Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-14-94MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 1994 CALL TO ORDER: 7:05 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Weil, Baker, Butler, 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: (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 January 24, 1994 Planninq Commission meeting. 2. Air Quality Matters Update Recommendation - Received and filed. Commissioner Baker moved, Stracker 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. 3. Larqe-Family Day Care Home (LFD 94-001) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: KRISTI KRAGTHORPE PERO 14481 OXFORD AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 14481 OXFORD AVENUE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l) DISTRICT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1994 Page 2 REQUEST: SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE-FAMILY DAY CARE HOME Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve LFD 94-001 by adopting Resolution No. 3231, as submitted or revised, if no formal protest is made by a notified property owner within 100 feet of the proposed large-family day care home based on adverse impacts. If a protest is received, based on specific factual adverse impacts as defined by State law, it is recommended that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on this item and instruct staff to return on February 28, 1994 with responses to the issues or conditions to mitigate the issues raised by a valid protest. Presentation: Becky C. Stone, Assistant Planner Commissioner Butler asked if 100 ft. was the correct radius for the public hearing notices to property owners as stated in the report. Staff replied that in this case only 100 ft. was necessary. Commissioner Baker asked if there had been any complaints about large family day care centers recently, in general. Staff replied, "none". The Public Hearing was opened at 7:12 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:12 p.m. Commissioner Baker Asked if it was specified in the Resolution that the driveway was to remain clear. Staff replied, that two spaces were reserved for parking in the garage but that it was not specified that the driveway had to remain clear. Commissioner Baker expressed concern that if the driveway is used as one of the parking spaces then it should be specified as parking for clients. Commissioner Weil noted that this was a valid point, that the aides or helpers should not be parking permanently in the driveway. Staff stated that language could be added to the Conditions of Approval to keep the driveway clear at peak hours. Commissioner Stracker asked why this was a concern. Commissioner Weil replied that it would cause an impact on the surrounding community. Commissioner Baker stated that the typical problem is that people are driving up fast and finding no place to park will park across someones driveway, hopefully at this home, but that they may also decide to park across the driveway of a neighbor, so the idea is to mitigate this problem as much as possible. Commissioner Stracker does not see this as a problem. Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1994 Page 3 Commission Baker stated that the reason he brought it up was that it was used as a point of discussion in the staff report. The Public Hearing was re-opened at 7:14 p.m. Kristi Kragthorpe Pero, the applicant, stated that the main hours of operation are from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and most everyone in the neighborhood goes to work at an earlier hour. Since the street sweeper has one way in and out there is generally no one parking on the street during those hours. Parking has never been a problem with six children at the day care. She understands the concern of the Commissioners but that she has not previously received 12 children at drop off and would like to test it out. Since she parks her car in the driveway it would be a big inconvenience to constantly move the car for sporadic drop offs. If it turned out to be a problem she would like the opportunity to bring it before the Commission again. Commissioner Weil stated that she thinks perhaps it would be more of a safety problem for the children if the driveway was used for a drop off after all. Ms. Pero stated that she prefers that the children be dropped off at the street since then it necessitates that everyone walk up to the house. She is concerned about children being in the driveway. Commissioner Butler asked if there would be one full time aide. Ms. Pero stated that she uses the co-op system with parents participating as the aides. Commissioner Butler asked how many people would be parked at one time of those staying for the entire day. Ms. Pero replied, "one person". Commissioner Butler stated that he has a concern with the cars being parked in the street, not only because of the street sweeper but because of people backing up and not being able to see children who may be in the driveway. He does not favor revising the Resolution. Commissioner Stracker asked the applicant if she had read the staff report. Ms. Pero replied in the affirmative. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:19 p.m. Commissioner Kasalek noted that with no one in the audience to protest, the applicant must be doing an excellent job. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 3231 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Modification to Conditions of Approval to Allow Time Extensions for Design Review 88-70 and Variance 89-19 Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve a modification to Condition No. 1.1 of Resolution No. 3153 to allow a six-month extension of Design Review 88-70 and Variance 89-19 by adopting Resolution No. 3232, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner · - r .... 1' I !11 "--r' '-Tr- ........ Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1994 Page 4 Commissioner Stracker asked if the applicant has done anything since they last submitted their letter on November 29, 1993. Staff replied, "no". Commissioner Baker stated that as a partial reconveyance with a letter of intent and the financing in place it seems all that needs be done is to obtain a release of a prior deed of trust. He is unclear as to the reason for the extension. He asked if the applicant would clarify this. Staff replied that the applicant was not present. The Public Hearing opened at 7:23 p.m. The Public Hearing closed at 7:23 p.m. Commissioner Baker stated that he does not go along with the request, feels it is being dragged out un-necessarily. Commissioner Kasalek asked what would happen if applicant did not wish to continue. Staff stated that at this point the entitlement would expire and the applicant would have to re-apply for design review and a new variance. The Director stated that the applicant is not local; that it is a good project in terms of the Commission's original review in a neighborhood that needs some revitalization and there are no changed circumstances which would result in the Commission wanting to reconsider the appropriateness of this project. Oftentimes the expiration is tied to the fact that City regulations change. In staff's prospective, even if the applicant had to repay application fees and come back in, the recommendation would not be any different. Commissioner Baker would approve a continuance of two weeks but would like to see additional evidence that the applicant is going to do something. The Director stated that there has been slow but continued progress both on the construction plan check process as well as going all the way through final map approval from the City Council. Commissioner Weil asked if staff could project how long it would be before they actually put anything into the ground. Staff noted that the applicant is ready to go. Commissioner Butler stated that he does not think that anyone is being jeopardized in granting the applicant an additional six months extension based on the information provided by staff and does not see any reason to continue it. Feels that with the money already invested in the project it is likely that they will carry through with it. Commissioner Weil stated that each time an extension is given it requires staff time and additional cost to the City in noticing and if they have no clear title she questioned the chances of their ever being able to build. Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1994 Page 5 Commissioner Baker feels that the problem is not a matter of will they continue or do they want to, the point is all they need is a release of a loan. He is glad to hear from staff that there is progress but feels that information should be less than two months old. Commissioner Baker moved, Stracker seconded to continue this item to the February 28, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Butler opposed. 5. Conditional Use Permit 93-040 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: COOKIES CAFE STEVE TSIRTSIS 1481 EDINGER AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 MULLIN LUMBER CO. c/o WEYERHAEUSER MORTGAGE CO. ATTN: DOROTHY FORBES 6320 CANOGA AVE., 13TH FLOOR WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 1481 EDINGER AVENUE PLANNED COMMUNITY - (PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE A MINOR ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING FACILITY AND IS THEREFORE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO PROVIDE OUTDOOR SEATING AT AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 1481 EDINGER AVENUE. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 93-040 by adopting Resolution No. 3235, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Scott Reekstin, Assistant Planner Commissioner Kasalek asked if the tables and chairs are put in the building at night and asked if they were heavy. She is concerned about a theft factor since it is quite dark in the patio. Staff replied that the patio is partially enclosed and that the chairs and tables are of light weight material. The Public Hearing opened at 7:38 p.m. The Public Hearing closed at 7:38 p.m. Commissioner Stracker moved, Kasalek seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit 93-040 by adopting Resolution No. 3235 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS: None Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1994 Page 6 NEW BUSINESS: 6. Temporary Use Permit 94-001 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THACKER BERRY FARM 32670 GLAISYER HILL ROAD COTTAGE GROVE, OREGON 97424 FRANK GREINKE P.O. BOX 4259 ORANGE, CA. 92613 1011 EL CAMINO REAL (NORTHEAST CORNER EL CAMINO REAL AND NEWPORT AVENUE) CG - GENERAL COMMERCIAL THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE MINISTERIALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15268 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A TEMPORARY PRODUCE STAND FOR A PERIOD OF THIRTY DAYS, FOR THE SALE OF STRAWBERRIES IN AN OPEN AIR STAND. Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Dan Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Butler asked if there were any complaints against any fruit stands. Staff replied that no complaints have been received from the general public. Commissioner Stracker stated that if the lots are large enough and there is enough room to get cars on and off the public streets then he does not consider it a problem. Commissioner Weil stated that at the time the Commission had put a moratorium on temporary use permits for produce stands it was because of one that was put in the Marketplace and at that time there was a traffic problem. She felt, at that time, adding another retail unit out in the middle of the parking lot did not make sense. She feels the Commission needs to keep an open mind but as far as this request is concerned, she has no problem with it. