Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-10-92MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNIN~ COMMISSION RE~ULARMEETIN~ NOVEMBER L0~ L992 CALL TO ORDER: 7:01 p.m., Tustin Senior Center PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Kasalek, Baker, Butler, Stracker and Weil Absent: None 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: (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 October 26, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Baker moved, Weil seconded Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. to approve the Consent PUBLIC HEARINGS= 2. Variance 92-009 and Conditional Use Permit 92-036 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: RAY MAGGI REGENCY WEST APARTMENTS P. O. BOX 568 CYPRESS, CA 90630 SAID COHEN 16721 NOYES AVENUE IRVINE, CA. 92714-5176 15851 PASADENA AVENUE R-3 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1. AUTHORIZATION TO VARY FROM SECTION 9271i(1) (A) OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT (8') HIGH FENCE ON THE SIDE ?ROPERT¥ LINES; 2. AUTHORIZATION TO VARY FROM SECTION 9271i(1)(B) OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO ALLOW A SEVEN FOOT Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1992 Page 2 SIX INCH (7'6") HIGH FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK; AND, 3. AUTHORIZATION TO PERMIT AN EIGHT FOOT (8') HIGH FENCE TO ENCLOSE THE REAR HALF OF A LOT. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance 92-009 and Conditional Use Permit 92-036 by adopting Resolution No. 4002, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Anne Bonnet, Associate Planner Commissioner Weil asked about Police Department comments. Staff replied that the Police Department was very supportive of the gates. Commissioner Stracker asked for a clarification of the area considered the rear half of the property. Staff replied that the code states that the rear half begins where the rear yard set back begins. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:04 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:05 p.m. Commissioner Weil stated that it was a shame that this was necessary, but was supportive of the efforts to solve problems; and asked that a condition be added for future maintenance and replacement of the slats. Staff replied that the slats were not wooden, but made of a long- lasting material. The Director added language to item 2.3, as moved, to clarify the maintenance requirements. Commissioner Stracker asked the depth of the lot to the south, and noted that there was an elevation difference; and if there were any comments from the adjacent owners since they would be viewing a nine to ten foot high fence. Staff replied that the driveway access on the adjacent property to the south runs the length of the property; was not certain of the depth; and that no comments were received. Commissioner Baker agreed with the item, but was sorry it was necessary. Commissioner Butler noted that he was concerned with maintenance; that the slats may create a wall for graffiti; and assumed that the Fire Department approved of the security gates; and that he would like to offer the applicant the opportunity to not use the slats. Staff affirmed that the Fire Department approved the project. The Director stated that the slats were not a City-imposed condition; that it was suggested by the applicant. Commissioner Kasalek agreed with the necessity of the project. The Public Hearing was re-opened and 7:08 p.m. Ray Maggi, property supervisor Regency West Apartments, stated that the fencing was in response to the clean up program in the City; Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1992 Page 3 agreed with the terms of the report; that the Police recommend a level top of the wall which will require the wall to be higher than seven foot six inches at some points. Commissioner Butler asked about the policy to remove graffiti. Mr. Maqgi stated that the Police Department recommended privacy; that the slats should be easily cleaned or replaced; they have recently installed a reward system for graffiti; and that the Police recommend the wrought iron decorative fencing, mostly to keep the kids off the walls. Commissioner Stracker asked the height of the fencing above the block wall. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:14 p.m. Commissioner Weil moved, Baker seconded to approve the Variance 92- 009 and Conditional Use Permit 92-036 by adopting Resolution 4002 as revised as follows: Add, "At the applicant's discretion..." to the first sentence of Condition No. 2.3 of Exhibit A. Add the sentence "The applicant shall ensure that the slats are maintained in good repair and/or replaced as necessary" to Condition No. 2.3 of Exhibit A. Add Condition No. 2.5 to Exhibit A, to read "The front wall elevation shall be permitted to exceed the total height of seven feet, six inches, to ensure a maximum height of five feet, five inches for the wrought iron extension, due to the variations in grade along the front property line subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Conditional Use Permit 92-037 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CHARLES B. MARGOLIN MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKES 1922 EAST CHAPMAN ORANGE, CA. 92667 BEDFORD PROPERTIES 3002 DOW