HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-22-91MINUTES
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 22, 1991
CALL TO ORDER:
7:01 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:
(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 April 8, 1991 Planning Commission meeting.
The minutes were pulled from the Consent Calendar for corrections
as follows:
Page 13, Staff Concerns, Item 8 first remark by Commissioner
Kasparian should read: Commissioner Kasparian asked who monitors
the TDM Ordinance to determine compliance.
Page 10, Item 5 the voting should be as follows: Commissioner
Kasparian moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve portions and deny
portions of Variance 91-02 by adopting Resolution No. 2893, as
submitted. Motion carried 3-2. (Commissioners Kasalek and Shaheen
voting no).
Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to approve the Consent
Calendar. Motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2. Temporary Use Permit 91-02
APPLICANT:
LOU HAGER
CITIVEST CONSTRUCTION
1835 NEWPORT AVENUE A 205
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
-r '1irt ....... 1 T'~'I ............ I--'ii i -T ....
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22, 1991
Page 2
OWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
HOME FED BANK
ASSET MANAGEMENT
707 BROADWAY, 13TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
COSMOPOLITAN APARTMENTS
14832-14932 NEWPORT AVENUE
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3)
THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION
15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA)
SIX (6) MONTH EXTENSION OF A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW A TEMPORARY 6-FOOT HIGH SECURITY FENCE TO
ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 15-FOOT MINIMUM FRONT
YARD SETBACK
Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission
approve a six (6) month extension of Temporary Use Permit 91-02 by
Minute Order.
Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner
The Public Hearing opened at 7:04 p.m.
The Public Hearing closed at 7:05 p.m.
Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to approve a six (6)
month extension of Temporary Use Permit 91-02 by Minute Order.
Motion carried 5-0.
o
APPLICANT/
OWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
Tentative Tract Maps 13030 & 13038
IRVINE PACIFIC
13408 HERITAGE WAY AND 13202 MYFORD ROAD
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY
PROJECTS ARE COVERED BY PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR
(85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED.
1. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE TO RESERVE FUTURE
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION RIGHTS ON LOTS 14, AA
AND BB OF TRACT NO. 12763.
2. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE TO RESERVE FUTURE
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION RIGHTS ON LOTS 12, W
AND X OF TRACT NO. 12763.
Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission:
1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the projects by
adopting Resolution Nos. 2902 and 2904 as submitted or revised.
2. Recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map
13030 by adopting Resolution No. 2903 and of Tentative Tract Map
13038 by adopting Resolution No. 2905, as submitted or revised.
Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner
Commissioner Kasparian asked if the median income figures quoted
were staff-generated or a government standard; and asked for a
clarification of the word "median".
Staff responded that median referred to "median income". The
standard for median income is promulgated by the Federal Department
of Housing and Community Development.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22, 1991
Page 3
Commissioner Kasparian asked if the projects are converted to
condominiums within five (5) years after expiration of the initial
ten (10) year period of the current bond financing program, what
happens after the ten (10) year period.
Staff replied that there is a remaining five (5) year period after
the initial ten (10) year period per the development agreement;
that a program is proposed to make the units affordable if someone
converts during that time period; but if they convert after fifteen
or twenty years they are released from the obligation.
Commissioner Kasparian asked the issue could be paraphrased by
stating that the program is only a fifteen year program, and if
nothing happens within the fifteen years, there is no obligation to
do anything.
Staff replied that this is not related to other housing programs;
that it is tied to the development of the East Tustin Specific Plan
Project Area numbers.
Commissioner Kasparian asked if after fifteen years there is no
longer a need for affordable housing.
Staff replied that they would then be released from the obligation.
The Director responded by stating that there are ambiguities
between the requirements of the Specific Plan documents and the
Environmental documents; that the plans indicated a certain amount
of moderate and low income units maintaining an affordable range,
but did not require those numbers in perpetuity; and that the City
Attorney's office felt that the fifteen year obligation met the
intent of the Specific Plan and the Environmental documents.
Commissioner Kasparian asked who monitors the program.
The Director replied that the Community Development Department
monitors the program, but the rent levels are established by the
State and obtained from the County.
Commissioner Kasparian asked if Item 9 on one of the drawings
should be aviation, not avigation.
Staff affirmed.