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to authorize staff to approve the establishment of a temporary produce stand for the period of 30 days for the sale of strawberries in an open air stand by Minute Order. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Butler noted that if in the future the Commission can pre-identify sites for staff to make decision on, then it would not be necessary for the Commission to hear these items. Commissioner Stracker asked if a $100 clean up bond was adequate. Staff replied in the affirmative. Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1994 Page 7 7. Design Review 93-044 APPLICANT/ LANDOWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES 5 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ATTN: MR. JON ROBERTSON LOT 13 OF TRACT 12870 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT APPROVE THE INSTALLATION OF VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN GATES FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TRACT 13733 Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Design Review 93-044 by adopting Resolution No. 3236, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Stracker asked for clarification on how the gates open. Staff replied that they slide. Commissioner Weil asked if pedestrian gates are open from the inside and asked if they were lockable from the outside. Staff replied in the affirmative and that it is consistent with the latest City Council policy. Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded to approve Design Review 93-044 by adopting Resolution No. 3236 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. 8. Siqn Code Exception 93-004 APPLICANT: CHEVRON U.S.A PRODUCTS INC. P.O. BOX 2833 LA HABRA, CA 90632 REPRESENTATIVE/ AGENT: ROBERT FISCUS AND ASSOCIATES ATTN: TED GROVE 2050 S. SANTA CRUZ, SUITE 2100 ANAHEIM, CA 92805 OWNER: JOANNE STIFFLER TRUST C/O STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA PROPERTY TAX DIVISION C/O HAYDEN P.O. BOX 7611 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94120 LOCATION: 14501 RED HILL AVENUE ZONING: CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2) DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUEST: TO ALLOW THE LOCATION OF SECONDARY BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION WALL OR CANOPY SIGNS ON LEVEL II SPANNERS. IIIII '"-!--- II Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1994 Page 8 Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Sign Code Exception 93-004 by adopting Resolution No. 3233, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Scott Reekstin, Assistant Planner Item Nos. 8 and 9 were discussed simultaneously due to the similar nature of the items. Commissioner Baker is concerned about the bright glow of the station at Bryan and Myford and asked that if in this case the applicant would be making any changes. Staff noted that the canopy is already illuminated and that staff is working with the applicant at the Myford and Bryan station to address some of the complaints. While a photometric survey did not register the spanner lights, a field observation did show that shadows are cast from the spanner lights, creating a nuisance glare. Turning off the spanners did make a significant difference. Commissioner Kasalek is there an option in the wattage in the spanner itself. Staff noted that light shields were put on the fluorescent tubes at the Myford site which reduced the glare. Robert Fiscus, the applicant, showed the Commissioners a photo display and thanked staff for working with Chevron at the Myford and Bryan site. He stated that this station is different from that situation. He stated that he feels it very important that the spanners illuminate the fueling position, because people need to see what they are doing around the dispensing nozzles. The two sites have existing lights on canopies but of a considerably less brightness than at the Myford and Bryan location. At both locations they are reducing the signage by eliminating all free standing pole signs. He stated that Chevron has designed the monument sign according to City of Tustin standards. They would like the opportunity to install the spanners and are willing to work with staff and if problems occur, they would respond to them. He stated that these stations are not in close proximity to residences. He stated that Chevron is committed to Southern California while many other gasoline companies are closing so they wish to be good neighbors. Commissioner Weil stated that the Chevron station at Nisson and Red Hill share a common wall with an apartment development and the station at Red Hill and Walnut is across from developments, so that there are homes fairly close. She asked that if the shields were installed do they have an effect of basically directing light downward. Mr. Fiscus answered that they do not direct light down but reduce the overall lighting. Commissioner Stracker noted that these locations are on the school routes and asked if the monument signs were looked at for visibility. Staff affirmed that they were reviewed for site distance and there are no questions related to the traffic analysis. Commissioner Stracker asked if the food mart sign would be removed. Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1994 Page 9 Mr. Fiscus stated that there will be no food marts in these stations. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she is appreciative of good lighting especially as one who fuels the car herself, feels that these two stations do need adequate lighting, likes the idea of the sign clutter disappearing and would be in favor of this request. Commissioner Butler stated that he supports the item without question. Commissioner Baker has a problem with allowing it and then if there is complaint to have to expend additional staff time on it. Staff concurred that after approval it would take a strong effort to go back and rescind. However the applicant does have the ability to reduce the lighting other than at the spanners or they can install opaque siding on the spanners or the Commission can require additional conditions of approval. Commissioner Weil feels that staff has done a good job of analyzing the situation, feels there is a definite security problem but with respect to the proximity to residents, particularly at Nisson and Red Hill, asked if a review period was a good idea. Staff replied in the affirmative but that it was more difficult to provide a total solution after the fact. Commissioner Butler asked if there had been any complaints about the station at Newport/Irvine. Staff stated "no" but that it is surrounded by commercial development. Commissioner Butler favors a review time, feels they could install lower wattage to start with. He would only be concerned if there was a glare problem for traffic. Mr. Fiscus stated reinforced the fact that Chevron would be more than happy to work with staff; that they only want the opportunity, with review period, and if there are complaints they will respond by reducing site lighting. Commissioner Kasalek would like to see Chevron monitor the lighting themselves, and determine if there is a problem, rather than waiting for the neighbors to complain. Mr. Fiscus agreed. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Butler seconded to approve Sign Code Exception 93-004 by adopting Resolution No. 3233, revised as follows: Exhibit A, Page 2, Condition 1.10 shall read, "Internal illumination of the Level II spanners shall be permitted provided no complaints are received. In the event the City receives complaints, the Community Development Department, at their discretion, shall require the applicant to either reduce the wattage of said spanners or require the use of opaque non- illuminated spanners only, as needed to adequately eliminate complaints and light impacts on adjacent properties. If the applicant fails to comply within 30 days of a request by the Community Development Department, the applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs incurred for city staff time related to Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1994 Page 10 enforcement activities, including the City Attorney fees needed to gain compliance". Motion carried 5-0. 9. Sign Code Exception 93-005 OWNER: CHEVRON U.S.A. PRODUCTS INC. P.O. BOX 2833 LA HABRA, CA 90632 REPRESENTATIVE/ AGENT: ROBERT FISCUS AND ASSOCIATES ATTN: TED GROVE 2050 S. SANTA CRUZ, SUITE 2100 ANAHEIM, CA 92805 LOCATION: 14122 NEWPORT AVENUE ZONING: RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-l) DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUEST: TO ALLOW THE REDISTRIBUTION OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION WALL OR CANOPY SIGNS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Sign Code Exception 93-005 by adopting Resolution No. 3234, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Scott Reekstin, Assistant Planner Commissioner Butler moved, Kasalek seconded, to approve Sign Code Exception 93-005 by adopting Resolution No. 3234 as revised. Condition 1.9, Exhibit A, Page 2, shall read, "Internal illumination of the Level II spanners shall be permitted provided no complaints are received. In the event the City receives complaints, the Community Development Department, at their discretion, shall require the applicant to either reduce the wattage of said spanners or require the use of opaque non- illuminated spanners only as needed to adequately eliminate complaints and light impacts on adjacent properties. If the applicant fails to comply within 30 days of a request by the Community Development Department, the applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs incurred for city staff time related to enforcement activities, including the City Attorney fees needed to gain compliance". Motion carried 5-0. 10. Design Review 93-017 APPLICANT/ LANDOWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. AND MRS. GREG JENKINS 6012 HERSHOLT AVENUE LAKEWOOD, CA 90712 705 WEST MAIN STREET AND 350 MYRTLE AVENUE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-i) CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3, SECTION 15303 DEFERMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OR WAIVER OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL 3.4 FOR DESIGN REVIEW 93-017 REQUIRING UNDERGROUNDING OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Stracker asked if the utilities which would serve the property would still be underground. Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1994 Page 11 Staff answered that the waiver requires to allowance for the overhead service from the public right-of-way to the residence to remain. Presently the site is served by overhead utilities by 2 separate poles. If waived, overhead lines to the property could remain for an indefinite period of time. Commissioner Weil asked that if the applicant undergrounded will they have to take the wires down from poles and underground to the residence. Staff replied, "yes", however the utility company bears the major cost from the pole to the junction box. Once at the house, the burden is on the property owner. The applicant is indicating they are not able to handle the cost at this time. Commissioner Weil asked if it would be a requirement of the applicant to be undergrounded when the district was formed. Staff replied in the affirmative and the cost would be accessed on the property taxes. Commissioner Weil stated she would prefer to see deferment until the entire district was established because until the plans are laid out no one knows for sure where the undergrounding will be. At that time the homeowner might have to move junction boxes again. Commissioner Kasalek agreed it would be more cost effective. Commissioner Stracker stated that because of rule changes it could become more expensive for the property owner to underground at a later time than at present. Staff stated that if the item was deferred, the