Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-23-92MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23v 1992 CALL TO ORDER: 7:01 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Baker, Le Jeune, Kasparian, Kasalek and Weil 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: (ALLMATTERS 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 9, 1992 Planning Commission meetinq. 2. Correction to Planninq Commission Resolution No. 2710 Recommendation - It is recommended that the Commission readopt a revised Resolution No. 2710. Planning Diane Romanchick, 18451 Warren Avenue, asked staff to determine the time flights should cease arriving at John Wayne Airport; and that she understood 10:00 p.m. as the time limit. The Director replied that there is a 10:00 p.m. curfew but that an occasional flight will be delayed and require a late arrival time; and that the tower would respond to written requests for information regarding specific flights. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that flights regularly arrived after 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Weil understood the time limit to be 10:30 p.m. Commissioner Baker stated that since there were conflicting curfews stated, the matter should be looked into. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kaspar~an seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. Large Family Day Care Home (LFD 92-001) APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CYNTHIA SUE BIERY 1792 LANCE DRIVE TUSTIN, CA 92680 1792 LANCE DRIVE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3009 approving the permit to operate a large family day care home at the property located at 1792 Lance Drive. Presentation: Anne Bonner, Associate Planner Commissioner Weil asked about the hours of operation. Staff replied that the license states the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and would be day care only, not overnight. Commissioner Baker asked how it would be handled if the neighbors questioned the noise level. Staff replied that if the noise level is determined to be excessive, an investigation could be conducted; that it would be on a complaint basis; and that staff is only looking at the location and the facility, not the license; and that if there were questions regarding care should be referred to Social Services. Commissioner Kasparian asked if noise complaints were measured in the same way as the original tests. Staff replied that a specialist determines the base ambient noise level at the property line consistently. Commissioner Weil asked if there were any other day care centers in this neighborhood. Staff replied negatively. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:08 p.m. Frank Porter, 1791 Andrews Street, as an adjacent property owner suggested that adding an additional 4-6 children to the home would increase the noise level that was already disruptive; that there are already two school playgrounds including soccer and Little League next to them; that the noise from 12 children so close to their home would affect them; that they have a day-time sleeper at home; and that the noise from all factors adds up to an environment other than the quiet neighborhood they came to Tustin for. Carol Sorcible, adjacent property owner, stated that she drove by three other large day care homes in the area and noted that none had schools within a three-block radius; that they have two schools within a half-block radius providing constant noise; that the home where a child died in a large day care home indicates that the homes are not adequately monitored; that she had presented a Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 3 petition signed by 40 neighbors indicating that they felt a day care center with 6 children was sufficient. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that he felt badly about the other noise factors in the area, but that the State encourages adoption of day care centers; that the Commission has limited options; and that there was nothing compelling him to vote against the issue. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she hoped that the applicant would be open to listening to complaints registered by neighbors; that a noise study was completed and she approved the item. Commissioner Weil stated that she realized the noise machines cannot determine what is causing extra noise, that the extra noise from the schools is perceived as a problem; that they have to make their decision on the facts; and that she would like to sympathize with the opponents, but that the State gives them no choice. Commissioner KasDarian stated that there is a great need for day care centers; that the increase in ambient noise level is increased by only 1 dBa for the additional 5-6 children; and that he is in favor of the item. Commissioner Baker stated that it was difficult to imagine that the increase in children would only create a 1 dBa difference, and that the neighbors might want to verify the level occasionally; that the requirements are mandated by the State and the Commission has to approve these items; that the speakers have legitimate concerns; and that it behooves the applicant to be a good neighbor. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the permit to operate a large family day care home at the property located at 1792 Lance Drive by adopting Resolution No. 3009 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Zone Chanqe 92-001, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 91-288, Variance 91-019 and Design Review 91-048 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: J. P. GREUBEL COMPANY 19642 VISTA DEL VALLE SANTA ANA, CA. 92705 IRA AND PATRICIA THELEN TRUSTEES OF THE THELEN TRUST 14442 HOLT AVENUE SANTA ANA, CA. 92705 14442 HOLT AVENUE E-4 (RESIDENTIAL ESTATE DISTRICT) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1. AUTHORIZATION TO CHANGE THE CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION FROM E-4 (RESIDENTIAL ESTATE DISTRICT) TO R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT); 2. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE FOUR NUMBERED LOTS AND ONE LETTERED LOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING FOUR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING UNITS; 3. APPROVAL OF VARIANCES TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO 5 FEET ON TWO EASTERLY FLAG LOTS AND TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FROM 60 FEET TO WIDTHS BETWEEN 14 AND 45 FEET ON ALL FOUR LOTS; AND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT. Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Anne Bonner, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of ownership of the property regarding the Mary Lewis Trust; and that three homes could easily be placed on this property without a zone change, and asked why it was not presented. Staff replied that the records indicate that the property has been owned recently by the Thelens; and that staff did not receive a submittal for three lots, but that it was mathematically possible. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:32 p.m. Greg Bennett, Donnelly-Bennett Architects, stated that three lots would be larger lots, but would require similar variances as requested; presented illustrations of the lot layout proposing a shortened setback and larger backyard; that they could adhere to City standards, but felt that a larger backyard was in the best interest of the owners. Commissioner Weil asked if the illustrations were received by staff prior to the meeting; and that they are being asked to make a decision based on his opinion. Mr. Bennett replied negatively; provided a commentary on the illustrations; stated that the theme of the houses is compatible with the neighborhood, and that they have received the support of the neighbors to the east and across the channel. Phyllis Spivey, realtor representing the property owner and the applicant stated that the property has not had a change of ownership in 42 years. Bill Toth stated that Mary Lewis owned the property to the east and that she was only a neighbor of the Thelens. Carol McCauley, 13591 Saigon Lane, representing the Foothills Community Association, presented a two-page letter to the Commission giving a history of the area; presented an elevation illustration showing the elevations from each street of the proposed homes versus existing structures on the site; and that she was requesting that the Commission not approve the zone change. Diane Romanchick, stated that she was not within the 300 foot notification radius; that she moved to the area for the style of the homes; that a six-block fence would be out of scheme; that these are Mediterranean style homes, not ranch style homes, and are unsuitable for the area; that the 1959 CC&Rs for the area which expired disallowed 2-story homes; that there would be insufficient parking; that the high speed of travel on Holt creates a safety issue and has not been addressed; and that the zone change will set a precedent. Jerry Greubel, applicant, stated that they did not want to create a condominium project; that Holt is no longer a country road; that building single-family homes on Holt is financially risky; that the project would provide a transition from the condominiums; that they Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 5 had special meetings with adjacent residents; that they are providing a larger lot with a much smaller home than being developed in Tustin Ranch; that proposed homes would increase the value of the existing housing stock and allow neighbors to obtain higher loans for remodeling; that people do not want a half-acre lot on Holt, but want part of the neighborhood that they can maintain. He continued with presentation of a slide show of Holt Avenue and similar projects in the North Tustin area that have been recently developed. He stated that he was not involved in the previous project; is not a big developer, and that he has lived in and is raising his family in Tustin. Elena Descampo, 14332 Holt Avenue, stated that she is opposed to the project; that her family is not happy with the busy street; and is against two-story houses. Richard Katnik, Marathon Triad Carpets, stated he works for the builder and that the builder cares about the community and is building within his own community; he is the only builder he knows who pays his bills on time; that the area needs homes that the people can afford; that the difference between three and four homes is price due to cost of land; that this project will bring employment to Tustin. Tom Weston, Weston's Redhill Glass & Mirror, Inc., stated that he was proud to be a subcontractor to this builder; that the project will bring money and employment to Tustin; that small businesses like his cannot compete for grants or work in Irvine and have to rely on small builders for work; that the real estate values will increase and provide taxes to Tustin; and that the project is a win-win situation. Betty Koines, 18022 Weston Place, Tustin, stated that the City should adhere to their decision not to rezone this area as promised with the annexation; that rezoning would set a precedent for the area; that the neighborhood doesn't need to be improved by reducing the lot size. Richard Poe, 265 S. Pacific, an eight-year resident, stated that Tustin needs the work; that this builder builds good homes and pays his bills. Diane Romanchick, stated that rebuilding on the lot is not the problem, that the style is incorrect; that 90% of the slide presentation by the builder was irrelevant; that the driveway shown was dissimilar to what is proposed; asked who will take care of the driveway, and if a homeowners association would be required; that if the builder was interested in the neighborhood's opinions, he would have gone further than the 300 feet radius; and that a "sympathy vote" for the elderly homeowner was uncalled for. Otto Hahn, 14431 Holt Avenue, 40-year neighbor across Holt from Thelens stated that he came to Tustin for the "country life" that the City offered then; that the