AVENUE, SUITE 118 TUSTIN, CA. 92680 ATTENTION: STEVE DUNN JAMBOREE PLAZA PC-I (PLANNED COMMUNITY - INDUSTRIAL) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AMEND THE MASTER SIGN PLAN (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-010) TO PERMIT AN ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN CONSISTENT WITH THOSE APPROVED FOR USE BY SIMILAR AUTOMOTIVE TENANTS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 92-037 by adopting Resolution No. 4006, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Anne Bonner, Associate Planner The Public Hearing was opened at 7:15 p.m. Charles Marqolin, representing Midas Muffler, 1731 Las Brisas, Santa Ana, complimented staff on their decision to allow Midas Muffler to locate in the center; and presented Midas "muffler scarfs" to the Commissioners and staff. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1992 Page 4 The Public Hearing was closed at 7:17 p.m. Commissioner Baker moved, Stra~er secoDded to approve Conditional Use Permit 92-037 by adopting Resolution No. 4006 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Conditional Use permit 9~-044 (~Qdificat$on to Conditional Use Permit 91-002 and Design Review 90-23) APPLI CANT: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: CONGREGATION B'NAI ISRAEL 655 B STREET TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 2111 BRYAN AVENUE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION THIS IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO MODIFY THE SITE PLAN FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMPLE AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITY LOCATED AT 2111 BRYAN AVENUE. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 92-044 to authorize the modification to the site plan previously approved by Conditional Use Permit 91- 002 and Design Review 90-023 by adopting Resolution No. 4005, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Sara Pashalides, Associate Planner Staff suggested modifying Item 4 of Page 2 of Resolution No. 4005, to clarify parking requirements of 120 parking spaces at Phase I, and 163 parking spaces at buildout. Commissioner Baker asked if all neighbors received notification. Commissioner Weil asked if there was any response to notice. Staff replied that all neighbors within 300 feet were notified and that there were two phone calls. Commissioner Stracker asked if there would be windows on the north elevation. Staff noted that there would not be windows on the north elevation. Commissioner Kasalek asked the distance to the second story from the property line and if the foundation had been poured; and if there would be a problem if the plans were reverted to the original location. Staff referred to the applicant for the distance; replied that the posts had been laid, but the pad was not poured; that the applicant would have know the costs to redo the work; and that there is not a problem with the City to relocate the structure to the original plans. Commissioner Butler asked if the fire access at the rear was acceptable. Staff affirmed. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1992 Page 5 Commissioner Stracker asked about the drop-off area. Staff replied that the drop-off area had been removed with the changes, and that it was for the school and sanctuary. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:29 p.m. Michael Schneider, representative chairman of the Development Committee for B'Nai Israel, stated that they agreed with staff recommendations; that the initial requirements were for a 25 foot setback, they were originally at 60 feet and now at 40 feet; that if houses were developed there, they would be closer than their facility, would be taller and have windows; that a good portion of the buildings including foundation, underground utilities have been constructed, and would be expensive to demolish and relocate. He continued with noting that the building becomes two-story at 105 feet from the property line. Commissioner Kasalek asked if there offices or classrooms would be adjacent to the sanctuary; and how far from the property line they would be located. Mr. Schneider replied 85 feet. Commissioner Stracker asked what the anticipated queue would be for the drop-off area; and if they have a location for buses/vans. Mr. Schneider replied that the queue has been approximately 3-4 vehicles; and they do not use vans. Doug Wride, 2052 Burnt Mill Road, representative of Monterey Homeowners Association, stated that he was opposed to the change since they have not seen the plans and do not know the impact; that the plan was originally approved without notification of the homeowners but that they were aware that a religious facility would be located there with as little impact as possible on the neighbors and as far away as possible; that they recently received a letter from the City with little information; that homes could have been located on the site is irrelevant since it was zoned for a religious facility upon purchase of the homes; that the homeowners would bear the cost of the mistake in reduced property values if not corrected; that they would have a better view if located as to the original plans; and suggested tabling the matter for further consideration. Tracy Worley, 2032 Burnt Mill Road, stated her opposition to the