property owner would be required to sign a letter of agreement that they would not protest formation of any future utility district. Judy Jenkins, applicant, asked that if she signs the letter of agreement and the pole is not included in the district would she still have a right to protest or ask for another waiver with all the wire still up. Asked that the pole adjacent to her home be included in the underground district. Staff noted that the initial assessment of the public works department cannot guarantee that the pole will be included. The applicant would have the ability to request an addition deferral but as a condition of a building permit undergrounding is required or is to be completely waived. Commissioner Weil added that in her experience undergrounding is a tremendous advantage. Ms. Jenkins indicated she has no problem in signing the letter of agreement. Commissioner Butler asked the applicant why she did not want to do the undergrounding now. Ms. Jenkins stated that there would be no aesthetic value from her point of view and the reason she is converting from duplex to family home was due to a fire at the location which necessitated gutting the premises; there have been many unexpected expenses and she cannot afford it at this time. Il'il --1' ' '-'Tr" Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1994 Page 12 Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded, to defer implementation of Condition of Approval 3.4 for Design Review 93-017 requiring undergrounding of existing overhead utilities by adopting Resolution No. 3237 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. 11. Final Tract Map 13733 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES 5 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PARCEL 2 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 89-003 (LOT 13 OF TRACT 12870), LOTS Q AND R OF TRACT 12870 EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED MINISTERIALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15268(b) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE TWENTY SEVEN (27) NUMBERED LOTS AND FORTY NINE (49) LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 138 PATIO HOME DWELLINGS Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3224 recommending approval to the City Council of Final Tract Map 13733, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3224 recommending approval to the City Council of Final Tract Map 13733 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS: 12. Report on actions taken at February 9, 1994 City Council meeting Staff reported on the subject agenda and also reminded the Commissioners of the upcoming Planning Institute. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Butler Reported on attending the Base Task Force Meeting held February 3rd. Stated that he had visited Micro Center on Saturday, February 12th, and was told by officials there that it had been the single largest sales day in the chains 13 year history. He congratulated staff on getting Micro Center into Tustin and encouraged additional contacts of this kind for the City. Commissioner Baker Asked if the Commission was aware of the monthly Economic Development Council which staff attends regularly. Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1994 Page 13 Noted that a large Teachers Credit Union had approached the City which would ultimately bring between two to three hundred jobs to the City. Questioned an item on the City Council Action Agenda concerned with "Threat of Gang Activity". Staff reported that Irvine had a public hearing on an amusement facility that was planned and a number of residents, particularly in the University Park area, opposed the commercial recreation claiming that it would attract gangs. Mr. Saltarelli was basically congratula- ing the Irvine City Council for not letting those fears influence the vote for the facility. Asked about the threats by the County relative to base closure. staff reported that there were six proposals made to the City under threat of board action. The City reserves discretion relative to planning on community reuse. Requests from state and local screening can go to the federal agency but under the Pryor Amendment must be referred to local reuse authority. The Navy must take community concerns into consideration before implementation of any reuse plan. The City will not accept any detention facility whatsoever. Tustin's position remains strong and the City does not have to accept a facility that is not in the best interest of the community. Commissioner Stracker Was pleased to see the area quickly cleaned of debris following the heavy winds experienced by the City last week. Asked what happened to the cart program at the Market Place. Staff noted that the implemented as of yet. cart program has not been Asked about the status of the E1 Camino Real/Red Hill, Chevron station sign poles. Staff noted that there is a report being prepared on this item for the next meeting. - Asked what was going on at the Courtyard Shopping Center. Staff stated that a number of tenants had moved out of the center. Noted that the interior courtyard situation had never worked and that there are plans to bring in a major anchor tenant. This item will be coming back before the Commission in the future. Commissioner Kasalek Asked about a decision concerning the relaxation of the sign code regulations. !- .... i111'I -" I II Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1994 Page 14 Staff noted that a new sign code had been adopted with minor amendments concerning banners. There has been no direction not to enforce the sign code. Commissioner Weil - Asked what the City does with all the wood chips. Staff will follow up on this question. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Baker moved, Butler seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on February 28, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Chairperson Secretary