condominiums to the south are not an asset to the neighborhood; that the area was originally zoned R- 1 and that the neighbors had it changed to E-4 to control the lot size; that this is an illegal zone change since they are asking for only a small pocket to be changed; that three lots would not require a zone change or variances and would provide more yard area; that a zone change sets a precedent; that the application constitutes a violation of what was promised with the annexation. Phyllis Spivey, North Tustin resident with a real estate business, stated that the sale of the property is contingent on the approval Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 6 of the project plans; that Mrs. Thelen received distasteful phone calls, etc. when she presented her original plan proposing condominiums on the site; that Mrs. Thelen could not attend the meeting due to health reasons and presented a tape from Mrs. Thelen. She continued with stating that many lots nearby have less than 10,000 square feet; presented letters of support from neighbors; and that most of the people opposed to the project do not vote or pay taxes to the City of Tustin. Mrs. Thelen, owner, stated on tape that the neighbors who objected to the condominiums wanted single-family homes, so she has worked with a builder who will provide them; that the builder will build beautiful homes on the property; that Mr. Hahn wants to look at her trees, but she should not have to retain a park for his benefit; that the financial burden of the home is more than she can handle; and asked for the Commission's approval. Charles Jay Thelen, 4304 72nd Street, Tacoma, Washington, nephew of the Thelens, stated that neighbors from far away are affecting how the Thelens deal with their property; that the expected proceeds from the condominium project would have put all the Thelens in same rest home/health-care facility; that changes in an area occur and so does zoning; that he would be happy to have this project across the street from his home; and that he hoped the Commission would consider the zone change, as it would be good for the community. Mike Hickman, 12651 Newport Avenue, Seven Gables Real Estate, stated that he was not pro development, nor slow growth, but pro good development; that there would be a big difference in the cost of three and four homes; that the homes are well within the income range of the people interested; that people want to stay within the community; and that he encouraged the Planning Commission to consider four houses from an affordability standpoint. Mr. Bennett, representing the applicant, stated that he was a long- time resident and business owner in Tustin; presented a map of properties within the 300 foot radius and stated that he felt that only one person was opposed to the project within the radius; that Mr. Hahn's opinion was considered since he is close to the City; that the nearby condominium owners like the proposed zoning; that the project will provide a 20 foot setback when only required to provide 10 feet for the public benefit. Greg Bunch, 14331 S. Holt, stated that he is against rezoning, but that three houses would be acceptable. Joy Hahn, 14431 Holt, stated that her next door neighbor is also opposed to the project; that this is an illegal spot zone change; that she now sees trees and blue sky, but will see windows and walls; that the illustrations presented are not shown on the plans and should be checked; and that the area should remain zoned E-4. Carol McCauley, FCA, stated that the applicant's slide presentation was a "show" and that the numeric details of the new homes in North Tustin were incorrect; that she sympathizes with Mrs. Thelen, but that there is no guarantee, if approved, that the illustration is the same as what would be provided. The Public Hearing was closed 9:18 p.m. Commissioner Baker asked if this was considered an illegal spot zone change. Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 7 John Shaw, City Attorney, responded that the project would not be considered a spot zone change. Commissioner Weil asked if a variance was required for a private street; that she was concerned about the width of the driveway entrance; that the slide presentation showed an ambiance due to a wider entrance; that she is not in favor a shared driveway; asked if there would be landscaping between the wall and sidewalk; and felt landscaping necessary to improve the streetscape; that she would be more in favor of three houses than four; that the two- story houses blend with the condominiums, but not the houses to the north and west; that the houses in East Tustin are different and not a factor; that affordability is not an issue for the Planning Commission to consider since it has no control over the pricing; that if affordable low-income housing was proposed, the neighborhood might be more unhappy; that spreading out three houses would provide more ambiance and more money; that she would prefer one and one-half story houses, but 28 feet is not bad; and would prefer landscaping along Holt and a wider driveway. Staff replied that private street standards can be modified and approved by the Commission and can be approved with the subdivision and development plan; and that there is no proposal for landscaping at this time. Commissioner Kasparian stated that some speakers referred to some of the people not being residents of Tustin, but they are still neighbors; that if this is rezoned, the requests could continue along Holt; that the slide show did not show the real representation of Holt Avenue. He continued with a comment regarding his opinion of the affect of four houses and zone change on the neighborhood; that Warren provides a good buffer for a zoning district; that they would be setting a precedent; that he does not like the wall around the neighborhood because it destroys the look of the neighborhood; that he opposes granting the R-1 zone change; and agrees that the owner is entitled to place three houses on the lots. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that he is not in favor of granting the zone change; that E-4 should remain and not intrude above Warren; that the City has broken promises with annexations and that they should stand by their original statements; that he sympathizes with the family, but the Commission is not supposed to take financial considerations into land use decisions; that three houses would be acceptable. Commissioner Kasalek stated that the design of the homes are attractive, but incompatible with the neighborhood; that they are not consistent with the general plan's goals of maintaining existing neighborhoods; that four houses would be too tight for the area; that delivery trucks would have to back onto Holt to exit the property; that the Commission must keep to its commitment not to rezone areas annexed; that it should remain zoned E-4; that the larger lots are an asset to people looking for them; and that the ambiance will be attractive to buyers. The Director stated that if the Commission was not in support of the rezoning, that they recommended direction consistent with Alternative No. 2 in the staff report; that staff would bring back resolutions; and that if the project was redesigned, there could be a resubmittal without prejudice. Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 8 Commissioner Baker received a consensus from the Commission to retain the property zoned E-4 and to direct staff as outlined by the Director. The Director confirmed the direction to staff to prepare resolutions of denial on the actions; and that this would not be a Public Hearing on April 13, but a Consent Calendar item only. The Commission unanimously concurred to deny the project and directed staff to bring back resolutions of denial for the April 13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. OLD BUSINESS: 5. Status Reports Recommendation - Receive and file. Commissioner Weil asked why all graffiti has not been referred to the removal service. The Director replied that the private property owners remove it themselves since the City has a limited palette of colors, and ask for time to complete the jobs. Commissioner Le Jeune asked about the closed items on the code enforcement list; and if the items are filed by property. Staff replied that there will be a separate report with all closed cases in the future, but they are currently on the active list; and affirmed that they are filed by property. Received and filed. NEW BUSINESS: 6. Roosters Recommendation - Pleasure of the Planning Commission. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner Commissioner Le Jeune abstained from comment on this issue due to living within 300 feet of said property. Commissioner Weil asked if the ordinance restricting roosters from the area was adopted in 1980. Staff affirmed. The Director stated that the Commission received a supplemental report from Mr. Van Houten, the City's noise consultant, and that additional inquiries could be transmitted to his office. Staff stated that at 50 feet from the rooster locations the noise level could be 70 dBa or less; and at 300 feet could be 60 dBa; and that the planes in the flight path are 64 dba and a leaf blowing machine would be 70 dBa. Commissioner Weil asked if it would be appropriate to refer this item to the Historical Overlay Committee before coming to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 9 The Director responded that the responsibilities were defined by precluded from land use decisions. Historical Overlay Committee an ordinance and they were Commissioner Kasparian asked if the applicant obtained the roosters prior to 1980. Staff replied that there is no applicant, only a group of petitioners. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the devocalizing of roosters would have an affect on the hens. Staff replied negatively. The Director stated that enforcement officers are not peering across fences to locate roosters; that they only respond to complaints. Jeff Thompson, 415 W. 6th Street, spoke in support of roosters; complemented staff on their involved and analytical report with an objective review; that this is a pre-existing condition; that he has only had his hens and roosters for four and one-half years, others have had theirs 50 years; that the video shows a plane at a higher pitch than the roosters; that their setting is different than East Tustin and includes built-in noise buffers. He presented a video tape showing the various noise factors in the area. John Sauers, 515 S. Pacific, stated that when he purchased his property 30 years ago, he inherited chickens; that he has no problem with the noise from roosters at neighbor's house 100 feet from his house. Ken Erell, 365 W. 6th Street, not opposed to the roosters, stated that he noticed the noise from planes, freeway traffic, and police chases in the night; that he was surprised that the roosters were an issue; that they must stop conversations for planes, but not roosters; that eliminating roosters from Old Town would be like having the Presbyterian Church stop ringing its bells; that it is part of the charm of Old Town; that there are large lots; and that the roosters help to remind them that even though they are in the middle of a metropolis, there is a little country charm remaining; and that they are a part of nature that should be allowed to remain with their voice boxes intact. Bill Collins, 430 W. Main Street, asked if the numerous complaints were from one person or numerous people; stated that the real noise is the aircraft, which wakens his baby, whereas the roosters do not; that he did not agree with the dBa level of the planes versus the roosters; that the freeway noise occurs night and day; and suggested a noise study be done over a 24-hour week-long period to study rooster noise versus real noise; and that roosters can hardly be heard at 5:00 a.m. Willy Prescott, 230 S. A Street, stated that he would like to have chickens and roosters; that the sound of a crowing rooster is practically silent compared to car alarms, overhead planes, and pile drivers; and that fertilized eggs are healthier. Rosie Castaneder, 425 W. 6th Street, supported roosters by stating they are good for children; that before she purchased chickens, she was informed that she was allowed 11; however, she did not know she could not have roosters; and that she hates to see the roosters taken away. Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 10 Mr. Thompson stated that he understood the City's position, but asked for an adaptable code for their neighborhood; that the petition represents 95% of the houses on their block; that they created a newsletter that was circulated to proponents and opponents; that the opponents were not present this evening; that they would like to resolve the issue with the complainers. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she drove through the area and noticed that the roosters add a cozy rural affect to the area; but that it would be negligent on the Commission's part to determine it was a problem only for some; that they cannot turn their backs on the complaints; that she is open for discussion of the options, but it would make the staff responsible for code enforcement; and that problems could be created based on lot size. Commission Kasparian stated that they are trying to control the jet noise, but cannot control freeway or traffic noise; that police noise may be for some good; that roosters add to the atmosphere; that even though many are supporting the issue, they must consider the complaints; that open farm land attenuates noise, but not the city; that the current code considers roosters a nuisance; agreed that the staff report was excellent; that he does not see devocalization as an option; that roosters could be a deterrent to future property sales; that this could set a precedent and incidents of complaints would increase; and suggested housing roosters between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. as an option; otherwise the code should be left as is and should be enforced. Commissioner Weil congratulated Thompson on his petition; stated that roosters have been prohibited since 1980; that the code states that animals will not become a nuisance; that roosters are only necessary to beget chickens, but not for eggs; that she appreciates the effort to preserve the rural way of life, but that these are residential lots, not small farms; that if the law was changed, it might seem to be a good idea to many people; and the health issue should be addressed. Commissioner Baker stated that in the nighttime quiet, boom boxes and freeway construction are noticeable; that additional noise is not needed, and that the Code should remain as is. Commissioner Kasalek stated that housing of roosters overnight would create a massive enforcement issue. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Weil seconded to maintain the existing code as it pertains to roosters and instructed staff to continue enforcement. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioner Le Jeune abstaining. 7. Consideration to Revoke Conditional Use Permit 90-09 (Mobile Recycling) Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council revocation of Conditional Use Permit 90-09 by adopting Resolution No. 3017, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if this was the original location and if the basic complaint was that it was now located close to residences. Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 11 Staff replied that it was located in the rear at one time; and that the present development standards prohibit location within 75 feet of the property line. Ron Schweitzer, Mobile Recycling Company, stated that this is the only site in Tustin and was set up under AB2020 and services all markets in a zone; that they have had a lot of requests to take in more material than they are required to take; that the increase in redemption price increased their volume; that they use two containers for the California redemption bottles (CVA); that 75 other cities allow more than one container, and three containers is normal; that they prefer it to be in front of the store, but moved to the back of the store for space requirements. Commissioner Baker asked if their relocation was discussed with Alpha Beta. Mr. Schweitzer replied that they were concerned with the service being located in front of the store, but will allow them if the City does. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if they make money on aluminum and lose money on glass and papers; and if they are obligated under AB2020 to take other items. Mr. Schweitzer stated that they now lose money on paper and glass, but not originally; and that they are not obligated to take other items. Commissioner Kasparian asked if they moved without notifying staff; and if he understood the conditions of the Resolution. Mr. Schweitzer stated that he did not understand it fully in the beginning, but does now. The Director stated that Mobile Recycling does business throughout the Southern California area where they are subject to Conditional Use Permits; that the provisions on setbacks were adopted as standard ordinance provided by the State; that she has contacted other shopping centers in the area, and they have confirmed that they have had problems with Mobile Recycling on other sites. Mr. Schweitzer noted that they have 170 locations, where a vast majority do not require permits or business licenses. The Director responded by stating that there are three types of locations; the vending machines and igloos do not require permits if parking spaces are unobstructed; the mobile units, like this one, generally require discretionary approval of the Planning Commission, as per the State; the third type of facility would be a store front operation that would require a business license, but not Planning Commission approval. Commissioner Weil commented that a business as large as this without understanding the Conditional Use Permit does not make good business sense. Mr. Schweitzer replied by stating that they thought they were mitigating