Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-22-91MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNIN(~ COMMISSION REGULAR MEETIN~ ~ULY 22, ~99~ CALL TO ORDER: 7:02 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ~LLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: LeJeune, Shaheen, Baker, Kasparian, Kasalek 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 CALENDARARE 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 8, 1991 Planning Commission meetinq. Commissioner Baker moved, KaspariaD seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0 (Le Jeune abstained). PUBLIC HEARINGS= 2. Variance 91-12 and Conditional Use Permit 91-12 APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CRAB COOKER OF NEWPORT,INC. 2200 NEWPORT BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 EMS DEVELOPMENT 14081 SOUTH YORBA STREET, SUITE 107 TUSTIN, CA 92680 17260 E. SEVENTEENTH STREET ENDERLE CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY (COMMERCIAL) THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASSES 3 AND 11) PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 15303(C) AND 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 1. TO ALLOW A BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION WALL SIGN ON A SECOND SIDE ELEVATION, AND TO ALLOW BOTH SIDE WALL SIGNS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM SIGN AREA; I '--T , 1II'IF ---- I II I-1 ..... ! il I Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1991 Page 2 TO AUTHORIZE THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE FOR ON- SITE CONSUMPTION IN A PUBLIC EATING PLACE (ABC LICENSE TYPE 41), KNOWN AS THE CRAB COOKER RESTAURANT; AND TO ALLOW THE USE OF EXPOSED NEON LIGHTING FOR SIGNS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve Variance 91-12 allowing a business identification wall sign on a second side elevation, and allowing both side wall signs to exceed the maximum allowable sign area by adopting Resolution No. 2922. 2. Approve Conditional Use Permit 91-12 authorizing the sale of beer and wine for on-site consumption by adopting Resolution No. 2923, as submitted or revised. 3. Approve the use of exposed neon lighting for signs by adopting a Minute Order. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Staff made changes to Resolution No. 2922, as moved; and clarified that the sign on the east elevation would be partially illuminated by low intensity lighting; and that the Sign Code does not have a stipulation allowing for or prohibiting painted signs. Commissioner Baker asked for clarification of which part of the sign is to be painted. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the sign of the west elevation was considered to be mounted on the fascia board. Staff replied that there is no actual fascia and that it is considered a wall sign. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:12 p.m. Todd Schooler, architect, 500 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, stated that the entrance is actually at the back of the building; that they want to redistribute the signage so it is conducive to the site; and thanked Paula Rankin for her work. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the lights on the east elevation were similar to the lights on the Newport Beach location. Mr. Schooler affirmed; and that they are typical can-type lights. James Wasco of the Crab Cooker, noted that they would be warehouse lights that would be similar to the lights in Newport Beach; that due to the detail and artwork on the sign they could not illuminate it any other way. Commissioner Kasparian asked where the entrance was located at; and asked what the circular area was on the illustration. Mr. Schooler replied that the entrance is on the east elevation; and that the circular area is a landscaped area for waiting patrons. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:18 p.m. ~ommiss$oner Kasparia~ noted that he looks forward to this establishment and that he hopes the red color dulls a bit. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1991 Page 3 Com~issiQ~er Shaheen noted that this building warrants special attention since it is difficult to find in the center; and that the sign will enhance the project. Co~m$$sioDer ~asp~rian moved, Shah~en ~ecoBded to approve Variance 91-12 allowing a business identification wall sign on a second side elevation, and allowing both side wall signs to exceed the maximum allowable sign area by adopting Resolution No. 2922 revised as follows: Exhibit A, page 1, item 1.5: "Yorba Street" should be changed to "the Enderle Center parking area". Exhibit A, page 1, item 1.6: "the Enderle Center parking area" should be changed to "Yorba Street". Add a new item 1.8 to read: "The total business identification wall sign area for the restaurant shall be limited to a maximum of 114 square feet." and re-number the numbers that follow accordingly. Exhibit A, page 2, the new item 1.10: "north front". "east" should be changed to Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner KasDarian moved. Baker seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 91-12 authorizing the sale of beer and wine for on-site consumption by adopting Resolution No. 2923, as submitted. Mo~$on carried 5-0. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to approve the use of exposed neon lighting for signs by adopting a Minute Order. MotioD c~rried 5-0. T~Dta%ive Tract Map %4397, Design Review 90-50 and ~llside ~evSew 91-01 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: FOOTHILL COMMUNITY BUILDERS (THE IRVINE COMPANY) 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 LOTS 9, 10, Y, DD AND A PORTION OF PARCEL B 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 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. 1. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE 117 NUMBERED LOTS AND 44 LETTERED LOTS BY SUBDIVIDING APPROXIMATELY 63.6 ACRES FOR THE ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS. APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANS AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLANS FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF HILLSIDE REVIEW. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: i .... T .................. T-' qlllll I il I I I !! I 1 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1991 Page 4 1. Approve the environmental determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2920; 2. Approve Hillside Review 91-01 by adopting Resolution No. 2915, as submitted or revised; 3. Approve Design Review 90-50 by adopting Resolution No. 2921, as submitted or revised; and 4. Recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 14397 by adopting Resolution No. 2916, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner Staff made changes to Resolution No. 2916, as moved. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the revisions were made that were required at the previous meeting. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Baker asked if a letter of credit or a bond would be considered in lieu of a deposit. Staff replied that the Conditions of Approval were required by the Public Works Department. The Director responded that a surety would be acceptable. The Public Hearing opened at 7:23 p.m. Norm Smith, Irvine Company, was available for comments and thanked staff for helping them find a solution to the problem. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:24 p.m. Commissioner Baker noted that this illustrates that staff is able to work with applicants in negotiating problems; and that both sides did a great job on this issue. Commissioner Le Jeune agreed that it was a good effort of everyone trying to work together to resolve an issue. Commissioner Baker moved. Shabe~n se~o~e~ to approve the environmental determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2920. Mo~io~ carried 5-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Hillside Review 91-01 by adopting Resolution No. 2915, as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Design Review 90-50 by adopting Resolution No. 2921, as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commiss~one~ Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 14397 by adopting Resolution No. 2916, revised as follows: Exhibit A, page 4, item 1.8: "The developer will be required to provide the City with a cash deposit or surety for ten years, subject to approval by the Director of Public Works, in the amount of $75,000 prior to recording the final map." Motion carried 5-0. 4. Amendment Conditional Use Permit 88-15 APPLICANT: GRAPHIC SOLUTIONS 1750 KETTNER BOULEVARD Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1991 Page 5 OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 TUSTIN MARKET PLACE MIXED USE - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15303 (CLASS 3) AND 15311(a) (CLASS 11) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). TO ALLOW EMBELLISHMENTS, CONSISTING OF ACCENT WEDGES WITH NEON LIGHTING AND INTERNALLY- ILLUMINATED LETTERS, TO FOUR EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER IDENTIFICATION "MONOLITH" SIGNS Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the amendment to Conditional Use Permit 88-15 by adopting Resolution No. 2924, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the letters were proposed to be lit. Staff replied that the there will be exposed neon on the face of the wedges. Com~$ss$oner Baker asked if the monolith would be painted black as it seemed in the illustration. Staff replied that the color was not intended to be changed. Commissioner Baker noted that he constantly receives comments about the Market Place; and that this is not something he would like to see changed. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:27 p.m. Reuben Andrews, Graphic Solutions, noted that the photograph does not represent the color very well; that the new paint will be a deeper color than the original purple so that when it fades it will be the same as the original; that the purpose of the project is to bring the monoliths into step with the rest of the center. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if they will be repainting the monoliths a new purple. Mr. Andrews affirmed. Commissioner Kasparian asked if there will be inverted channels with neon all around them. M~. Andrews affirmed, except on the top; and noted that the neon colors will match the wedges. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:32 p.m. The Director noted that there will be advertising corresponding to the graphics on the monuments to gear up the marketing effort of the Market Place; that they will be spending $1.5 million over the next few years on advertising. gommissioner Kasuarian noted that there was an award given to the landscaping of the Market Place; that this gives a little "pizzazz" r ................. '1111 .... I !! I 1 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1991 Page 6 to the center; and that he is in favor of the color and design of the proposal. Commissioner Kasalek noted that she likes the proposal; that it ties the colors of the Market Place together. CommissioDer Le Jeune noted that he felt that something could be done with the monoliths, but that he did not feel this was it. Commissioner Shaheen liked the proposal. Commissioner Baker agreed that the monoliths need something, but was not sure this was it. Commissioner Kasparian noted that the monoliths were very bare and huge, but needed something. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the amendment to Conditional Use Permit 88-15 by adopting Resolution No. 2924, as submitted. Motion carried 3-2 with Commissioners Le Jeune and Baker opposed. 5. Conditiona~ Use Permit 91-10, Design Review 91-07 and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-25 APPLICANTS: OWNERS: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: STEPHEN D. PAQUETTE 10542 GREENBRIER ROAD SANTA ANA, CA 92705 NORMAN FRITZ 15734 NEWTON STREET HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CA 91745 HENRY KUMAGAI 19021 CANYON DRIVE VILLA PARK, CA 92667 HENRY KUMAGAI 19021 CANYON DRIVE VILLA PARK, CA 92667 135 SOUTH PROSPECT AVENUE & 240 EAST FIRST STREET FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN - COMMERCIAL AS A PRIMARY USE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1. APPROVAL OF VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT BONUSES PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE LOT CONSOLIDATION PROGRAM OF THE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN, 2. APPROVAL OF A 7% REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF REQUIRED PARKING PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CONSOLIDATED PARKING/ACCESS BONUS PROGRAM OF THE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN, AND 3. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A TIRE SERVICE BUSINESS AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135 SOUTH PROSPECT AVENUE WITH RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner Staff addressed the applicants' request for clarification of Item 3.3 of Page 3 of Exhibit A of Resolution 2926 by noting that the applicant does not intend to do heavy line work; noted that only five (5) of the service bays would be used for service; that the trip generation was based on the number of service bays shown, but that the reduction was insignificant and that the traffic study did not show a problem in this area. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1991 Page 7 Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there would be a lift in each of the working bays. Staff replied that there would be four (4) lifts and that the fifth bay would be used for balancing. The Director noted that Condition 3.4 would restrict bays 5 and 6 based upon a review of the parking layout; and that these two easterly bays would be for storage and balancing. Co~missioDer Le Jeune asked if each bay holds two cars. Staff replied that bays 1 through 4 could accommodate two (2) cars, but that while five (5) are being worked on, three (3) would be stacked or stored. CommSssion~r Shaheen asked if they would be working on more than tires and brakes and light service. Staff replied that they would not be doing heavy automotive repair work, only general service, tune-ups, oil changes and tires. Co~missioner Shabeen asked if there were eight (8) bays. Staff replied that there were eight (8), but only five would be for servicing, and the rest for storage and stacking. Co~missione~ Shaheen noted that the area would be crowded and posed a fire hazard. ¢ommission~F Kasalek asked how many employees were working at the adjacent building. Staff recommended asking the applicant. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:46 p.m. Stephen Paquette, applicant, thanked staff; noted that the podiatrist only had one person in the office, and that the tax accountant had two employees three days per week. He also stated that the two east bays were for tire storage, wheel balancing and the brake drum lathe; that the building was built for bus servicing and storage and was forty (40) feet deep; that there would be five (5) hoists without center posts which would alleviate parking problems within the building. He continued with offering comparable data from other stores regarding trip generation; and noted that the report suggested that the trip generation would be higher than it probably would be; that the building color would be changed to match the car wash and the office building. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there had been a survey of the Goodyear facility on Red Hill Avenue. MF. Paquette replied that he knew the operator and that he believed that they work on 20-25 vehicles on Saturday, about 18 vehicles daily, and that they would now be open Sundays. Commissioner Kasparian asked how many bays that location had. Mr. Pa~uette replied that they now had six (6) bays and nine (9) hoists. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1991 Page 8 Commissioner Kasalek asked how many employees would be at the Tustin/First Street location. Mr. Paquette replied that they would have five (5) employees. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the employees would be parking in the same lot. Mr. Paquette affirmed. Commissioner Kasalek asked how many customers leave their car for service during the day. Mr. Paquette replied that approximately 50% leave their cars for the day, and 50% remain with their vehicles. Commissione~ Le Jeune noted that he recently counted 33 cars waiting at the Goodyear on Red Hill Avenue. Mr. Paquette replied that he felt that not all of the cars were waiting for service; that it would be almost impossible for them to work on 33 cars; that he does not anticipate 33 cars at his proposed location, and it would be rare to get 30 cars per day. Steve Donnelly, Donnelly Bennett Architects, stated that they took a survey of three (3) Goodyear Stores and created a parking ratio of one (1) stall per 450-500 square feet that works well. Greg BeDnett, Donnelly Bennett Architects, stated that the project now needs no variances due to the lot consolidation; that Big O Tire Store had a peak generation of 102 trips; that the trip generation study for this building was based on a 32,000 square foot building in a retail automotive center; that the report states that there will be no significant impact at the intersection; and that parking is not an issue. He continued with noting that there will be a single drive aisle on First Street; that additional landscaping will screen First Street; and that 3-2 the City Council felt that the car wash was an acceptable use for the site. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:04 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen stated that he felt that the size, shape and configuration of the plot plan was not adequate for this use; that it would be difficult for a fire vehicle to obtain access to the facility; that the traffic study recommends seventeen (17) spaces for the tire store, six (6) spaces for the medical building and three (3) for the office building, but there is only eighteen (18) spaces provided; that the parking would be crowded and might create a fire hazard; that traffic in the vicinity will be worsened; that approval this evening would create problems in the future; and that he does not feel it belongs at this location. Commissioner Kasparian noted that of all of the examples presented by the applicant, not one noted that the facility was butted on one side by a car wash and the other by an office building which requires sharing of the parking and the driveway; that there is a bus stop on the corner which hampers traffic turning into the facilities; that this area is already crowded; that he feels they are trying to cram this into this location which indicates there is something wrong with the entire project; and that nowhere was the First Street Specific Plan mentioned; and that based on his belief in the Specific Plan, he does not believe this is the place for this facility. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1991 Page 9 CQ~missioner Kasalek agreed and stated that her position was that they are trying too hard to fit this facility into this location; and that this does not meet the intent of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Baker agreed. Commissioner Le Jeune felt that this is a use that is discouraged under the Specific Plan; that the office building is approximately 45-50 feet away from the tire store which will create a lot of noise and would be an inappropriate location. He continued that even though the City Council feels that consideration should be made regarding tax revenues, he does not feel that that should have any bearing on the project. He also noted that they did not approve of the car wash and that combining the applications would only compound the problems; that they are early into the years of the Specific Plan which should be implemented over a period of about 15-20 years; that another use will arise; that a Specific Plan has to be built by individual lots; and this project does not merit the Commission's approval. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Kasparian secoDded to adopt Resolution No. 2926-D denying Conditional Use Permit 91-10. Motion carried 5- CQ~missioner Le Jeune moved. KasDarian seconded to deny Design Review 91-07. Motion carried ~-0. Staff instructed to bring back a resolution of denial to the Commission on the Consent Calendar at the August 12 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2928-D denying an amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-25. Motion ~arried 5-0. OLD BUBII~B~: NEW BUSINESS~ STAFF CONCERNS: 6. Report on actions taken at July 15, 199% City Council meetinq Staff reported on the subject agenda. CO~ISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Shaheen -Expressed his enjoyment of attendance of the meetings with the other Commissioners and staff during his term. Commissioner ~asalek -Asked about the status of the street behind Peppertree homes. -Recommended that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Ed Shaheen's son who recently passed away. Commissioner Kasparian -Asked what the City's policy is on the installation of handicapped access ramps. I ........... ' --I IIF I 'IFT- ! ' I III Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1991 Page 10 Staff responded that the question would be forwarded to the Public Works Department for written response to the Commissioner. Commented on fences in state of disrepair along south side of Irvine Boulevard. Acknowledged Associate Planner, Sara Pashalides' great work on the sign code. Commissioner Baker -Asked about the possibility of First Street and Prospect Avenue realignment. Staff responded that the question would be forwarded to the Public Works Department and that Prospect Avenue will ultimately be widened. Commissioner Le Jeune -Commented on the unkempt appearance at the 55 Freeway and McFadden Avenue. -Noted that it appears that Continental Cablevision has an extra dish. -Expressed his pleasure in working with Commissioner Shaheen during his term with the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kasalek moved, Le Jeune seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on August 12, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. ChairmaDOnald nLe Je~ne~ ~ k, Kathleen Clancy Secretary