Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-10-92MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 10, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: 7:04 p.m., Tustin Senior Center PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Baker, Le Jeune, Kasparian, Kasalek and Weil PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) At this time members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items not on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission (NO action can be taken off-agenda items unless authorized by law). IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE SO THAT YOUR REMARKS ON THE TAPE RECORDING OF THE MEETING CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU. WHEN YOU START TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the July 27, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Weil seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Kasalek abstained. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Conditional Use Permit 92-019 APPLICANT: OWNERS: STEPHEN D. PAQUETTE 10542 GREENBRIER ROAD SANTA ANA, CA 92705 NORMAN FRITZ 15734 NEWTON STREET HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CA 91745 LOCATION: 135 SOUTH PROSPECT AVENUE ZONING: FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN - COMMERCIAL AS A PRIMARY USE ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-010 TO ALLOW FOR CHANGES IN OPERATING CONDITIONS Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 2 Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission table this item due to the withdrawal of the application. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Associate Planner 3. Conditional Use Permit 92-022 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: THE IRVINE COMPANY PO BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 TUSTIN RANCH PROJECT AREA PC - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE STATUS: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) SECTION REQUEST: 15311 PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND THE MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE TUSTIN RANCH PROJECT AREA PROVIDING FOR THE PLACEMENT OF FLAGS AT APARTMENT COMPLEXES Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission table this item at the request of the applicant. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Associate Planner 4. Amendment of Conditional Use Permit 90-05, Desiqn Review 89-71 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY 2 PARK PLAZA #300 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 LOT 13 OF TRACT 12763, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF IRVINE BOULEVARD AND JAMBOREE ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED E.I.R. (NO. 85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. TO AMEND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-05 AND DESIGN REVIEW 89-71. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve a modification to Condition of Approval No. 1.3 of Resolution No. 2833 and to Condition of Approval No. 1.3 of Resolution No. 2832 to allow a two year extension of Conditional Use Permit 90-05 and Design Review 89-71 by adopting Resolution No. 3066 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner The Public Hearing was opened at 7:09 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that due to the hard economic times, the extension was acceptable. Commissioner Kasparian noted that Resolution No. indicate Design Review 89-71, not 89-17. 3066 should Staff changed the Resolution as moved. Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 3 Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasalek seconded to approve the environmental determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3070. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasalek secoDde~ to adopt Resolution No. 3066, approving a modification to Condition of Approval No. 1.3 of Resolution No. 2833 and to Condition of Approval No. 1.3 of Resolution No. 2832 to allow a two year extension of Conditional Use Permit 90-05 and Design Review 89-71, revised as follows: Page 1, Item B 1.3: "89-17" should be changed to "89-71" Motion carried 5-0. 5. Extension of Temporary Use Permit 92-005 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES LOT 85, TRACT 14381 (PRESIDIO) PC - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN: MEDIUM DENSITY THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT EXTENSION OF A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY SALES TRAILER FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve an extension of Temporary Use Permit 92-005 by Minute Order, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Kasparian noted a date change on Page 2 of the conclusions. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:12 p.m. Bill Moorhous, applicant, stated that he hoped they would not need to use the trailer for more than six months. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:13 p.m. Commissioner Weil stated that she approved of the extension due to the economic situation. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve an extension of Temporary Use Permit 92-005 by Minute Order, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Variance 92-005 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: DONALD LE JEUNE 440 WEST MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 440 WEST MAIN STREET SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l)/ CULTURAL RESOURCES DISTRICT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 03) SECTION 15303 PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 4 REQUEST: TO PERMIT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE USED AS GUEST ROOMS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 20 FEET AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 440 WEST MAIN STREET Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue this item until the August 24, 1992 meeting of the Planning Commission. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Weil moved, Kasalek seconded to continue the item until the August 24, 1992 meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Le Jeune abstained. 