Commissioner Kasparian asked if the project uses reclaimed water
for irrigation and if the houses are plumbed with parallel
plumbing, based on Note 18 regarding the reclamation water system;
and asked if the water is supplied by the Irvine Water District.
Staff affirmed; and noted that the project is already constructed;
and that all of the East Tustin area is supplied with reclaimed
water facilities.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:12 p.m.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:13 p.m.
Commissioner Baker commented that he appreciates the fact that
staff is taking the time to finalize the details of the project.
¢ommissiQner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to approve the
Environmental Determination for the projects by adopting Resolution
Nos. 2902 and 2904 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22, 1991
Page 4
Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to recommend to the City
Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 13030 by adopting
Resolution No. 2903 and of Tentative Tract Map 13038 by adopting
Resolution No. 2905, as submitted or revised. Motion carried 5-0.
4. Conditional Use Permit 91-02 and Design Review 90-23
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
CONGREGATION B'NAI ISRAEL
655 B STREET
TUSTIN, CA 92630
CONGREGATION B'NAI ISRAEL
2111 BRYAN AVENUE
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN - COMMUNITY FACILITY
THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2)
FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED.
AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A TEMPLE AND EDUCATIONAL
FACILITIES IN A COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICT OF THE
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN, AND APPROVAL OF DESIGN
REVIEW FOR THE FACILITIES.
Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission
continue the public hearing on this matter until May 13, 1991.
Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner
The Director requested that the Commission continue the Public
Hearing since there was some apparent impropriety in the way the
zoning districts were identified and noticed, and that they would
like to correct the problem.
Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to continue the public
hearing on this matter until May 13, 1991. Motion carried 5-0.
5. Vesting Tentative Tract MaD 14295 and Design Review 90-42
APPLICANT/
LANDOWNER:
AGENT:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY
14 CORPORATE PLAZA
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC.
THREE HUGHES
IRVINE, CA 92718
LOTS 1, AA, BB AND CC OF TRACT 13627
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 77 NUMBERED AND SEVEN
LETTERED LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
PURPOSES.
2. APPROVAL OF SITE PLANAND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
OF THE PROPOSED 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. 2897;
2. Approve Design Review 90-42 by adopting Resolution No. 2898, as
submitted or revised; 3. Recommend City Council approval of
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14295 by adopting Resolution No. 2899,
as submitted or revised.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22, 1991
Page 5
Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner
Commissioner KasDarian asked why there seemed to be two (2)
different noise level requirements as noted in Item 6.1, Page 6, of
Exhibit A of Resolution 2899 and Page 2 of Exhibit A of Resolution
2898.
Staff replied that the exterior standards should be 65 dBA in both
places, and corrected, as moved.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:18 p.m.
Molly Wittenburq, representing the Fieldstone Company, concurred
with the staff report including redesign of the mail boxes and
partial payment for the traffic light. She also offered her
appreciation to the City staff and particularly Paula Rankin,
saying she was very professional and understanding. She continued
with asking for a clarification of Item 4.1.B.7 of Exhibit A of
Resolution No. 2899 regarding the requirement of a paleontologist
being present during rough grading, since all of the real grading
has already been finished, and that they would just be finishing
for pads.
The Director responded that this is a flat pad that has been rough
graded; that for footing details, some sites have subsurfaces that
are above or below the original grades; that there are resource
areas that could represent finds; that this is a standard condition
on all projects, and is a'reporting procedure which allows staff to
feel comfortable that the EIR requirements are adequately
addressed.
Ms. Wittenburq asked if this is a standard condition that would be
affected during the pad grading.
The Director affirmed and noted that it has been imposed on other
projects.
Staff commented that it is only done during rough grading, not
through the precise grading.
Commissioner Kasalek asked for a clarification of the "teen room".
Ms. Wittenburg replied that it is at the other end of the house
from the master bedroom, with bedrooms off of it.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:23 p.m.
Commissioner Baker asked for further information regarding the
reason to not require a pedestrian paseo, since it has been
required for other developments.
Staff replied that the site is especially difficult to fit a paseo
in; that the Police Department was opposed to linking the
development with the school site; that the east side is difficult
due to the changes in the slope; that Lot F is reserved for a
potential off-ramp for the Eastern Transportation Corridor; and
that it would not fit in on the south side.
Commissioner Baker asked if stairs would be possible to include;
and if the City would consider stairs in the future.
