Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-09-91MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 9v 1991 CALL TO ORDER: 7:04 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL= Present: Le Jeune, Baker, 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 jurisdic- tion 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. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioner Weil nominated, Kasparian seconded Commissioner Baker for Chairman. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Kasalek nominated, Baker seconded Kasparian for Vice Chairman. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Commissioner Le Jeune thanked the staff for the extraordinary amount of help they gave during his term. 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 August 26, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. 2. Final Tract Maps 13030 and 13038 SUBJECT: APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS-. REQUEST: FINAL TRACT MAPS 13030 AND 13038 IRVINE PACIFIC 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 700 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 13408 HERITAGE WAY AND 13202 MYFORD ROAD EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN: MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED MINISTERIALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15268(b) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 15.427 ACRES INTO SIX NUMBERED LOTS AND FOUR LETTERED LOTS Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1991 Page 2 ACCOMMODATING 266 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 16.112 ACRES INTO SEVEN NUMBERED LOTS AND FIVE LETTERED LOTS ACCOMMODATING 252 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2944 forwarding Final Tract Map 13030 to the City Council recommending approval; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2945 forwarding Final Tract Map 13038 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 91-14 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: TUSTIN HEALTH GROUP, INC. 14662 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 HEALTHCARE TUSTIN INC. c/o EASELY MC CALEB STALLINGS P.O. BOX 796847 DALLAS, TX 75379 14662 NEWPORT AVENUE PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO ERECT THREE (3) 100-SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGNS AS MODIFIED AT 14662 NEWPORT AVENUE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A MEDICAL FACILITY RECOMMENDATION - Pleasure of the Planning Commission. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if off-site directional signs were permitted in the Sign Code. Staff replied that these will be off-site directional signs that are excluded in the Sign Code because they constitute public information signs; and that help will be sought from the Engineering Department. Commissioner Kasparian asked if they would be placed at various intersections around the hospital. Staff replied that they will be placed at the 55 Freeway/McFadden offramp, Newport/McFadden, and the Newport/5 Freeway offramp. The Director stated that the Public Works department has full direction regarding these signs; and that anything in the Caltrans right-of-way requires Caltrans approval. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if granting this application would be making an exception. Planning Commission Minutes Septen%ber 9, 1991 Page 3 Staff replied that the applicant would like to change their name to Tustin Hospital. The Director stated that the business identification sign does not have to be the same as the business license. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:13 p.m. Charles Rokicki, Promotional Signs Unlimited, thanked the Commissioners for their guidance at the last meeting; that the principals were receptive to simplifying the name and reducing the square footage; and that the signs would be attractive on all three sides of the building. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the drawings still indicate four (4) foot lettering. Mr. Rokicki stated that the concern at the last meeting was not so much the height of the letters but the square footage; that four (4) foot lettering provides the visibility the hospital needs. Commissioner Weil stated that it is seldom that an applicant returns with exactly what the Commission requests and felt that the four (4) foot letters would get their message across. The Director stated that the tape of the minutes revealed that the comments were relative to limiting the height to three (3) feet, but were leaving the decision to the discretion of the Commission. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the color change would be a problem; and noted that green may diffuse on a foggy night. Staff replied negatively. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:18 p.m. Commissioner Baker received a consensus regarding changing the lettering height to four (4) feet. Commissioner Well moved, Kasalek seconded to adopt Resolution No.2941 approving Conditional Use Permit 91-14, to allow three (3) 100-square foot wall signs on the west, north and south elevations of the medical facility located at 14662 Newport Avenue as modified and conditioned. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Conditional Use Permit 91-16 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: OKA-PROTHERO, ARCHITECTS 1920 E. KATELLA AVENUE, SUITE S ORANGE, CA 92667 WALLACE ENDERLE TRUST 14032 ENDERLE CENTER DRIVE, 3110 TUSTIN, CA 92680 14082 ENDERLE CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY - COMMERCIAL (PC-C) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1991 Page 4 REQUEST: TO AMEND CUP 74-9 TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARKING LOT ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ENDERLE CENTER AND VANDENBERG LANE WHERE AN OFFICE BUILDING WAS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 91-16 by adopting Resolution No. 2947 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked if the reciprocal agreement was with the current owners. The Director replied that it was a covenant restriction that runs with the land, not the owner. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:23 p.m. Walt Baule, 17531 Via Lindo, Tustin, stated that accessibility via Vandenberg would create increased noise under their bedroom window, quite likely at 2:00 a.m. when the employees leave; and asked if it was possible to change the access to Enderle Way to alleviate this. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there was a wall between Enderle Lane and their property. Mr. Baule replied that there is a wall. Commissioner Weil asked if there was much nighttime traffic on Vandenberg. Mr. Baule affirmed and stated that the freeway construction has increased their traffic, and that the grocery trucks also utilize Vandenberg; that the traffic currently ceases around 9:00, but that this might increase the traffic again at 1:30-2:00; and he noted that he is speaking as the president of the homeowners association as well as personally. Commissioner Kasparian empathized with Mr. Baule, and noted that he also uses Vandenberg to avoid the traffic on 17th Street. Craig Oka, 1920 E. Katella, Oka-Prothero Architects, appreciated the speaker's comments; stated that the Planning and Traffic departments suggested the access be on Vandenberg since there is already two (2) curb cuts on Enderle; and that they would be amenable to the change. Commissioner Kasparian asked who the parking was being built for. Mr. Oka replied that it is for overflow and employee parking for Enderle Center. Commissioner Kasalek asked if it was probable that employees would be leaving at 2:00 a.m. Mr. Oka replied that the shops close in the early evening; that the late dinner clientele would be able to park near the shops; but that employees may have to park there. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:33 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1991 Page 5 Commissioner Weil stated that she understood the need to make fewer curb cuts, but that they should make the area more bearable for the residents. The Director replied that this is an information item from the Public Works Department; that Vandenberg provides relief to 17th Street; and that they should refer the matter to Public Works before a decision is made. Commissioner Baker asked if the applicant would consider continuing the matter for two weeks. Mr. Oka affirmed. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Weil seconded to continue the item to the next meeting in order to obtain approval from the City's traffic engineer to change the curb cut from Vandenberg Lane to Enderle Center. Motion carried 5-0. 5. Variance 91-14 APPLICANT: TOKYO LOBBY RESTAURANT 13951 CARROLL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92680 OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: TUSTIN RETAIL LTD. c/o WILLIAM P. FOLLEY III 2100 S.E. MAIN STREET, #400 IRVINE, CA 92714 13951 CARROLL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92680 RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-l) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOW AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN FOR THE RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 13951 CARROLL WAY TO BE LOCATED ON A STRUCTURE AT 13931 CARROLL WAY RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Variance 91-14 by adopting Resolution No. 2946. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner Staff made changes to Resolution No. 2946, as moved. The Director provided a stamped set of plans with the address of the business as identified by the applicant; a copy of the building permit showing another address; stated that on the advice of the city Attorney's office, they revoked the building permit. Commissioner Weil asked for a clarification of the application for a sign permit. Staff described the process for submittal through approval of a sign permit. The Director clarified that once the plans leave the planner, they are then issued over the counter; the applicant pays fees and that is the last they see of it until it is called out for inspection. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1991 Page 6 Commissioner Weil asked if the application for the sign permit and the plans do not get together. The Director affirmed, until later in the process. Staff stated that the misleading point was that there was no information on the plans indicating that the tenant was not in the building listed on the plans. Commissioner Weil asked if this was normal. The Director replied that the applicant is required to provide the locational information; and that in this case they applicant did not supply other than the address. Commissioner Le Jeune asked when their existing building signs were installed. Staff replied March 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:45 p.m. Gilbert Nishimura, spokesperson for Tokyo Lobby Restaurant, stated that the plans were submitted with the address being 13931; that the mistake was innocent; that their lease grants signage