdoor seating, Pet Store and Master Sign Plan and approving Design Review 94-005 for an approximately 18,000 square foot retail center located at 1011 E1 Camino Real by adopting Resolution No. 3279 as revised. Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval, Add to Condition 1.1 to read, "Sheet lA has been eliminated from the approved set of plans".Condition 4.3 struck; Conditions 4.4 to 4.6 renumbered accordingly. Add Condition 4.6 to read, "If within 12 months of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Community Development Department or Public Works Department receives complaints or observes continued traffic operation concerns related to the drive thru, the applicant shall identify and implement mitigation measures, subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded, to recommend to the Tustin city Council, approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 14914 by adopting Resolution No. 3280 revised as follows: Exhibit A, Condition of Approval 9.5 to read, "Prior to release of building permits, all conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 94- 003 and Design Review 94-005 of the subject project shall be complied with or incorporated into applicable working drawings as shown on Exhibit A attached to Resolution No. 3279 and incorporated herein by reference. Motion carried 4-0. REGULAR BUSINESS: 7. Siqn Code Exception 94-002 APPLICANT/ THE VONS COMPANIES, INC. OWNER: P.O. BOX 3338 LOS ANGELES, CA 90051-1338 REPRESENTATIVE/ AGENT: JOHN MCKINNEY TRIPLE A SIGN NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA 91601 LOCATION: 17662 SEVENTEENTH STREET ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT EXEMPT (CLASS 11) OF THE CALIFORNIA Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1994 Page 16 REQUEST: TO INSTALL A TENANT DIRECTORY MONUMENT SIGN WITH 15 SQUARE FEET OF IDENTIFICATION FOR VONS, WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF THE 6 SQUARE FOOT SIGN CODE LIMITATION. Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Sign Code Exception 94-002 by adopting Resolution No. 3272, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded, to approve Sign Code Exception 94-002 by adopting Resolution No. 3272, as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. STAFF CONCERNS: 8. Report on Actions taken at June 6, 1994 City Council Meetinq Staff reported on actions taken at the June 6, 1994, City Council Meeting. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Weil Congratulated Commissioner Butler and his wife on the birth of their baby girl. Requested that the sign code, in regard to height of freeway signs, be revisited in the near future. Noted that she had observed the activity at Melodyland, at their Anaheim location, and wondered if they realized that Tustin does not have any motels to accommodate large events. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 11:14 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on June 27, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Chairperson Secretary