Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-10-91 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNTNG COMMTSSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 10, 199~ CALL TO ORDER: 7:10 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Le Jeune, 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: (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 May ~$, 1991 Planning Commission m~etinq. 2. Use Determination 91-02 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: MR. CHANG J. KANG IL-DO TAE KWAN-DO ASSOCIATION 3649 W. MCFADDEN SANTA ANA, CA 92704 2600 WALNUT AVENUE, SUITE A & B PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL (PC-IND) IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 5) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15305 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT TO DETERMINE THAT MARSHALL ARTS STUDIOS ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Deny by Minute Order, a determination that a martial arts studio is an outright permitted use within the Industrial/Support Commercial section of the Irvine Industrial Complex, as it is not similar to other outright permitted uses in the Industrial/Support Commercial section. 2. Determine by Minute Motion that a martial arts studio shall be allowed subject to the conditions of a · ...... 'r I' --- -[lq['--- -- ' 'I ' '11- [ ! i --T-I--T--' --[ Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1991 Page 2 Conditional Use Permit. 3. Provide direction to staff to begin preparation of a Code Amendment to allow recreational uses in the industrial areas subject to a conditional use permit. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to pull item #2 from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Kasparian questioned whether the use "shall" be allowed. The Director replied that "may" be allowed would be more appropriate; that staff would like direction to allow the applicant to process the actions concurrently; and that if there is no intention to support the use it would be appropriate to not give that direction, but that there are major issues associated with the use; and it would best be handled with the use permit process. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of recreational uses. The Director replied that it would be more clearly defined with a code amendment. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. The Director clarified that this was a motion to support the three staff recommended actions. Commissioner Le Jeune affirmed. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2.5 Cond%tional Use Permit 91-07 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: JOHN V. SAUERS 515 SO. PACIFIC STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 515 SO. PACIFIC STREET SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l) DISTRICT CULTURAL RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN EXISTING TWO-STORY STRUCTURE TO BE PERMITTED AS A SECOND SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION 9223-b. NO NEW CONSTRUCTION IS PROPOSED. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission table this item. The proposal will be renoticed when a new hearing date is determined. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasalek ~gv~d, Le Jeune seconded to table item #2.5. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1991 Page 3 Amendment to Desiqn Review 87-37, Conditional Use Permit 90- 26, Desiqn Review 90-39 APPLICANTS: CHEVRON USA, INC. P.O. BOX 2833 LA HABRA, CA 90632 DONAHUE SCHRIBER 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD, SUITE 300 SOUTH TOWER NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LANDOWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: IRVINE RETAIL PROPERTIES COMPANY 2 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 300 IRVINE, CA 92714 2740 BRYAN AVENUE MIXED USE - 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. APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW 87- 37 TO ALLOW LANDSCAPE AND BUILDING SETBACKS ALONG A PORTION OF MYFORD ROAD TO BE REDUCED FROM 72 AND 77 FEET, TO 52 AND 57 FEET, RESPECTIVELY. 2. APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATION WITH SELF- SERVICE GASOLINE SALES AND ACCESSORY CONVENIENCE STORE, AND AUTHORIZE A COMPREHENSIVE SIGNAGE PROGRAM FOR THE PROPOSAL. 3. APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. Recomm~Ddation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2907 finding that EIR 85-2 is adequate to serve as the program EIR for the project; and 2. Approve an Amendment to Design Review 87-37, Conditional Use Permit 90-26 and Design Review 90-39 by adopting Resolution No. 2908, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Staff made changes to Resolution 2908, as moved. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:21 p.m. John Torwick, Property Development Specialist for Chevron, USA, Inc., 1300 S. Beach Blvd., La Habra, commented that Chevron feels that the conditions and modifications that have been made are all that they are able to make at this time. He requested the following conditions be removed from the report: 3.1, 3.3, 3.15, and 5.4. CommissioDer Kasparian asked if the driveways would both have ingress and egress; if the driveways would be divided; and if they are a normal width. Mr. Torwick affirmed that they would have ingress and egress; noted that they normally have one large driveway without arrows; that a normal width is 35-38 feet. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1991 Page 4 The Director commented that this has been reviewed by the traffic engineer and meets City standards. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the storage tanks are double- walled; and who monitors the device. Mr. Torwick replied that they are to the current City, County, and State requirements; and that they are computer operated with sensing devices in the store with an alarm. Commissioner Kasparian asked why the women's lavatory was larger than the men's; and asked if low flush toilets would be incorporated. The Director replied that the Plumbing Code for new construction requires low flush toilets. Commissioner Kasalek asked for a clarification of the location of the trash enclosure; if it was closer to the terra cotta buildings than the Chevron buildings; if the roadway was not for routine traffic; and if the trash enclosures would be visible by the Chevron customers. The Director replied that it was set away from the Chevron buildings. Staff affirmed that it was closer to the terra cotta buildings; that the roadway was a service drive aisle; and that they are concerned with the way it would look from the street; that white against the terra cotta backdrop would be more noticeable. Commissioner Kasparian asked the reason the applicant wanted 3.1 and 3.3 changed. Mr. Torwick replied that not one of the colors for the center would fit with their image; and that the corporation is being very specific about what they can do. Glenn Myers, Donahue Schriber, commented that in trying to work with the project architects to incorporate the center's colors into the project, they decided it would be best to leave the colors out; that it would be worse to compromise and have the project look strange. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:36 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune decided to look at each issue separately for a consensus. Regarding Item 3.1, he noted that the only color from the palette seen in that area is terra cotta; and that cannot be put on the station. Staff affirmed that terra cotta is the only color seen from the station, but that the market place color board is available for choice. Commissioner Kasalek noted that Chevron has compromised and that since the building is behind the center, she does not see the need for another color. Commissioner Baker agreed. Commissioner Shaheen agreed. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1991 Page 5 Commissioner Kasparian noted that the architect that spoke at the last hearing noted that the white colors would stand out, but that he would be willing to concede. CommissioDer Le Jeune noted that the Commission agreed 5-0 to eliminate Item 3.1. The Director commented that Item 3.3 was regarding whether the window mullions should be white or gray. Staff noted that it was the lighter gray on the color board. Commissioner Baker asked if it would be facing into the station, not towards the street. The Director affirmed. Commissioner Baker noted that he had no problem eliminating Item 3.3. Commissioner practical. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that 3.3 was resolved. The Director noted that Item 3.15 was regarding enclosure. Kasalek commented that the gray would be more the trash Co~missioner Baker agreed that the trash enclosure should be painted terra cotta. Commissioner Le Jeune agreed. Commissioner Kasalek felt that the enclosure looks like it would be a part of Chevron, but that she would agree with the rest of the Commission. Commissioner ~aker noted that the white would not look right against the terra cotta wall. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that there was a consensus on Item 3.15. The Director commented regarding Item 5.4: that the applicant was only permitted one (1) sign, but that it could be much larger; and that any action could create a precedent. Commiss~Q~er Le Jeune asked how much smaller the signs are than allowed by code. Staff replied that they are now only two (2) square feet, and that they are allowed 25 square feet. Commissioner Kasparian feels that they should opt for one larger sign; that once in the station the customer knows they are in a Chevron station. Commissioner Le Jeune asked how large the signs on the pumps can be. Staff replied that none are allowed. The Director replied that the new issue. Sign Code will address that · .... 1--- "l- -lilt I I!- T-l--- · I! l' I Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1991 Page 6 Commissioner Le Jeune noted that for two (2) square feet each, he would be willing to allow two (2) signs. Commissioner Baker asked if they would be setting a precedent. The Director replied that they would be setting a precedent by allowing more signs on the canopy than the Code permits; and that they would be allowed the maximum square footage, but the number of signs should be limited to what is allowed by the Code. Commissioner Shaheen noted that he saw no reason not to allow two (2) signs; that there are a lot of infractions around town; that this is a beautifully done, first-class operation; that there has to be variations; and that they are not setting a precedent because it is a different situation. Commissioner Kasalek agreed that it might set a precedent; that size-wise this may be alright now, but in the future an applicant may want two (2) larger signs; that the station's colors already stand out as being Chevron; that she encourages one (1) large sign, and felt that two (2) small signs were unnecessary. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2907 finding that EIR 85-2 is adequate to serve as the program EIR for the project. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to approve an Amendment to Design Review 87-37, Conditional Use Permit 90-26 and Design Review 90-39 by adopting Resolution No. 2908 revised as follows: Exhibit A, Page 2, 2.1 add: E. A soil study conducted by a licensed soils engineer to determine the presence of any existing soil contamination, especially in the area of the proposed underground fuel tanks. Under Site and Building Conditions heading: Delete Item 3.1 and 3.3 and renumber the remaining items accordingly. Item 3.13, third line, "enclosing" should be corrected to be "enclosed". Under Signage heading, Item 5.2, first bullet statement should read: "° A maximum of one (1) double-faced monument sign per street frontage" Motion carried 5-0. Commissioners Shaheen and Le Jeune opposed to Condition 5.4 of Exhibit A. OLD BUSZNE88: 4. Status Reports Received and filed. Commissioner Kasparian asked if staff was keeping an accurate account of the number of units approved; and with the acreage left, will the density requirements be met. The Director replied that the number of units approved is accurate, but will check to be sure the numbers coincide; and the total units are limited to 7,950, and each project approval is tracked against the total numbers. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1991 Page 7 Commissioner Kasparian asked if the Continental Cablevision tower should be 35 feet high instead of a 53 foot high dish. The Director responded that staff will review the issue, but that it is listed on a summary sheet only. Commissioner Le Jeune asked how long Carl's Jr. has to remove its abandoned sign; and would it not be easier to lease the building if the pole sign is left remaining. The Director replied that the owner generally has 30 days to respond to a notice whereby they can provide a reason that they cannot meet that deadline; that the City is making a presumption of abandonment; that the owner may have a desire to incorporate that sign into a future use on the site; that the current code does not deal with this issue, but the new code would provide a process for presumption of abandonment; and that an applicant would be able to provide evidence at a public hearing supporting their reasons not to remove the sign. Commissioner Shaheen asked if all of the violations are being handled; and noted that there a lot of sign violations. Rita Westfield, Assistant Director, replied that they are all in different stages of enforcement. NEW BUSINESS: STAFF CONCERNS: Se ~eport on actions taken at May 20 and June 3, 1991 City Council Meetinqs Staff reported on the subject agendas. The Director specifically called the Commission's attention to the Council action on CUP 91-01, Variance 91-08, the proposed tire sales and service business within the First Street Specific Plan area. Commissioner Kasparian asked what the 3-2 decision in the margin of the minutes meant. The Director replied that it was minute action and not the formal minutes; and that there appeared to be three Council members that supported the use, and referred it back to the Planning Commission to digest the new information provided by the applicant. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Commission has to look at the issue as though it had never been before them. The Director replied that the Commission will receive a modified proposal that will have to be renoticed for public hearings. Commissioner Shaheen asked if any applicants live in the City. The Director replied that that was an inappropriate question that was not germane to the issue. CQmmiss~oner Kasparian asked if staff is making a traffic study for the new configuration. 1--"1'111" I rT--[ I I ! I Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1991 Page 8 The Director replied that they will be bringing on a Traffic Engineer to resolve the traffic issues and identify anything that might be an impact to the modified site configuration. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the traffic engineer will be at the Planning Commission meeting. The Director affirmed, if the budget allows, and noted that they are trying to keep the costs down for the applicant. Commissioner Baker asked if the traffic study is to include the projected traffic from the car wash. The Director replied that there will be an amendment to the CUP for the car wash; and that the Commission will have to re-evaluate the environmental record for the car wash site. Commissioner Kasalek asked if Leslie Pontious's remarks requesting Council to review the First Street Specific Plan were in regards to the auto use. The Director replied that it related to exploring whether or not there is a desire to keep the First Street Specific Plan standards in place or if there is a need for significant alterations to the Plan. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there was any way to know if the First Street Specific Plan has inhibited development. The Director replied that there has been development that has occurred since the adoption of the Plan that has been of higher quality than prior to the Plan. 6. Revisions to Draft Sign Code Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission set a worksession to review and discuss the proposed changes to the Draft Sign Code. The Planning Commission scheduled a Sign Code Workshop for June 24th at 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if this would be a public workshop. The Director replied that it would not be if this evening's meeting was adjourned to the 5:00 workshop. Commissioner Shaheen asked if Chamber of Commerce representatives would be present. The Director responded that they would be present upon invitation, but that there will be a meeting in the future for them. CO~O~ISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Kasparian -Noticed a Lee & Associates real estate sign on the proposed daycare center property on Main and asked if the project is still going ahead. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1991 Page 9 Staff responded that this is sometimes done as an advertisement and that they believed the daycare center is still going ahead. -Asked about the status of junction boxes. Staff responded that an item was coming to the Commission at the next meeting. -Asked about status of low flush toilets. Staff responded that this issue was going before the City Council at their next meeting. Commissioner Baker -Inquired about having better signs at Stevens Square. Staff responded that identification is handled by individual groups. -Inquired about an access to street stairwell at parking structure. Staff responded that the City has no authority over access, just that the City has an association interest in approximately 100 spaces. Commissioner Le Jeune -Asked if the corrections had been made to the Stevens Square structure. Staff affirmed that they had been made but the matter was still under litigation. -Commented on the poor quality of the cable transmissions of the City Council meetings. -Asked the City Attorney about unwarranted stop signs. The City Attorney said that he would look into the subject for Commissioner Le Jeune. Commissioner Shaheen -Noted that 2262 Apple Way has cement trucks parking in front of the property. -Would like more traffic signs in the Peppertree development. Staff responded that the request for more traffic signs would need to go through the Peppertree Association. Commissioner Kasalek -Asked about a grading field trip. Staff responded that there would be a community workshop in conjunction with Hillside Review. -Asked if the sign at Tower Records was approved for that design. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1991 Page 10 Staff affirmed that it was and that there would be more creative signage in the Entertainment Village at the Marketplace. ADJOURNMEI~T: Commissioner Shaheen moved, Kasparian seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:24 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. A Sign Code Workshop has been scheduled for June 24, 1991 at 5:00 p.m. preceding the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 24, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the city Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. cD~ .~ lr~danLe Jeun~~ Ka~hl een - Cl a~cy ~ Secretary