Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-11-93MINUTES TUSTIN PLARNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUA/~Y 11, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: 7:03 p.m., Tustin Senior Center PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Kasalek, Baker, Butler, Stracker and Well 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. CONSE1Fr 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 December 14, 1992 Planninq Commission meetinq. Commissioner Weil moved, Baker seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Extension of Temporary Use Permit 92-009 APPLICANT: ALL AMERICAN WATER SUPPLY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 4120 N. 2OTH STREET, SUITE C PHOENIX, AZ 85016 OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CITY OF TUSTIN 15222 DEL AMO AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 235 EAST MAIN STREET CENTRAL COMMERCIAL WITH A PARKING OVERLAY (C2-P) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15304 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) . EXTENSION OF A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY STOP=AGE OF A DRILLING RIG AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS. I Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 2 Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Temporary Use Permit Extension 92-009 by Minute Order, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A. Presentation: Scott Reekstin, Assistant Planner Commissioner Weil asked if there were any other responses to notice. Staff replied that there was one call from a resident on Prospect who was satisfied with the explanation of the project. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:03 p.m. Walter J. Fredriksen, 240 E. 3rd Street, owner of the property adjacent to Tustin Water Works, passed out photographs for the Commission's review showing the equipment that residents of the Tustin Hacienda Home must view from their windows; stated that they were informed that the equipment would be located there temporarily for 30 days, but that the six (6) month extension was discouraging; that he approved of storage of small items only; that this situation is not good for the residents' state of mind or health; and requested the Commission take these issues into consideration with their decision. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:06 p.m. Commissioner Stracker asked when well completion was anticipated. Gary Veeh, Tustin Water Works, stated that large items would not be relocated on the Water Works site after they had been removed; and that it would take three to four months to complete the well. Commissioner Baker asked what the appearance would be like upon completion; and if all of the equipment was necessary. Mr. Veeh replied that there will be a pump and appurtenances; and affirmed that all equipment was necessary for the procedure. Commissioner Weil asked how long the equipment would remain on the property; asked if the lot could be screened; and how long the fence would be located there. Mr. Veeh replied that it would be moved this week, weather permit- ting; that the sand would remain on site for several more months, but could be moved if necessary; and that it could be screened, but the fence is located there temporarily for possibly a year. Commissioner Baker asked what guarantee they had that the equipment would be removed when it was supposed to; and asked what equipment was necessary for drilling. Mr. Veeh replied that originally there were some unforeseen problems with the contractor, but the work has begun and will continue for three to four months; and that the tanks, trailers and rigging will be moved, but the sand might stay. The Public Hearing was re-opened at 7:12 p.m. Dewayne Knight, Ail American Water, 600 West Shaw, Fresno, replied that they could move all equipment, hopefully, by Tuesday, weather permitting. Commissioner Stracker asked how deep the well would be. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 3 Mr. Veeh replied that it would be 1,200 to 1,400 feet. Commissioner Butler asked if some items could be stored below the stucco wall out of the residents' site. Mr. Kniqht affirmed. Mr. Veeh stated that everything visible in the photographs would be removed. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Weil noted that Don Le Jeune stated that the whole downtown area is concerned; and thinks that they should be required to screen the equipment. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she has received calls from the area residents complaining about the site; and stated that they owe it to the residents to require screening. Commissioner Weil moved, Baker seconded to approve Temporary Use Permit Extension 92-009 by Minute Order subject to correction of sentence No. 2 of Condition 2, Exhibit A to read as follows, "Should additional time be necessary to drill the well, small equipment, sand bags, scrap material and pipe shall be stored below window levels of the adjacent retirement home and if storage is needed for longer than 30 days, said storage shall be screened along Prospect Avenue by using slats or other screening material subject to approval of the Community Development Department", and the addition of Item No. 7 to read, "Large rigs, tanks and trailers on the site shall be moved off the site within 14 days from the date of this minute motion". Motion carried 5-0. 3. Zone Chanqe 92-002 & Development Aqreement 92-001 (Lyon) APPLICANT/ OWNER THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY 4490 VON KARMAN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ATTENTION: CHRIS HAWKE LOCATION: LOT 12 OF TRACT 12870 ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DENSITY AN ADDENDUM TO EIR 85-2 HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15164 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). 