Staff replied that stairs would not allow for handicapped or
bicycle access which poses a potential liability for the City.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22, 1991
Page 6
The Director responded that staff would rather try to achieve a
grade drop of less than 3% than create liabilities for the City; it
is a unique development, and every opportunity has been explored.
Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of "terra cotta".
Staff indicated that the color used was on the color board; and
clarified that the tile is concrete and not tile.
Commissioner Kasparian noted that the colors of this development
are different from the previous tracts.
Staff affirmed and noted that developments to the south are
lighter; and that as developments move closer to the hills, the
colors will be darker.
Commissioner Kasparian asked if the houses would have a reclaimed
water system installed.
Staff replied that the reclaimed systems would be for landscaped
areas only.
Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to approve the
Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution
No. 2897. Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Kasparian moved, Shaheen seconded to approve Design
Review 90-42 by adopting Resolution No. 2898, revised as follows:
Resolution No. 2898, Exhibit A, Page 2, Item G: delete "on
the adjacent properties to the east" and change "55 dBa's" to
65 dBa's.
Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Kasparian moved, Kasalek seconded to recommend City
Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14295 by adopting
Resolution No. 2899, as submitted. Motion carried 5-0.
Amendment to Design Review 87-37, Conditional Use Permit 90-
26, Design 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.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22, 1991
Page 7
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.
APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
Recommendation - Pleasure of the Planning Commission.
Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner
Commissioner Shaheen asked for a clarification of the specific
points of contention between the City and Chevron.
Staff replied that the areas of concern are regarding the materials
used on the walls, and the paint colors; that the Marketplace uses
a textured finish which Chevron would like to leave untextured; and
that there is an outstanding issue regarding the monument sign.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the applicant has made verbal
notations.
Staff affirmed that the applicant had made some changes, but that
nothing has been submitted and that it is unclear what the changes
will be.
The Director noted that staff can work with the applicant on the
issues; that they are not prepared with resolutions, nor would they
recommend approval this evening; and that staff needs direction
from the Commission.
Commissioner Kasparian asked if the applicant has withdrawn the
application for the monument sign; and if the applicant is
satisfied with the sign on Bryan.
Staff affirmed; and noted that the smaller sign on Myford Road has
been withdrawn.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:38 p.m.
Glen Myers, representing Donahue Schriber, commented that he is a
staunch supporter of this project and its architecture; and that he
could not be a proponent of an application that would be
detrimental to the project. He also noted that he feels that the
real issue is regarding the 1400 square foot food building, which
is not a major facility; that architecturally this project brings
rectangles, boxes, and sign bands which tie in with the project;
and that the design did not come that way from Chevron, but after
many discussions they were able to incorporate the design elements
needed. He noted that it is hard to incorporate a building this
size in a project of this scale; that they have tried to blend the
project colors with the Chevron colors; that rather than force
something that would not work, they decided to make it a Chevron
station and add a lot of landscaping to provide a softening effect;
that it is important to keep the sign band metallic; and that the
tenant may be willing to change the texture of the building.
Jerry Holmquist, Chevron, USA Project Manager, gave a history of
Chevron's station design over the past 30 years; noted that the new
facilities are customer-friendly; that an outside consultant helped
design a new image with brand recognition; that the red and blue
hallmark is identified with Chevron, with the buildings having soft
r----T ....... T'- ...... rlI-T ! r ii i
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22, 1991
Page 8
grays, whites, and neutral backgrounds; that the new designs are
used nationwide for new and reconstructed stations. He also stated
that they have reduced the blue on the building and sign bar
significantly to accommodate the requirements of the center; that
their "Hallmark 21" does not allow for terra cotta or deep purple
or pinks. He gave some details regarding the building size and
layout; noted that the textured finish was agreed on for the food
mart building; that staff suggested tile around the base of the
building, and that they would be willing to utilize tile or gray
stone; noted that they have plans regarding the six (6) foot high
wall in the back of the station; noted that they can now comply
with the City requirements on the signs since they do not need to
list both the cash and credit prices any longer since they only
have one price system; and asked staff for a clarification of
staff's indication that they are using two (2) Chevron logos for
each canopy.
