Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-22-93MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Weil, Baker, Stracker Absent: None Butler, Kasalek 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 jurisdic- tion 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 November 8, 1993 Planninq Commission meetinq. Commissioner Baker moved, Stracker seconded to approve the Consent Calendar with the following change to the minutes: Page 1, move Commissioner Weil's and Commissioner Baker's comments after the voting for the new chairperson. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM CONSIDERED AT A PUBLIC HEARING IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS AGENDA, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. 2. Continued Public Hearinq City of Tustin General Plan revision APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 92101104) -REVIEW PERIOD CLOSED --'--F ' 1- I Ill I -Fl- " Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1993 Page 2 Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing on the proposed Draft General Plan. After testimony, close the public hearing and continue action on the General Plan until December 13, 1993. The Commission was missing a page from the General Plan report so this item was skipped until after Item #3. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:19 p.m. Jack Mallinckrodt representing Foothill Communities Association (FCA) submitted written remarks regarding the revised language of the General Plan prepared by city staff. Mr. Mallinckrodt praised the staff for resolving and incorporating many of FCA's concerns, however, he expressed concern with three outstanding issues FCA wanted changed in the General Plan: 1) Tustin's commitment to a new lower-density zoning designation for North Tustin; 2) Defined objective standards of compatibility; and 3) Incorporation of North Tustin Specific Plan into the Tustin General Plan. Neil Harkleroad representing FCA requested that the Commission and staff continue to examine the three issues identified by FCA and incorporate into the General Plan before it is adopted. Jim Brooks representing the North Tustin Communities Association (NTCA) requested additional time to review staff comments in more detail, however, he was comfortable with the changes recommended by staff. The revised language recognized the unique character of North Tustin; and he requested continued dialogue between North Tustin and the City of Tustin especially regarding Traffic and Circulation issues that might affect North Tustin; Jamboree Road and Irvine Blvd development; and MCAS Base Reuse Planning efforts. Commissioner Kasalek asked why pre-zoning was being recommended at this time. Commissioner Weil recommended maintaining the language in Goal 12 and Policy 12.3 as provided by staff, but eliminating Policies 12.1, 12.2 and 12.4. She felt it was premature to plan policies for North Tustin and that no definative information was available to support these policies. She also felt that recreational opportunities were a North Tustin and County issue and the City of Tustin shouldn't be involved. Commissioner Baker recommended keeping policy 12.1. Commissioner Butler recommended changing the language in Goal 12 "Attempt to" maintain... Commissioner Stracker stated this was Tustin's General Plan and questioned why we have North Tustin Goals and Policies in our document. There followed discussion regarding the pre-zoning process as part of an annexation request. It was recommended that the following statement be added to the Introduction Statement "Effective upon the annexation of North Tustin, specific policies, goals and discussions in the General Plan will apply." The Public Hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1993 Page 3 Commissioner Kasalek moved, Butler seconded to close the public hearing and continue action on the General Plan until December 13, 1993. Responses identified in Exhibit A to be revised as follows: - Response A.4 - Delete third bullet; - Response A.10: Change to read: "...paid for by the residents or property owners of the annexed area." - Response A.11: Change to read: "...low-density character..." - Response A.17: change Policy 12.1: Ensure that any infill development in North Tustin is compatible and complimentary to the North Tustin existing community. Policy 12.2: Review and consider the possible development and adoption of prezoning designation for the North Tustin unincorporated area as part of any annexation proposal. Policy 12.4: Delete. - Response A.26: delete "specifically". - Response A.27: 1st bullet: Change to: "The community profile area is "one" of the units of analysis. Under Planning Area Not Within Sphere of Influence correct spelling of Edinger Avenue and change right-of-needs to right-of-way. - Response B.2: Add: "In the event of annexation" significant infrastructure deficiencies, where they exist, shall be mitigated "to the extent feasible" Motion carried 5-0. 3. Zone Chanqe 93-002 APPLICANT LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES 5 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ATTENTION: JON W. ROBERTSON EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. AMENDMENT TO THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF OPEN TRELLIS AND BEAM CONSTRUCTIONS IN SIDE YARDS FROM SEVEN AND ONE HALF (7~) FEET TO TWELVE (12) FEET, AND TO PROVIDE UPDATED STREET NAMES IN SECTION 3.5.G OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN. Recommendation- It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Approve the environmental determination by adopting Resolution No. 3206 and; o Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 93-002 by adopting Resolution No. 3207, as submitted or revised. Commissioner Kasalek asked for clarification of open trellis and beam construction. Staff replied that it was defined in the East Tustin Specific Plan. Commissioner Stracker asked why the limit of seven and one-half feet was originally required in the ordinance; and asked what the estate requirement was. - 1- I~1 '1 ii Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1993 Page 4 Staff replied that it was based on conventionally sized side yards and doors which are now larger and taller; and that they are only limited by the height of the building in the estate district. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:06 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Butler commented that it might expose more wood requiring painting; and that it should have been allowed to be higher in the first place. Commissioner Stracker asked if 12 feet was to the top of the beam. Staff affirmed that it would allow flexibility for door height and was consistent with the height of detached accessory structures. Commissioner Baker moved, environmental determination Motion carried 5-0. Stracker seconded to approve the by adopting Resolution No. 3206. Commissioner Baker moved, Butler seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 93-002 by adopting Resolution No. 3207, as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. 4. First Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 91-029, Desiqn Review 91-026, and Variance 91-018 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. REED CHESWORTH on behalf of MR. JOE MACPHERSON 23 AUTO CENTER DRIVE TUSTIN, CA 92680 36 AUTO CENTER DRIVE PLANNED COMMUNITY-COMMERCIAL (PC-C) DISTRICT THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY- CERTIFIED EIR (84-2). NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. TO AUTHORIZE THE PHASED CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED DEALERSHIP AND AUTO BODY SHOP Recommendation - Pleasure of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the request was denied, would the land be maintained as is. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Stracker asked what permits had been issued. Staff replied that no building permits had been issued nor had plans been submitted for plan check; rough grading approval has been received by the applicant and rough grading has been completed in conjunction with the installation of the monument signs; precise grading permit has been issued and landscaping plans are approved, but not issued. Commissioner Kasalek asked who the letter of October 15 was from, as page 2 was missing. Staff replied that it was from Reed Chesworth on behalf of the applicant. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:39 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1993 Page 5 Commissioner Butler stated that he was concerned with security for automobiles; asked if MacPherson had two accessways; who the owners of the Dodge and Lincoln Mercury dealerships were; that new cars would be Toyotas. Mr. Reed Chesworth, on behalf of the applicant, replied that Duffy James owns Lincoln Mercury, Holmes Tuttle owns Dodge; and that all dealers asked MacPherson to proceed; that there are not enough spaces for employee parking; that EPA laws will impact car and van pooling; that they have constructed a 10 foot wall for security along with 24 hour security in auto center; that the number and type of vehicles to be stored unknown at this time; MacPherson controls 40% of auto center; that they plan to landscape and install lighting and use the front half for employee parking; and that removal of parked cars will improve visibility. Commissioner Butler asked if there was any discussion with Mr. MacPherson as to time frame for construction; and if the dealership was never constructed, would they be in violation of district or city regulations. Mr. Chesworth stated that it was not possible to give a timetable at this point due to economics, but they desire to finish the phases; that they are preplumbing the sites for future use; that they were prepared to pour the pads one and one-half months ago, but were delayed due to decision to install utilities. Staff replied that it would be a city land use violation; that a parking lot is not a permitted use; and that vehicle displays without a primary use of a dealer facility is not an allowed use in the auto center. Commissioner Weil asked if staff would come back with a resolution in a phased program. Staff replied that it would be one option, Commission's direction. based upon the Commissioner Baker asked if they were strictly intending a parking facility. Mr. Chesworth replied that they intend to install display/parking stalls; that there are two pieces to the lot, the front for display, and the rear for storage; that it allows them to improve their volume by having vehicles on premises; that they will use the pads temporarily for employee parking; that page two, Condition 1.4 indicates the use permit will become null and void after 18 months; and that they want to work together to make their's the best auto center. Commissioner Stracker commented that they agreed to have a building constructed within two years. Mr. Chesworth replied that they thought it would be three to five years depending upon the economy. Lois Bobak, City Attorney, commented that Condition 1.4 was part of the original condition and not part of this evening's application. Commissioner Butler agreed with the project, but was concerned that they will be in violation of district regulations; that they are not likely to walk away from the cost they will be incurring; and asked if any other parcels were to be developed in the center. ----'--!