Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-12-91MINUTES TUSTIN PL~NNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 12v 1991 CALL TO ORDER: 7:02 p.m., city Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: LeJeune, Baker, Kasparian, Kasalek, 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: (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 July 22, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. 2. Recommendation of Denial of Design Review 91-07 As requested by the Planning Commission at the regularly scheduled meeting of July 22, 1991, staff has prepared Resolution No. 2927-D, a resolution of the Planning Commission recommending denial to the Redevelopment Agency of Design Review 91-07 for the properties located at 135 South Prospect Avenue and 240 East First Street. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Weil abstained. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. Variance 91-13 OWNER/ APPLICANT: HENRY KUMAGAI 19021 CANYON DRIVE VILLA PARK, CA 92667 LOCATION: 240 EAST FIRST STREET ZONING: FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN PRIMARY USE ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: - COMMERCIAL AS A THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO SECTION r- .......... 131'3-1 Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page 2 REQUEST: 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL A MONUMENT SIGN ALONG STREET FRONTAGE OF 110 FEET WHERE 150 FEET IS REQUIRED AND PERMIT SUCH SIGN TO ENCROACH NINE FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 10-FOOT FRONT-YARD SETBACK Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner The Public Hearing was opened at 7:05 p.m. Henry Kumaqai, owner, has been working with staff for three (3) months; that he is requesting a variance so that the sign may be placed within the ten (10) foot setback, as are all of the pole and monument signs along First Street; that he needs a monument sign because the building next door would block site of a building mounted sign; requiring people passing his carwash to make two u- turns to return; that a monument sign would therefore be safer; that three other car washes in the City have eighteen (18) foot pole signs and he is only asking for a six (6) foot monument sign that can be easily seen. Bill Henninqsman, Superior Electrical Advertising, stated that they have redesigned the sign many times; that the last proposal is the best design for the building; and that they are not deviating from the building and staying within the codes; and that they have worked extensively with staff. Commissioner Weil, asked if the applicant had been informed of the First Street Specific Plan when he received his original approval. Mr. Kumagai replied that when the car wash was approved, staff informed him that the First Street Specific Plan was a separate issue; and that the City Council wanted a big sign so people would not pass his building and make two u-turns to return. Commissioner Weil asked if he was informed that the ten (10) foot setback was not a place for the sign. Mr. Kumaqai replied that he originally wanted to move his wall five (5) feet from the street to match up with the Post Office and the office building, but was informed by staff that since he was getting his carwash, he should not move the wall. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:11 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there would be a wall on the west side of the car wash and if it would extend out as much as the other wall; and if there would be a consolidation of the signage with the adjacent building. Staff affirmed and noted that the applicant is posting a bond pending the outcome of the other item regarding the lot consolidation; and that the consolidation of the copy area on the sign is also pending appeal of the tire service center. Commissioner Le Jeune asked when that action would be before the City Council. Staff replied that it was agendized for September 3. The Director stated that staff presented an alternative of a temporary use permit for a large temporary sign until the City Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page 3 Council makes a decision; that a variance would not then be needed, but the applicant rejected the proposal. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what the start-up date was. Staff replied that it would be approximately the end of August. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the difference between the request for this sign and the Plaza on First; if there was a bonus involved in this issue. Staff replied that the project referred to was a lot consolidation that received a development bonus allowing a sign to be in the setback area; that there is no bonus involved in this proposal, it is only a variance request. Commissioner Weil asked if approval of this sign would set a precedent regarding the First Street Specific Plan, since they have less than 150 feet frontage. Staff replied that this is a City-wide criteria; but that since this would be the first variance along First Street,a precedent would be set; that most of the signs presented by the applicant were existing non-conforming signs. Commissioner Baker noted that they are referring to uses that did not conform in the first place. Commissioner Le Jeune suggested that they postpone the item until the City Council makes a decision. Staff replied that program for signage September 3 meeting. if the lot consolidation occurs, the bonus is not being heard by the Council at the Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the decision would determine the type of sign that could be placed. Staff responded that the Commission could confirm the location and size of the sign by approving the variance in the event that the lot consolidation is approved. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that they are not sure, though, of the best place for the sign in case of consolidation. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Baker noted that they will be open within two weeks and that the State requires certain signage; and that continuing this would put him at a disadvantage. Staff replied that gas pricing which could be provided temporarily. Commissioner Kasparian noted that staff indicated three possibilities for placement of signage; that he feels that in time people will know where the car wash is; and that he will not need a 6 x 7 foot sign that encroaches only one (1) foot from the sidewalk; and he opted for denial of the appeal for the sign at this time. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Weil seconded to deny Variance 91-13 by adopting Resolution No. 2931-D. Motion carried 4-1 (Baker opposed). · r ..................? II1'11! l"ll l ! " Il I Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page 4 4. Conditional Use Permit 91-13 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ANTHONY FISTONICH 1061 EAST MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 LEGRAND REALTY 2341 WESTWOOD BLVD. #1 LOS ANGELES, CA 90064 1061 EAST MAIN STREET PC-C (PLANNED COMMUNITY - COMMERCIAL) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ON-SITE SALE OF BEER AND WINE FOR CONSUMPTION ON THE PREMISES (ABC LICENSE TYPE "41") IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT USE. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 91-13, requesting authorization for the on-site sale of beer and wine for consumption on premises only, by adopting Resolution No. 2929 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner Commissioner Weil asked if there was an ABC license that only allowed on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages. Staff replied negatively. Commissioner Kasparian asked, regarding Exhibit A, if it was customary to identify the submitted plans on the day of the meeting. Staff affirmed that they are date stamped on the day of the meeting that they are approved. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:21 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:22 p.m. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 91-13, authorizing the on-site sale of beer and wine for consumption on premises only, by adopting Resolution No. 2929 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. 5. Temporary Use Permit Extension 91-03 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: GEORGE GANTES BRECKENRIDGE GROUP P.O. BOX 8147 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 MC COMBS PROPERTIES EIGHT LTD. 13132 NEWPORT AVENUE #106 TUSTIN, CA 92680 FARADAY'S GRILL 13102 NEWPORT AVENUE PLANNED COMMUNITY-COMMERCIAL (PC-C) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO SECTION Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page 5 REQUEST: 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EXTENSION OF A 30-DAY TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO ALLOW a BANNER TO BE DISPLAYED FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX (6) MONTHS. Recommendation - Pleasure of the Planning Commission. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner Commissioner Kasparian noted that he did not understand the connection between the road work on the I-5 and SR55 and Faraday's; that he was removed from the construction area; and asked for a clarification of the letter from Mr. Gantes. Staff replied that a temporary use permit is available during the four (4) quarters of the year and a banner must be down for sixty (60) days before putting it up again for thirty (30) days. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasalek seconded to continue this item to the August 26, 1991 meeting at the applicant's request. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Conditional Use Permit 91-07 and Variance 91-11 APPLICANT/ LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: JOHN V. SAUERS P.O. BOX 1204 TUSTIN, CA 92680 515 SOUTH PACIFIC STREET SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-i) DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1), PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 1. TO ALLOW AN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE PERMITTED AS A SECOND SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING; AND 2. TO ALLOW A SECOND DWELLING WITH LESS THAN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 91-07 and Variance 91-11 by adopting Resolution No. 2930, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Staff made changes to Resolution 2930, as moved. Commissioner Weil asked if there was any response to the notice. Staff affirmed, but noted that the responses were mostly due to a misunderstanding and have been satisfied. Commissioner Baker noted that the driveway has a substantial driveway. Staff replied that the driveway cannot be counted as parking area. Commissioner Weil asked what triggered this application. I ...... 1- ............. I!III1 T II I! I I! I Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page 6 Staff replied that Mr. Sauers came in on his own to legally recognize the uses on the property. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:31 p.m. Mr. John Sauers, applicant, noted that he put up the building four (4) years ago for his wife's use, but his wife passed away nine (9) months later. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:32 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune commended the applicant for being the only one in Tustin with a carport for his mobile home. Commissioner Weil moved, Baker seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 91-07 and Variance 91-11 by adopting Resolution No. 2930 revised as follows: Page 2, Item D, #2 should read: "Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. Other properties in the vicinity do not have second dwellings for exclusive use by persons over the age of 62 years." Motion carried 5-0. 