Staff replied that the Code does not allow
identification signs on any one frontage.
for two (2)
Mr. Holmquist referred to the second paragraph of page 7 regarding
the applicant being unresponsive; he noted that they have tried to
work with staff and were emphatic regarding what could not be
changed; and asked it to be considered as submitted. He also noted
that it was not within the framework of Hallmark 21 to add a
trellis as noted on Page 8. He provided an artist's rendition of
the proposed site after the station is built.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the applicant would be willing to
texture coat the building, but not the canopy.
Mr. Holmquist replied that the canopy was always intended to be a
flat metal surface painted with the Hallmark 21 colors.
Mr. Myers noted that it is Donahue Shriber's and the architect's
preference that the sign band remain metallic.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked, regarding the photographs, if there
will be additional landscaping.
Mr. Holmquist affirmed, if the Commission desires.
Commissioner Kasparian asked what prompted the request for changes
in the setbacks.
Mr. Holmquist replied that the sight is unusable as it is if they
have to comply with the current setback; and that the landscaping
that is in place has to stay.
Commissioner Kasparian if the back of the food mart was parallel
with Bryan.
Staff replied that it is parallel with Myford.
Mr. Myers noted that there are other views from Myford Road; that
the view from Bryan is mitigated by the pumps and the canopy; that
beige is not in Chevron's vocabulary, and that they would like off-
white.
Commissioner Kasparian asked what the real reason was for the
Chevron colors if it would eventually be covered up by landscaping.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22, 1991
Page 9
Mr. My~Fs replied that they do not cover up the building, only
soften the effect by breaking it up; that the grey may not be
visible from Myford, and only the blue is visible at the top.
Commissioner Kasparian asked if blue is their identification color.
Mr. Myers responded that their colors are blue, grey, white, and
red, with grey on the bottom; and that having four (4) colors is
part of the problem.
Commissioner Kasalek asked if it was important to have the colors
in the order presented.
Mark Murphy, Murphy Architects, agent for Chevron, noted that there
is a large number of trees, some existing, and some to be added;
that there is a massing of trees at the corner; that the building
mass is small compared to the rest of the center, and that they
want to provide a transition from the center with the landscaping;
and that the site creates a ridge; that the row of trees helps make
the next transition; and that the corner foliage helps make a
transition to the canopy. He also noted that there are medians on
both street frontages.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there were any proposed changes to
the landscaping; and if he superimposed additional materials onto
the illustration.
Mr. Murphy replied negatively regarding the proposed changes;
affirmed that he has superimposed some landscaping; and that the
vehicles and base band would be hidden.
Comm~ssiQDer Shaheen suggested continuation of the application.
Rick Sanders, 15751 Williams, with BSI Consultants, indicated that
he is a consultant to the City with landscape architectural plan
check; noted that he has worked with Chevron in other cities on
rehabilitation projects; that if the City expresses a strong desire
to have a certain image they should stress it; that Chevron is not
usually open to change whereas other oil companies are; that the
landscape architecture of the station is a vast improvement over
Chevron's corporate brochure where there are no trees so that
clients can see all of the station that is possible. He also
suggested that the City do whatever possible to soften the
architecture; that he is not convinced that the plant materials
will give the needed effect; that grouping of the trees might be
preferable to lining them up; that if there is a tremendous amount
of green provided in the landscaping, the white building will be
very apparent; and that terra cotta will blend with the landscaping
as it matures.
Commissioner Kasparian asked who was addressing the issue of the
wall.
Mr. Murphy replied that they decided there was no need for a wall
since there is not wall beyond the project on either frontage; that
there is not direct access at that site; that the trees would
create a breakup; and that a six (6) foot wall in front of a tall
wall would not provide any benefit. He also noted that some of the
trees in the top photographs are untouched, and that the changes
are in the bottom photographs.
Commissioner LeJeune asked what the planting medium was, and what
the maximum height would be.
r .... r ........ i--'-11111- --- 1--IFT 1 ...... I' I! 1"'-"1
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22, 1991
Page 10
Mr. Murphy replied that his copy was blurred.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:19 p.m.
Commissioner Le Jeune noted that some things have been resolved,
but that other details are being added which are not in the motion.
The Director commented that there are no conditions of approval or
resolutions; and that staff is not prepared to offer
recommendations without review of the details with the applicant.
Commissioner Baker asked if staff had seen the visuals.
Staff affirmed.
Commissioner Le Jeune recommended continuation of the issue.
Commissioner Kasalek asked if staff wanted specific comments from
the Commissioners.
The Director replied that staff is looking for specific directions
to establish parameters.