application; that the City has not met with the homeowners; that the large two-story building would be located 40 feet from their small lots; that the homes were there first; that the Commission approved the location at 65 feet from the property line; that the homeowners should not have to bear a major error; and that it would be an error on the Commissioners' part to approve; and that modification of Phase II might be a consideration for change if they do not want to bear the cost of changing the location. Dale Waldo, 2121 Calavero Circle, stated that he was concerned with the proposed changes without having access to a traffic study, noise impacts, and lighting; that plans need to be submitted for review by the homeowners; that a solid green wall would further diminish the open space; and that he lives one street from Burnt Mill. ~qF~, 2072 Burnt Mill Road, noted that the structure would be located behind her home; that she has submitted a petition of 63 homeowners opposing the synagogue being built 25 feet closer to Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1992 Page 6 their homes; that the it has been formed, but the foundation has not been poured; and that the homeowners should not have to suffer the consequences of a surveyor's mistake. Fred Zinn, 2122 Burnt Mill Road, stated that he was in support of the motion; that Mr. Wride does not officially speak for the homeowners association; that the petition may not be accurate; that the problem is not that it would be 40 feet away, but 25 feet closer; that when they purchased their homes, the original plans could have been 25 feet away; that most of the homes have quite large back yards; that most homes in the area look into another home; that there will be no invasion of privacy with the temple; that there is no support regarding affecting property values; that it is the duty of the citizens to have a diverse cultural community; and that it will enhance the property values. Diane Allessandrini, 2092 Burnt Mill Road, stated that the building faces her house; that she is not opposed to the temple, but agreed to the original plans; that there is no prejudice; that Mr. Zinn's comments do not echo the neighbors'; that Mr. Zinn will not have to look at the building from her perspective. Shahida Umar, 2062 Burnt Mill Road, stated that she knew there would be a religious building located there upon purchase of her home; that Mr. Zinn's opinions are biased; that the building will be located behind her; that residential homes would not create as much noise as the school and synagogue activities; that they were not informed of the original hearing; that they were confused by the latest letter; that their yards are very small with a beautiful view of the mountains which will be impaired; that Phase II should possibly be compromised by making it a one-story building; that contractors carry insurance to correct mistakes; that the homeowners chose Mr. Wride to speak for them; and that they are not prejudiced. Steve Hogie, 2112 Burnt Mill Road, stated that the residents should not have to bear the burden of the surveyor's mistake since he carries insurance and has professional responsibility; that he has deep concerns about the use; that he is concerned about hate crimes, vandalism and terrorism at the site and moving the buildings closer to his home and family increases the risk to their safety; and urged the Commission to continue the matter to research the environmental impact to their safety. Mr. Schneider stated that he understood the homeowners' concerns; that the initial plans were submitted with the homeowners in mind; that the building has a sloping roof and does not become a two- story until 105 feet from the property line; that it would cost approximately $90-95,000 to demolish and correct the mistake; that they stopped construction within one or two days of pouring the pad on their own initiative; that they intend to comply and be a good neighbor; and that they would sympathize with the neighbors if they were the object of hate crimes, and hope that the neighbors would sympathize with them. Douq Wride stated that they look forward to the temple as a neighbor; that the change is their point of contention, not what could have been; that he is astounded that the work was done between the staff and the temple without the homeowners being included; and that he appreciates that the work was stopped. He continued with asking how the project was able to advance this far without city inspection; and asked who is as fault. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:56 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1992 Page 7 The Director stated that at this stage of construction the grades, pad elevations, and points of foundation locations are set by the civil engineer of record; a certified report is provided to the City by the civil engineer of record which is accepted by all cities as standard procedure; a significant error was made by the civil engineer of record by taking a reading based upon a concrete monument location that he thought was a property line location; and that the church notified the City immediately upon realization of the error. Commissioner Weil stated that their decision cannot be made based upon the expense that may be incurred to correct the problem; that traffic and lighting were not at issue; that the new design would offer more protection to the residents since most activity would be located at the front of the facility; the dumpster would be relocated; that the building is not a two story as the petition represented, but has a stepped-back design; that the original plan was to have trees, but will now have larger trees in the beginning; and asked if the original design would have windows along the rear elevation. She continued with stating that since we live in an urban area, we may get used to vistas, but there would probably not have been a vista once the building was in place. Staff responded that the north elevation was still subject to Design Review, but that the concept plan showed no windows with the congregation was agreeable to no windows along that elevation. Commissioner Stracker stated that parking along the wall would have been a problem for the neighbors; would like to have seen some proactive involvement with the neighbors; that they all need to be good neighbors or the problems will continue; suggested tabling the motion for further discussion. Commissioner Baker stated that it was most important that they be good neighbors; that he has heard a fear of the unknown from the neighbors; that further discussion is necessary; that he has to trust the engineering reports, but that there may be an echo of exhaust from vehicles travelling along the driveway and he suggested continuing the time for further review. Commissioner Butler asked Mr. Schneider what problems a two week continuation would cause; and asked Mr. Wride what additional conversation would accomplish; and that design was not part of this evening's discussion, only location of the building; and that cost factor cannot be taken into consideration. Commissioner Kasalek agreed with Commissioners Stracker and Baker by stating that she was concerned with the neighbors opinions; that the neighbors have not seen any plans; that since it was an error on part of the surveyor, it seems that the neighbors are being punished for someone else's error; that the temple has been sensitive to the neighbors in the building design; and that everyone would benefit from continuation for further discussion. The Public Hearing was re-opened at 8:10 p.m. Mr. Schneider stated that they desire to be a good neighbor; that they are under a tight time schedule to finish by next summer for occupancy before the high holy days in the fall; that they could continue the matter for two weeks for discussion with the understanding that all parties approach with an open mind and look at both sides non-judgementally. ~r~ agreed with the two week time frame for continuation; stated that they do fear the unknown. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1992 Page 8 The Public Hearing was closed at 8:12 p.m. Commissioner Kasalek stated that staff report and drawings were always available for review. Commissioner Butler stated that he was satisfied to table the matter for two weeks; and that he understood that if the building was erected today as it stands it would be within City codes. The Director stated that the item needed to be continued to the next regular scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Baker moved, Butler seconded to continue this issue to the next regular meeting of the Commission which will be held on November 23, 1992. Motion carried 5-0. 5. Zone Change 9~-002 & Development Agreement 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 TRACT 12870 FROM 18 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO 25 DWELLING UNITS 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. 4003; and 2. Recommend to the city Council approval of Zone Change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 by adopting Resolution No. 4004, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Assistant Community Development Director City Manager, Commissioner Baker asked if the application complied with all new CEQA and AQMD laws. The Director affirmed. Commissioner Stra~ker referred to Page 2 of the Development Agreement and asked about refunded money if the additional units were not built. The Director responded that the $2,000 per unit would not be required for units not being built beyond the maximum density originally permitted for the project. John Shaw, City Attorney, stated that the proposal would allow an extra 100 units; that they pay from unit one for the additional, and would be entitled to a refund for units not built above the maximum allowed. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1992 Page 9 Commissioner Stracker asked where medium high density property is located; and why it was proposed along Tustin Ranch Road. The Director replied that it was located along Jamboree; that it was originally located along major arterials, that Tustin Ranch Road functions as an arterial; and that it was a land use decision that was up to the Commission, but is not inconsistent with uses along Myford. Commissioner Kasalek referred to Item 4 of Page 3 of the Development Agreement noting that it specified construction of the public park within the City of Tustin, and asked if it should be within East Tustin. The Director responded that they were not looking at development plans this evening; that the Commission already approved a development plan for the this lot proposing three story buildings with a dense physical appearance; that the zone change and increased density will allow the applicant to redesign the project with two stories along Tustin Ranch Road and three stories on the interior. Commissioner Weil stated that there seems to be more exposure to Irvine Boulevard that Tustin Ranch Road. The Director responded that the lot patterns are different and will have more exposure to Tustin Ranch Road. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:37 p.m. Chris Hawke, representing William Lyon Company, stated that they were in concurrence with the staff report. Commissioner Stracker asked if they would accept a higher amount than $2,000 for the park fee. Mr. Hawke replied negatively. Commissioner Butler asked the applicant to state the method of payment. Mr. Hawke stated that there would be a maximum contribution of $200,000 on a pro-rata basis divided by the 354 units paid when applying for each building permit. The Director agreed and stated that there is no obligation required since they have already contributed their portion of the land dedication as part of the East Tustin Specific Plan but this was a concession by the applicant; and that this is a significant concession on their part, as suggested by City Council. Commissioner Stracker asked for the reasoning for increase in density. Mr. Hawke replied that this was a generic site plan, but that the prototype being considered is two story on the outer edge of the project which appears less dense, even though the density is increased. Commissioner Stracker asked about Mr. Hawke's familiarity with the MH zoned properties along Jamboree Road; when anticipate development; asked how large the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) was and how it was viewed upon regional versus local traffic. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1992 Page 10 Mr. Hawke stated that they are all three story on the outer edge; and that their's would have less massing; that their tentative schedule is for May of 1994; that the TAZ was approximately 280 acres; that it generated approximately 33 additional vehicles in the a.m. and p.m.; that there is an overall reduction of 13% for the regional area; and that the project would be a plus for the area. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:44 p.m. Commissioner Butler stated that this was additional park revenue that they would not have received under the pre-approved density; that it should be made clear that it stays within the development plan agreement; and suggested that the Commissioners state whether they attended the William Lyon presentation. Commissioners Kasa~ek and Stracker stated that they did not attend. Commissioner Baker stated that he did attend; that they are looking at an addendum to the EIR with little change; that they are not looking at design at this point; and asked how many notices went out. The Director stated that an eighth page add was placed as allowed by law for over 1,000 residences; and 300 foot radius mailings. Commissioner Weil asked if there was any response to notice. The Director replied that there were two responses. Commissioner Stra~ke~ stated that a good development could come from this; that he was concerned that there was no medium high density along Tustin Ranch Road; that this represents a change from the norm for this area; that it is an increase in density of 38% and increase of traffic of 15% at the local level which is of a concern; that he commended William Lyon Company for contributing additional park fees to the City; that he would like to see a contribution towards the sports park, for example, from the applicant; but that there are a lot of unknowns and he cannot support the issue. Commissioner Weil was in support of the item; stated that Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard could support the increase in traffic; that the golf course buffers the impact of a multi-family project; that it will not look as dense as it would within other multi-family projects; and that it is near another medium high density project. Commissioner Baker agreed with the project; stated that the numbers for the Specific Plan area are substantially under projections; that he might consider the item without the park fees; and asked how many additional cars were expected. The traffic engineer stated that there would be 330 additional vehicles. Commissioner Stracker stated that there are a number of young families with children who will be driving within approximately five years which will create additional trips. Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded to certify Addendum No. 4 to EIR 85-2 by adopting Resolution No. 4003 as submitted. Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Stracker was the di~entin~ ¥~, Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1992 Page 11 Commissioner Butler moved, Weil seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 by adopting Resolution No. 4004 as revised. The revision occurs in the Development Agreement itself under No. 4 "Use of Funds" to read as follows: "City agrees to use all of the funds solely for construction of public park improvements within the East Tustin Specific Plan Area of the City of Tustin". Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Stracker was the dissenting vote. OLD BUSINESS~ 6. Sign Code Exception 92-003 APPLICANT: CHEVRON U.S.A, INC. P.O. BOX 2833 LA HABRA, CA 90632 LANDOWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. ZOLTON CZIK P.O. BOX 4735 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263 14001 NEWPORT AVENUE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2) DISTRICT THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311 (CLASS 11) 1. TO PERMIT THE INCREASE OF THE MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT FOR THE BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION MONUMENT FROM THE PERMITTED SIX (6) FEET TO 7'- 10 3/4"; AND 2. TO ALLOW THE REDISTRIBUTION OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SECONDARY BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION WALL OR CANOPY SIGNS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Sign Code Exception 92-003 by adopting Resolution No. 3097, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Joann Perry, Associate Planner Staff made changes to the staff report and Resolution No. 3097, as moved, to change references to sign height from 7 foot 6 inches to 7 foot 10 3/4 inches. Commissioner Stracker asked for a clarification of the changes. Staff reviewed changes in landscaping and noted that the sign could then be reduced; and that state law requires the sign to be visible from both street frontages. Commissioner Baker asked who was responsible for maintenance of bougainvillea. Staff responded that it requires less maintenance and is drought tolerant, but that the City will still maintain. Commissioner Weil commended staff and Chevron on a good job. Commissioner Baker stated that he was for the sign change, but inquired about the possibility of installing a barrier to prohibit driving off curb. Staff replied that they propose no modification of drive areas due to the difficulty of visibility and turning radii. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1992 Page 12 Commissioner Stracker stated that he approved of the item, but would like to see further changes to the corner, since it is the entryway to the City. Staff replied that the community planter would be revised to enhance the corner. Commissioner Weil moved, But~er s~conde~ to approve Sign Code Exception 92-003 by adopting Resolution No. 3097 revised as follows: In every instance where 7'-6" appears, change to "7'- 10 3/4". Motion carried 5-0. NEW BUSINESS: 7. Sign Code Exception 92-009 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE REVERE HOUSE RESTAURANT 900 WEST FIRST STREET TUSTIN, CA. 92680 ATTENTION: MS. MYRIAM LYNN DOWELL S. RICHARDS TRUST 1162 DEBORAH DRIVE TUSTIN, CA. 92680 900 WEST FIRST STREET C-2 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO DISPLAY TWO TEMPORARY BANNERS UNTIL COMPLETION OF THE FIRST STREET BRIDGE Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Sign Code Exception 92-009 by adopting Resolution No. 4007, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Anne Bonnet, Associate Planner Commissioner Stracker asked where the banner would be located. Staff replied that it would be on the elevation facing the 55 freeway. Myriam Lynn, representing the Revere House, stated that they are asking for replacement and extension of the current banner. Commissioner Kasalek asked the completion date for the bridge. Ms. Lynn replied that they have been informed it might be March, but will probably be June. Commissioner Butler asked if the fees would be waived. Staff affirmed, and stated that the City Manager considered waiving the fee. Commissioner Stracker asked if there has been assistance from Caltrans. Ms. Quinn replied that they have received some compensation, but it could not have made up for the amount they have lost in business. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1992 Page 13 Commissioner Butler moved, Weil seconded to approve Sign Code Exception 92-009 by adopting Resolution No. 4007 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS: ReDort on actions taken at November 2, 1992 City Council meeting. Staff reported on the subject agenda. The Commissioners were reminded of the Nov. 30, 5:30 pm workshop. Commissioner Kasalek asked about the possibility of printing the Planning Commission Agendas in the newspapers; and about Costco sign lights. The Director replied that they are working with the Irvine Company regarding the Costco sign lights· COI414ISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Stracker - Asked why Bob Ledendecker was not at the meeting to report on the Eastern Transportation Corridor. Staff noted that Mr. tonight but will make Commission meeting. Ledendecker was unable to attend this report at the next regular Commissioner Kasalek - Concerned about the upkeep of the flags at the Tustin Market Place. She noted they were not looking good and she thought that the Irvine Company was to maintain them. She requested that someone look into this and suggested immediate maintenance. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Baker moved, Butler seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on November 23, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Tustin Senior Center at 200 S. "C" Street, Tustin. Marjo~i~e ~alek ~ .... Chairperso~ ~ Kathleen Clancy Secretary