Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-23-93MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: 7:04 p.m., Tustin Senior Center PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Baker, Butler, Stracker and Weil Kasalek 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.) Minutes of the Auqust 9, 1993 Planninq Commission meetinq. Minutes of the June 28, 1993 Planninq Commission meetinq. Commissioner Butler moved, Stracker seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 3-0. Commissioner Weil made the following correction to the minutes of June 28: Page 14, Commission Concerns (Weil), after "Ms. Courtney" insert the last name "Wierchioch". Commissioner Baker abstained from voting since he was absent from the June 28, 1993 meeting. 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. --T ...... r" lll'l "1 ..... II Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 2 3. Conditional Use Permit 93-021 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CRYSTAL WOODWARD DESIGN INTERVENTION, INC. 4440 VON KARMAN, SUITE 125 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 TUSTIN REHAB HOSPITAL LTD. P.O. BOX 715 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 14851 YORBA STREET P & I (PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT) AND PR (PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL TWO (2) WALL SIGNS AT THE EXISTING REHABILITATION HOSPITAL AT 14851 YORBA STREET. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 93-021 by adopting Resolution No. 3172, as submitted or revised. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:06 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Butler asked if the height of the monument sign should be corrected to 3 foot 10 inch on page two of the staff report. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Stracker asked if the sign was proposed to be lit all night. Staff replied that the sign facing Yorba would not be illuminated, but that the freeway sign would be illuminated all night. Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 93-021 by adopting Resolution No. 3172, as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. 4. Conditional Use Permit 93-023 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DAVID LONG 13011 NEWPORT AVENUE, SUITE 101 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 BURNETT-EHLINE PROPERTIES 4695 MACARTHUR COURT, SUITE 880 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 13011 NEWPORT AVENUE, SUITE 101 C-2 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT A PAWN BROKER BUSINESS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXISTING TUSTIN COINS AND COLLECTIBLES BUSINESS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 93-023 by adopting Resolution No. 3171, as submitted or revised. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 3 Commissioner Stracker asked if the Police Department had been given a chance to comment, and if they had responded. Staff replied that they had been given an opportunity, but had no comment. Commissioner Baker asked if there were any comments from the neighbors; and if the other pawn brokerage in the city was active. Staff replied that no comments had been received from the neighbors; and affirmed that the other brokerage was active. Commissioner Stracker asked if the owner of the property was aware of the request. Staff replied that the property owner was required to apply for the change and received a copy of the Public Hearing notice. Commissioner Weil asked if the hours would be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days per week; and if any change in signage was requested. Staff replied that the hours were based on Chapter 6 of the City Code, but did not think that the applicant intended to operate during those hours and thought it would be five days per week; and that no signage changes were requested. The Director responded that the City Code allows the business to operate any day of the week. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:12 p.m. David Lonq, applicant, replied that the hours would be 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with the possibility of Saturdays; and that the signage would not reflect the pawn brokerage at this time since it is to go along with the coin and collectible business. Commissioner Stracker asked if the applicant had any other locations. Mr. Long replied negatively. Commissioner Butler asked there was a demand requiring the expansion; and if he had been involved with a pawn brokerage before. Mr. Long replied that walk-in people have requested a loan on items brought in; that a certain amount of repurchase agreements are allowed which are similar to pawn loans; that a pawn brokerage requires a specific license; and that they have done extensive research prior to making the application. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:16 p.m. Commissioner Baker asked if this center was part of the redevelopment area and if there was any effect on the zoning changes. The Director replied that agency approval would only be required if physical improvements were made to the exterior of the building. Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 93-023 by adopting Resolution No. 3171, as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 4 o Desiqn Review 93-020, Variance 93-004 and Conditional Use Permit 93-027 (Micro Center) APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: 1. 