Commissioner Kasparian stated that he would not deny a gas station
at that site; that he would approve the set back request; that the
color should be more compatible with the Marketplace; that he
understands that recognition of the corporate image is important,
but that the monument sign would provide the corporate colors; that
he could consider the blue band, but not the light building; that
the staff may want to reconsider the block wall; that the current
Sign Code requirement should be implemented; that the applicant may
not realize that they are allowed two (2) monument signs; that he
would not be in favor of a corner monument sign; that he would
promote one logo sign on the canopy; and that the building should
be more compatible with the Marketplace colors.
Commissioner Baker agreed with the setback; that a gas station is
a good use for the land; that he is concerned with the color; that
we should not insist they use terra cotta, but since everyone else
has had to comply, they should, as well, using their corporate
colors in their logo.
Commissioner Kasalek agreed with the other Commissioners; that a
strong position should be taken to stay with the Marketplace
colors; that the corporate colors should remain, but should tie in
with the other colors; that these demands have been made with other
tenants and the Commission should be consistent.
Commissioner Shaheen agreed with the other Commissioners, but
recommended that the issue be continued.
Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he felt that the set back was
alright; that the property use is ideal; that whatever station that
goes in will be successful regardless of the color; that he has a
problem with the intensity of the white color; that he would like
to see more landscape screening.
The Director asked if continuing the hearing to May 13 would give
staff and the applicant enough time; and suggested tabling of the
motion to be brought back when the applicant is ready.
Commissioner Shaheen moved. Kasalek seconded to table the hearing
for a later date. Motion carried 5-0.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22, 1991
Page 11
Condit%onal Use Permit 91-01, Variance 9%-Q8 and Desiqn Review
9~-07
APPLICANT-.
OWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
STEVE PAQUETTE
10542 GREENBRIER
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
NORMAN FRITZ
15734 NEWTON STREET
HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CA 91745
135 SOUTH PROSPECT AVENUE
FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN
PRIMARY USE
COMMERCIAL AS A
THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
1) AUTHORIZATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ESTABLISH A TIRE SALES AND SERVICE BUSINESS IN
AN EXISTING BUILDING WITH RELATED SITE
IMPROVEMENTS.
2) AUTHORIZATION OF A VARIANCE TO DEVIATE FROM
THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN VARIOUS PORTIONS
OF THE SITE.
Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission
either: 1. Continue the item and provide direction to the
applicant to make revisions to the plans to address Commission
concerns with the proposal; or 2. Deny Conditional Use Permit 91-
01 and Variance 91-08 by adoption of Resolution No. 2906.
Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner
Commissioner Shaheen commented that he had noticed that the
applicant had been repainting and cleaning up the property.
Staff responded that they are aware of the repainting; that the
City issued a stop work order on some non-permitted work; and that
the site is being used for construction offices for the adjacent
car wash.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:40 p.m.
Paul Daly 131 Hall Circle, representing Roy E. Daly & Co.,
commented that he is an owner of apartment buildings in the
vicinity; one of their complexes, Tustin Plaza Apartments, 131 Hall
Circle, is in close proximity to the tire center; that the proposed
tire center should be declined; that the First Street Specific Plan
was designed for shopping and retail uses which is conducive to a
residential environment; that the charm and convenience of the area
will be lost if further auto oriented facilities are permitted;
that it is in the best interest of the businesses and residents to
maintain the charm of First Street and the Downtown area; and that
the parking variance would pose a parking problem for the
neighborhood.
Phillip Cox, owner of commercial property on E1 Camino Real and
Main Street which his family has owned since 1936, commented on the
colors of the property in question; that his location had a vacancy
four (4) years ago and that he sympathizes with the property owner;
that he had an application for a tire company at that time but
decided it would not be compatible with the Old Town character;
that the City of Tustin and property owners in the area are
spending a considerable amount of money to restore and bring back
i' -I~rlF ...... -1'--!!- ]' I" F I ! I
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22, 1991
Page 12
the charm of the community, including retrofitting for earthquake
standards; that the charette included the property in question, but
that there were no representatives of this property present to help
promote these ideas; that the color and design of the proposed
structure does not lend itself to the adjoining properties on
Prospect; and that a letter from Donnelly & Bennett states that
they are intending to enhance First Street with no reference to Old
Town.