7. Conditional Use Permit 92-028 APPLICANT: CHEVRON U.S.A, INC. P.O. BOX 2833 LA HABRA, CA 90632 REPRESENTATIVE/ AGENT: FULL SPECTRUM COMMUNICATIONS 7231 GARDEN GROVE BOULEVARD SUITE #L GARDEN GROVE, CA 92641 LANDOWNER: ZOLTON CSIK P. O. BOX 4735 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263 14001 NEWPORT AVENUE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2) DISTRICT LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3) REQUEST: TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VSAT ANTENNA (COMMUNICATION DISH ANTENNA) WHICH CANNOT BE FULLY SCREENED FROM PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY VIEW Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 92-028 by adoption of Resolution No. 3069, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Joann Perry, Associate Planner Staff made changes to Resolution No. 3069, as moved. Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of the change. Staff clarified that the CUP would become null and void if the operator or owner changes. Commissioner Weil asked if the applicant was aware of the addition. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the request for the antenna to be lower than the screen. Staff replied that the screen is to reduce clutter; that the antenna may be six (6) inches above the screen, but would be rendered useless if blocked by the screen; and would be painted to match the screen. Commissioner Weil asked if the guidelines for the screen were similar to disk antennas. The Director affirmed and noted that the standard is tied to any screening of rooftop antennas. Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 5 The Public Hearing was opened at 7:22 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:23 p.m. Commissioner Weil moved, Kasalek seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 92-028 by adoption of Resolution No. 3069 revised as follows: Exhibit A, Page 1, Add Condition 1.5 to read: "This Conditional Use Permit shall become null and void with the termination of or change of service station operator or supplier contract, or upon sale of property whichever should occur first. An extension to this Conditional Use Permit may be granted by the City of Tustin Planning Commission." Motion carried 5-0. 8. Conditional Use Permit 92-011 APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. JOHN SCHWARTZ 5822 LINCOLN AVENUE CYPRESS, CA 90630 DONALD F. AND VIRGINIA D. SIEVEKE TRUST 7817 SANDBERG LANE ORANGE, CA 92669 14252 NEWPORT AVENUE COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) DISTRICT THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3) TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A 1,500 SQUARE FOOT SELF-SERVE, COIN-OPERATED CARWASH AND A 830 SQUARE FOOT 10 MINUTE LUBE/OIL FACILITY Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit 92-011 by adopting Resolution No. 3072, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Joann Perry, Associate Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Design Review denial was not appealed. Staff affirmed and noted that what was before the Commission was the use as presented. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:31 p.m. Commissioner Baker stated that the hearing was to determine the use of the property, not the building design. John Schwartz, applicant, stated that he did not appeal the Design Review due to problems staff had with his proposal; that he wanted to build the best in the area, and that he owns others; that the City should remove auto related use designation from the Code if it does not approve of the use along Newport Avenue; that he may have spent a lot of money for nothing; that the center has deteriorated and Carl's Jr proposes to leave their ex-location vacant; that he proposes to remove the cocktail lounge and relocate the cafe and liquor store; that he designed the project to the adjacent gas station guide-lines; that 10-minute lube stations are not uncommon on major streets; that the lube and coin-operated car washes are clean and not noisy; that he thought he met all the requirements, but was informed that moving the liquor store would render it non- Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 6 conforming. He continued by noting that he was told after the second review that the City preferred Spanish design in the area; that there are numerous vacant retail shops on Newport; that his other locations do not have loiterers; and that the car wash money goes into drop safes. He also stated that the lube hours would be 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and the car wash would be 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.; and that the car wash would not be similar to the location on First Street. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the applicant was asking for approval of the concept of the car wash this evening and return with a new design review. Mr. Schwartz replied that with approval of the use this evening, he intends to augment the building with landscaping and that the interior walls would be tile to remain clean and attractive; that the building was unable to be turned so that it could not be seen through; that the coin operated car wash would provide an alternative for the moderate income neighbors; that they recycle oil and filters and use a limited amount of water; that they offer a limited cost lube service; and that it would not increase traffic. Commissioner Weil asked for a clarification of the lease agreement with Carl's Jr. Mr. Schwartz replied that he is paying Carl's rent each month, plus some to the land owner; and that he would buy out Carl's three-year lease if approved. Commissioner Kasalek asked for clarification of the drainage problems. Mr. Schwartz replied that they have purifiers and containment areas for water and oil; that the properties along Mitchell drain onto the next properties; that his property would drain through a pipe into the storm drain along Newport Avenue which would better the situation. He continued with stating that the City has only looked for the negative impact of this proposal; and that communication with other cities where his projects are located would indicate no negative problems. David Anderson, 33172 Palo Alto St. Dana Point, landlord of San Souci property, stated that the tenants are concerned with the project; that people come over the wall into the carports and break into cars; that 11:00 closing would provide time for loitering; that they have had some problems with drainage; asked about automatic shutoff in case of a mechanical breakdown; that this property is well-kept; that he is opposed to the car wash and quick lube; and noted that there is a nearby quick lube on E1 Camino Real. Patricia Cochin, 1108 Mitchell Avenue, San Souci resident, stated that a car wash and quick lube would not improve the look of the area; that traffic is a serious problem at that corner; asked for more information regarding breakdown procedures; that 11:00 is late for washing cars; that this project will increase the problems; and that she is concerned with the uncontrollability of the area. Jacques Roy, 1064 Mitchell Avenue, San Souci Homeowners Association President, stated that he was concerned with the visual impact; that a sound wall should separate them from the project; that he was concerned with drainage of soap and oil and noise; that it will make the neighborhood worse; and that they are concerned with their property values. Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 7 Dan Corey, Off-Street Cafe owner, stated that he was amazed with the problems noted by the residents; that the center is dormant now and an eyesore; that the landlord does not want to invest money to improve the center and Carl's Jr. does not maintain its building; that it was up to the Commission to make a decision on what is to happen to the center; that it is a trade-off with allowing a car wash and removing a drug-distributing bar with people who loiter and sleep behind the building; that the Commission should decide to delete the auto use on Newport, or let the applicant submit plans to improve the property; that there will be more problems if the center is allowed to dilapidate further; that the bar creates noise; that Carl's Jr. created traffic; that not many wash their car between 8-11:00 p.m.; that his main concern was to have some- thing done so that the liquor store and his cafe could prosper in these bad economic times. Mr. Schwartz, stated that there would be a new 6 foot 8 inch wall along the condominium project; that his project would not generate 1/10 of the problems that are now occurring; that the property will be well-lit for security; that it is impossible for the water to run on the adjacent property; that he never had a water line break; that he is in constant communication and visits property every day; that lube employees watch the car wash and could put an attendant on duty if necessary; that the noise factor would be from people, but not equipment; that he is flexible with 11:00 closing; that if there is a noise problem, he would shut down early; that a car wash and lube may not be aesthetically pleasing, but will not be getting retail or office to renovate property. Mr. Roy requested guidelines for closing times, drainage, fencing and landscaping; that it is not the best development that could be installed; and asked if they should take mediocre or wait for a better project. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that conditions stipulated in a CUP would have to be adhered to. Commissioner Baker stated that the details could be included in the conditions, if necessary. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:06 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that he was originally against the car wash, but feels that this is an isolated site and that a precedent would not be established; that the location is not suitable for office space; that he did not recommend a strip center; but was reluctant to approve the application without knowing what would ultimately be in place. Commissioner Baker asked if he would approve the car wash and lube. Commissioner Le Jeune agreed, but would be strict and demanding of Design Review. The Director stated that as an option, the Commission did not have to take action on the CUP, that they could request a redesign to be assured that issues are resolved. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she also came prepared to deny the project, but applicant's input made her feel better; that this type of business is needed in the area; that apartment dwellers do not have $8 for a car wash; that the pictures presented indicate nice facilities; that she needs an assurance that the wall will block out the noise and allow less vandalism; that there should be Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 8 restrictions on the hours; that the applicant seems willing to work with the residents and is available if problems occur. Commissioner Weil stated that another auto related facility would be a problem; that the ARCO station provides lube service; that changing the Code would eliminate all service stations on Newport Avenue; that this is an entrance street to the City particularly with the proposal to extend Newport Avenue; that similar facilities are often located off main thoroughfares; that the use is too intense for the property and does not seem appropriate with the cafe; asked for the noise ordinance times; that use after 10:00 would be inappropriate; that another coin operated car wash could benefit the City, but that $20 is not a bargain for a lube service. The Director replied that the minimum dBa standards change throughout the day; that the noise level would be taken at the property line and a residential standard would be applied. Commissioner Kasparian stated that loitering, dirt, people sleeping behind the buildings would not go away with the car wash; that mechanical items could be resolved; that the center is not a nice place for the restaurant; that he likes the City establishing guidelines for Newport