Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-10-92MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 10t 1992 CALL TO ORDER= 7:01 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.) Jean Vallandiqham, 17345 Via Lindo, spoke in opposition to the color of the Crab Cooker Restaurant and the removal of landscaping; presented additional signed complaints; noted that the red color is not in keeping with the look of Enderle Center; and that the Commission has not been consistent with applicants. Leo Middleton, 17332 Parker Drive, noted that the color of the Crab Cooker Restaurant is incompatible and inharmonious with the center; and requested that the Commission require the restaurant adhere to the architectural and color scheme of the center; require the color change to be aesthetically pleasing and environmentally compatible; and that the owners replace the removed trees. The Director replied that the design review was approved months ago; that the appeal period has expired; that the applicant has a vested right to make the changes; that all changes were approved by the Commission, excepting the removal of the trees where there was some confusion regarding the landscaping plan; that the Code does not preclude removal of trees; that the removal was within the purview of the owner and that they have negotiated replacement of the trees. She continued with rebutting that Home Savings made a business decision not to install tiles, but use a Tustin history mural instead; that the Planning Commission approved the Home Savings application as presented. Commissioner Baker asked if a notification had been sent to all of the neighbors; and asked if there was a letter on file from the homeowners association. Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 Page 2 A1 Cole asked if it was true that the Association approved the color; and noted that he did not agree with the color; asked if any of the Commissioners had seen the restaurant since it had been painted and offered to show it from the homeowners' point of view. The Director responded that a mailing was made within a 300 foot radius; that it may not have included all of the townhomes; that the homeowners association supported and reviewed the proposal; that it was unfortunate that there was a misunderstanding that the opponents thought the Commission could change the application; and that she would provide Mr. Cole with a copy of the letter. Lee Braithwaite, 17481 Via Lindo, Tustin, stated that she felt that the color was awful and gaudy. Claudia Wyse, 17351 Via Lindo, Tustin, stated that the residents of Park Tustin have taken pride in the Council's decisions; that they have the responsibility to make a change; and asked for recommendations as to how the residents could have the color changed. John Shaw, City Attorney, agreed with the Director by stating that the owner had a vested right to retain the color; and suggested that the residents could go directly to the owners and persuade them to change the color. Commissioner Baker stated that the Commission is not able to advise or help the opponents. The Director suggested that she would provide a name for the residents to contact. Harriett Hammond, 17365 Via Lindo, Tustin, spoke in opposition to the color of the Crab Cooker. Commissioners Kasparian and Kasalek stated that they have seen the restaurant. 1. Minutes of the January 27, 1992 Planninq Commission meeting. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasalek seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Tentative Tract Map 14396, Design Review 90-49, Conditional Use Permit 91-21 and Hillside Review 91-03 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: FOOTHILL COMMUNITY BUILDERS P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 ATTENTION: MR. DAVE CONLEY LOTS 12, 13, 24, AND 25 OF TRACT 13627 ESTATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/HILLSIDE DISTRICT - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. 1. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE 351 NUMBERED LOTS AND 90 LETTERED LOTS FOR THE ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT OF 351 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS; 2. APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANS AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS; Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 Page 3 AUTHORIZATION FOR A CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE "CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT" STANDARDS OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR PORTIONS OF THIS PROJECT; AND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLANS FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF HILLSIDE REVIEW. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue this item to the April 13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner The Public Hearing was opened at 7:27 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:28 p.m. Commissioner Weil moved, Le Jeune seconded to continue this item to the April 13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5- Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14610; Design Review 91-55; Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement APPLICANT/ LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: IRVINE RETAIL PROPERTIES COMPANY 2 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 300 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 WILLIAMSON AND SCHMID 15101 RED HILL AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 PORTIONS OF LOTS 22 AND 23 OF BLOCK 44 OF THE IRVINE SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 88 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY RECORDER MIXED USE - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED EIR (85-2), AS MODIFIED BY THE SUBSEQUENTLY-ADOPTED SUPPLEMENT AND ADDENDA, FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN 1. APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO RESERVE LAND IN ANOTHER LOCATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A HOTEL. 2. APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO THE SECTOR 12 CONCEPT PLAN AND RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF A 23.9 ACRE LOT TO CREATE SIX NUMBERED LOTS FOR RETAIL/COMMERCIAL PURPOSES; AND 3. APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE ENTIRE SITE, AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR ONE MAJOR TENANT STRUCTURE. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3005; 2. Recommend City Council approval of the Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement by Minute Order; 3. Approve a Modification to the Sector 12 Concept Plan and recommend City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14610 by adopting Resolution No. 3007, as submitted or revised; and 4. Approve Design Review 91-55 by adopting Resolution No. 3006, as submitted or revised. Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 Page 4 Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Staff made changes to Resolutions 3006 and 3007, as moved. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:33 p.m. Jim Ryan, 2286 Boxwood Place, President of Sycamore Homeowners Association, spoke in opposition to the application; stated that the Irvine Company made a thorough presentation to the homeowners and were assured that the Market Place look and light towers would not be repeated; were originally informed that a hotel and commercial enterprise would be built with a pleasant ambiance; that the traffic patterns of a K-Mart and Costco could not compare with a hotel; that their property values would decline; that pollution, noise, traffic and investment are concerns; that they are concerned about the traffic crossing three lanes to turn into and out of the center which would increase the likelihood of accidents and noise; and that the entrance should be eliminated or a turning lane should be installed. Clarence Barker, Vice President, Irvine Retail Property Company, made a presentation on the project. He then stated that the applicant had listened to the concerns of the residents; that the hotel was only to utilize 5 acres, while the remaining 19 acres were always to be used for commercial; that they expect a $900,000 annual tax revenue; that all truck traffic will enter from E1 Camino Real; that the light fixtures are under 25 feet tall; that the colors would be soft tones; that a traffic study was prepared by an outside engineer; that there will be quality architecture and a physical balance; and that they are in concurrence with staff's recommendations including changes. Steve Gould, a homeowner in Sycamore Glen, stated that he was concerned with the aesthetics, but that Irvine Company presentation somewhat mitigated his concerns; is in favor of retail commercial development, but is concerned with selection of stores; that a supermarket, dry cleaner, postal annex, and small restaurants are desired and that the growth of the area would warrant them. Cheryl Bell, 2346 Aspen Street, Tustin, Vice President of Sycamore Glen Homeowners Association, spoke as a homeowner by stating that the traffic of a hotel was greatly different than that of retail; that the retail next to a hotel would be greatly different than this type of hotel; that they are concerned with the entrance off of Tustin Ranch Road; that the traffic is already heavy and fast; that parking would be a nightmare in December; was concerned with deliveries; and that her property value would decline further. Fran Lundquist, 13592 Mahogany Place, Tustin, stated that she purchased her home as a retirement residence; that she was promised to be adjacent to a hotel and restaurants; that she is disappointed to now be looking at a K-Mart and Costco; and that she will have to sell her home. Diana Leeds, 13395 Via Almeria, stated that she pays $5,000 per year in property taxes; that she does not want to live next to a K- Mart or Costco; that her property value will decrease; that she was concerned about the type of people these stores would attract; that shopping carts would be left around town; and was concerned about the integrity of Tustin Ranch. Mike Anderson, 2473 Via Corella, asked the customer oount per day, week and month of Costco; noted that there would be a lot of traffic off of the freeway and on E1 Camino during receiving hours; Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 Page 5 noted that they moved to an upscale neighborhood; that they are paying over 2% in property taxes; that they will sell their home if K-Mart and Costco are built; that they are disappointed in the City; and that K-Mart and Costco do not fit the image of the area. Sandy Wollanqk, Sevilla Townhomes, stated that she was disappointed with the idea of K-Mart and Costco being built; that it is not in keeping with the image of the neighborhood; that her value is now 10% lower than originally without the addition of K-Mart and Costco; suggested putting all entrances/exits onto E1 Camino/ Myford; that back-ups will significantly impair traffic flow; and that the stores would draw traffic from other areas. Jane Anderson, 2473 via Corella, Vice President Sevilla Homeowners Association, spoke in opposition as a homeowner; asked how Costco and K-Mart project sales to compare with a hotel; was concerned with additional stop lights; asked how much the revenue would help the homeowners; that it is an upscale neighborhood, and that the Market Place does not provide upscale shopping; and that homes are already selling for $20,000 less than originally paid. Peter Bonello, homeowner of Sycamore Glen, suggested that this type of development would be an extension of the Market Place, and that there are other needs for the residents than a K-Mart and Costco. Judith Davies, resident of Sycamore Glen, stated that she was concerned about the safety of the numerous children in the area. Maureen Melvold, 2346 Aspen, Tustin, stated that a lot of care and thought went into planning Tustin Ranch; and was concerned that the same quality and care was not evident in a shopping center housing a K-Mart and Costco; that Tustin Ranch drew quality residents, not bargain hunters; and that the revenue from sales tax should not be the number one issue. Mr. Barker responded by stating that the Market Place and this center were attracting "value" retail stores; that K-Mart recognizes an image problem and is changing and expanding their lines of products; that Costco would serve a five mile radius of the community; that the 19 acres could easily be developed into Costco, K-Mart and a hotel; that a 250 room hotel needs about one employee per room; and that neither tenant will take overnight deliveries. Joe Foust, Austin, Foust and Associates, prepared the traffic study; stated that a hotel generates more traffic; that retail traffic draws from approximately a five mile radius, and a hotel draws from 10-15 or more miles; that a mitigation measure is included if the traffic is too heavy in 20 years; that the project was anticipated over five years ago; and that the Market Place has less traffic than anticipated. He continued with noting that the new signals cannot disrupt either existing or idealized progression of traffic; that concentrating all traffic at one entrance/exit would be too congested. He stated that traffic counts at peak season/hour at Costco would be approximately 5 trips per hour per thousand square feet, if it is a successful location. Commissioner Kasparian asked if they considered the surrounding areas when surveying the other Costcos. Mr. Foust replied that they performed vehicle counts and the number of passengers in the vehicles at the Garden Grove and Laguna Niguel locations. He continued with stating that there would be a deceleration right turn lane; that the 1,100 trips for the center Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 Page 6 would be distributed through the center; that the site was originally anticipated to require 1,300 trips per day. Commissioner Kasparian asked if there would be ~ signal on Tustin Ranch Road; and asked the relative safety of turning out of the center and crossing over quickly for the left-turn lane. Mr. Foust replied negatively regarding the signal on Tustin Ranch Road; and stated that there would be 600-700 feet to cross over to the left-turn lane; and that the traffic signal at E1 Camino provides a traffic break. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the signals for E1 Camino and Bryan would be installed prior to the stores opening. The Director replied that they would be installed in conjunction with the Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner Baker asked the traffic generation for a grocery store. Mr. Foust replied that a grocery store creates 7-9 trips per hour per thousand square feet; that it would only be half the size of Costco; but that not all trips are new trips, and many are local. Dana Kasdan, Engineering Service Manager, City of Tustin, stated that the applicant would be required to have signals fully operational before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Commissioner Le Jeune asked the location of the bus stop shelter. Mr. Kasdan replied that the applicant is working with Orange County Transportation Authority for the optimal location; and that a bus turnout would be installed. The Director stated that a condition in the resolution would require installation of a bus stop and shelter with a turnout. Mr. Barker stated that there is currently a dry cleaner in the Market Place; that a grocery store will be located at Jamboree and Irvine Blvd., but has been delayed due to the current economic conditions. Commissioner Weil asked for a clarification of the handling of shopping carts. Mr. Barker replied that temporary storage facilities are located in the parking lot; Costco has a full time crew for retrieving shopping carts, which will be stored inside and that K-Mart uses an in-store staff to police the parking lots. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:53 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that the Commission was limited to their abilities; that it is not the Commission's privy to decline any stores; that the types of stores were the Irvine Company's decision; that the Master Plan was approved several years ago and is basically in conformance with the original application; that the colors on the material board will be used; that he is pleased that the Irvine Company has dedicated a site at the I-5 and Jamboree for a hotel, and that the new site should bring in a better hotel; that extensive landscaping would be installed; that the Commission does not make a decision based on the tax base; and that he was in favor of the project as presented. Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 Page 7 Commissioner Kasalek agreed with Commissioner LeJeune; stated that the Commission shares the concerns regarding the image of Tustin Ranch, but noted that the applicant has made extensive changes in the design and landscaping; that she is confident that the project will present a good image; that the traffic problems have been answered; and that a sign has been advertising a retail development for some time, and it was a logical assumption that there would be increased traffic; and was in favor of the project. Commissioner Baker stated that the major concerns of the East Tustin Specific Plan several years ago were traffic, noise and pollution, and that the concerns have not materialized; that this center will be more compatible with the neighborhood; that the Irvine Company has worked with the City and the developer; and that a retail center was always intended along with the attractive luxury hotel. Commissioner Kasparian stated that he accepts the traffic study based on the City Engineer not having adverse comments; that value stores will supply diverse products; that the original rendition of the plans was not acceptable, but the applicant has now distinctly improved the project; that Costco is almost 30% lower in height than what was allowed, which shows sensitivity to the neighborhood; that they have been encouraged to install drought tolerant plants; and that the traffic issues were addressed; and was in favor of the project. Commissioner Weil stated that there were many rumors over the past few months; that the Commission was informed that the only discretion they had was regarding the design review; that the Irvine Company convinced Costco and K-Mart that the design and landscaping had to be sensitive to the area; that it will be more compatible with the neighborhood than the Market Place; that the delivery areas are as far away as possible from the homes; that the Irvine Company's original commitment was to bring the best top- rated value-priced merchandisers to the Market Place, and this is the best fiscal commitment that the City has made; that she is confident that the center will be a good neighbor, will be a welcome addition, and is in favor of the project. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3005 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded to recommend City Council approval of the Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement by Minute Order. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded to approve a Modification to the Sector 12 Concept Plan and recommend City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14610 by adopting Resolution No. 3007 revised as follows: Exhibit A, Page 7, item b: delete the following: "sheet flow and" Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Design Review 91-55 by adopting Resolution No. 3006 revised as follows: Exhibit A, Page 5, Item 3.3: change the period to a comma at the end of the sentence and add the following: "unless the Co~m~unity Development Department is informed in writing by the Tustin Postmaster and Regional Postmaster that there is no need for a Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 1992 Page 8 postal station in East Tustin." Exhibit A, Page 6, Item 3.11: change 3.12b to 3.12B Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: 4. R/UDAT The Planning Commission held a discussion regarding the R/UDAT report. Received and filed. STAFF CONCERNS: 5. Report on actions taken at February 3, 1992 City Council meeting Staff reported on the subject agenda. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Kasalek -Asked if left turn signals such as those in Anaheim were feasible for Tustin. Commissioner Le Jeune -Reported banners at shopping center at corners of Walnut, Avenue and Newport Avenue. -Reported on banner at the Key Inn. Asked if extension had expired. -Inquired about landscaping at the Crab Cooker. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:38 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on February 24, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Kathleen Clancy Secretary ~/