Kathy Weil, 1702 Summerville, stated that a lot of time, effort,
and taxpayer money went into designing the First Street Specific
Plan to give a cohesive direction to future planning of the First
Street area; that there were extensive community workshops and
public hearings before the adoption with a lot of interest; that it
is to have a pedestrian oriented atmosphere; that a tire business
with traffic intensity contradicts this goal; that a variance is
needed for landscape encroachment indicates that "they are trying
to fit a size 9 foot into a size 6 shoe;" that there is no
overriding condition to merit this variance; that this reemphasizes
the inappropriateness of the use and size of the project at this
location; that she urged the Commission to deny the Conditional Use
Permit and the Variance so as not to allow any more erosion of the
First Street Specific Plan; and to retain Tustin's unique charm.
Norm Fritz, applicant and property owner, stated that his intention
was to go into partnership for a retail tire store at this
location; that he thought it would be a good use of this facility;
that he spent money to remove the existing tenants; that he was
naive regarding the rules that had to be followed; and is trying to
do what is right.
Steve Paquette, co-applicant, stated that they are trying to keep
within the realm of the First Street Specific Plan; that their
direction was unclear; that they have submitted three (3) sets of
plans and still have no clue as to where to start from; he rebutted
Page 4 of the staff report regarding pedestrian traffic by
indicating that the car wash, McDonald's, Tune-up shop, and Big O
Tires are retail centers with pedestrian traffic; that they will
provide a retail tire center which will have pedestrian traffic for
filters, mats, etc.; that they are retail and not wholesale; he
referenced Page 5 by noting that they are separate addresses with
the same owner; that the other business will have their own parking
spaces; that the immediate neighbors on all sides are in support of
the project, but they could not contact the owners; that Item C on
Page 5 indicates that there is a lack of coordination between the
two properties; that they have the same fascia, but different
colors; that they painted the building with the Goodyear colors six
(6) months ago; that the colors will coordinate with the car wash;
that no work has been done except adding fluorescent lighting
inside to existing electrical wiring and new aluminum roll-up
doors; that they will alter the height of the vents on the rooftop
and install awnings on the front, as suggested; and that the other
tenant supports the project.
Greg Bennett, Donnelly-Bennett Architects, representing the
applicant, noted that he is a proponent of the project; that the
original use was as a bus repair depot; that the building's
dimensions are perfect for a tire center; that the work would all
be done inside the building; that the site meets the parking
criteria; that a lot of buildings have been built since the First
Street Specific Plan that enjoy a setback variance; that McDonald's
does not comply with the ten (10) foot setback for parking; that
McDonald's was built before the First Street Plan, but has received
permits since, allowing them to enjoy a right that the applicant
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22, 1991
Page 13
cannot; that Spoons is another example; that this property has been
there a long time and they are enhancing the parking and providing
extra landscaping, a gazebo, and hardscape for waiting clients;
that the building is large enough to provide storage and amenities
inside the building; that the parking and noise criteria are easily
met; that the staff report does not draw conclusions to lead the
Commission to provide directives; that they are attempting to
soften the building with landscaping; that some adjacent sites have
tile roofs, but not all; that there is no conflict within a 300
foot radius; provided illustrations that could support awnings;
that since they are setback from First Street and Prospect, there
is no big visual impact; that the property meets the criteria for
parking. He also noted that they expect approximately 60 trips per
day and that a building of similar square footage and similar
retail facility would have 200-300 trips per day; and that their
business may be safer because of less trips generated. He also
stated that they are willing to work with staff with the
Commission's direction; that even though the use is controversial,
it is listed as a conditional use in the First Street Specific
Plan; that all of the goals and objectives mentioned in the
corridor are addressed in their plan with modifications; that the
variances are easily justified; that the building has an historic
past and a life expectancy of 15-20 years; that they would like the
direction from the Commission to define the goals needed to be met;
and that the concerns regarding parking can be and are being
mitigated.