rights on the building facing the freeway; that there are three (3) buildings on one (1) parcel; that they carefully indicated the placement of the signage on the application; that their receipt shows that the City was aware that the business location was 13951 even though they were requesting signage on 13931; he questioned the issue of off-site signage since it is on the same parcel; that there should be no objection to the signage; that the cost of $6,500 would create a hardship if the sign is removed and might imply that the restaurant is out of business; and that the service station's off- site sign sets a precedent. Commissioner Kasparian asked when the applicant saw the Mimi's Plaza sign program; and if he was aware of Item F regarding the prohibition of freeway signs. Mr. Nishimura affirmed that the sign code was presented upon signing of the lease; that the lease had an exception to the sign program allowing freeway signage on the other building; and that the landlord recommended a sign contractor. Commissioner Le Jeune stated the sign permit was issued March 28, and asked when they installed the sign; and when the enforcement notice was received. Mr. Nishimura replied that they hung the sign in the beginning of May, and received the notice in June. Staff replied that the first code enforcement was issued June 6. Mr. Nishimura stated that there were ongoing conversations with the City after the first notice. Commissioner Weil asked if they were a tenant when the sign code was approved in 1989; if Mimi's Plaza indicated they were exempt from the sign program; and asked if a copy of the lease was available. Mr. Nishimura replied that they became a tenant in 1990; that there is an amendment in the lease giving express signage rights on that Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1991 Page 7 building; that he did not have a copy of the lease available, but that is what was presented; and that they would like to work with the Commission to accommodate any requirements. Keiko Moore, representing Tokyo Lobby Restaurant, stated that she contracted the sign company after the landlord informed them that the lease allowed a freeway sign; that the same person who approved the plan wrote their correct address on the permit; and that it is not their fault and should not be responsible for the cost of the sign if it is removed. Commissioner Kasparian asked which building 13951 was; and if that was where the restaurant was located; and what address was given when they applied. Ms. Moore replied that 13951 was building number three and that was their location; and that they applied for 13931, but the applications show 13951 as their address; and she noted that a stamped statement regarding "sign exhibits are examples only, see Variance 89-10" was not on their copy, and that they feel it was added after the City found they made a mistake. Staff responded that the stamp was applied later for clarification for future reference; but that it was the understanding of the property owner and the City that they were examples at the time the sign code was prepared. Ms. Moore stated that they are the only other major tenant and would therefore be the only ones allowed signage on the rear of the building. Commissioner Weil asked if Mimi's Plaza gave a reason why Tokyo Lobby was given a special privilege for freeway signage. Ms. Moore replied that Dave Peterson reviewed the lease and informed them that they were allowed a sign; and the City informed them of the problem after they paid their fees. Commissioner Weil asked if they have dealt with permits and signs in the past since they own two (2) other locations; and if they normally accepted the advice of a property owner rather than check into the permit policy. Mr. Nishimura replied that it had not been a problem in the past; that since it was in the lease, they did not think there was a problem; and felt that the City would alert them if there was a problem. Ms. Moore stated that Mr. Fox informed them that this should never have passed if the correct information was given; but they were truthful, but made a mistake. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:02 p.m. Commissioner Kasalek asked which document was the correct one: the sign plan for Mimi's Plaza or the lease. The Director replied that the Master Sign Plan was the regulating control over the property and the Sign Code was clear regarding no off-premise signs; that Mr. Peterson and Manchester Development were aware that no off-premise signs were allowed for other than building one; that the question is who is responsible for the hardship and if the owner should bear some of it. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1991 Page 8 Commissioner Baker asked if it was up to the Commission to make a decision. The Director replied that it was a legal issue for the applicant; that the Commissioner should consider the requirements of State law in terms of what the Code requires and what is applicable. Commissioner Kasparian asked if more attention had been paid, this might have been caught; that since the numbers are so close, it may have been a human error; that the restriction on freeway wall signs is clear; that he votes to deny the variance because he sees nothing mitigating to require the sign to stand; and that this is beyond the Commission. Commissioner Le Jeune asked when the advice to file for a variance occurred. The Director responded that between June 6 and July 26 there was correspondence; and that the building permit was revoked based on the City Attorney's advice, then they applied for extensions to comply and then applied for a variance request. Staff stated that the variance request was made after the third extension of time. Commissioner Weil asked Mr. Shaw for a legal opinion regarding on- premise and off-premise signs; if it was possible that a monument sign would be off-premise; and if these buildings were on the same lot. John Shaw, City Attorney, stated that Mr. Rourke stated that this sign is off-premise; and that an on-premise sign is at the business location site. The Director replied that the buildings are on the same lot, excepting the service station and Mimi's Restaurant; and that the monument sign is allowed in the Sign Code as a tenant directory monument sign. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the sign on the rear of the restaurant at 13951 was acceptable. The Director replied that a sign was allowed on two buildings sides at the applicant's discretion. Commissioner Le JeuDe moved, Kaspar~an seconded to deny Variance 91-14 by adopting Resolution No. 2946, as revised: Part I. C.3: Page 1, Line 4: Delete "increased size of signs" and Add "presence of off-site signs." Page 2, Line 3: Delete "larger" and Add "more off-site signs." Page 2, Line 7: Add "and elsewhere in the community" at the end. Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUBINEBB: NEW BUBINE~B: 6. Amendment to Desiqn Review 91-07 APPLICANTS: STEPHEN PAQUETTE 10542 GREENBRIER ROAD SANTA ANA, CA 92705 HENRY KUMAGAI 19021 CANYON DRIVE VILLA PARK, CA 92667 Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1991 Page 9 OWNERS: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: NORMAN FRITZ HENRY KUMAGAI 15734 NEWTON STREET 1902 CANYON DRIVE HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CA 91745 VILLA PARK, CA 92667 135 SOUTH PROSPECT AVENUE AND 240 EAST FIRST STREET FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN - COMMERCIAL AS A PRIMARY USE THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TWO ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT BONUSES ARE REQUESTED, PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN THE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN, AND INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: 1. AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL A MONUMENT SIGN WITHIN THE REQUIRED TEN FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK AND PERMIT SUCH SIGN TO STAND AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF EIGHT FEET; AND 2. AUTHORIZATION TO PERMIT A 64-SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGN ALONG THE NORTH ELEVATION AND LIMIT THE WALL SIGN ON THE WEST ELEVATION TO A MAXIMUM OF 25-SQUARE FEET. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Amendment to Design Review 91-07 by adopting Resolution No. 2948, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Dan Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked if the reciprocal driveway would be twice as wide as a normal one; if it would be possible to require two separate driveways. Staff replied that a reciprocal driveway would be a normal size of 28 feet; and that now, due to the lot consolidation, this is considered a non-variance item allowing a monument sign on the limited frontage; and that the item has been decided by the City Council which is the final authority in this matter. Commissioner Kasparian cited from the report that the Council neither upheld the Commission's decision of denial or approved it. Staff replied that that was regarding the variance and that they did approve the Condition Use Permit authorizing the lot consolidation request; and that the two issues this evening were only the monument sign and the reversal of the Tire Center front elevation. The Director stated that the Redevelopment Agency took action on the site plan and restricts action to signage only this evening. Henry Kumaqai, applicant, stated that Texaco informed him this afternoon that if Goodyear is on the monument sign, they will not provide gasoline to the car wash. The Director replied that staff was unaware of this information. Staff stated that the proposed copy on the exhibits is strictly conceptual to establish the sign area; that the Sign Code would only allow the business name on the sign; that product names and services cannot be displayed; that Mr. Paquette is currently negotiating with Goodyear to incorporate Goodyear into his name; that as of 3:00 p.m. this afternoon, Mr. Kumagai represented that Texaco would not be a fuel provider if Goodyear was on the sign; that the Sign Code requires that where fuel products are sold, the Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1991 Page 10 name of the provider must be identified on price information signs; and that they have advised Mr. Kumagai to communicate with Mr. Paquette regarding the tire service business name; if Goodyear does not allow their name in the business name, there is no issue. Commissioner Kasalek asked if Texaco was strictly opposed to Goodyear or the other business name. Mr. Kumagai replied that if Goodyear was on the monument sign, Texaco would have to come off. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that if only one of the businesses would be represented, then the sign should not be allowed to be 64 square feet. The Director clarified that staff nor the Code would approve Goodyear on the sign. Staff also stated that Texaco requires a four (4) by five (5) foot sign whereas the Code allows only a seven (7) square foot sign for the Texaco identification. Mr. Kumaqai referred to the lot consolidation at Yorba and First Street where 7/11 was allowed a separate monument sign. Commissioner Baker stated that 7/11 was an existing business. Commissioner Weil suggested decreasing the sign to 48 square feet; that two (2) signs would be too crowded; and that they should continue the item to work out the problems. Commissioner Baker asked if the applicant could confer with Texaco. Mr. Kumaqai affirmed; and stated that the car wash would provide very little tax revenue, that it is mostly from the gasoline sales. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if he did not have to share a sign, what would be an acceptable sign size; and that the Commission cannot approve this without knowing who would be represented on the sign. Bill Heninqsman, Superior Electrical Advertising, replied that a six (6) foot by eight (8) foot sign with 29 square feet of sign area was originally proposed. Commissioner Kasalek asked for a clarification of the street frontage combination justifying a monument sign. Staff replied that the consolidation helps to justify the bonus; that the physical site plan would be a consolidated lot; that both tenants do not have to be on the sign; and that the elevation reversal for the tire service will benefit First Street. The Director noted that if there is a granting of a monument sign for one operator, there would be a request for another from the second business. Commissioner Kasparian asked if a wall consideration for the Tustin Auto Wash; sign would be a Mr. Kumagai replied that Texaco wants a monument sign and that they would be required to have one to receive gas. Commissioner Baker asked if this could be continued. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1991 Page 11 Commissioner Kasalek asked if part 2 of the application could be approved separately. The Director affirmed. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the pricing could be smaller if the monument sign was smaller. Mr. Heningsman replied that the pricing has to be a minimum of seven (7) square feet; that a sign has to be proportional; that a sign of 48 square feet will not benefit the business since copy at six (6) inches would not be visible. Commissioner Le Jeune responded that signs can be done smaller with good visibility; and suggested the pricing be less visible. Mr. Heningsman replied that an alternate sign might be acceptable to Texaco; that they have their own sizes; and that they proposed twenty (20) square feet for pricing and logo. Commissioner Kasparian suggested that people do not go to a car wash primarily for the price of the gasoline; and that Mr. Kumagai should discuss with Texaco putting the pricing elsewhere. Commissioner Weil stated that she had a problem with giving them any more signage than they already have; and suggested continuing the item so the Texaco representative can be present at the next meeting; and she questioned the inability to read the smaller sign. Staff suggested that the applicant be advised to communicate with Goodyear also. Commissioner Weil moved, Le Jeune seconded to continue Item No. 1 until the next meeting to give the applicant time to work with their fuel supplier regarding the sign copy. MotioD carried 5-0. The Director provided a modified Resolution to switch the wall sign elevations, as moved. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Weil seconded to approve Item No. 2 authorizing a 64-square foot wall sign along the north elevation and limit the wall sign on the west elevation to a maximum of 25- square feet, by: Resolution No. 2948: Delete Item 1. on Page 1 and renumber Item 2. Exhibit A or Resolution No. 2948: Delete Items 1.1, 1.2, 1.3; Renumber 3.4, and 3.1. Motion carried 5-0. ST~%FF CONCERNS~ Report on actions taken at September 3, 1991 City Council meeting Staff reported on the subject agenda. Staff informed the Commission that they would be receiving invitations for the RUDAT workshop on the weekend of the 27th. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1991 Page 12 COI~ISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Weil -Asked about the status of the helicopter base committee. Staff responded that it would be agendized and a Commissioner would be selected to serve on the committee. Commissioner Kasparian -Suggested a workshop for the Commission and the City Council to review the First Street Specific Plan. Staff suggested a workshop for the Commission only first to gather information and then meet with the Council. It was decided that a workshop would take place on October 14th at 5:30 p.m. preceding the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Le Jeune -Noticed video games mentioned in minutes meeting. Asked if prohibition of video reconsidered. from a previous games had been Staff will bring a report back to the Commission on the subject. -Asked about sound barriers - wall vs. landscape. Staff informed the Commissioner that the matter related to the City of Orange. -Asked about signage for new businesses near Centennial Way and the post office. Staff responded that they would have to comply with the current sign code. -Cable company on Prospect Avenue put antennae onto the large antenna. Staff will check on the site. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Weil moved, Le Jeune seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:57 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on September 23, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Kathleen Clancy Secretary Chairman