Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-23-94MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 23, 1994 CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers Present: Weil, Butler, Kasalek Stracker Absent: Baker 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: (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.) 1. Minutes of the May 9, 1994 Planning Commission Meetinq. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Stracker seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. 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. Conditional Use Permit 94-006 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: RAY TADJBAKHSH 4222 RAFAEL STREET IRVINE, CA 92714 EDGAR PANKEY 320 MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 13812 RED HILL AVENUE RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-i) THIS PROJECT HAS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT BEEN DETERMINED TO (CLASS 3) PURSUANT BE TO Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1994 Page 2 REQUEST: PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ON-SITE SALE OF BEER AND WINE (ABC LICENSE TYPE "41") FOR CONSUMPTION ON THE PREMISES AT 13812 RED HILL AVENUE. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 94-006, requesting authorization for the on-site sale of beer and wine (ABC License Type "41") for consumption on premises only, by adopting Resolution No. 3265, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Kasalek asked if there had ever been any problem with the facility when it had been known as Chuck's Pizza. Staff answered, "no". Commissioner Stracker asked if the applicant was going to improve the interior. Staff is not aware of any improvements to the interior. The Public Hearing Opened at 7:05 p.m. Mr. Ray Tadjbakhsh, applicant, stated that interior improvements included fresh paint and renovation of the restrooms. The Public Hearing Closed at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Butler asked how many video games would be allowed. Staff noted that the applicant has two video games at present but would be allowed up to five. Commissioner Butler moved, Stracker seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit 94-006, requesting authorization for the on- site sale of beer and wine (ABC License Type t'41") for consumption on premises only by adopting Resolution No. 3265 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 14883, Design Review 93-043 and Zone Change 93-005 APPLICANT/ LANDOWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: JOHN LAING HOMES 23382 MILL CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 105 LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92633 LOT 12, L and N of TRACT 12870, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GREENWAY DRIVE AND TUSTIN RANCH ROAD PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL (MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN) THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. 1. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 14.616 GROSS ACRES INTO ONE NUMBERED LOT AND FOUR LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 223 CONDOMINIUMS; 2. APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT; 3. AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CONTAINED IN SECTION 3.6.3.A2.4 (BUILDING Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1994 Page 3 SETBACKS FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY AND CONDOMINIUM DWELLINGS) OF THE ETSP; AND APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT EXTENSION 94- 002 FOR A TEMPORARY SALES TRAILER. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3261; Either approve or deny Zone Change 93-005 by adoption of Resolution 3264, as submitted or revised, for approval; or an alternate resolution for denial; Approve Design Review 93-043 by adopting Resolution No. 3262, as submitted or revised; Recommend to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract May 14883 by adopting Resolution No. 3263, as submitted or revised; and 5. Approve Temporary Use Permit Extension 94-002 by Minute Order. Presentation: Becky C. Stone, Assistant Planner Commissioner Stracker asked if this was a gated community and what was the width of the second access roadway. Staff noted that it is not a gated community and that the width was 36 feet curb to curb. Commissioner Stracker asked how the kumquat trees would be planted and what the planting base material would be. Staff replied that the trees would be planted in boxes and the base material would be crushed gravel. The Public Hearing opened at 7:18 p.m. Terry Crowther, representative of John Laing Homes, stated that the kumquat grove idea, which was originally suggested by their Landscape Architect, was something either liked or not by individual taste. He noted that he personally had enjoyed driving through the Tustin orange groves in the past. To experience the effect there had to be enough space dedicated to this use. The density is low and there is a two acre park across the street which the residents must support. If active recreation was installed behind the units instead of the orchard idea he believes that it would actually depreciate the value. He asked to have Condition three removed. Commissioner Butler asked if it were true that there was no pool, spa or clubhouse within the boundaries of this project. Mr. Crowther affirmed also stating that the park across the street contained a pool, tennis court, open grass area and tot lot which can be used by this project. Commissioner Butler asked if grass was given any consideration as a base material for the kumquat trees instead of gravel and if the developer has a similar product planted with use of the gravel. Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1994 Page 4 Mr. Crowther stated that grass had been considered but due to the conflict in watering needs between the trees and grass coupled with the fact that the use of gravel will save water they had discounted the idea. He also stated that no one has an orchard concept planted anywhere that he knows of. Commissioner Stracker asked the ownership of the park and will the recreation use be carried on for the owners of this project. Mr. Crowther stated that the owner was the Ventana Project and that they were in the audience to speak in favor of this project. Staff noted that a separate Tustin Ranch 111 master association owns and maintains this private park which the units in this property are required to be members of. Commission Kasalek asked if the master association or the Orchard association will be paying for the upkeep of these trees. Mr. Crowther stated that the homeowners would have full control over the orchard and it's use so that if some time in the future the concept was not wanted these homeowners could change it through their own association. Commissioner Kasalek asked if Mr. Crowther foresaw a security problem. Mr. Crowther stated that at first they had concerns as did the Police Department, but investigated and given the nature of the trees as being a dwarf variety, slow growing and easily pruned, they see no problem. He also stated that the developer has provided an alternate landscape plan which would maintain the orchard through the entry only if the Commission feels that the Police Department concerns are an issue. Staff noted that as a point of information, all the departments of the design review committee had an opportunity to view the sample trees and it was under those circumstances that the departments gave addition clarification of concerns which include the Police Department. Commissioner Stracker asked if the developer had met with the Police Department to resolve some of the concerns they had. Mr. Crowther stated that the Police Department concerns were in the first staff report but not in the second so he assumed they were no longer concerned and did not contact them. Commissioner Stracker does not want to saddle the homeowners with the maintenance of these trees and wanted to know how long a time the developer would be responsible for the maintenance until it is known if the concept will work. Mr. Crowther stated that the developer would most likely be responsible for at least a two year period until units are sold and the homeowners association accepts it and has it turned over to them. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the kumquat fruit would be available to the homeowners. Mr. Crowther replied "yes", but if the growth of the kumquats ever became a problem, the trees can be sprayed so that they do not bear fruit. Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1994 Page 5 Commissioner Weil stated that she personally does not like grass since it is too costly to maintain and was in favor of the trees. Mr. Merle Ogle, 2326 Dunes, Tustin, spoke in favor of the project. He noted that he lives directly across from the entrance in the Ventana project and was on the Board of both Ventana and Tustin Ranch 1. He stated that he would enjoy looking out at an orchard · and was pleased with the density and felt the project to be a good neighbor. Commissioner Butler asked if he had spoken to others in his association. Mr. Ogle stated that he had and all those he spoke to were in favor of it. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:45 p.m. Commissioner Weil commented that both she and Commissioner Kasalek had visited the Vineyards at Foothill Ranch on the suggestion of the builder and that they both liked the project, and felt that this unique project warranted a chance. Commissioner Kasalek concurred. Commissioner Stracker stated that even though he liked the concept of an orchard he was not in favor of the project since he feels that replacement of the trees, if this concept does not work, will be too costly for owners. He suggested putting in less trees and was concerned about maintenance due to wind and dust damage. He was also concerned about safety issues for children crossing Greenway Drive to get to the park. Commissioner Butler asked if there could be a condition included to require a weed barrier to be put under the gravel. As a personal request he also asked if the developer could mix up the roof colors so that the project does not look all the same. He was concerned with the use of individual trash cans but would go along with it. He wished to make sure the conditions included measures to ensure that the association could use the alternate landscaping plan if they wished to without having to come back to the Planning Commission for approval. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:02 p.m. Elizabeth Leland, Fennell and Associates, Landscape Architects for John Lainq Homes, stated that maintaining grass is more expensive, than maintaining the groves. Grove maintenance would be less than half of that cost in maintenance and water savings. The base material is decomposed granite and under it, protected and sprayed for weeds. Commissioner Stracker asked what the survival rate was for these trees and if they were susceptible to blight. Ms. Leland stated that these trees were very tough and could also handle winds. Commissioner Butler wanted to add a condition to ensure that a strong protective weed barrier would be installed. He also inquired about the irrigation. Ms. Leland stated that there would be planting area drains. Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1994 Page 6 Staff noted that at submittal of final grading plans a complete hydrology plan would be required to include paved surfaces and non open spaces which would be checked by the City's civil engineer plan checker to ensure proper drainage. The Public Hearing closed at 8:10 p.m. The Public Hearing opened at 8:10 p.m. Commissioner Stracker asked the dimensions of the bedrooms and if the units would have ADA requirements. Staff noted that they were 2/3 bedroom units ranging from 1033 to 1350 square feet and were good sized units and that all of the public areas are covered under ADA requirements and would be checked for that. The units themselves would be modified according to individual ownership as need arises. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:11 p.m. Commissioner Butler asked for comments from the traffic engineer on the curve located close to the westerly entrance. Doug Anderson, City Traffic Engineer, stated that there were some concerns but that the applicant had eliminated parking at that location to provide additional site distance for that entry. Commissioner Kasalek asked if speed along the interior drive would be a problem. Staff noted that the association would regulate this since it is a private street. Commissioner Butler moved, Kasalek seconded, to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3261 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Butler moved, Kasalek seconded, to approve Zone Change 93-005 by adoption of Resolution 3264 as submitted. Motion carried 3-1. Commissioner Stracker voted against. Commissioner Butler moved, Kasalek seconded, to approve Design Review 93-043 by adopting Resolution No. 3262 revised as follows. Exhibit A, page 7, Condition 4.11 removed and replaced with, "A weed barrier shall be placed below the dwarf kumquat grove wherever gravel is utilized as a planting base around the kumquat trees subject to the approval of the Community Development Department". Condition 4.12 is to be added to read, "At any future point in time as determined by the developer or future Homeowner's Association, the alternate landscaping plan provided as Attachment D in the Planning Commission staff report dated May 23, 1994, may be implemented without the need for any additional design review, subject to issuance of any permits required by the Uniform Building Code. Motion carried 4-0. commissioner Butler moved, Kasalek seconded, to recommend to the city Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14883 by adopting Resolution No. 3263, as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Butler moved, Kasalek seconded, to approve Temporary Use Permit Extension 94-002 by Minute Order. Motion carried 4-0. REGULAR BUSINESS: Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1994 Page 7 4. Sign Code Exception 94-001 APPLICANT/ TUSTIN TIRE AND BRAKE OWNER: 135 SO. PROSPECT TUSTIN, CA 92680 REPRESENTATIVE/ AGENT: AWARD SIGN COMPANY 16842 MILLIKEN AVENUE IRVINE, CA 92714 LOCATION: 135 SOUTH PROSPECT AVENUE ZONING: COMMERCIAL AS PRIMARY USE DESIGNATION OF THE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUEST: TO MODIFY THE SIZE, NUMBER AND LOCATION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION SIGNS, TO PERMIT A MONUMENT SIGN ON A PROPERTY WITH LESS THAN THE REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE AND TO PERMIT A BRAND NAME ON A SIGN WHEN NOT PART OF THE BUSINESS NAME. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Sign Code Exception 94-001 by adopting Resolution No. 3266, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Kasalek asked if the name would be maintained on the current monument sign. Staff affirmed. Pepper Gomez, Award Sign Company, stated that they concurred with most of the findings with one exception. They would like to keep the words "Tustin Tire" on the Building #2, north elevation. Staff noted that Condition 1.8 states that the existing sign on the north elevation building shall be removed prior to final inspection. Commissioner Weil asked the size of the existing sign. Staff noted that it was about 50 square feet in size. Commissioner Kasalek noted that there was quite a lot of signage and asked if the owner thought the public perception was that these two buildings did not belong together. Steven Paquette owner of Tustin Tire and Brake, noted that the sign on the west side of building #2 included building identification only, as required by the Fire Department. He stated that at the First Street and Prospect entrance people do ask if the two buildings belong to the same business. Mr. Paquette stated that all he needs is identification of Tustin Tire on Building #2 north elevation and he does not wish to cut down the size of sign "D". He proposed using 30 square feet for sign "D" and 20 square feet, using the words "Tustin Tire and Brake" in the space designated for the existing sign removal. Building #2 sign is hidden by the rooftop of building #1. I i I!-[ ..... Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1994 Page 8 Staff noted that if 25 square feet were used for sign "D" and sign "G" stays as proposed, it would be only 4 square feet above what code would permit and still meet the intent of the code. If the owner would remove 48 square feet from "D" it could be supported by staff as proposed. Commissioner Kasalek asked the applicant if he would remove the banners and other violations of code if the Commission allowed all this new signage. Mr. Paquette stated that the banners and tire racks had only been used because he did not have what he considered proper signage and that yes they would be removed. Commission Butler asked what resolution to the Code Enforcement violations the City had so far met with at this location. Staff stated that the experience has been that banners have never come down and that tire racks were removed on request but put back out the following day. Commissioner Butler asked the applicant that if signs were allowed what assurance would the Commission have that violations would stop. He feels that there is too much signage already and he asked if the word "Goodyear" was to be removed from the signage. He is concerned with a precedent being set. Staff stated that Code Enforcement could cite the applicant and that the Commission had so far taken no action on the word "Goodyear". Goodyear had forwarded a letter stating that the applicant could use the name. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the Goodyear Company had seen the sign copy. Mr. Paquette affirmed and stated that it was Mr. Gomez who handles all of the Goodyear signage. Mr. Paquette stated that he was in full agreement with Commissioner Butler and does not like the tire racks out but that he needs identification as a Goodyear dealer. Commissioner Kasalek agreed that it was important to allow the applicant to use the Goodyear copy. Commissioner Weil stated that a good deal of time went into the setting up of the Sign Ordinance and one of the thoughts was that business identification signs were to identify the business only not the products the business sells. She is against allowing the name "Goodyear" to appear. Mr. Paquette stated that he is a G-110 Goodyear dealer and as such pays fees to Goodyear just like a franchise. The Goodyear logo has been around since 1901 and he emphasized that it was very important that he be identified as a Goodyear dealer not that he carries Goodyear products. He noted that the Goodyear signs below to Goodyear, they are not his and if he violates any agreement with Goodyear they have a right to remove them. He stated that there are only two Goodyear dealers in Tustin and the other has the same G-il0 designation and that "Goodyear" is used for identification of that business. Staff noted that this situation is similar to that of gasoline stations which use the name of the product as identification but are not necessarily owned by the gasoline company. Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1994 Page 9 Commissioner Kasalek moved, Butler seconded, to approve Sign Code Exception 94-001 by adopting Resolution No. 3266 revised as follows. Exhibit A, Page Z, Condition of Approval 1.8 is to be removed. Condition of Approval 2.2 shall be changed to read, "Sign "E" shall be eliminated. In addition, one of the Sign "C" on the west side of Building #1 shall be removed and Sign "B" may be increased in size up to a maximum of 24.25 square feet." Motion carried 4-0. 5. Status Reports Receive and File Commissioner Kasalek moved, Stracker seconded, to receive and file the status reports. Motion carried 4-0. STAFF CONCERNS: 6. Report on Actions taken at May 16, 1994 City Council Meeting Staff reported on the subject agenda highlighting two items of specific importance to the Commision. Following discussion on Vesting Tentative Tract 14447 the Council suggested that a general discussion on parking be brought back before the Commission and this will be scheduled for late June. A housing strategy workshop with the Council will be scheduled for early August to go through the Redevelopment strategy in the south central project area. The Commission will be informed as soon as a date is decided upon. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Kasalek Requested that staff update the various Homeowner's Associations on cable facility placement data. Staff noted that a provision was found in the Franchise Ordinance which was adopted for cable services stating that all cable facilities are to be underground, unless the Planning Commission determines that above ground service should be provided. To have their cable above ground the cable companies must put together a proposal which would ultimately come before the Commission for decision. Letters have gone out to the cable companies which may prompt them to lobby the commissioners. Staff will generate a letter to the Presidents of the Homeowner's Associations with technical data in support of putting cable underground. Asked if staff would look into the Jack In The Box site at the corner of Edinger and Jamboree. The fence is no longer there and there is a lot of illegal dumping because of it. Staff will investigate. Inquired as to the driveway at the Beacon Bay car wash since it appears to allow two way traffic. ! -I- H] .......... Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1994 Page 10 Staff noted that an interim situation exists at present while they are working with Home Depo to completely re-do the rear area due to their experience with delivery trucks liability. A separate driveway will redefine driveway width, improve loading area and expand the garden area to the west. Commissioner Butler Asked if all current members of the Planning Commission are up for review. Staff noted that under the terms of the Ordinance, members of the Planning Commission serve at the pleasure of the City Council. The Commissioners were reminded that the deadline for submitting application and information for term continuance is Wednesday, May 25th. Asked if the draft ordinance for term limits pertained to appointed positions within the City. Staff noted that the City Council had asked for the draft ordinance to be agendized for the June 6th meeting. Commissioner Stracker Asked if the traffic signal left turns at Park Center and Heritage at Tustin Ranch Road had a time extension added to them since they appear to be very long. Staff stated that no time extension has been added but that it will be investigated. Said he had noticed that all of the eucalyptus trees at the site of the Arco car wash on Red Hill had been taken out and if staff knew the reason. Staff will investigate. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kasalek moved, Stracker seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on June 13, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the city Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. None arbara Reye~ Secretary Kathy W~il Chairperson