Steven D. Johnson, Attorney representing the applicant, stated that
the according the Tustin's Municipal Code, a use that is subject to
conditions can be permitted to exist on a parcel if the City is
able to determine that the project is not detrimental to the
persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the property;
that the use being applied for is as much a retail use as any as
patrons may purchase products that are not installed; that
classifying it as a tire repair business is inaccurate. He also
stated that the Resolution denying the application because: 1) it
is not outrightly permitted is unjustified; that was inaccurate is
the reason for the application, but not a reason to deny it; that
the analysis is backward; 2) that the proposed use is inconsistent
with the Plan by not being developed with a primary retail use or
providing an optimum pedestrian environment is untrue since the
proposed site will have patrons that spend as much time and money
producing a sales tax negotiating the installation or repair of a
tire; that there is no evidence that it is not a primary retail
use; that they have been stigmatized because this is a use for
cars; that there is no evidence that this would not provide a
pedestrian environment. He continued with the historical use of
the site and noted that the City does not want to tear down
buildings because they are old; that the building has a New England
look that is totally different from anything on First Street and is
attractive; that this has architectural significance. He also
stated that this is a national franchise that is being designed by
professional architects; that Mr. Fritz could not have a use that
is more fitting; and that his only other option is to tear it down.
He continued with his rebuttal to the resolution by stating that:
3) the indication that the proposed use would establish the
existing automotive scale and character of First Street is the
entire thrust of the staff report; that they do not want an
automotive use there; that they are clean, neat, and generate tax
money; that he cannot see how the residents of the apartments would
be impacted; and that Mr. Fritz should not concede the issue that
his property should be grandfathered in. He also noted that
regarding the conflicting use of the medical office, there is no
conflict; that this would be the best looking building on Prospect
~-~ -F ..... 1-' llF ........rlr-T-1 r- i Ii i -[ ......
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22, 1991
Page 14
on the east side. He continued with the comments that the variance
can probably be granted because the rest of First Street has had
those uses; there can be a quid pro quo; that conditions can be
asked; and asked the Commission not to throw this out because they
do not want automobile services on First Street; that staff should
take direction from the Commission and set up conditions to meet
the real concerns. He finished with stating that there is no other
use for this building, because a garage has to be used for
vehicles.
The Public Hearing closed at 9:22 p.m.
Commissioner Shaheen stated that Goodyear is a great outfit; but
that the most intelligent decision the Commission has made was the
denial of the car wash due to the traffic congestion and the
potential of the Post Office expansion; that the carwash is not
completed and the traffic is terrible; that to put another
automobile center in would be detrimental to the neighborhood and
the First Street Specific Plan; that it does not belong there,
there is insufficient room; that the Goodyear station on Red Hill
and Walnut is a first class operation and should be studied to
determine how much parking is needed; and that he did not think
they should add to the congestion based upon approving this
application.
Commissioner Kasparian agreed with Commissioner Shaheen; noted that
the Design Review had an overwhelming plus in that they are trying
to promote the First Street Specific Plan; that he was also against
approving the car wash due to the potential traffic congestion;
that Kathy Weil's comments regarding pedestrian traffic that they
are trying to promote is like when walking through Carmel, that
there is an ambiance that they may not be able to attain, but are
trying to promote.
Commissioner Kasalek stated that she is empathetic and sensitive to
the applicant since they have spent a lot of money and time trying
to develop the site; that the architect has done a wonderful job,
however, it is not compatible with the area even though it is a
separate building with a separate address; that she does not
consider this application cohesive with the surrounding areas or
with the intent of the Plan; that it is not pedestrian-friendly as
the Plan meant the area to be; and that she would have a problem
promoting this business.
Commissioner Baker commented that a lot that has been said makes
sense with logical rationale, for and against approval; but that
pictures that were presented were in existence prior to the First
Street Specific Plan; that there were hearings for anyone within
the area to challenge, but there was nothing negative presented.
He also stated that the pictures prove a need for the First Street
Specific Plan; that he appreciates that the applicant is trying to
do something with the building; that he is sympathetic to their
need, but that the report did not indicate good support for making
a positive decision.
Commissioner Le Jeune stated that he had no problem with the
building or the setback, but the Planning Commission denied the
Winston Tire Company further up the street, and the car wash which
was turned over by the City Council. He also stated that he is not
comfortable that this is suitable for the long range goals of the
area; that they have to build the First Street Specific Plan parcel
by parcel and each is done on an individual case hasis and that
this is not a suitable application for the property.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22, 1991
Page 15
The Director commented that even though the staff report recommends
an adopted resolution this evening, there was some additional
information from the Commission that was not reflected in the
resolution; and she requested that the Commission instruct the
staff to come back with a revised resolution for the consent
calendar at the next meeting which would incorporate all of the
findings and points raised.