2. o o MICRO CENTER 1555 WEST LANE AVENUE COLUMBUS, OHIO 43214 ATTN: MR. RICK MERSHAD CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 1065 NO. PACIFICENTER DRIVE, SUITE 200 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 1100 EDINGER AVENUE PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC); PACIFIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN - REGIONAL CENTER EAST THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (90-1) FOR THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN. APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLAN FOR PLANNING AREA 6 OF THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN; APPROVAL OF VARIOUS EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING 45,600 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING, INCLUDING VARIOUS SITE IMPROVEMENTS, TO ESTABLISH A COMPUTER RETAIL STORE; APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE BUILDING HEIGHT FOR PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING FROM 35 FEET TO APPROXIMATELY 45 FEET AND TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SETBACKS ALONG THE EDINGER AVENUE STREET FRONTAGE FROM 30 FEET TO APPROXIMATELY 24 FEET AND ALONG DEL AMO AVENUE FROM 30 FEET TO 23 FEET; AND APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A MASTER SIGN PLAN WHICH DEVIATES FROM THE CITY'S SIGN CODE RELATED TO THE NUMBER OF SIGNS, PROVISIONS FOR A POLE SIGN AND MAXIMUM SIGN AREA. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3176; 2. Approve the Planning Area 6 Concept Plan by adopting Resolution No. 3177; as submitted or revised; 3. Approve Variance 93-004 by adopting Resolution No. 3178, as submitted or revised; 4. Approve Conditional Use Permit 93-027 by adopting Resolution No. 3179; as submitted or revised; and 5. Recommend to the Redevelopment Agency approval of Design Review 93-020 by adopting Resolution No. 3180; as submitted or revised. Commissioner Butler asked if the movement of the easement to the East on Del Amo affects the building on the corner. Staff replied that the current plan will not affect the existing building; that the applicant intends to remove the building when the development plan is complete for that corner. The Director stated that they will deal with the right-of-way with the offer to dedicate which will be in place when they are ready to start building; and that it will not affect the existing buildings. Commissioner Butler asked if they will not move the easement until the road is extended. The Director affirmed. Commissioner Butler asked if the height increase on the west elevation was allowed on that property; and if it would be the highest building in the area. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 5 Staff replied that there is a 120 foot maximum height for the planning area; that the Specific Plan allows different heights for different types of buildings; that when the Pacific Center East Plan was put into place, they did not expect that buildings like Builders Emporium would remain; that the main parapet height would be 27 feet; and replied that there would be higher buildings in the area. Commissioner Stracker relationship. asked for a comparison for height Staff replied that the monoliths on Jamboree and Market Place towers were 50 feet high. Commissioner Stracker asked if the driveway access would remain as it is now; and if the Commission would be acting on the planning area this evening. Staff replied that they are proposing two driveways on Del Amo, with one being centralized, and the southerly one eventually being closed and placed further south; and affirmed that they are acting on the planning area. Commissioner Weil asked if the master sign plan applies to Area 6; and if Area 5 would eventually be built upon. Staff replied negatively, that it only affects Micro Center; and that the Plan for Area 5 will be most affected by the extension of Newport Avenue and the modification of the 55 Freeway ramps. The Director stated that due to the existing right-of-way, the owner may not be the one that is able to develop Area 5; that it is dependent upon the process that Caltrans intends to use for disposal; that if they cannot reach an agreement for exchange of property for ramps, and the owner is required to dedicate the property, then the property will go to the State of California General Services Administration as surplus freeway property. Commissioner Butler asked about photographs of the area. Staff indicated the location in the Commissioners' packets, and provided some color photos for review. Commissioner Butler asked if they should go on record that the Commission met at the City to discuss the item. Commissioner Weil replied that they do not have to reveal that they met with the applicant at City Hall. The Director replied that individual members have met with the applicant at City Hall, but they were not formal meetings. Commissioner Stracker asked the height of the Nurseryland sign. Staff replied that it is 62 feet. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:36 p.m. Commissioner Weil commented that she drove along the 55 Freeway and determined that the 71 foot high sign would be appropriate due to the maze of flyovers that would be in place. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 6 Commissioner Stracker asked if there would be a problem with the parking and access next to the cut-through shown to the south. The Director replied that there will be designed islands to mitigate parking problems; that the sector plan is conceptual; that any individual development plan occurring in the Specific Plan area requires Planning Commission approval; that this is not a Design Review for the layout in the future of Phase III; that all future development will require Planning Commission approval and they will take his concerns into consideration. Commissioner Weil stated that the last sentence of Condition C.3. of page 1 of Resolution No. 3179 did not make sense since a hotel in the are would want freeway signage and that she would like it deleted. The Director replied that the condition relates only to pole signs; that the justification for granting the pole sign is that they are relocating an existing pole sign and removing another; that unless the do not want to have a precedent for removal of pole signs in the future, they need to need some statement