--- II!1 T-' -q'l Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1993 Page 6 Staff replied that one site behind Nissan and one by Pontiac were available; that the district regulations cannot be amended as part of this process; that it would require a specific zone change through the Public Hearing process; that through amendment of this CUP, the Commission can impose new conditions specifying details of performance and time; that staff suggested a sunset clause; that they are concerned that they will not get another dealership at that location; and that they have not seen this type of phased development before. Commissioner Baker asked if there was any feedback from the Association and if they were aware of the application. Staff replied that there was no feedback and that they were aware. Commissioner Weil stated that the problem is unique to the area; that the economy was better when the auto center was started. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:59 p.m. Commissioner Butler suggested a five year time frame for review with a revokable CUP; and was concerned with parking enforcement. Commissioner Baker agreed and commented that street parking is taking up space; and hoped that this would not make other dealers feel that there is favoritism; is sympathetic to the applicant and leans toward approval with an expiration date of perhaps 36 months. Staff replied that the permits have not expired. Lois Bobak stated that it depends on the structure; that a review process should have shorter time of perhaps 3 years and a sunset provision might require 5 years; that if the building permits are not pulled, the CUP expires and improvements must be removed within a certain period of time; that at some point it is important that there be provision for a final date in case it becomes obvious that there will be no dealership. Commissioner Baker asked what the alternatives were if the applicant does not finish building within the timeframe. Staff replied that it would return to a vacant lot. Commissioner Kasalek asked if another dealership could build on the improvements instead of removing the improvements; that the expense of laying of concrete and utilities shows a commitment to build; and would like to see approval with review in three years. Lois Bobak replied that at conclusion of three years, they could review for extension, then establish a sunset provision. Commissioner Stracker stated that it is an eyesore to area now, but prefers a 24 month limit; and suggested the possibility of utilizing the parking for public use. Commissioner Weil asked for a consensus for a 2 year extension: Motion failed 1-4 (Stracker in favor); 3 year extension: Motion carried 4-1 (Stracker opposed). Staff suggested that a bond be required for removal of the improvements, if necessary. Commissioner Baker stated that a bond would be in excess at this time. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1993 Page 7 Lois Bobak asked if conditions should be included regarding details of installing facilities by phase. Commissioner Butler asked if wording could be included regarding not parking on building pads. Staff replied that wording exists to chain link around the pads. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Stracker seconded to authorize the phased construction of the proposed dealership and auto body shop with a review of progress after three years. Motion carried 5-0. Staff will be re OLD BUSINESS: 5. Status Reports Commissioner Kasalek asked the status of Black Angus improvements. Staff replied that it is progressing. Commissioner Baker asked about traffic control at Home Depot. Staff replied that traffic control would be implemented with the Christmas tree lot with blockades. Received and filed. 6. Extension of Deferral of Enforcement of Sign Abandonment APPLICANT: OWNER LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: JERRY CLARKE J.F.C. DESIGN GROUP, INC. 20331 IRVINE AVENUE, SUITE 7 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS, CA 92707 EDGAR E. PANKEY 320 WEST MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 13922 RED HILL AVENUE C-2 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 21) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15321 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO RECONSIDER THE EXTENSION REQUEST TO DEFER ENFORCEMENT OF SIGN ABANDONMENT AT 13922 RED HILL AVENUE Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Weil asked the status of the soil remediation; and how long until the site will be usable. Staff replied that the remediation has begun; and that it is moving ahead and will not be a problem for reuse. Jerry Clarke, applicant, asked for an extension of time; that reuse of the sign poles is an important part of the application; and stated that he is working with staff. Commissioner Weil status. asked if he was aware of the non-conforming Mr. Clarke affirmed. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1993 Page 8 Commissioner Butler asked how much time the applicant needed. Mr. Clarke replied that they need until early December if they have answered all staff concerns; that they received a report from Chevron indicating that they are moving in a positive direction; and that they have modified the equipment for the next stage of soil remediation. Staff emphasized that the height of the pole sign and the dual poles might not be approved. Mr. Clarke replied that they have applied the square footage provisions of the Sign Code; and would like to retain the height. Commissioner Kasalek asked the status of the sign if the Commission denies the extension and they continue on with CUP. Staff replied that the applicant would have the right to apply for a pole sign. Lois Bobak stated that staff has no vested interest in pursuing sign removal if applicant is moving forward; that if the Commission does not approve the extension, staff would use discretion; the Commission would be giving staff a clear direction on the course of action if the application process begins to stall. Edqar Pankey, property owner, 320 W. Main Street, Tustin, gave a history of the area; stated that he told Chevron that they should leave the pylons and clean up the property; that it began in 1990; that some property was taken for freeway widening; that they were affected by the Red Hill Avenue closure; that he never intended to abandon the pylons; that he is pleased with the contamination report and provided a monitoring report to staff. Mr. Clarke stated that they are not asking for a definite time extension; that if denied, then appropriate action should be taken. Commissioner Baker stated that if they are moving forward, he would approve retaining the poles; and asked how long the CUP would take. Staff replied that they received the CUP application today, and anticipated 7-8 weeks before it would be ready for the Commission. Commissioner Weil asked if a appropriate. six-week extension would be Staff replied that it would be more prudent to follow the City Attorney's advice. Commissioner Stracker suggested tabling the matter until the first meeting in February. Lois Bobak agreed, but commented that it would still have to be brought back for a determination. Commissioner Stracker moved, Kasalek seconded to table the item until the February 14, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1993 Page 9 NEW BUSINESS: 7. Use Determination 93-004 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CB COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. P.O. BOX 30830 LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92654-0830 ATTN: MR. RICHARD WALT 13852 RED HILL AVENUE 100 C-1 10,000 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA EQUALITY ACT (CECA) TO DETERMINE THAT A MARTIAL ARTS STUDIO IS A PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE C-1 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Butler asked if Option 2 would set a precedent. Staff replied that Option 1 would apply to all C-1 properties; that if subject to a CUP, it could be evaluated to determine appropri- ateness; that anyone can apply for a CUP, but it was up to the Commission to approve or deny. Commissioner Baker stated that there are no historical problems, but preferred to see this use with a CUP. Commissioner Stracker commented that he has spoken with Mr. Pankey regarding this; and asked where the C-1 properties were located. Staff replied that most commercial centers along Red Hill and Newport were C-I, but was spread throughout the City; and that Mr. Pankey's property and Alpha Beta center were C-1. Commissioner Baker inquired about the Palm Reader application. Staff replied that that area was zoned CG and they wanted C-1. Commissioner Kasalek asked if a martial arts studio was located in the center behind Angie's Restaurant; and did not feel martial arts was offensive and should be a permitted use. Staff was not familiar with one in that location, but that there was a studio located across from Spoons. Commissioner Butler stated that it should be approved for this location; asked what C-1 property it would be inappropriate for; and asked the parking differential. Staff replied that retail use requires 1 space for 200 square feet; C-1 and C-2 apply the same rate. Commissioner Weil asked if there was a way around other similar uses requiring a CUP. Staff replied that it would be reasonable to consider it a general service business. Commissioner Stracker suggested that uses be considered with the Zoning Code Review. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1993 Page 10 Staff commented that it will be reviewed with the Zoning Code update program for reclassification. Commissioner Weil asked if this was permitted in C-2 and CG. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Stracker asked if there was a problem going from more restrictive to less restrictive. Lois Bobak confirmed that there is not a problem. Commissioner Butler moved, Kasalek seconded to determine that a martial arts studio is a permitted use within the C-1 (Retail Commercial) District. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Baker opposed). STAFF CONCERNS: 8. Report on actions taken at November 15, 1993 City Council meetinq COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Butler -Suggested that the City Council attend the next Planning Commission meeting on the General Plan and EIR. -Visited the new Micro Center store and found it to be a "super" store. Commended Micro Center on a job well done. Indicated good tax revenue to the city. Commissioner Baker -Attended a meeting at the Chamber of Commerce and talked to Lou Bone's wife about a Senate Bill. Asked staff to obtain more information about the Bill. -Asked about a retaining wall at the patio homes development on Bryan Avenue and how it compares to other retaining walls. Commissioner Stracker -Visited the new K-Mart store and was impressed. The store was very well-stocked. Commissioner Kasalek -Noted that the fence around the Longs' store in the Tustin Heights center was in disrepair and that the entrance to the building was open. -Noted that the billboard on Nisson Avenue had been graffitied. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 1993 Page 11 ADJO~: Commissioner Baker moved, Weil seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on December 13, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Kathy Weil Chairperson Kathleen Secretary