Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-13-92MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 13, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: 7:02 p.m., City Council Chambers 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 March 23, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. General Plan Consistency Determination for Tustin Unified School District School Site Purchases in East Tustin Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission determine that the Tustin Unified School District purchase of school sites within the East Tustin Specific Plan area are consistent with the Tustin Area General Plan by adopting Resolution No. 3018. Zone Change 92-001, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 91-288, Variance 91-019 and Design Review 91-048 Recommendation - Based upon previous Planning Commission direction, it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution Nos. 3014 and 3015 recommending to the City Council denial of the requested Zone Change and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and adopt Resolution No. 3016 denying the requested Design Review and Variance, as submitted or revised. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Kasparian requested that Item #6 from the Public Hearings be moved to the beginninq of Public Hearings. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1992 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6. Code Amendment 92-04 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO AMEND SPECIFIED SECTION OF ARTICLE 9, CHAPTER 4 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATING TO TEMPORARY SIGNS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3019 recommending to the City Council adoption of Code Amendment 92-04 modifying the regulations for temporary signs. Presentation: Sara Pashalides, Associate Planner Commissioner Weil asked if there was a way to track illegal banner use. Staff replied that the computer system would track use permits, and the code enforcement officer would be able to routinely check the banners which would have a sticker showing the dates allowed. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the $75 fee was paid annually. Staff replied that it could be paid once per year if the applicant submitted a schedule for the entire year; however, a reapplication fee would be required if the applicant requested additional banners after his original application. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if another fee would be required if an applicant wanted to extend a 60-day permit. The Director affirmed, and replied that the fee would be for recovery of administrative costs. Commissioner Baker anticipated some minor technical problems with the program. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:12 p.m. Angie Kardashian, President of Chamber of Commerce and owner of Angie's Cuisine Italiano, stated that the Chamber met with staff and was very happy with the changes, and that she has found that in every instance, the City is working and talking with the Chamber. The Public Hearing closed at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked the height requirement of a pole sign. Staff replied that a pole sign would have a 12 foot overall height and that this allows the applicant to turn the banner vertically. Commissioner Kasalek stated that the flexibility is good and it should promote keeping tax dollars in the City. Commissioner Weil suggested modifying the shaded area of Item 1.G, as moved. Commissioner Weil moved, Kasalek seconded to adopt Resolution No. 3019 recommending to the City Council adoption of Code Amendment Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1992 Page 3 92-04 modifying the regulations for temporary signs, revised as follows: Ordinance No. 1085, Page 2, item (g): insert the words "in writing," after "As an alternative, if specific non-consecutive dates can be identified" Motion carried 5-0. Tentative Tract Map 14396, Design Review 90-49, Conditional Use Permit 91-21 and Hillside Review 91-03 Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission table this item until further notice. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Staff suggested that this item be tabled and that it will be renoticed when the project is ready for consideration. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:22 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:23 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Weil seconded to table this item until further notice. Motion carried 5-0. 5. Extension of Temporary Use Permit 92-002 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MC WHINNEY BERRIES P.O. BOX 2526 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92647 BORCHARD RED HILL 4343 VON KARMAN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 14982 RED HILL AVENUE M (INDUSTRIAL) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION OF AN EXTENSION OF A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR AN ADDITIONAL THREE MONTHS RESULTING IN AN EXPIRATION DATE OF JULY 13, 1992, FOR THE SALE OF STRAWBERRIES IN AN OPEN-AIR STAND. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the request to extend Temporary Use Permit 92-002 by Minute Order. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Associate Planner Chad McWhinney, P.O. Box 4423, Huntington Beach, representative of McWhinney Berries, stated that the stand opened the weekend of March 6 based on the assumption that their permit would be processed if the application was received by Anne Bonner by 12:30; that the package was delivered by courier to ensure a timely delivery, but it was not received until 3:30. He continued with stating that the subcontractor set up the sign along with the stand contrary to direction given the subcontractor; that Tustin is the only City not allowing a temporary A-frame sign; and this is in joint venture with U.S. Youth Athletic Network. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1992 Page 4 Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the stand was in operation. Mr. McWhinney affirmed and that it was in compliance; that if he had been told to wait four (4) days for approval, they would have. Commissioner Weil stated that if this was the first time they had dealt with the city, the miscommunication could be understood; and that leaving the application to the last minute is not a good business practice, and they are therefore asking the City to approve their business practice. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:32 p.m. Staff refuted Mr. McWhinney's comments by noting the inconsistencies in the dates of the application; that there have been repeated requests for removal of the A-frame sign, which was finally confiscated. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the package was delivered on March 12. The Director responded that they received a letter from McWhinney on February 28; informed the him on Thursday of the code enforcement; and that staff could reconstruct the code enforcement records; that the application arrived on March 12. Commissioner Baker asked if the stand was built on March 6, and the application received on March 12. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the packet was complete could something be issued over the counter. The Director responded that it was unusual for any staff member to provide verbal approval; and noted that the Temporary Use Permit cannot be provided over the counter since conditions have to be typed and the site must be reviewed. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there were currently any problems with the stand. The Director replied that they are currently in conformity. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the Temporary Use Permit extension could be canceled at any time if there were further problems. The Director replied that a condition would have to be imposed on the permit detailing the procedure. Commissioner Weil asked about current signage; clarification of the dates of the extension. and for a The Director replied that they are allowed signage on each elevation; and that the extension would run 60 days from April 13. Commissioner Baker asked if they were in compliance with the CUP. Staff affirmed. The Director modified condition 10, added 11 and renumbered, as moved. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1992 Page 5 Commissioner Kasparian stated that he felt that the Commission was "being had;" that he feels better with the changes to the conditions; and that he felt strongly that the Commission should not be thought of as approving after the fact. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that he felt Commissioner Kasparian's comments exemplified the Commission's feelings about the procedure. Commissioner Weil stated that she would not support the extension, based on principals; that they are flexible with business people; and feel that they have been taken advantage of by the applicant. Commissioner Baker stated that he was not in disagreement with Commissioner Weil's comments, and informed the applicant of the City's opinion on their business practices. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasalek seconded to approve an extension of Temporary Use Permit 92-002 by Minute Order, with conditions revised as follows: Exhibit A, change item #1 to read: "This temporary use permit extension is valid from April 13, 1992 to June 15, 1992." Add a new item #11 "In the event of any violation of Conditions 9 or 10, the Community Development Department is authorized by the Planning Commission to immediately revoke the temporary use permit extension." and renumber the items that follow. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Weil opposing. OLD BUSINESS: 7. Consideration to Revoke Conditional Use Permit 90-09 (Mobile Recycling) Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner The Director commented that correspondence was received from an advocacy group, Californian's Against Waste, representing a portion of the recycling industry; and that the actions by the City are not against the recycling efforts, but this applicant. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if placement of three (3) bins is being discussed. Staff replied that the current application requests two (2) bins; that there have been three (3) placed in the recent past; that the current application is incomplete; that any discussion of two (2) bins must be deferred until a public hearing is scheduled; and that this discussion is whether to pursue revocation of the User Permit. Commissioner Kasparian asked if one of the complaints was due to lack of discipline of items outside of the bins; if he must confine all items when the facility is closed; and that they cannot force the recycler to be responsible for after-hour drop-offs. Staff affirmed, that the complaints are regarding storage of materials outside the bins during non-operating hours; that everything must be stored inside the bins; that this type of facility is attracting outside storage; and that the applicant has made arrangements with Alpha Beta personnel to store material that has been dropped off, but has not occurred in all instances. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1992 Page 6 Commissioner Le Jeune stated that most of the recycling stations in the area are either automated or open seven (7) days per week; that the two days this location is closed allows items to stack up; and that it is essential that someone at least be available to clean up seven (7) days per week. Commissioner Weil stated that this is similar situation to the previous applicant; that the City is very cooperative with recyclers, and this is the only one have problems; that she is in favor of revoking the permit and have the applicant present a new package; that the excess around the bins does not look nice in the City; and that other centers have done a beautiful job. Commissioner Le Jeune asked about parking lot striping. Staff replied that a striping plan was missing from the application. Commissioner Kasalek asked the cost of reapplication if the CUP is revoked. The Director replied that it would cost $525, plus environmental charges; but that the applicant will also have to pay the fee if amendments are made. Commissioner Kasalek asked about the discussion regarding increased pick-ups of the bins so that they could operate with one bin. Staff replied that the applicant provided information that they were not able to reduce the load to less than two (2) bins. Commissioner Baker asked how long it would take to process the amendment. Staff replied that it could possibly be scheduled for May 11. The Director stated that the Commission could take conditional action, as moved, that the permit would not be issued prior to May 11 if the application is complete, and would be canceled if no new permit was issued on May 11; and that this would give the applicant an incentive to proceed. Ralph Orseno, General Manager of Mobile Recycling, stated that he was responsible for placement of the second bin; that he chose to place it due to health and safety factors; and that pulling all containers off the site would upset the customers; that they have been taking more than they could hold; that most violations have been corrected; that they would appreciate more time for formulating their restriping plan; and that the owner's affidavit is in staff's possession; Commissioner Kasparian asked what the applicant intended to do about the drop-off items. Mr. Orseno replied that they can expand their hours, but by law they only have to be open 30 hours per week; and that even reverse recyclers have a problem with drop-off items; and can spend more time monitoring the site. Commissioner Weil moved, Kasparian seconded to adopt Resolution No. 3017 recommending to the City Council revocation of Conditional Use Permit 90-09 which authorized the establishment of a 170 square foot bulk vending recycling facility in the parking lot located at 14551 Red Hill Avenue, revised as follows: Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1992 Page 7 Resolution No. 3017, page 2, item II., at the end of the last sentence, 14551 Red Hill Avenue, delete the period and add the following: "provided that an amendment to Conditional Use Permit 90-09 is not issued by the Planning Commission prior to May 12, 1992." Motion carried 5-0 8. Freeway Construction Status Commissioner Weil asked if detour signs would be in place. The Director affirmed. Received and filed NEW BUSINESS= Design Review 92-020 (Amendment to Design Review 87-37) and Sign Code Exception 92-002) APPLICANTS: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: IRVINE RETAIL PROPERTIES COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 IKEA U.S. WEST INCORPORATED 350 SOUTH CRENSHAW BOULEVARD, SUITE A-207 TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90503 IRVINE RETAIL PROPERTIES 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 TUSTIN MARKET PLACE AND 2982 EL CAMINO REAL MIXED USE - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1 AND 3) PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15301 AND 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 1. APPROVAL OF AN ADDITIONAL BUILDING TOWER COLOR (TUSTIN YELLOW - CUSTOM COLOR) 2. APPROVAL OF OFFICIAL AND BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION (CORPORATE) FLAGS, AS PROPOSED Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission provide direction on Design Review 92-020, a request for approval of an additional building tower color, and adopt Resolution No. 3020 approving Sign Code Exception 92-002. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the color chosen; and which part of the tower would be painted. Staff indicated the color on the color board as being the accent yellow; and that the entire tower would be painted. Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of Item 1.4 of Resolution No. 3020. Staff replied that the applicant can pick from any of the flags listed; that they are allowed four (4) flags, with one (1) corporate flag; but would like five (5) flags with two (3) corporate flags. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1992 Page 8 Commissioner Baker asked if there were any regulations regarding the State flag. Jim Rourke, city Attorney, replied negatively. Commissioner Kaspa~ian asked if any other store in the Market Place could make the same request. Staff replied that they could not without staff approval; and that the sign code at the Market Place allows four (4) flags on a per parcel basis. The Director stated that the sign code is not isolated to businesses, but per property; and that there would not be a situation where every business would request the exception. Commissioner Weil suggested that the sign code be amended in the future; and that a building this size would look better with five (5) flags. Commissioner Kasparian commented that his reaction to the yellow color was negative; if the applicant would consider another suggestion; and suggested having the logo in yellow and paint the tower another color as a compromise. Pat Smith, Plymouth Commons, Plymouth Meeting, PA, representing IKEA Property, Inc., stated that this was as close to the IKEA yellow as possible with the palette provided; that they have compromised by not including their corporate blue color; and that their corporate colors are very important. He continued with noting that their store is their best marketing tool and want the color on the building. Commissioner Baker asked if other locations were blue and yellow. Mr. Smith replied that the east coast locations were all blue and yellow; and that the towers at Burbank and Fontana were blue and there were blue and yellow accents; and that the sign will be blue in the daytime and yellow at night. Commissioner Weil stated that it looks like a neon-lemon-yellow and would prefer the color of the accent wedge on the monolith; and that this is a very successful center that looks like a circus. Staff replied that the accent wedge would be more like the approved marigold color. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she did not find the yellow color offensive; that the colors are pulling together; and that the Market Place is different from any other center. Commissioner Le Jeune suggested not adding to the gaudiness by staying with the approved colors, and not add the yellow. Commissioner Weil moved, Kasalek seconded to approve an additional building tower color for Design Review 92-020. Motion carried 3-2 with Kasparian and Le Jeune being opposed. Commissioner Weil moved, Le Jeune seconded to adopt Resolution No. 3020 approving Sign Code Exception 92-002. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1992 Page 9 10. IRVINE BUSINESS COMPLEX The Planning Commission held a discussion regarding the density of the plan and proposed traffic effect. Received and filed 11. Modification to Design Review 90-52 APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MARK J. PALMER, ARCHITECT 8350 MELROSE AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90069 LAWRENCE HARTMAN 2535 SOUTH FAIRFAX AVENUE CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232 621 WEST FIRST STREET FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN COMMERCIAL AS PRIMARY USE; SECONDARY USES HOTEL & OFFICE AS THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) TO DELETE CONDITION NO. 3.2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2882 WHICH REQUIRES A MASONRY WALL AT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3021 approving the deletion of Condition No. 3.2 of Resolution No. 2882, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasalek asked if the carports were demolished in the future, would the applicant be responsible for a new wall at that time. The Director replied that the area is not zoned for residential; that a new applicant would be a business and not require a wall. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasalek seconded to adopt Resolution No. 3021 approving the deletion of Condition No. 3.2 of Resolution No. 2882 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS: 12. Report on actions taken at April 6, 1992 city Council meeting Staff reported on the subject agenda. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Baker -Congratulated Commissioner Weil on moderating two workshops at the League of California Cities -Reminded everyone to vote Commissioner Weil -Notified staff that they do an excellent job as compared to other cities' staff Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1992 Page 10 -Noted that there are freeway signs out to San Joaquin that identify business according to type that are paid for by businesses -Asked about political signs that are taken off the public right-of-way Commissioner Kasparian -Asked if the Planning Commission could be included more in the early stages of projects Commissioner Le Jeune -Asked if the strawberry stand on Newport Avenue and E1 Camino Real are under the same owner Commissioner Kasalek -Let staff know that residents appreciated the CIPP meeting and she believes that staff does a great job ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kasalek moved, Le Jeune seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on April 27, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Kathleen Clancy Secretary