7. Zone Chanqe 91-03 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CITY OF TUSTIN 15222 DEL AMO AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX - TUSTIN GENERALLY BOUNDED BY TUSTIN RANCH ROAD TO THE WEST, MYFORD ROAD TO THE EAST, I-5 (SANTA ANA FREEWAY) TO THE NORTH, AND THE AT&SF RAILROAD TO THE SOUTH PLANNED COMMUNITY (INDUSTRIAL) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORD- ANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT TO AMEND THE IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO INCLUDE PRIVATE, INDOOR RECREATIONAL USES SUCH AS BATTING CAGES, DANCE STUDIOS, GYMNASTIC STUDIOS AND MARTIAL ARTS STUDIOS AS CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES WITHIN THIS PC(IND) DISTRICT AND TO ESTABLISH PARKING STANDARDS Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Negative Declaration for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2932. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2933 recommending approval of Zone Change 91-03 to the City Council. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if this was the only industrial area in the City, other than on 6th street. Staff replied that there are a few other smaller areas. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the complex where the City offices are temporarily located had a similar zone change; and if there are any other industrial areas that have not been included. Staff replied that that area was under the code of the Pacific Center East Project; and that the Jamboree Plaza regulations Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page 7 include batting cages and fitness studios, but this zone change is only for the Irvine Industrial Park. Commissioner Le Jeune asked why the area on Red Hill was excluded. The Director replied that the area south of Valencia was not part of a planned community industrial area; that there is some heavier industrial use and are characteristically very different projects. Commissioner Kasparian asked why racquetball, handball uses were excluded; and asked if this would be utilizing shared parking. Staff replied that they are more intense uses requiring more parking and indoor space; and that each tenant improvement would be required to have enough parking space. Commissioner Kasparian asked for examples of other allowed uses. Staff replied that various martial arts and dance studios would be applicable. Commissioner Weil asked if there was more than one response. Staff replied negatively. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that, as an owner of a building in this area, he did not receive a notice of the public hearing and wondered if everyone in the area was notified. Staff affirmed. The Director stated that on a code amendment where a list of permitted uses is being added, every property owner within the district would not receive a notice; and that this was not site specific. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:39 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Weil noted that since most of the use will be made after 5:00 p.m., this was a good use of the industrial parks. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to approve the Negative Declaration for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2932. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2933 recommending approval of Zone Change 91-03 to the City Council. Motion carried 5-0. 8. Conditional Use Permit 91-11 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: MR. CHANG JIN KANG 3649 WEST MC FADDEN AVENUE SANTA ANA, CA 92704 2600 WALNUT AVENUE, SUITE A & B TUSTIN BUSINESS CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY (INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page 8 REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A MARTIAL ARTS STUDIO WITHIN AN EXISTING TENANT SPACE AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2600 WALNUT AVENUE, SUITES A AND B. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2934 approving Conditional Use Permit 91-11, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner This item was withdrawn by the applicant. 9. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14381, Conditional Use Permit 91-17 Design Review 90-55 and APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE BREN COMPANY 5 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOTS 2, 3, "T", "V", "W", "X" AND "Z" OF TRACT 13627 MEDIUM-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 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 155 NUMBERED LOTS AND 34 LETTERED LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING UNITS; 2. APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN DNA ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT; AND 3. AUTHORIZATION TO UTILIZE THE "CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT" STANDARDS FOR THIS PROJECT. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the environmental determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2935; 2. Approve Design Review 90-55 by adopting Resolution No. 2936, as submitted or revised; 3. Approve Conditional Use Permit 91-17 by adopting Resolution No. 2937, as submitted or revised; and 4. Recommend approval to the City Council of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14381 by adopting resolution No. 2938, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Anne E. Bonnet, Assistant Planner Staff made changes to Item 7.1 A. on page 8, and Item B on Page 15 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2398, as moved. Commissioner Kasparian asked who determines if a project will be a cluster development or not; and asked if this was encouraged to develop open space. Staff replied that it was an option of the East Tustin Specific Plan; and that they could provide conventional development or cluster development and attribute the remaining area to open space. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of open space; and if it included lot FF. Staff replied that it could be passive or open; that this applicant has provided a trail system leading to a bus stop and a flat area Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page 9 for grasslands; and that lot FF is a reservation lot and not included in the calculation. Commissioner Kasparian noted that the fencing between the homes look like they go to the corner of another building; and that it looks as though there is a backyard against someone's home. Staff referred to attachment B illustrating the fence and property lines; and that it is a permitted development; that they could create zero lot lines, but they are creating five (5) foot use easements to allow for overhang and drainage. The Director noted that this pattern is already in the field with very few complaints; that there is a noticing requirement as part of the CC&R's making the owners aware of the easement; and that it maximizes their yard area. Commissioner Kasparian asked if there were any nineteen (19) foot driveways; and if there were any water saving features imposed on the design. Staff affirmed and noted that there is a combination from six (6) feet to nineteen (19) feet; and that reclaimed water for landscape irrigation is required by the Irvine Company. The Director replied that the Uniform Plumbing Code's requirements would be incorporated into the project; and that certain types of construction are exempt until the new UPC is published. Commissioner Kasparia~ asked for clarification of lot FF. Staff replied that the reservation of lot FF is for the onramp to the tollway, if needed; if a different path is taken, the developer has the right to expand into that area; and that there is a condition of approval included requiring street modifications. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the end court conditions had been modified to staff's satisfaction. Staff replied that they were looking at the end court condition with the 90 degree angles. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the exterior wall space of 1A/B could be broken up or mitigated to avoid reflection on the neighbors. The Director replied that the layout provides the maximum opportunity for retaining shade conditions; that the layout of the majority would be in an east/west pattern to take advantage of the movement of the sun. Commissioner Kasparian asked if this was adjacent to the lot with the eucalyptus windrow. Staff affirmed and noted that a eucalyptus study is required because of the location of the roots. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the entire tract is not allowed to park in the driveways; asked if those at the end of the court would have to back down the street or use the neighbor's driveway to turn around; and asked if this was a new concept. Staff replied that parking would only be allowed in driveways that are nineteen (19) feet or longer; affirmed that the owner at the Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page 10 end of a court would have to do a three-point turn or use the neighbor's driveway; and that normally for a single-family development there would be a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the method of trash collection; how wide each private street was; and assumed that the trucks would have to back out of the streets. Staff replied that trash pick-up would be in front of each home; and that the main loop roads are 36 feet wide, the lead-in to the motor courts are 28 feet with no parking, expanding to 32 feet, and that the private drives are only 25 feet. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there were no objections from the Fire Department. Staff replied negatively. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:01 p.m. Mr. Bill Moorehous, Director of Project Management for Bren Company, noted that they have been in the process of this project for about nine (9) months; that this project is different and innovative; that their goal was to provide single family detached housing in a price range that would normally be associated with attached housing; that they have been creative in their site design; that they are at a substantially lesser density than another design could have achieved; that they have found ways to make the project fit within the guidelines with the help, patience and diligence of staff. Commissioner Weil assumed that this project was a transition between the condominiums to the south and the less dense areas to the north. Mr. Moorehous replied that they were allowed ten (10) units per acre and that they are well below that limit. Commissioner Weil stated that she realizes that this project provides some advantages of a condominium project, but that she is worried about the negatives. She stated that the turnarounds are not adequate; that parking being allowed on only one side may create problems; that delivery trucks will have to turn around in driveways, which might create liability problems for the City as well as the Irvine Company; and that she would like to see an attempt to create cul-de-sacs on streets with more than two (2) houses deep. She continued with stating that with 55% of the houses having four (4) bedrooms, there will be a problem with parking, since large families have more than two (2) cars; that she would like to see the parking increased and the ratio of four (4) bedrooms to three (3) bedroom houses reversed which will decrease the potential amount of cars. She also indicated that if the above cannot be equitably worked out, a note should be included in the deed restriction restricting people to two (2) cars. Mr. Moorehous reviewed handouts which he provided to the Commission; noted that there would be less children of driving age in this type of project; that they feel that the buyer will not be someone who has lived in single-family detached housing. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that people with college students at home will have to park the extra car off-site. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page 11 Mr. Moorehous replied that the board will have the ability to reinforce that; and that they would be discouraging people with more than two (2) cars from buying. Commissioner Kasalek asked if these parking restrictions in the CC&R's are used anywhere; and if they know how the public views the restrictions. Mr. Moorehous replied that he does not know of anywhere that these restrictions are in force; that it will become a problem when people begin to abuse the guest parking; that they will notify buyers when they walk into the sales office that these units have the advantage of a single-family house with the disadvantage of less parking; and that they expect some buyer resistance. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if those people with nineteen (19) foot driveways would not be able to park their cars in the driveways; or if they would be permitted to have a third car. Mr. Moorehous replied that it will be up to the association to enforce that; that they will be informed that they have to park in the garage, and that they will not tell them that they can park in their driveway. Commissioner Baker asked what the handout then meant. Mr. Moorehous replied that as guest spaces, those would be available. Commissioner Le Jeune asked again if an owner could park a third car on a nineteen foot driveway. Mr, Moorehous replied that they intend to remain silent on that issue. Commissioner Weil asked where the off-site parking is that Mr. Moorehous is referring to. Mr. Moorehous suggested that the extra car be left at a relative's or a friend's; and stated that they have provided an extra .2 spaces than the code requires. He continued with stating that they would be willing to give up a plan and then provide 75% of the units as three (3) bedrooms, and 25% as four (4) bedrooms. Commissioner Kasparian asked how this would solve the parking problem. Commissioner Weil replied that she felt it would reduce the amount of cars; that people buying would realize that these do not have as much room as the higher priced units. She continued with noting that it would be buried in the CC&R's; and that the large percentage of three (3) bedroom units would trigger a question in the minds of the buyers. Mr. Moorehous replied that there would be a separate disclosure in addition to the CC&R's regarding the parking issue. Commissioner Le Jeune asked the percentage of the mix of units in the Shadowbrook example. Mr. Moorehous replied that about 30% are four (4) bedroom units; that this project would now be less than that. He continued with stating that they do not feel that there will be a major problem regarding the backing up of vehicles on the motor courts; that the Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page 12 motor courts were reviewed by the Fire Department and Great Western with no problems noted. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that other delivery trucks will also need to back up. Mr. Moorehous replied that it would be the same as in any other multi- or single-family project. Commissioner Weil disagreed and noted that other projects have full-width streets; that most multi-family projects in Tustin have a better traffic pattern; that these streets are too long to turn around in; that delivery drivers are going to use owner's driveways; that the owners at the end of the streets will have cracked driveways from the turn-around traffic; and suggested reinforcing those driveways. Mr. Moorehous suggested signage for delivery trucks; noted that they would be willing to investigate reinforcement of the driveways; and that they could not install cul-de-sacs without substantial loss of open space. Commissioner Kasparian asked if parking was allowed on the motor courts; and if trash trucks could maneuver with parking on the streets. Mr. Moorehous replied that there would be no parking on 28 foot streets, parking on one side on 32 foot streets, and 36 foot streets would allow parking on both sides; and affirmed that trash trucks would have plenty of clearance; and would have to back up about 100 feet. Commissioner Kasparian asked about the City's liability in this matter. John Shaw, City Attorney, replied that when the City approves a subdivision design, the law provides that the City cannot be sued for problems that materialize later; that claims can be made, but they have immunity from lawsuits involving discretionary approvals of subdivisions. Mr. Moorehous stated that they have reviewed some of the clusters and picked up three (3) additional spaces in Phase 4. Commissioner Le Jeune asked why they could not provide sidewalks on both sides of the streets. Mr. Moorehous stated that they initially had no sidewalks on the motor courts; that this is a pedestrian court in a village-like cluster with enhanced paving; that they feel it is safe for pedestrians to walk in the motor court areas; however, the policy committee felt they needed a sidewalk on one side; that landscaped areas are critical to the appearance of the area which would be lost with additional sidewalks. Commissioner Weil stated that their presentation to the steering committee had eighteen (18) more homes and asked what was eliminated. Mr. Moorehous replied that the project would have had all of the houses lined up in a row instead of the presented approach; that the number of lots under 3,000 square feet are 20 out of 155; that Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page 13 the majority of the lots are over 3,000 square feet; and that this layout provides 300-400 square feet of usable yard area. Commissioner Baker asked if the parking notes in the handout were to be included in the CC&R's; and the difference between A & D. Mr. Moorehous affirmed and noted that they would be improved; and that there is probably no difference between A & D. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:50 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the parking notes could be made a condition of the CC&R's. The Director provided language of the parking notes to modify the language, as moved. Commissioner Kasparian stated that they did not want to imply that the owner must keep his car in the garage at all times; that it could be half in and half out. The Director stated that many CC&R's acknowledge that vehicles should be parked in garages. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if they should expect more projects like this; and if anything that happens tonight will not affect future projects. The Director replied that there were none to date that required such significant modifications to the standards; and that each project is separate. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Police Department would enforce the parking requirements. The Director replied that the Police Department does not enforce CC&R restrictions on private streets; that it is up to the homeowner's association to provide their own enforcement device. Commissioner Kasparian requested a summary of the decisions. The Director summarized the issues: 1) request for deed restriction; 2) parking distribution issue; 3) unit mix; and 4) the end court condition. She then provided language for the Resolutions, as moved. Mr. Moorehous stated that the actual percentage of three or four bedrooms might vary. The Director replied that they would allow for a 70/30 mix of three and four bedroom units, respectively. Commissioner Weil stated that if the company is willing to reinforce the driveways, she would rather keep the long driveways, and keep the cluster plan as presented instead of the alternative plan. Commissioners Le Jeune, Kasparian and Kasalek agreed; and noted that it would be more attractive to buyers. Commissi0Der ~e Jgu~e asked if the entire driveway should be reinforced. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page 14 The Director replied that just the curb cut would be reinforced; and that there should be notification of the owners of the end units that their driveways might be used for back up and turn around. Commissioner Kasparian asked if they were encouraging the use of those driveways for turnaround. Commissioner Weil felt that the heavy bottled water trucks would cause damage to more than the curb cuts and that part of the driveway should be reinforced to eliminate liability claims. The Director responded that the driveways would be used for turnaround, but that she was not concerned with the breakup of the curbcuts due to City standards. Commissioner Kasparian asked how much this would cost and how many were at issue. Commissioner Le Jeune suggested that staff should decide how far back to reinforce these driveways. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to approve the environmental determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2935. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to approve Design Review 90-55 by adopting Resolution No. 2936 revised as follows: Exhibit A, add: *** 3.7 The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Community Development Department a reinforced driveway detail for those end court conditions at the terminus of those private drives or private streets where 90° angled driveways are provided affecting lots 3, 31, 60, 71, 99, 95 and 150. Add: *** 3.8 The applicant shall modify the site plan to accommodate three additional on-street parking spaces in that portion of the site plan identified as Phase 4 of the project widening the southern portion of "B" Street to a paved street width of 36 feet. Add: *** 3.9 The applicant shall modify the unit bedroom mix for the project so that a not to exceed ratio of 70% - three bedroom and 30% - four bedroom units is achieved. The Community Development Department shall be permitted to review and approve the necessary modifications to the plans date stamped August 12, 1991 to accommodate the revised unit mix. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 91-17 by adopting Resolution No. 2937 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend approval to the City Council of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14381 by adopting Resolution No. 2938 revised as follows: Exhibit A, No. 7.1(A): remove a colon from the word "provisions". No. 10.3(B): change "Tract 14295" to "Tract 14381". Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page 15 No. 7.1(R) is modified as follows: First paragraph, line 4 - replace "enable" with "require". Eliminate ",at its discretion," Insert new paragraph after first paragraph ending with wording "companies/persons." "To ensure the proper use of parking spaces within the subdivision, CC&R's shall include the following acknowledgements and restrictions, which shall also be signed as a separate notification/acknowledgement, by each new homeowner in the subdivision: Project has .5 guest spaces per unit; individual owners shall have no right to use guest spaces for any vehicle. Individual owners shall park vehicles in garage space or on driveway area provided vehicles do not overhang the public right-of-way or sidewalk easements. Individual owner understands that the subdivision has strict parking regulations that will be enforced by the homeowner's association. Should an individual owner own more than two vehicles, additional vehicles shall be kept outside of the subdivision boundaries." Add to end of first sentence of second paragraph "and Community Development Department for review and approval." Insert in second sentence of second paragraph after "The Police Department..." and Community Development Department..." Add sentence to end of second paragraph to read "Ail parking regulations shall be enforced at time of final occupancy of any phase of the project." Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS= NEW BUSINESS~ 10. Advertising Displays on Bus Stop Shelters Recommendation - Pleasure of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Le Jeune asked who determines how many shelters are placed in the Irvine city limits. Mr. Gross replied that some cities allocate an indeterminate amount; that the transit district would like shelters at their bus stops; that the manufacturer is not in the business of providing a service to the customers, but to sell advertising space. Commissioner Le Jeune asked about the income generated from benches. Mr. Gross replied that benches without shelters pay about one fourth the amount of a shelter; that they have one (1) face instead of (2) as in a shelter; and that it is quite common to have different companies in a community to provide shelters. Commissioner Le Jeune asked who determines who the manufacturers will be; and how the sites are determined. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page 16 Mr. Gross replied that it would be the City Engineer decides. The Director replied that if an amendment was made to the City Code, a franchise agreement would be awarded and staff would approve the individual design; and that there is a tentative target date for Sign Code review and asked if the Commission would like to discuss the issue with the City Council. Commissioner Le Jeune requested better photographs. Mr. Gross offered to provide slides of existing locations. The Director noted that the staff report stated that a dedication of right-of-way could be required; and that the applicant would be responsible for installation; that the issues of restricted right- of-way, and limited sidewalk width would pose constraints; and that the areas should be looked at in more detail. Commissioner Le Jeune asked who would maintain any graffiti; and if they were constructed of acrylic or glass. Mr. Gross replied that they are maintained by the suppliers weekly, and that they are constructed of a very thick glass. Commissioner Weil noted that they are tastefully done in Irvine; that they are a way of providing better shelter without a cost to the City; but that they should pursue control of the advertising; and that benches can be more of an eyesore than shelters without providing shelter. Mr. Gross noted that they can be selectively allowed in certain areas. Commissioner Le Jeune requested a bus route map before discussing with the city Council. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he was impressed by the comment regarding intrusion; but that they should look at new development; and asked who was responsible for benches with advertising. Mr. Gross replied that the owners of benches are only responsible for the benches and do not police the area, but that shelter owners maintain the bench, shelter, panel, light, trash can, and spill over trash. Commissioner Kasparian suggested checking with the bus company before determining placement. Mr. Gross replied that they would work with the transit company; and that they should be installed in high-use areas. The Director stated that she would put the item on the agenda for Sign Code review on Tuesday, August 20 at 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked the cost of a bench; and noted that the city provides benches without advertising. The Director replied that there are many City-provided benches. Commissioner Weil asked if her participation with Chamber of Commerce affects her. The Director replied that it affects her as a resident. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page 17 The Commission will wait until they can meet with the City Council to discuss the matter and make a decision. August 20th was the proposed date. STAFF CONCERNS= 11. Report on actions taken at August 5. 199~ City Council meeting Staff reported on the subject agenda. 12. Verbal report on Design Review process Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Design Review process covers the Commercial/Industrial/Residential areas; and if any areas were excluded. Staff replied that anything requiring a building permit requires a design review; that they are working to improve the design review process to make it more informal; that they are making it more standardized and simplified while still getting the information to review plans. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the packet provides the applicant information regarding the appeal process and other rights. Staff replied that there will be new materials in the packet and that the information is currently in the follow-up correspondence. Commissioner Le Jeune referred staff to an informative fold-out handout listing City Council members and applicants' rights which was presented at the League of Cities seminar. Staff stated that with direction from the City Council, they could implement such a handout. The Director noted that they will be instituting a three-day quick check for single-family occupancies. Commissioner Le Jeune commented on letters he received from the owner at 115 E. Prospect. The Director replied that the applicant's wife was not involved in the process, only her husband and architect; and that most of the information presented by her was inaccurate. Staff noted that the Cultural Resource District is working on design guidelines, but there is nothing City-wide. The Director noted that there is a lot of discussion whether guidelines are appropriate for Tustin; that the only major commercial stretch without guidelines is on Newport Avenue, which the City Council would like to prioritize; and that these issues will be presented with the General Plan update. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he was pleased that the applicants are being told that they have an appeal route. Staff informed the Commission of a joint Sign Code Workshop between the Commission and the City Council which will take place on August 20, 1991 at 5:30 p.m. at the Senior Center. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page 18 CON)fISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Kasparian -Asked if the City allowed large balloons for advertising. Staff responded that balloons were not allowed and the only exception was Tustin Marketplace. -Noted that Shipley's had two pole signs. -Asked about storing of construction equipment on lots. Commissioner Weil -Requested that staff enroll her in the APA. Commissioner Le Jeune -Noted that the windows of the retail center parallel to the 5 freeway were filling up with advertising. Staff indicated that each store is allowed to use 25% of the window space for advertising. -Indicated that he went on a ride-along with the Tustin Police Department and recommended the program to anyone interested. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kasparian moved, Kasalek seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:08 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on August 26, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Kathleen Cla~6~- ~ Secretary ~