the problem of requiring two containers by moving to the back of the store. The Director stated that the rear of the property would require a use variance and would not be permitted at that location; and would Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 12 not be permitted to operate in a changed condition in the front until after a public hearing. Staff stated that they would have to have one bin in the front of the center and satisfy all conditions; then an option would be to apply to amend their use permit for expansion; and that the center was restriped for this operation, even though the center was very limited on parking. Mr. Schweitzer replied that they cannot operate with one bin even for the CRV containers only. Commissioner Baker asked if restriping would alleviate the problem. Staff responded negatively; and that even with the three bins they are not satisfying the conditions, due to storing items outside of the bins during operation. The Director stated that the options were to send the item for a revocation action by City Council; continue the item by giving applicant 15 days to move the bin back to the approved location and eliminate other operations on the site, and not send it on for revocation; or if he wishes to proceed on the expansion, he needs to pursue an application for a modified use permit. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if it was the City's obligation to adhere to AB2020. The Director affirmed and stated that all ordinances comply with State law; but that the Commission has discretion over the size, location, and conditions of approval of the operation; that there are a variety of facilities that meet the intent within a certain radius; and there are many types of operators providing their services, many of which haven't been seen in Tustin. Commissioner Kasparian stated that recycling centers are important; that visibility is important; that it is no excuse that they did not understand the Resolution; that they should move back to the front, and work with staff for a suitable location for capacity and visibility. Commissioner Kasalek asked for a clarification on the number of bins allowed. Staff replied one bin is allowed. Commissioner Weil stated that three bins in front of Alpha Beta would be too much; and that 15 days is adequate amount of time to research for a better location. Staff replied that they are required to restore their facility to the original conditions of approval immediately. Mr. Schweitzer asked where they should put the materials in the meantime; stated that to go from three bins to two is feasible; that the material will be dumped; and that they have pick-ups twice each day, now. The Director clarified the issue for the applicant by stating that the issue of expanded operation has to be dealt with on a public hearing basis; that the existing operation is allowed only one bin, and due to being in violation, the Commission has the ability to revoke approval, but are allowing 15 days to return the operation to original condition. She continued that changes to this item, Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 13 even though it may be unrealistic now, must be decided at a public hearing;that the operation must be modified now; and that the applicant possibly needs to increase the number of daily pick-ups. Commissioner Weil asked if the alternative was to close the operation this evening. The Director responded that it would be sent on to the City Council. Commissioner Le Jeune formally asked the applicant if he would be willing to return to one bin for a short period of time. Mr. Schweitzer replied that they would try, but asked the City to bear with them, since it would not be tidy. The Director stated that if this was continued on the agenda of April 13, and the applicant was still in non-compliance, the Commission could take an action at that time; and that there are other site issues connected to expansion. Commissioner Weil asked if a copy of the original CUP could be provided to the applicant. The Director affirmed. Commissioner Weil asked if the applicant could notify the customers of their reduced storage; and if a sign could be placed on the bin. Mr. Schweitzer replied that they could try to notify the customer base; but that they legally have to take the CRV containers at that site. Commissioner Le Jeune commented that the sites are not open on Sundays or Mondays when most people would be likely to drop off items after cleaning out over the weekend. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Weil seconded to allow the applicant 15 days to bring the operation into compliance with CUP 90-09 and continue the revocation matter to the April 13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS: 8. Report on actions taken at March 16, 1992 City Council meetinq Staff reported on the subject agenda. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the improvements on Prospect, Main, and E1 Camino would impact the Historical Overlay District. The Director replied negatively. Commissioner Kasparian asked about a supplemental agreement for nitrate removal approved by the City Council, and if the new proposal for the testing procedure was read. The Director replied that they are not yet at that level of analysis, and are only at a point of a cooperative agreement with the County for the design. Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 14 COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Le Jeune -Indicated that the Tustin Hospital empty lot is overgrown with weeds. -The property at Newport Avenue and E1 Camino Real is beginning to look bad. -Noted that a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce regarding the sign code went very well. -Asked if the location of mailboxes would be discussed in the future. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Weil seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:09 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on April 13, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin.