Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-11-92MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NAY LL~ ~992 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Baker, Le Jeune, Kasparian, Kasalek and Well 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 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 April 27, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. 2. Final Tract Maps 14381 and 14567 APPLICANT/ OWNER: CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES 5 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOCATION: LOTS 2 & 3, TRACT 13627 ZONING: EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN: MEDIUM-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED MINISTERIALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15268(b) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 13.761 ACRES INTO 94 NUMBERED LOTS AND 22 LETTERED LOTS ACCOMMODATING 93 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS AND A RECREATION FACILITY 2. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 8.861 ACRES INTO 62 NUMBERED LOTS AND 13 LETTERED LOTS ACCOMMODATING 62 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 Page 2 Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3025 forwarding Final Tract Maps 14381 and 14567 to the City Council recommending approval. Commissioner Weil moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. Conditional Use Permit 92-012 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: EMCON ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 7894 BURBANK, CA 91510 ARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY 17315 STUDEBAKER ROAD CERRITOS, CA 90701 14244 NEWPORT AVENUE COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT (CG) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO AUTHORIZE THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF SELF-CONTAINED MOBILE UNIT TO EXTRACT AND TREAT CONTAMINATED VAPORS FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14244 NEWPORT AVENUE FOR SIX TO 24 MONTHS Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1.Adopt Resolution No. 3027, certifying the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for the project; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 3028, approving Conditional Use Permit 92-012, subject to conditions contained in Exhibit A, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Dan Fox, Associate Planner Staff made changes to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3028, as moved. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the exhaust stack was similar to the one on the unit at E1 Camino and Red Hill and if it would have problems regarding paint peeling due to heat. Staff replied that an outer shell would be installed that was not susceptible to the high heat generated. Commissioner Weil asked if this type of procedure had been done before so close to residences; and asked about notification. Staff replied that this procedure had been done elsewhere by another similar manufacturer, sometimes closer to residences, without complaint; and that notices were sent to owners within 300 feet, and posted on the property and at City Hall. Commissioner Weil stated that the area was mostly populated by renters and asked if a notice had been sent to the office. Staff replied that he could not verify if the apartment manager received a copy, and that these units do not have a formal clubhouse for posting. Commissioner Baker asked how a renter would report a problem. Staff replied that the City would respond to any problems and determine if the applicant was in compliance; and if they receive Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 Page 3 any complaints regarding noise, the applicant may have to decrease the noise level below 60 dBa. The Director stated that the noise level was allowed at 60 dBa on site, and 50-55 dBa at the residences; that a noise survey would be performed at the property line of the complainants if complaints are received. Commissioner Kasparian asked, if these systems have been installed elsewhere, why the City does not know what the decibel level would be at 100 feet. The Director responded that there is data from other sites, but not other manufacturers; and that the applicant will have to provide additional noise tests prior to being allowed to operate. Commissioner Kasparian suggested that the last sentence of Item 4.lA of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3028 be removed. Staff affirmed and changed, as moved. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the City would test the noise level if an apartment renter or business complained, or if it was the responsibility of the applicant. Staff replied that the applicant posts a deposit for any noise testing required. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian asked what the applicant expected the noise level to be at 100 feet; and if the mechanical muffler would affect the schedule. Roy Hauqer, Emcon Southwest, representing the applicant, assumed the noise level would be at 25 to 40 dBa's at 100 feet; that they will be utilizing an extra large muffler and acoustic panels on the exhaust stack; that the nearest property line is approximately 50 feet from the engine; and that the muffler does make the engine more inefficient; but was unsure about effect on the time required. Commissioner Weil asked if the machine would be operating and the station would be open 24 hours per day; suggested an information sign with a phone number for assistance be installed in case of a problem; and asked about automatic shutdown in case of emergency. Mr. Hauqer replied that problems referred to ARCO would be referred directly to him; and that the on-board computer has an automatic shut-down procedure in case of emergency. Commissioner Kasalek suggested people would complain to the Police Department regarding noise. The Director suggested including requirement of a sign in the conditions, as moved; and noted that the Police Department does not have the authority to respond to noise violations, but would notify the Community Development Department. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the applicant was required to restore the property to the original condition when completed. Mr. Hauger replied that this is not tank excavation, but does require trenches to existing wells which would be repaired in one to two weeks; that they try not close stations; that equipment will Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 Page 4 be removed; but he could not promise anything at this phase, because this phase may not satisfy the regulatory criteria. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the administrative procedure to confirm that the applicant has provided written notification to the Fire Department. Staff replied that the Fire Department requires the notification prior to issuance of the building permits. The Director stated that the Fire Department executes the plans. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:26 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune agreed with the application, and stated that staff had done all possible to safeguard the residences. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Kasparian seconded to adopt Resolution No. 3027, certifying the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for the project. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Kasparian seconded to adopt Resolution No. 3028, approving Conditional Use Permit 92-012, subject to conditions contained in Exhibit A revised as follows: Exhibit A, Page 3, Item 3.3, line 9 of paragraph: change the word "may" to "shall" Exhibit A, Page 3, Item 4.1, A.: work without permits" delete " , including any fees for Exhibit A, Page 3, Add Condition 3.4 to read: "A minimum 24 inch X 24 inch sign noting a telephone number with hours of operation for complaints on the vapor recovery extraction system shall be provided on the existing fence enclosure proposed for the equipment." Exhibit A, Page 4, Item 5.2 after the statement "The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits" insert the following: "and approvals, if applicable," Motion carried 5-0. 4. Conditional Use Permit 92-015 APPLICANT: CHEVRON U.S.A, INC. P.O. BOX 2833 LA HABRA, CA 90632 REPRESENTATIVE/ AGENT: BURKE ENTERPRISES 16182 GOTHARD #M HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647-3642 LANDOWNER: JOANNE STIFFLER TRUST STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALF. P.O. BOX 7611 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94120 14501 RED HILL AVENUE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2) DISTRICT LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: 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 VSAT ANTENNA (COMMUNICATION DISH ANTENNA) Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 Page 5 Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 92-015 by adoption of Resolution No. 3024, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Joann Perry, Associate Planner Staff made a change to Item 4.1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3024, as moved. Commissioner Weil asked if they anticipated problems with additional antennas being installed without permits. Staff replied that they are aware of all antennas in Tustin and that the applicant would be required to meet all discretionary approvals and fees. Commissioner Baker asked if there were any U.L. requirements. Staff referred the question to the applicant. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:34 p.m. Stewart Gelfand, Burke Enterprises, stated that all U.L. approvals were already obtained by Hughes Network Systems. The Public Hearing closed at 7:35 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Weil seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 92-015 by adoption of Resolution No. 3024, revised as follows: Exhibit A, Item 4.1, A, after Department: change period to a comma and insert "including any fees for work without permits." Motion carried 5-0. 5. Conditional Use Permit 92-014 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MOBILE RECYCLING CORP. P.O. BOX 125 STANTON, CA 90680 ATTENTION: MR. RALPH ORSINO INTERPACIFIC ASSET MANAGEMENT CO. 5505 GARDEN GROVE BLVD, SUITE 150 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683 ATTENTION: MR. WILLIAM GARRETT 14551 RED HILL AVENUE C-2 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-09 INCREASING THE NUMBER OF STORAGE BINS FROM ONE TO TWO BINS AND OCCUPYING AND ADDITIONAL TWO PARKING SPACES TO ESTABLISH A 340 SQUARE FOOT BULK VENDING RECYCLING FACILITY WITHIN THE PARKING LOT OF THE ALPHA BETA SHOPPING CENTER Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner I ' ll~ 1111-- 1 -r -T-- ' Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 Page 6 Commissioner Weil asked if there was any response from Alpha Beta. Staff replied that they have had no contact with Alpha Beta on any proceedings; and that they have strictly been working with Mobile Recycling Corporation. Commissioner Kasparian suggested relocating the bins to the area of the parking lot running parallel to Red Hill Avenue, away from drive aisles; and that some compromise might need to be made for recycling. Staff replied that the bins were originally positioned in that location; that the Commission at that time was concerned with aesthetics when located there; and that pick-up of the bins would require up to 10 spaces; and that it might pose a safety hazard. The Director stated that relocation would require a variance, and that the Commission was unable to consider that this evening. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that the situation was much worse when the bins were located parallel to Red Hill due to vision impairment and rapid ingress. Commissioner Kasalek asked what types of materials were processed in the reverse vending machines; and if there had been any recent complaints regarding outside storage. Staff replied that all California Redemption Value (CRV) materials, glass and plastics were processed, but not paper; and that there were no complaints, recently. Commissioner Le Jeune commented that the applicant has not been following the conditions with one bin; and asked if they had been more cooperative since the last meeting. Staff replied that the applicant has made some progress, but has not been able to fully comply. Commissioner Baker asked if the outside storage of materials creates an attractive nuisance and if it was the operator's responsibility. Staff replied that the applicant has no idea when items are being dropped-off; and noted that the facility was not open during the peak hours. Commissioner Le Jeune commented that the center does not pay for newspapers, but that it was taking them. Commissioner Kasalek asked why people dropped cans off without redemption, since they could easily be left at the curbside for pickup. Commissioner Kasparian suggested posting a sign stating that it was not a dumping site. The Director stated that operator should be responsible for maintenance of the site; that most people are customers of the retail center or residents in the area; that the stores are only required to have a minimum of reverse vending machines; that State Law allows the Planning Commission to set standards for recycling centers (except vending machines); and that Tustin's standards are no different than other communities. Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 Page 7 Commissioner Kasparian asked if the stores were required to pick up leftover materials. The Director replied that with a large collection facility, the Planning Commission could set standards via the Conditional Use Permit process; and that the CUP would run with the operator and the landlord. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the store was opened 24 hours. Staff affirmed. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:02 p.m. Ralph Orsino, General Manager for Mobile Recycling Corporation, clarified a few issues regarding the reverse vending machines by stating that grocery chains do not like spills on the sidewalks, people block drive aisles and handicapped spaces; that if required to leave this site, Alpha Beta would allow Stater Brothers to absorb the facility instead of installing reverse vending machines. He continued with stating that placement in the rear was considered for safety and aesthetic reasons; that locating parallel to Red Hill would be hazardous and require more spaces; agreed to operating 7 days per week; that there is not a lot of margin on recycled materials, but have discontinued taking paper and mixed plastics; that reverse vending machines do not take everything, only CRV materials and create a lot of drop-off items; that they are handling 50,000 beverage containers which would take much longer to process through a machine than their facility; that recycling is not pretty; and that a storefront operation would be ideal, but costly. Commissioner Kasalek asked about slots in the doors for drop-off items. Mr. Orsino replied that garbage and matches are a problem. Commissioner Weil stated that most people recycle for redemption and to do the right thing; and that the City has provided for recycling in the trash pick-up, and asked why people still drop items off. Mr. Orsino stated that they distribute flyers regarding Tustin's trash service; and that people leave materials for support of recycling service; that all of their money is made on scrap materials, not CRV items. Commissioner Kasparian asked the operator's relationship with Alpha Beta and if they are required to pick up items after hours. Mr. Orsino replied that the trash pick up was the responsibility of Mobile Recycling, but would be pleased by their assistance. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the workers were the same each week; and why they are not open Sundays. Mr. Orsino replied that the employees had been there quite a while; that they were closed on Sundays for their employees, and because some of the competitors are closed on Sundays. He continued with suggesting they offer summer hours where they close at dark, since there is no electricity in the units; that 57 hours suggested by staff was not possible; and suggested either hours of 12:30 to 6:30 Monday through Friday, 10:30 to 4:30 on Saturday, and 11:00 to 2:00 on Sunday, or 10:30 to 4:30 7 days per week. Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 Page 8 Commissioner Weil suggested that 10:30 to 4:30 were not good hours due to people being at work; and that 12:30 to 6:30 would cover lunchtime and people returning home; and asked who generated the petition, and what period it covered. Mr. Orsino replied that he generated the petition for support over a period of a week to 10 days. Commissioner Baker asked what location the operator would suggest other than this location; and stated that he was sympathetic to the difficulty of the problem. Mr. Orsino replied that other than at the rear, this was the best location. George Willouqhby, Area Supervisor for Mobile Recycling, stated that Mobile Recycling has a good reputation for customer service; that they have been well received in Tustin by the recycling public; that they create business for neighboring merchants; that reverse vending machines only accept CRV materials; that the machines frequently jam and run out of change; that machines are not acceptable to the fast-paced public; that they are willing to locate anywhere satisfactory; and that they have made inroads with drop-off debris. Commissioner Weil asked why no response has been received from Alpha Beta in support of the facility; and asked why a non-CRV item would be taken by this facility if they are not paid for them, and if they are sold for scrap. Mr. Willoughby replied that he deals with the store manager only; and that at the Stanton Yard, the items are sorted; that their criteria for placement of the bins is based on safety of ingress and egress and that they are not located where anyone would stand in a drive aisle. Mr. Orsino nodded his affirmation that the items are sold for scrap. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:32 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked who was responsible for restriping the parking lot. Staff replied that the operator was required to mark the parking lot from the previous approval, and are now required to restripe to clarify conflicting markings. Commissioner Kasparian asked why the operator was responsible for restriping the handicapped spaces that the store was putting shopping carts in. Staff replied that the handicapped spaces were not properly installed in 1990 and must be corrected. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a clarification of the City's existing recycling program and requirements. The Director replied that there is an existing contract that requires the City to meet the needs of AB939; that the City gets credit for bulk recycling at other locations; and that a recycling center (with a minimum of a reverse vending system) must be installed in a convenience zone; and that the City gets the same Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 Page 9 amount of credit whether the recycled material is in the trash pick-up or through a facility. Commissioner Kasalek agreed that the vending machines tend to block the driveways; that the present location of the bins is not in an area that is heavily travelled; that the faster service of this type of facility is preferable; that there is a minority that drops off items; that the service is needed, though not beautiful; that they need to work further with Alpha Beta to police the area; and that she would approve the item. Commissioner Baker asked if it would be appropriate to install a sign regarding no dropping off of material. Staff replied that item 4.2 has been provided to address that issue. Commissioner Weil stated that this facility is too large for this location; that it should be in an industrial park or as a store- front; and asked why it could not be located behind the stores. Staff replied that they must be located 75 feet from the property line. Commissioner Weil stated that Goodwill has a truck located behind the stores; that the last CUP had the same conditions and she was concerned that they would not follow through; that additional hours would help, but should coincide with peak traffic; that this facility is not compatible with the area and is not an appropriate land use. Commissioner Kasparian stated that he would not drive to an industrial area to drop items off; that he reacts negatively to reverse vending machines; and is pleased with the general responsibility of Mr. Orsino; and would be willing to approve with additional hours. Commissioner Baker stated that the bins are not noticeable unless driving in parking lot; extended hours would allow for better control of trash; and that he hoped that the problems of the past two years would not continue. Commissioner Le Jeune asked the type of bins located behind Alpha Beta; assumed that noise was the reason for the 75 foot distance requirement; and that he would like to see the bins located in the rear. Staff replied that they are normal trash bins for the center; that development standards have been considered and trash and debris are also generated. The Director stated that sections of the code are assigned to use; that the Commission of several years ago did not want to deviate from the standards, and that this Commission would have to amend the code; that there could be more frequent pick-ups, cars driving in and out all day; that the apartment project abutting this site has a predominant elderly population. Commissioner Kasalek asked Goodwill. the difference between this and The Director replied that it may be unauthorized; but that it provides a similar trailer facility. Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 Page 10 Commissioner Le Jeune stated that the lack of response from the applicant in the past does not create confidence; and that he would vote to deny the project. Commissioner Weil moved, Le Jeune seconded to deny authorization to amend Conditional Use Permit 90-09 increasing the number of storage bins from one to two bins and occupying and additional two parking spaces to establish a 340 square foot bulk vending recycling facility within the parking lot of the Alpha Beta shopping center. Motion fails 2-3 with Commissioners Baker, Kasalek and Kasparian beinq opposed. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Resolution No. 3030-A authorizing amending Conditional Use Permit 90-09 increasing the number of storage bins from one to two bins and occupying and additional two parking spaces to establish a 340 square foot bulk vending recycling facility within the parking lot of the Alpha Beta shopping center, revised as follows: Exhibit A, Page 2, Item 2.6, change hours of operation to read: "Seven days a week, 12:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. from April 15 - October 15 and 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. October 15 - April 15." Commissioner Kasparian asked why Alpha Beta was responsible. Commissioner Weil asked if it was legal. John Shaw, city Attorney, responded that the primary duty was with the operator, unless Alpha Beta was a co-applicant. Motion carried 3-2 with Commissioners Weil and Le Jeune being opposed. 6. Use Determination 92-002 & Conditional Use Permit 92-016 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE STARTING LINE, INC. % DEVELOPMENT DESIGN SOURCE 18572 MEDFORD AVENUE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 BURNETT-EHLINE PROPERTIES 4695 MAC ARTHUR COURT, SUITE 880 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 13011 NEWPORT AVENUE, SUITE 102 C-2 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1. A DETERMINATION THAT A RETAIL/FITNESS TRAINING FACILITY IS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE SIMILAR TO OTHER CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES LISTED IN THE C-2 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT; AND, 2. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A RETAIL/FITNESS TRAINING FACILITY WITHIN AN EXISTING TENANT SPACE. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve by Minute Order Use Determination 92-002, establishing that a retail/fitness training facility is a conditionally permitted use under provisions of the C-2 (Central Commercial) District; and, 2. Adopt Resolution No. Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 Page 11 3029, approving Conditional Use Permit 92-016, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Dan Fox, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of training hours. Staff replied that the peak training period would be before work, which is opposite of peak retail hours. The Director suggested that the Use Determination be made before discussion. Commissioner Weil asked if this would apply to other C-2 locations. The Director affirmed, through the CUP process. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:09 p.m. Commissioner Baker asked if anyone else was available to testify. John Killen, architect, replied negatively. Commissioner Kasparian asked why the occupancy load of 58 people was relevant if only 4 people would be training at one time, plus retail. Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of the occupancy requirement. The Director replied that the Building Code calculations for retail and training allow 58 people in the building; that the parking would not be affected; and that based on parking study, 18 would be allowed in training center and 40 in retail. Commissioner Baker asked if 6 cars would be allowed for retail and 6 for training; and that there would be no problem in the morning. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Kasparian asked about the location of this business; and present condition of parking in the center. The Director stated that it is located next to Digital Ear; that the center has been short of restaurant parking; that contingency conditions were imposed; and that temporary measures have improved the site. Staff replied that Nieuport 17 has valet parking which was a condition of their variance. Mr. Killen thanked staff for their help with the application. Commissioner Weil moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Determination 92-002, establishing a retail/fitness training facility is a conditionally permitted use under provisions of the C-2 (Central Commercial) District by Minute Order. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Weil moved, Kasalek seconded to adopt Resolution No. 3029, approving Conditional Use Permit 92-016 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 Page 12 OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: 7. Design Review 92-005 APPLICANT: MR. TERRANCE HICKEY TRINITY CHRISTIAN CENTER 2442 MICHELLE DRIVE TUSTIN, CA 92680 REPRESENTATIVE/ AGENT: MR. WILLIAM E. SKINNER WILLIAM E. SKINNER & ASSOCIATES 3185-F AIRWAY AVENUE COSTA MESA, CA 92626 LAND OWNER: W T INVESTMENTS 20603 EARL STREET TORRANCE, CA 90503 14101 FRANKLIN AVENUE PLANNED COMMUNITY - INDUSTRIAL (PC-I) DISTRICT LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1) TO AUTHORIZE THE MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL OFFICE BUILDING AND PARKING AREA, INCLUDING A DEVIATION FROM THE IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX DISTRICT REGULATION, SECTION VJ, TO ALLOW A TRUCK STORAGE AREA AND OVERHEAD SERVICE DOOR TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 70 FOOT SETBACK Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Design Review 92-005 by adoption of Resolution 3031, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Joann Perry, Associate Planner Commissioner Weil asked if the Irvine Company has signed off on this application. Staff replied that as a condition of approval, the applicant must comply with all of the conditions as per a letter received from the Irvine Company; and that the property complies with all conditions. Commissioner Kasparian commented on a phrase stating that there were "utility clear sidewalks." Staff replied that Public Works has specifically added to all Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Weil seconded to approve Design Review 92-005 by adoption of Resolution 3031 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS: 8. Report on actions taken at May 4, 1992 City Council meeting Staff reported on the subject agenda. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the ruling on roosters would open the City up to allowing other noise generating birds. Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1992 Page 13 The Director was not certain at this time. COI{I(ISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Weil -Notified staff of shoe store in Stater Bros. shopping center abusing use of signs with banners, window painting, etc. Commissioner Kasparian -Commented on City Council action for zone change on Newport and Warren. Commissioner Le Jeune -Commented that another Tustin Business Promotion meeting took place. -Asked if the City has considered a 24-hour answering machine. -Asked if staff could approve any forthcoming requests for VSAT antennae rather than bringing them to the Commission. Commissioner Kasalek -Inquired about the undergrounding of utilities in the city. Commissioner Baker -Congratulated city staff on doing a great job with the Chamber of Commerce to promote business in Tustin. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kasparian moved, Le Jeune seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on May 26, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Kathleen Clancy Secretary