clarifying why they are granting the pole sign; that hotels generally do not want large pole signs; that the hotel will have a monolith and building signs and will be a six-story building of 75 feet high. Commissioner Weil suggested addition of verbiage indicating that the height of 71 feet was necessary due to the new freeway flyover ramps restricting the view. Staff replied that they purposely did not make that argument in order to not set a precedent; that the Planning Commission can consider requests for pole signs on their own merits; that they do not want the next applicant to use visibility as an argument for a new pole sign. Commissioner Butler asked for clarification of the last sentence regarding setting a precedent. Staff replied that they are improving the situation and there are no new signs that will need to be removed as part of new development which could be used as an argument. Commissioner Stracker asked for a clarification of condition I.D. Staff replied that it is due to the existing square footage is not increasing. The Director made corrections to Resolution No. 3180 by addition of 3.13, as moved. Commissioner Baker asked if the applicant needed to approve the change; and noted that it was good to see a commitment being made in that area. The applicant affirmed his approval. Commissioner Baker moved, Butler seconded to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3176. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Stracker seconded to approve the Planning Area 6 Concept Plan by adopting Resolution No. 3177; as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 7 Commissioner Baker moved, Stracker seconded to approve Variance 93- 004 by adopting Resolution No. 3178, as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Stracker seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 93-027 by adopting Resolution No. 3179; as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Stracker seconded to recommend to the Redevelopment Agency approval of Design Review 93-020 by adopting Resolution No. 3180 revised as follows: Page 4, add condition 3.13 to read: "The southerly driveway which accesses Del Amo Avenue shall be removed and closed at such time that the midblock intersection on Del Amo Avenue as indicated on the Planning Area 6 Concept Plan is constructed and adjacent access improvements are installed on the property to the south of the subject property and reciprocal access is granted to Micro Center. Modifications to access to the loading area shall also be modified consistent with the Planning Area Concept Plan." Motion carried 4-0. 6. Desiqn Review 93-005 and Conditional Use Permit 93-028 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: AMERICAN RESTAURANT GROUP 450 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, 6TH FLOOR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 3030 EL CAMINO REAL ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MIXED USE (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. APPROVAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF A RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE AND APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION OF THE MASTER SIGN PLAN FOR THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3173; 2. Approve Design Review 93-005 by adopting Resolution 3174, subject to conditions contained in Exhibit A, as submitted or revised; 3. Approve Conditional Use Permit 93-028 by adopting Resolution No. 3175, subject to conditions contained in Exhibit A, as submitted or revised. Commissioner Stracker stated that he was concerned with the queuing and levels of service indicated in the traffic report. Staff replied that the Engineer was aware of the concerns and is reviewing the report; and that it will be addressed prior to the Public Hearing in two weeks. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:52 p.m. The Public Hearing was continued to September 13, 1993. Commissioner Baker moved, Butler seconded to continue the item to the September 13, 1993 meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Till ----~1- ...... i Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 8 o Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13733, Conditional Use Permit 93- 014, Design Review 93-013 and Variance 93-005 APPLICANT/ LANDOWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. JON ROBERTSON 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 PLANNED COMMUNITY - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. 1 . AUTHOR I ZATION TO CREATE TWENTY- SEVEN ( 27 ) NUMBERED LOTS, FORTY-NINE (49) LETTERED LOTS, AND ONE (1) LOT FOR STREET DEDICATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING 138 DETACHED CONDOMINIUM PATIO HOME DWELLING UNITS; 2. AUTHORIZATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PATIO HOMES; 3. APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT; AND 4. APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FROM THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN, SECTION 3.5H3A TO INCREASE THE PERMITTED AMOUNT OF DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS SERVED BY A PRIVATE COURT FROM TWELVE (12) DWELLING UNITS TO THIRTEEN (13) DWELLING UNITS LOCATED ON "Z" COURT (STREET) . Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3181; 2. Approve Conditional Use Permit 93-014 by adopting Resolution No. 3182, as submitted or revised; 3. Approve Design Review 93-013 by adopting Resolution No. 3183, as submitted or revised; 4. Approve Variance 93-005 by adopting Resolution No. 3184, as submitted or revised; and 5. Recommend approval to the City Council of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13733 by adopting Resolution No. 3185, as submitted or revised. Staff added condition 3.13 to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3183, as moved. Commissioner Baker asked if the applicant had received a copy of the change. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Stracker questioned the length of Z Street in relation to the width and access to the nearest parking; and asked if the setback for the garage doors was three feet from the curb face. Staff commented that Z Street does not exceed 150 feet in length; and that the Fire Department has reviewed access; that all parking spaces have been outlined to be within 200 feet of their required unit, including the .5 parking space for the four bedroom unit; and that on a private street, setback is to be a minimum of five feet, but not between 9 and 19 feet, except for administrative adjust- ments; and that the measurement is taken from either the flow line or face of curb depending upon whether it is a court or a street. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 9 The Director stated that the width is from the curb or flow line, and is not modified whether there is a sidewalk or not due to being a private street. Commissioner Weil asked if the setback includes the sidewalk, in areas with sidewalks; and stated that the configuration of the driveways was changed during the discussion on patio homes. Staff responded that the setback does not include the sidewalk inside motorcourts; that the setback is taken from the curb face or flow line; that the setback on the private street system includes the sidewalk; and that medium density has a 10 foot setback to the street; that the setback was modified with the patio home standards by being reduced to seven feet along a private court street or five feet on private court drives. Commissioner Weil stated that the concern was that people would be parking with their cars overflowing into the street. Staff replied that there are no driveways between 9 and 19 feet; that the setback has been reduced rather than the driveway lengths. Commissioner Weil stated that there are a number of 5 foot driveways; that future residents will be warned in the CC&Rs but visitors will park in the driveways anyway, which puts the burden of enforcement on the association; and that she would like the problem addressed more seriously before the next project. The Director stated that to be consistent, the standard was built into the development standards that there cannot be a driveway between 9 and 19 feet; the driveways mentioned comply with the standard; that they have uniformly reviewed the patio homes concepts as well as everything in the medium density category; and that it is difficult to go back and make a decision that is inconsistent with what is already in entitlement to a builder; and that the standards are already in the Specific Plan and Patio Homes Standards; that the standard was only being applied to the medium density category; and until the development standard is changed, it is difficult to impart that to the developer. Commissioner Weil stated that she was concerned that a five foot sidewalk and a nine foot driveway would be considered as a 14 foot driveway. Commissioner Baker informed staff that Resolution 3138 should be 3183 as noted in the change. Commissioner Stracker asked if the private courts are proposed to have rolled curbs; and asked for clarification of the street width standards. Staff replied that all curbs in the project would be straight-faced curbs; and that there was a lengthy discussion with the Fire Department, with 24 feet being approved with straight-faced curbs. The Director stated that the consensus of the Commission was to reduce it to 24 feet from curb face or 25 feet from rolled curb. Commissioner Stracker asked if there was any standard for right- angle streets; and that it would be difficult to make the turns onto S Street by unit 135; and suggested widening the entryway to accommodate the turn. Staff replied that there are no particular development standards for right-angle streets either on S or U Streets; that the Fire Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 10 Department was not concerned with U Street in regards to emergency access; that an example of a 90 degree version would be drive aisles in parking lots; and that the court area is envisioned to be a livable court area not a traffic court area. The Director stated that the 24 foot width would be the same as for a parking aisle in a parking lot; and that there are many similar conditions within the City. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:21 p.m. Jon Robertson, representing California Pacific Homes, thanked the staff for their comprehensive review of the project; that in 1992 they received approval for 234 unit condominium project which has been tabled and are proceeding with this project with a much lower density; that the project has agreed to satisfy the previously approved parking; that the administrative adjustment for the 18 foot driveways is limited to 12 residences; that they are providing a full five foot sidewalk, but in turn, required an adjustment; that the City of Irvine recognizes 18 foot as a standard; that the southeast corner of the project has an unusual point that required a variance for 13 units; that roll up doors will be provided throughout the project for a more consistent presentation and better access; that the setback on the loop street is from the back of the sidewalk; that the design criteria and solution of S Street does not exceed 150 feet in length and that this configuration exists in the Presidio project without problem; that the maximum length of Z Court is 200 feet, but 150 feet to the Fire Department approved hammerhead turnaround. Commissioner Stracker asked if the area between the two homes on S Court has a concrete sidewalk; and that his concern might be mitigated with a 45 degree angle on the driveway. Mr. Robertson replied that there is no sidewalk on S Street, only a decorative band; and referred to the Presidio project where no problems had been received; and stated that they have no problem with the additional condition, but asked if staff had received substantiated evidence of a problem at Presidio. The Director replied that there is not enough history, at this point, but there concern was that the location of the driveways would entice use of the driveways as turnaround pockets; and that with more history as to the maintenance issues of those driveways, they would like a similar condition on this project. Commissioner Weil stated that the concern is based on the applicant's desire to not have a hammerhead or cul-de-sac; that delivery people will use the longer driveways for turnaround; and that the residents will be burdened enough with maintenance. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Butler asked if the paseo to Irvine Blvd. would have a gate or be open. Staff replied that the Planning Commission chose to provide gates with locks as long as they are left open during the daylight hours; that the applicant has not stated whether it will be open or locked, but it is an open community, and will probably not have a gate at the paseo; and that it was a mitigation measure for air pollution by providing bike access and there will be a bus shelter at the intersection of Robinson and Irvine Drive. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 11 Commissioner Baker commented that he agreed with the problems of driveways being used as a turnaround. Commissioner Stracker stated that the developer has created a nice product, but is concerned with the turning radius and suggested that they look at providing the apron; and asked what would not constitute requirement of a variance on Z Court. Staff replied that reduction of units from 13 to 12 would change the requirement; or extending the street 32 feet with a full cul- de-sac at the end. Commissioner Baker asked how wide a driveway in a typical condominium project would be. Staff replied that it would 25 feet. Commissioner Baker stated that since this is only one foot narrower, with the benefit of a driveway into the garage, he does not feel that the problem is that serious. Commissioner Weil stated that people who buy these homes will have to adjust their thinking; that this type of home provides some of the good parts of single family homes, with some detrimental parts of attached homes. Commissioner Butler asked what the width of the Laurelwood Patio Homes was, which only have alleyway width for backup; and noted that it was good that they were reducing the density and providing a higher end project. The Director was unsure, but could provide the information. Commissioner Baker moved, Butler seconded to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3181. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Butler seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 93-014 by adopting Resolution No. 3182, as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Butler seconded to approve Design Review 93-013 by adopting Resolution No. 3183 revised as follows: Page 5, add Condition 3.13 to read: "The applicant shall submit, for review and approval by the Community Development Department, a reinforced driveway approach detail for those end court conditions at the terminus of those private court drives or private court streets where long driveways are provided affecting dwelling units 2, 4, 9, 16, 19, 22, 24, 27, 29, 32, 34, 37, 39, 41, 46, 47, 50, 51, 54, 56, 59, 61, 64, 66, 69, 71, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 87, 89, 96, 98, 106, 108, 112, 115, 117, 126 and 137." Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Butler seconded to approve Variance 93- 005 by adopting Resolution No. 3184, as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Butler seconded to recommend approval to the City Council of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13733 by adopting Resolution No. 3185, as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 12 OLD BUSINESS: 8. Status Reports Commissioner Weil asked about the status of the banner for the check cashing service at the Starer Brothers Center. The Director replied that staff will follow up on the issue. Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded to receive and file. Motion carried 4-0. 9. Extension of Deferral of Enforcement of Siqn Abandonment APPLICANT: OWNER LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: STEVEN C. CROOKE SIKORA AND PRICE, LAW OFFICES 2913 PULLMAN STREET, SUITE B POST OFFICE BOX 15707 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 EDGAR E. PANKEY 320 WEST MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 13992 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 EXTEND DEFERRAL OF ENFORCEMENT OF SIGN ABANDONMENT AT 13922 RED HILL AVENUE Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. The Director stated that although the Commission took action one year ago, this item had been an enforcement action 12 months prior; that they are into the process three years, and have yet to see an application; that the applicant may have some anticipation that the Commission will approve a pole sign. Staff stated that no Community Development staffers have even received a phone call inquiring about the CUP process or application forms; that it would be difficult to believe that they could apply within the next few days; that if the Commission granted an extension, it would take some time for staff to present to the Commission. Commissioner Baker stated that the applicant probably feels that this is a minor item and is not concerned. Commissioner Weil stated that since the letterhead of Allstar Service Plus Corporation did not look official, she called information and determined that it is in fact a company. Commissioner Baker asked if staff would be starting action on September 1; and if the applicant provided an application for a CUP, would any action be terminated. The Director suggested that the applicant could