1. AMENDMENT TO THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY ON LOT 12 OF TR3tCT 12870 FROM 18 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO 25 DWELLING 1/NITS PER ACRE; AND 2. APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS A MECHANISM TO PROVIDE VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS FOR PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Certify Addendum No. 4 to EIR 85-2 by adopting Resolution No. 3112; and 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 by adopting Resolution No. 3113, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Butler asked for a clarification of the timing of the payment of the $2,000 per unit contribution. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 4 Staff replied that payment of the $2,000 contribution would be required for units over 18 units per acre; but would be amortized over the entire project upon issuance of building permits. The Director stated that if the zone change is approved, the developer must return for a Public Hearing for the subdivision map with design review for the project; that the project will not exceed the authorization that the zone change would provide. Commissioner Weil asked if the $200,000 would fund East Tustin Parks. Staff affirmed. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:32 p.m. Pal A. Lenqyel-Leahu, 12695 Doral, Ventana resident, stated that he was opposed to the Resolution; that the Commission should consider the rationale behind the master plan, behind the changes and the impact of the changes on the community; that Ventana residents were motivated to purchase by the original plan assuming they would see an increase in equity; that the placement of a development on golf frontage property will have a disproportionate impact on similar units that do not have golf frontage; that they are assuming William Lyon will sell the property upon approval of the zone change for profit; read from Attorney Tom Powell's letter; that homeowners feel that CC&R's provide an agreement to rely on for purchase; that the City Council should serve to protect the citizens; that the changes will have an adverse effect on the community; that William Lyon Company says there will only be an increase of 68 people with 100 extra units; that Irvine Blvd. is very busy now; that Tustin Ranch Road will be a major artery; that 100 units actually represents 200 more cars and asked who would pay for the wear and tear on the streets as well as extra signals which should not be borne by the community. He continued with question- ing the accuracy of the EIR; that William Lyon indicates there is no market for the current project; but that there will be no market for his unit if the change occurs; that Lyon may make $2,000,000 extra on 300 units, but 350 units will provide $9,500,000; and are offering $2,000 per unit to the City which is unfair; that he does not feel William Lyon intends to build on this property; suggested a covenant could be included requiring William Lyon to be the builder; that adding another medium-high density project to this region adds risks to the area; that they do not need additional money for the parklands, but money for the increased density which will be generated causing a negative impact; that the Commission must preserve the integrity of the community as detailed in the CC&R's; and that a master plan is needed so that their purchasing decisions can reflect a commitment to their welfare. Merle Oqle, 2326 Dunes, stated that he was concerned about the matter and that he moved to Tustin for the well-planned area; that he did not know that the CC&R's could be changed after purchase; that he plans to retire here; and was against the item and suggested the Commission drop the issue. Richard Baznik, 12691 Doral, Ventana homeowner, stated that he was not interested in the area average, only that which affects his immediate area; that the additional residents would dump on his neighbors and the intersection; suggested that the $200,000 was a payoff; that most of the CC&R language was written on the assump- tion that it would not be read by the residents; that either William Lyon will develop the land or look for a better price; that he retired here and made a decision to purchase based on the CC&R's which they had to sign for as understood; and that the developer Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 5 should have realized that the people living there are smart lawyers and sophisticated financial people who read. Mike Natelson, 2240 Huntley Drive, resident of Alacante, that his decision to invest in his purchase was based on the consideration of the adjacent units being marketed as a luxury executive develop- ment with other custom homes and a prestigious golf course nearby; but is now looking at a very different community being planned; requested that the plan be left as is without increase in density, since the people relied on the original zone in good faith. Ron Babo, 2310 Dunes, resident of Ventana, agreed with previous speakers; stated that upon looking at other cities, he wanted to live in Tustin in a planned community; but that it is unfair that the burden of the zone change be shifted to the adjacent neighbors. Paul Hass, 2320 Cascade, resident of Ventana, noted that the City Council recently supported William Lyon's high quality building standards, who was determined to be providing shoddy developments by the LA Times; that they will not build on this property since they are financially strapped; that this is a 40% increase in density; and that the City will never see the $2,000 per unit. Chris Hawke, William Lyon Company, 4490 Von Karman, Newport Beach, stated that the public documents for the three tracts allowed 865 units for the planned area; that with the increase in density proposed, there will only be 601 units which will be 264 units below proposed for the area, and 519 below planned for the sector; that the roads, parks, police and fire facilities were planned at an increased density; that first speaker's comments are inaccurate; and apologized for the inadvertent mailing error. Lynn Blashford, 12706 Doral, Ventana resident, stated that she hoped that the remainder of the units for the East Tustin area would not be placed in this tract; and noted that all traffic would be going onto Greenway. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:04 p.m. Commissioner Butler asked for staff affirmation that the Commission is not allowed to make their decision based on economics; and that the East Tustin Specific Plan allowed for shifting of densities within sectors. Staff affirmed that economics cannot be a factor; and that densi- ties may be shifted, but that was not the consideration here; that densities cannot be exceeded for individual lots; that this change is for medium to medium-high; and that the project would still be lower than 3,600 units authorized in Sector 7. Commissioner Baker asked if William Lyon Company could be required to be the builder. John Shaw, City Attorney, replied that the agreement could be limited to the Lyon Company; but that in the course of the negotiations, that was not the developer's position, who wished to be able to transfer their rights to another developer. Staff stated that irregardless of the developer, the City would still receive the contribution; that the development agreement runs with the land, not the developer. Commissioner Weil asked how many units would have been developed in Ventana if it had been built at 18 units per acre instead of the actual 13.9 units per acre. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 6 Staff replied that there would have been 168 units instead of 129. Commissioner Weil continued with noting that 37 were transferred to this project; that each sector was not built to the maximum allowed; that this project may not be built to maximum, but cannot consider that; that the capacity was addressed in all environmental documents; that the roads were built to absorb more traffic than has been generated; that the golf course and Tustin Ranch Road provide more open space than normal; that 25 units per acre will fit on the land; that it will not have that much impact on the current residents; that trips are spread over a 24-hour period; that the original documents are still in affect; and is in favor of the project. Commissioner Stracker stated that medium-high density should be located on Jamboree, not Tustin Ranch Road; that he could not rationalize regional traffic and local; that it involves Greenway Drive and La Colina; that this adds additional traffic that would not have been there; that this increases density 38% and traffic 33%; that he does not agree with the traffic engineer on this matter. Commissioner Kasalek agreed with Commissioner Weil; that the traffic issue had been looked at heavily; that the roads were made to handle much more traffic; that there will be 500-600 less homes than originally approved; that the lower amount of homes in that area will make less traffic there; that they are not cramming what was saved from all areas into this area; that she is opposed to high density and would not make a decision that would create problems; and that the City's staff will ensure a well-built product. The Public Hearing was re-opened at 8:14 p.m. Rick Reqazzo, 2315 Cascade, Ventana resident, stated that the numbers could be bent anyway that was advantageous; asked what right it gives the Planning Commission to compensate moving leftover units to other developments; that the area may be able to compensate for the traffic, but they are concerned about their area; that they agreed to buy under the original CC&R's which have been changed; and suggested that it was rumored that the proposed number may increase further. Commissioner Weil stated that part of the Specific Plan allows for movement of units from one sector or part of a sector to another; and that they are following a long-standing agreement. Ann Gnadt, 2316 Cascade, stated that she was concerned that the Planning Commission represent the residents; that her family expects her to take care of them and she expects the Commission to take care of the residents, not just the builders. Mr. Lengyel-Leahu stated that the issue is not just traffic, but the impact on property values; that Lyon does not need this change and has provided no reason; that the Commission has the power to make the change, but should they; that if the reason William Lyon wants to make the change is for a greater profit, the Commission is not here to protect those interests, but the Community which does not want the change; that the traffic reports are not holding up now, and will not when fully built; that they can still make a profit at 250 units; that they need to provide a reason; that there will be a definite negative impact on Ventana if William Lyon is allowed to build an identical project on golf front property. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 7 Mr. Hawke reiterated that there are three projects in this area that were planned for 865 units to be developed; that with their increased density there will be 601 units with 264 less than planned; that only about 6600 units will be developed in all of East Tustin instead of 9,000; and that all of the planning documents were available to the residents before they purchased. Mr. Ogle stated that when he came to Ventana he received a large package of CC&R's; that they bought in good faith; that a buyer should not be required to go to City Hall and check the documents; that this is double talk and is unfair to the purchasers. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Baker stated that much of the traffic along Irvine Boulevard was due to people avoiding the freeway; that their homes were once cornfields; that everything is changing in Tustin; that he understands about the congestion, changes and construction; that he worked on the Specific Plan and the Environmental document which were good documents; and approves of the change. Commissioner Butler stated that unfortunately for the new residents, the Specific Plan was agreed upon with the possibility of this change; that the golf course provides open space around this development; that they still need the flexibility allowed with the Specific Plan; and supports the zone change as proposed. Commissioner Stracker noted that it does not make any difference whether there are 264 units less in the vicinity than originally planned; that this is looking at an increase of 100 units; and that it is not necessary to have medium-high density along Tustin Ranch Road. Commissioner Kasalek stated that each Commissioner takes this job of taking care of the residents seriously; that she believes that their decisions are based on whether they live there or for the good of everyone in the city; and that there is capacity for change or she would not vote for the change. Commissioner Weil related a story about the original residents who did not want these new neighbors to have new homes; they wanted their vistas and fields; they were afraid their housing values would be destroyed; that the Commission was correct in approving the development; that the market is down, but not due to poor planning; and stated that the Commission has the good of the City at heart. Commissioner Butler noted that he sells real estate and feels that the low density of Ventana will be a positive selling point; that the $200,000 is not required as part of the proposal; and even if the contribution was not being made, the Commission would still consider that they have the right to request this density for this development; and that there will be about 50 more families that will be able to enjoy East Tustin. Commissioner Baker asked if it could be requested that the applicant be required to be the developer, due to the possibility of profit taking. John Shaw stated that the language in the development agreement says that it runs with the land and is binding upon their successors; that it could be limited to one developer with a vote. The Director stated that the recommendation would have been the same no matter who the developer was. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 8 Commissioner Weil moved, Butler seconded to Certify Addendum No. 4 to EIR 85-2 by adopting Resolution No. 3112. Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Stracker was opposed. Commissioner Weil moved, Butler seconded approved recommendation to the City Council approval of Zone Change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 by adopting Resolution No. 3113 as submitted. Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Stracker was opposed. 4. 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. 3054 to allow a six-month extension of Design Review 88-70 and Variance 89-19 by adopting Resolution No. 3110, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner The Public Hearing was opened at 8:40 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:41 p.m. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the only option for this applicant was to continue this item. The Director affirmed; and stated that the final map was nearing completion. Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded to approve a modification to Condition No. 1.1 of Resolution No. 3054 to allow a six-month extension of Design Review 88-70 and Variance 89-19 by adopting Resolution No. 3110 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. 5. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 92-031 APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MUSIL PERKOWITZ RUTH, INC. 911 STUDEBAKER ROAD LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90815 RREEF- IX INC. 1630 SOUTH SUNKIST, SUITE A ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92806 TUSTIN HEIGHTS SHOPPING CENTER 1076-1222 IRVINE BOULEVARD RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-i) DISTRICT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. (CEQA). APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE RECENTLY APPROVED MASTER SIGN PLAN FOR TUSTIN HEIGHTS SHOPPING CENTER. Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner Commissioner Butler inquired as to whether Irvine Boulevard would be widened or restriped; and if not widened, it was unnecessary to move the sign back. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 9 Staff replied that the City Engineer considers that Irvine Blvd. would be widened at this point. The Director stated that future right-of-way is required along the entire frontage to be taken with any building permits; that the monument sign would not trigger it, but the renovation would; that the City Engineer would not be recommending that one of the monument signs be set back from the future project unless there was a potential visibility problem. Commissioner Weil asked if both monument signs would be affected by the widening. Staff replied that future right-of-way needs to be shown along the entire property frontage but only the easterly sign would be affected by visibility and needs to be set back, as per the City Engineer. Commissioner Butler asked if an amendment should be made based on potential Irvine Blvd. widening. The Director stated that the correction should be made to the plan showing the monument sign prior to installation. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:52 p.m. Larry Musil, Musil, Perkowitz, Ruth, Inc., 911 Studebaker, Long Beach, stated that Ralph's has a pre-existing lease stating that the owner is specifically not allowed to do anything with the pole sign without Ralph's consent; that Ralph's is willing to allow remodeling of the center, but not at the risk of losing their 60 foot high pylon sign which they deem necessary for business; that the owner is caught between Ralph's agreement and the City's new Sign Ordinance; that the center needs to be remodeled to compete; that new tenants have expressed interest in the pending remodel; that this could become a blighted area, have loss of jobs, and financial hardship for the owner; that they are proposing a com- promise of a 30 foot high pylon sign with two (2) monuments; that they believe that this is a case where the Commission's judgment could turn a potential disaster into a reasonable and positive solution; and requested approval. Commissioner Butler asked if the owner investigated the advantages and disadvantages of a 20 versus 30 foot sign.Mr. Musil gave information regarding their procedure for their decision. Commissioner Kasalek asked if Ralph's was firm on the size of the copy area. Mr. Musil affirmed. Francine Riqhter, 1262 Olwyn, stated that she hoped a decision could be made requiring Ralph's to conform to the requirements of the City as other centers must; that she encouraged the Commission not to exempt the center from current regulations; that the 20 foot pole would give the center a modern, tasteful look, and it would be nice if the center could fit into the surrounding area. Robert Hedmond, RREEF Funds, 1630 S. Sunkist, Anaheim, stated that they are not adding square footage or building a new facility; that they realized there was a concern from the City as well as the neighbors and proposed to reduce the sign by half; that it will not be visible from behind the building at night; that they are caught between the City, the homeowners and the tenants; that they would like to move forward since they have been processing for almost a Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 10 year; that they have several prospective large tenants; that they need three (3) identifications on the sign and even though they feel 37 feet would be ideal, they will compromise at 30 feet. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:01 p.m. Commissioner Weil stated she was in favor of the two (2) monument signs and that findings could be made in support; that she was concerned with the 30 foot height of the pole sign which might be obscured by the trees and would prefer it be lowered to 20 feet; that the City has accommodated the center over the years and that it is time for the center to conform. Commissioner Stracker asked how the 20 foot limit was determined in the Sign Code; and noted that he agreed with Commissioner Weil, but was hesitant to approve the westerly monument sign; that there is an overabundance of signs on Irvine Blvd.; that 30 feet was better than 60, which detracts from the center, but that he prefers 20 feet; that the improvements will help, but would like to see additional landscaping. The Director replied that the maximum 20 foot standard for pole signs was based upon comprehensive review of the sign codes in Orange County. While some cities prohibited pole signs, cities that allowed them generally allowed them at a predominant standard of less than 20 feet. Commissioner Butler felt that it was unbelievable that the Commission would not cooperate by understanding that the Commission would be agreeing to a reduction of the pole sign by half; that he did not want to see the center fall into a stalemate; that this center could look blighted like the center at Seventeenth and Tustin; that they are not compromising the neighbors; that the sign is about the height of the building across the street; that the center paid a tax base from when the City was small; that it is unreasonable to not allow this sign; that they have been working on this for a year, may stop the project, and may lose the Ralph's tenant if the city doesn't grant them their request; is also in complete support of staff's recommendation on the monument signs, with the amendment of moving the monuments. Commissioner Baker noted that a sign program for the center was done in September and asked the approved size of the signs. Staff replied that they approved 150 square feet for each major tenant, which would be one large sign upon renovation. Commissioner Baker stated that only one monument sign was necessary and should be kept low; that some cities do not allow pole signs; that 20 feet is liberal; and asked if the 30 foot sign would be visible behind the center. Staff replied that the proposed building tower element would be 35 feet high. The Director stated that the elevations were preliminary; that they have not received a submittal and must go to the City Council for Redevelopment Agency approval; that they have to assume there will be towers. Commissioner Baker stated he might be willing to compromise if the neighbors would not see the sign from behind. The Director replied that there could be portions along the property line where the sign was visible. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 11 Commissioner Kasalek stated that she felt that a 60 foot sign belonged along a freeway; that a 30 foot sign would set a precedent; that approval of the monument signs is giving a lot more signage, and is almost overkill; that massive signs are unnecessary for a grocery store; that upgrading the center and new shops will bring in business; that the monument signs will provide good visibility; that the Commission spent a lot of time on the Sign Code deciding the image wanted for the City. Commissioner Butler stated that they had an opportunity for beauti- fication of the center and reduction of the pole sign; that the old sign can stay and the center could get worse; that the new sign has a great design and will add a newer look to the City enhancing business; that they would raise the tax base; that the center is now approximately 50% vacant; that they could anchor major tenants which will bring smaller tenants; that they are not setting a precedent with this 30 foot sign; that this is a unique piece of property; and that they have a compromise they can work with. Commissioner Kasalek stated that the precedent would be set by the center not conforming to the renovation requirements. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:10 p.m. Larry Musil stated that there was a potential lease with Long's based upon the remodelling; that there is a 50% vacancy and some are not paying rent due to no income; that this will continue to deteriorate without the remodel; and that Ralph's does not care if it is remodeled so long as they can have their 60 foot sign. Commissioner Kasalek asked how the monument signs originated. Mr. Musil replied that they were based on Ralph's suggestion, as they wanted more identification. The Director stated that irregardless of the pole sign issue, the applicant has had master plan approval for other signs and could proceed with the design of renovation plans; that there have been no formal resubmittals of the design review since March, 1992; that there is nothing to prevent the applicant from going through the design review process, going to the City Council and being ready for building permits to accommodate prospective tenants in an expeditious manner. Commissioner Butler asked if the renovation could be accomplished without adjusting the pole sign. The Director replied that the master sign plan was conditioned to remove the pole sign; but that they could be in the approval process for the design review on the facade and site improvements; that if they were serious about the prospective tenants, they could be in the process and trying to concurrently resolve these issues; that the Commission should be aware that staff has not seen a formal application since March 1992. Commissioner Baker noted that in 1982 and 1983 a condition of approval was made requiring conformance of the pole sign. Mr. Hedmond stated that they submitted the renovation plans without realizing that they needed to have the pole sign conform; that it takes money to create the drawings; that they cannot get approval without working out the sign problem; that the sign issue must be resolved; that Ralph's is doing well and loves their 60 foot sign; and that this is an opportunity for everyone to be equally unhappy. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 12 The Director replied that the master sign plan only prohibits issuing of building permits for alterations until the pole sign issue is resolved; that they can go through the design review process which takes time; and that there has been no formal resubmittal. Mr. Hedmond replied that there have been informal resubmittals; that they would like to resolve the sign issue and have expensive working drawings completed; that there is a strong chance that the renovation will not be made if the sign problem is not worked out. The Director replied that the City has been responsive; as evidenced by a recent code amendment to accommodate liquor sales for Long's Drugs at this location. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:30 p.m. Commissioner Weil remembered the conversation in the 1980's requesting the sign conform when the center was renovated; that findings could not be made allowing the compromise; that they allowed larger signs for Ralph's building; that findings could be made for the monument signs; and that there is no justification for a 30 foot sign and no hardship. Commissioner Stracker stated that he was looking forward to the renovation of the center; that some Ralph's in other cities do not have pole signs; and that he would like to see this go forward, but not at 30 feet. Commissioner Baker approved of 20 feet. Commissioner Kasalek compared this location to a successful store in Irvine; and suggested Ralph's realize that the pole sign is not keeping them in business. The Director provided Resolution No. 3111M for Commission review. Commissioner Stracker suggested only one monument sign at the easterly end of the center. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she would be willing to compromise about the monument sign in order to have the pole sign conform. Commissioner Stracker moved approval of one monument sign and denying a 30 foot pole sign. There was no second. Commissioner Baker moved, Weil seconded denying construction of a 30 feet high sign at Tustin Heights Shopping Center. Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Butler was opposed. Commissioner Baker moved, Weil seconded to amend Conditional Use Permit 92-031, approving an amendment to a Master Sign Plan by adopting Resolution 3111M with the addition of Condition 1.6 requiring the monument sign located between the existing bank and restaurant to be set back from the future right of way line of Irvine Boulevard, a distance of six feet. Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Butler was opposed. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 13 6. Conditional Use Permit 92-045 REPRESENTATIVE/ AGENT: MCLEAN & SCHULTZ 2000 E. CHAPMAN FULLERTON, CA 92631 APPLICANT/ LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: STEELCASE, INC. 1123 WARNER AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 1123 WARNER AVENUE PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL (PC-I) DISTRICT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A 57 FOOT TALL DUST COLLECTION TOWER, WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT OF 50 FEET WITHIN THE PLANNED COMMI/NITY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3114 certifying the Negative Declaration as adequate for the project; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 3115 approving Conditional Use Permit 92-045, subject to conditions included in Exhibit A, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Joann Perry, Associate Planner Staff made changes to Resolution No. 3115, as moved. Commissioner Weil asked if the equipment would be run 24 hours. Staff replied that it would be run from about 10:00 to 5:00 p.m. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:49 p.m. Juerqen Milczewsky, 2000 E. Chapman Avenue, Fullerton, stated that this is a straightforward project; that Steelcase is willing to abide by the conditions; and that the dust collector is visible only from the Steelcase driveway and the freeway. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:50 p.m. Commissioner Kasalek reported that a letter was received from Ricoh supporting the project. Commissioner Baker moved, Weil seconded to adopt Resolution No. 3114 certifying the Negative Declaration. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Weil seconded to adopt Resolution No. 3115 approving Conditional Use Permit 92-045, subject to conditions included in Exhibit A as revised by changing 3.2 to read: "Roof top equipment shall be installed and maintained so as not to be vis- ible from public right-of-way view subject to review of final plans during Plan Check by the Community Development Department. Should the proposed equipment be visible from public right-of-way view, architecturally compatible screening will be required so that such equipment is not visible. An elevation..." Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 14 7. Code Amendment 92-005 (Smart SMR) Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue this item to February 8, 1993. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Baker moved, Butler seconded to continue this item to February 8, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS: 8. Status Reports Receive and file. Commissioner Butler asked if demolition permits were required for Mullin Lumber. Staff replied there has been no application for new development and that demolition permits were issued; and that security fencing will be installed. Commissioner Stracker asked the status of the synagogue. Staff replied that they have resubmitted to plan check for the approved changes; that the rain has slowed construction, but that they are ready to move forward; and that there has been no further input from the residents. Commissioner Baker moved, Weil seconded to accept the status report. Motion carried 5-0. NEW BUSINESS: 9. Sign Code Exception 92-010 APPLICANT/ REPRESENTATIVE: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: REQUEST: MS. LAURI BURKE on behalf of GOLDEN CHINA RESTAURANT 5942 EDINGER AVENUE, SUITE 113 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 MR. FRANK NINOKAUA 2100 BRIGHTWOOD STREET MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754 1046 WALNUT AVENUE COMMERCIAL GENERAL (C-G) DISTRICT TO PERMIT AN EXCEPTION TO INCREASE THE PERMITTED NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS FROM ONE (1) SIGN TO TWO 2) WALL SIGNS PERMITTING THE INSTALLATION OF AN ADDITIONAL 44.5 SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGN. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commisszon deny Sign Code Exception 92-010 by adopting Resolution No. 3116 as submitted or modified. Presentation: Joann Perry, Associate Planner Commissioner Baker moved, Weil seconded to continue this item to the January 25, 1993 Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 15 STAFF CONCERNS: 10. Report on actions taken at December 21, 1992 and January 4, 1993 City Council meetinqs Commissioner Weil suggested formal workshop discussions with the Planning Commission regarding the patio home category before there is a submittal of any projects or scheduling of public hearings. Commissioner Baker was concerned that they may be creating their own slum. The Director replied that they will recommend workshop dates at the next meeting; and will not notice any public hearings until the Commission reviews the information. Commissioner Baker asked if any parking areas of concern were approved with conditions that garages be available for vehicles. Staff replied that that was a general principal of the parking requirements. Commissioner Stracker asked what the discussion has been with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority. The Director replied that they want the station and would like to see it in place by December, 1993; that it has to be operational by December, 1995; that there is adequate spacing between Irvine, Tustin, and Santa Aha if placed at one of four alternative locations in the general vicinity of Jamboree and Edinger. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Weil - Was concerned about AQMD placing a "Vehicle Miles Traveled" cap on subregions within Southern California and its influence within the Tustin region; new projects to come before the Commission would have to consider the VMT cap; asked if staff was working on this. The Director affirmed; indicated that a report would be brought back to the Commission within 30 days. - Was concerned about amount of paper being used for Commis- sion documents and wondered if these could not be two sided to conserve paper. The Director noted that the Reproduction Department identified their costs and the reason it had not been done previously was a logistical concern of that depart- ment; that she would review this and if two sided copies are feasible, Community Development will be happy to do it. Commissioner Kasalek - Has noted in her observations of storage facilities throughout the city that there seem to be a pattern of disarray. She wondered if there could be criteria developed for screening the yards from public view. The Director noted that there had been a lack of communication between the Public Works Dept and the contractors but that they understand that Temporary Use Permits are needed which will give the city ability to impose more conditions which will not now be after the fact. - Noted the General Plan Workshop with the Council next Wednesday, January 20 at 6:00 p.m. followed by the regular meeting on the 25th. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 16 AD JOURNME1Tr: Commissioner Baker moved, Butler seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on January 25, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in the Tustin Senior Center at 200 S. "C" Street, Tustin. Ma 9 j'o~i~-~as a 1-e~-/~ .J -'--'' Cha i rp ek~ on 'Kathleen Clancy Secretary