Avenue; that a car wash and lube service are not on the same level as a gas station; that the petition of the San Souci homeowners carries weight; and that the block wall will not necessarily mitigate the noise. He continued with asking what would be done with the equipment if the service goes out of business; and that he did not think this type of auto use should be expanded on Newport Avenue. Commissioner Baker asked if any comments were received from the adjacent apartment residents. Staff replied negatively. The Director commented that only a few residents of San Souci spoke, but a petition of 35 signatures was received. Commissioner Baker stated that there was concern about noise, lights and water problems, but apartment dwellers may need this type of service; that coin operated car washes are somewhat of an attractive nuisance; that the Commission prefers to consider developers as guided by the city rather than pushed around; that the intent is to make the area as compatible as possible; that Newport Avenue is as busy as the other major streets in Tustin; that the car wash is a good use for the property, but would like to see it as compatible for the neighborhood as possible. The Director stated that the City has a philosophy of customer service; that the representations made by the applicant were unfair and inaccurate; that staff has responded to the points made in the letter from the applicant; that the accusation that staff was uncooperative was an easy position for the applicant to take as a mechanism to get support for the project. She continued with stating that the issues the City staff had with the project were repeated both in written and verbal communication to the applicant; that the Commission could continue the item for the applicant to prepare a costly revised program, or deny contingent upon the applicant submitting a revised application, without a CUP fee. This would allow the applicant an opportunity to make a good faith effort on the reapplication submittal and the City Council to provide input to the denial; that this is an important land use decision; that the General Plan Revision Program will provide new guidelines. She also stated that there are a range of opportunities for the property; that she hoped the Commission would Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 9 not take the applicant's threat at face value that action this evening would preclude anything at that site; and that the Department does not consider the cars wash and lube and tune to be an appropriate use for the site. Commissioner Le Jeune considered that the use should be resolved before the applicant spent more money; that denying the use would allow the applicant to appeal to the City Council for a determination. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Director was suggesting not making a decision. The Director provided three options: 1) continue the matter and provide direction to the applicant to revise the site plan to address the denied design review issues on the Conditional Use Permit; 2) deny the project so the City Council can consider the use issues on appeal prior to the applicant expending considerable money on plan revisions; or 3) deny and allow applicant to transmit complete resubmittal to Commission with waiver of a new Conditional Use Permit fee. Commissioner Kasalek asked if there was a fee for appeal. The Director replied that the appeal fee was one-half of the original application fee. Commissioner Kasparian noted that this Commission was the same group that denied the car wash on First Street, but that they would be considering approving this in a more residential area; and asked how that could be justified. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that he felt this site was already next to an automotive use. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she was not involved in that car wash decision, but was involved in the auto service business where there is a tremendous amount of auto usage and traffic; that she was concerned with the traffic on Nisson Road, but it has not become a problem; that this area has traffic; that she is concerned with the economic times; that she is concerned with the future of the look of Tustin, but asked where a car wash like this is to be placed; that the concern of water and noise may be unfounded; that the bar seems to be a worse situation; and that this is not much of a different use than a gas station. Commissioner Weil stated that there are parallels with the Tire Store on First Street due to being too intensive a use for the location; that this location has opposing uses and will generate a lot of traffic; and that ARCO has a similar use to lube service. Commissioner Baker stated that he had no problem with the use, but agreed with the suggestion to let the applicant appeal so that the City Council could review the land use. Commissioner Baker explained the denial to the audience; stated that the applicant must appeal within seven (7) days; and that the residents would be notified of the hearing. Mr. Corey asked what the City would do about the condition of the center. The Director replied that it would be referred to Code Enforcement. Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 10 Commissioner Weil moved, Kasparian seconded to deny Conditional Use Permit 92-011 by adopting Resolution No. 3072 as submitted. Motion carried 3-2. Commissioners Le Jeune and Kasalek were opposed. 9. Conditional Use Permit 92-026 APPLICANTS: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. AMIR H. AMIRALAIE MR. MOHAMMAD GHOMIZADETT 14441 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 MR. DAVID CHOU 17771 FITCH STREET IRVINE, CA 92714 14441 NEWPORT AVENUE RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-l) DISTRICT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A CONVENIENCE STORE WITHIN AN EXISTING TENANT SPACE Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3067 approving Conditional Use Permit 92-026, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Joann Perry, Associate Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if this store would be located in an existing store. Staff affirmed that it would replace the existing liquor store. Commissioner Kasparian asked if Exhibit A should indicate that there should be no "on-site" sale of liquor. Staff replied that the applicant is not proposing on-site alcohol sales, but were only limited to no off-site sales. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:50 p.m. Commissioner Baker requirements. asked if the applicant understood the The applicant indicated his affirmation. Commissioner Weil stated that it was a good use for the area. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded to adopt Resolution No. 3067 approving Conditional Use Permit 92-026 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. 10. Conditional Use Permit 92-027 APPLICANTS: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: MR. THOMAS J. TOWLE 13 WEEPINGWOOD IRVINE, CA 92714 FIRST SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH OF TUSTIN 13841 RED HILL AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 13841 RED HILL AVENUE PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) DISTRICT Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 11 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION THE INSTALLATION OF A 32-SQUARE FOOT MONUMENT SIGN, WHICH IS 5'-6" IN HEIGHT, IN THE PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) DISTRICT Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission either: (1) adopt Resolution No. 3071 approving Conditional Use Permit 92-027, as submitted or revised, or (2) continue the public hearing until August 24, 1992 and instruct staff to re-notice Conditional Use Permit 92-027 to address additional access along Red Hill Avenue. Presentation: Joann Perry, Associate Planner Staff revised the continuation date to September 14, as moved. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:54 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:55 p.m. Commissioner Weil agreed to continue to September 14; that Saltarelli Realty indicates that the church is a good neighbor; but that the access agreement indicated that curb cuts would be installed in a timely manner, and hoped this would assist the situation. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Kasparian seconded to continue the public hearing until September 14, 1992 and instruct staff to re- notice Conditional Use Permit 92-027 to address additional access along Red Hill Avenue. Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS: 11. Determination 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 DETERMINE THAT THE POLE SIGN STRUCTURE AT 13922 RED HILL AVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABANDONED Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission Presentation: Dana Ogdon, Senior Planner The Director suggested opening the hearing so that the applicant could provide additional information. Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 12 Commissioner Weil asked if the sign was originally conforming. Staff affirmed that the sign was a conforming use; and that the removal of advertising conforms to the requirement of no off-site advertising. The Director stated that there is now a height limit for pole signs; that any structural alterations to the pole sign allows that the entire sign would have to conform; and any new use would have to submit to a Conditional Use Permit process. Commissioner Le Jeune abstained from voting on this issue. The Hearing was opened at 9:04 p.m. Steve Crooke, 2913 Pullman, Suite B, Santa Ana, attorney representing Mr. Pankey, stated that a number of communications were sent to Mr. Pankey, but none directed their concerns set forth in the report; that the applicant cannot use the sign until a commitment is made when remediation is begun; that Chevron has indicated that they have an application before the City; that they removed the empty canister from the top of the sign because it looked better without the sign; and that they can assure that there will be a tenant immediately after remediation equipment is installed. Commissioner Weil asked if 18 months had passed since initial correspondence; and how long has the lot been vacant. Mr. Crooke replied that the property has been vacant since September, 1990; and that the dates are correct on correspondence. Commissioner Kasparian asked if it was possible to inform staff of a new tenant; and if there is a tenant. Mr. Crooke affirmed, but that there is not a tenant; that Chevron has indicated that the remediation equipment will be installed by the end of September and completed within 9 months. Richard Walt, CB Communications Real Estate, stated that he is employed by Mr. Pankey to assist with leasing of the property; that there are several tenants in mind; gave a history of the property; stated that the external circumstances were not caused by Mr. Pankey, but Chevron; that the County has approved the plans and Chevron is applying for permits; and that a pole sign would be beneficial to a new tenant. The Director stated that the applicant presented information sup- porting that the site is considered abandoned and vacant, in terms of previous use; that it was suggested by the City Attorney that it would be difficult not to make findings of abandonment; and that a time frame could be extended to allow the applicant to remove the sign or apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Crooke stated that he would like to tie this to an approved set of plans signed by the City of Tustin specifying where the remediation equipment will be installed; that he could return with the appropriate application within 90 days of an approved building permit issued to Chevron. Staff stated that the City has not received a Conditional Use Permit to date for a soil remediation program, as required; that it would be required to come before the Planning Commission; and that Chevron has not contacted the City. Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 13 Mr. Crooke replied that the remediation plan was not approved until February, 1992; that Chevron has indicated that they have been handling these procedures with the County since September, 1990. Staff stated that soil remediation has nothing to do with the ability of the Planning Commission to approve development plans or the applicant to submit development plans; that the Orange County Health Care Agency will not release permits until the site is clear; and that the City requires a condition of clearance before building permits are issued. The Director stated that very few tenants would lease contaminated property; and that this deals with a new use. a John Shaw, City Attorney, stated that it would be better to allow more time before enforcement action is taken than to make a finding that this is not abandonment. Commissioner Baker asked what time frame could be offered. The Director replied that no more than one (1) year should be offered. Mr. Crooke replied that one (1) year is acceptable. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the time frame is from tonight. The Director replied that it would be no more than 12 months from this evening presuming that there is no abandonment finding made. Commissioner Weil stated that the poles are a non-conforming height and was concerned with new tenants' assumptions regarding the poles; and asked how to bring the poles into conformance. Commissioner Kasparian asked if it was reasonable to add a condition to the Resolution indicating that the abandonment has not been resolved; that abandonment will be reconsidered in the future. The Director suggested that a tenant notification can be recorded on the property stating that the sign is non-conforming; and that the prospective tenants recognize that the height might have to comply with the City's ordinances. Mr. Crooke agreed to the condition. Commissioner Kasparian stated that the sign might not be allowed for certain tenants. The Director responded that the information could be included in the notification; and that a copy of the Resolution would be provided with the notification requirement; and that staff would work with the applicant. Commissioner Kasparian stated that he thought the sign was not to be considered abandoned, but this issue could be reconsidered in 12 months. Mr. Shaw stated that his intent was to allow time for deferral of the enforcement and the abandonment issue. Staff stated that a notice would be required on the property that the issue was not resolved and modifications might be required. The Director stated that the Commission could take action on the presumption of abandonment; that there is information on the record Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 14 indicating that the use is vacant and the property is not being used for the use that was there; that it is not the sign abandonment, but the use abandonment which triggers the Sign Code requirements; that it would be difficult to make a finding that the use has not been abandoned. Mr. Crooke stated that the statute presents to the Commission a presumption of what abandonment is and that the Commission, in their reasonable discretion, can find that it is not abandoned; and that he thought that the Commission would hold the exercise of discretion for 12 months to determine if it was abandoned. Mr. Shaw stated that if an affirmative finding is made for abandonment, they would have to remove the sign; but they do not want to do that for a period of time; that it would be logical to table the issue; and that the motion should be that it is recommended that no enforcement action be taken at this time, for 12 months; and that the notice to be recorded on the property be created. Mr. Crooke stated that putting off the exercise of discretion, the Commission still has power over them. Commissioner Weil asked if the item could be revisited in one year. Mr. Shaw affirmed. The Director commented that a resolution would be presented reflecting Mr. Shaw's direction. Commissioner Weil moved, Kasalek seconded to defer action on the item for a period of 12 months. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Le Jeune abstained. NEW BUSINESS: STAFF CONCER~S: 12. Report on actions taken at Auqust 3, 1992 City Council meeting Staff reported on the subject agenda. Commissioner Weil asked about the large family day care center; and suggested the Planning Commission discuss with the City Council the reasons for requiring sidewalks in the industrial areas. The Director replied that the City Council modified the parking to indicate primary and secondary parking; and recommended agendizing the sidewalk issue for a future meeting to restate the issue. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Le Jeune -Requested staff to consider means of involving the Planning Commission earlier on major land use issues. -Would like to agendize term limitations for discussion at the next Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1992 Page 15 Commissioner Kasalek -Inquired about the status on the rail station Commissioner Kasparian -Suggested that staff consider an article in the local newspapers informing the public of the opportunity to voice issues at the Public Concerns point of the Planning Commission meetings. -Requested a new telephone list of City employees. Commissioner Baker -Inquired about the Police Department antenna. -Thanked staff for quickly handling the code enforcement issue at the corner of First Street and Newport Avenue. Commissioner Weil -Informed staff of a letter she received from McWhinney Berries regarding a refund for a permit. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kasparian moved, Weil seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:04 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. A Planning Commission workshop to discuss decorative flags at apartment complexes is scheduled prior to the Planning Commission meeting on August 24, 1992 at 5:30 p.m. at the Tustin Senior Center. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on August 24, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. at the Tustin Senior Center, 200 S. C Street, Tustin. A. L.!lBaker' Cha i r~an Kathleen Clancy Secretary