submit an application, but it is not complete until it is final; that the schedule can be carried out and stalled; that the item does not have to be docketed for a certain time; suggested that they go through the legal process and record on the property as to what the owner's obligation is in terms of deadlines to be met; that this has been stalled and they have seen no change in the condition Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 13 since 1991; and if the Commission does not want to see pole sign in the future, we abate through due process. Commissioner Weil stated that driving up the freeway from the south, the poles are not seen due to the telephone poles. The Director stated that the ramp locations require a sign next to the ramp to see them; that the City and businesses have been trying to have Caltrans provide signs indicating auto service, food, etc. so pole signs are unnecessary; and that this request is a precedent due to the three other pole signs on the opposite side of the freeway at Red Hill. Commissioner Stracker suggested upholding the previous resolution. The Director stated that the resolution adopted August 1992 allowed a one year extension; and that if the Commission wants that direction altered, they need to give direction to staff for the next meeting; or direction that Resolution 3076 should be enforced. The City Attorney stated that that could be done with a motion to reject their application for an extension. Commissioner Butler asked what the applicant would get with an extension; and if a pole sign with two poles would be allowed. The Director replied that under any new use the applicant must come to the Planning Commission, whether there are existing structures or not; that there is some expectation by the owner that the structure can be used for a new pole sign even though discretion is completely up to the Planning Commission; and that two-pole signs are not seen anymore. Commissioner Butler suggested that he would consider a three to six month extension if they will be using them; that it will be an expense to remove the poles. Commissioner Baker stated that the Commission gave the applicant 12 months last time; that the applicant is not present; and nothing has happened in the last 12 month time frame except for an application to extend. Commissioner Weil stated that a vote to start abatement procedures may determine how serious the applicant is. Commissioner Butler suggested that the applicant may file an application as a delay tactic. Commissioner Weil stated that the property is an eye-sore. Commissioner Butler asked if the remediation has been completed. The Director replied that the property has not received clearance from the Orange County Health Agency. Staff stated that they have applied for a CUP on soil remediation for an additional period of 24 months. Commissioner Butler asked if the entire parcel, including Taylors, was owned by Mr. Pankey. The Director replied that he has held property in the vicinity for a significant length of time; that he owns the southeast and northeast corners of Red Hill at E1 Camino Real. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 14 Commissioner Stracker stated that he was concerned with the poles blighting the landscape; and that something needs to be done. Commissioner Weil stated that the driving public may not see the poles; and asked if they are non-conforming. The Director affirmed. Commissioner Weil stated that to mislead an applicant to think that the poles could be used again is a problem; and was in favor of denial. Commissioner Baker moved, Stracker seconded to deny the request for extension of deferral of enforcement of sign abandonment. Motion carried 4-0. NEW BUSINESS: STAFF CONCERNS: 10. Report on actions taken at August 16, 1993 City Council meeting Staff reported on the subject agenda. Commissioner Baker asked about the homeless agencies interested in the base housing. The Director replied that it was the obligation of the Navy to notify homeless agencies of Federal disposition of property; and that with the McKinney Act screening begins 18 months prior to closure; that none of the facilities are designed to the American Disabilities Act; that groups like the Veterans of Foreign Wars were interested in affordable housing for retirees. Commissioner Butler asked if the City has ever had a program to assist first-time buyers. The Director replied not in the past but mentioned the new Mortgage Credit Certificate Program; that the Agency will also be providing a down payment assistance and secondary assistance program starting in fiscal year 1993-94. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Stracker -Noted that Christine Shingleton would be doing a presentation on base closure at the California League of Cities on September 9, 1993. Staff noted that a presentation was also being done at the Planning Directors Association meeting on September 13, 1993. -Thanked staff for quick response on patching his street. Commissioner Baker -Inquired about the status of the Cosmopolitan project. Staff informed the Commission that the project had been sold and that staff was working with the new owner on the project. Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 15 Commissioner Butler -Commended staff on their work with the Micro Center project. -Asked if staff could acquire a "news clipping" service to provide newspaper clippings related to the city to the Commission. Staff noted the request and would report back on the request. -Thanked the Senior Center for the use of their facility during the Civic Center construction. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Baker moved, Butler seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on September 13, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. at Tustin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Kathy Wei~ Vice-chai erson Secretary