Commissioner Kasparian moved, Shaheen seconded to bring back the
item with a resolution on May 13, 1991. Motion carried 5-0.
OLD BUSINESS:
8. Development Status Report/Code Enforcement Tracking
Received and filed.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the car wash on First Street had
been inspected for fencing that was not in compliance.
Staff replied that, as of Thursday, the City was assured that the
site would be secured by the superintendent of the site; and that
the conditions of approval require a minimum six (6) foot chain
link fence.
Commissioner Kasparian asked if anything has been discussed
regarding whether the Irvine Company can eventually provide enough
water for 7,950 units.
Staff replied that there is no indication from the Irvine Water
District that they are limiting the number of permits based on
water supply; that they are using reclaimed water facilities for
the golf course and the landscaped common areas.
Commiss$oner Kasparian asked about item 90-004 of the code
enforcement section regarding two recreational vehicles parked on
the street, and what it means that they cannot enforce these per
the attorney.
The Director replied that they are two separate issues; that the
attorney's office suggested adding language to the Code to clarify
ambiguities before requiring compliance.
9. General Plan Survey
Received and filed.
Commissioner Shaheen asked when the survey would be mailed.
Rita Westfield, Assistant Director, replied that all persons on the
mailing list will receive the survey on May 30, and that they are
asking replies be returned by June 14. There will be a public
workshop on May 22 which will provide an opportunity for the public
to become involved in the General Plan process.
Commissioner Kasalek asked if this type of survey had been done
before; and noted that it was very complete and well done.
The Director replied negatively and noted that it was why they went
through department review for additional information.
Commissioner Shaheen asked what the anticipated response would be.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22, 1991
Page 16
The Director replied that 25,500 surveys are being mailed plus
businesses; the recipients are being asked if they own or rent, and
for their zip code.
Commissioner Baker noted that the Tustin Today is going to a large
number of people that are not within the City.
Commissioner Le Jeune commented regarding the statement that the
information is optional and will remain confidential.
The Director replied that that statement is recommended procedure.
Commissioner Kasalek asked if that the zip code was also optional
since staff wanted it for statistical purposes.
The Director asked if the mailing would be coded.
Ms. Westfield replied that they are not able to code the
information.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if optional refers to the name only or
is the address and zip code required.
The Director replied that name, address and zip code is optional.
Commissioner Kasalek asked if the zip code could be separated.
Commissioner Baker commented that half of the people receiving the
survey live outside of the General Plan area.
The Director replied that they will explore the options; and noted
that the boundaries of the General Plan are not the corporate City
boundaries; that, by law, they have to examine the complete sphere
of influence which includes the North Tustin area.
Commissioner Kasparian asked about Item 3 regarding growth, and
whether it meant "no growth"; if not, should there be a category
for no growth; and if growth is referring to buildings or people.
The Director replied that there could be no growth as a result of
development activity with the population remaining the same; or
increased population and higher mortality; that it is a statistical
function; and that growth refers to population size.
Ms. Westfield replied that there are other questions to direct the
respondents regarding growth.
Commissioner Kasalek referred to Item 3 to indicate the size of
population growth.
The Director responded that growth means more people and more
services.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if it would be appropriate to have a
section regarding annexation.
Ms. Westfield replied that Item M is a question regarding
boundaries.
Commissioner Shaheen commented that the question regarding whether
someone owns or rents does not tell anything about the person
filling out the survey; and that it might provide a different cross
section of the population if it was categorized.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22, 1991
Page 17
~s. Wes~f~eld replied that it does not, but that anyone responding,
whether they own or rent, has an interest regarding what is
happening within the Community.
The Director responded that the responses could be strategized on
many variables; that the budget limit for the computer analysis
allowed for a limit of 20 input items.
Ms. Westfield replied that they could still make minor changes, but
it needs to go to printing within the next seven (7) days.
The Director responded that they will clarify that they need to
indicate population growth on Item 3; and that Item 10 regarding
whether they own or rent a dwelling unit should include whether
they live in a residence or occupy a business.
Commissioner Kasparian noted that he did not know the difference
between an active and a passive park.
Ms. Westfield replied that an active park would have active play
equipment and a passive park would have trees, benches and trails.
NEW BUSZNESS~
STAFF CONCERNS:
10.
Report on actions taken at April 15, 1991 City Council
meeting.
Staff reported on the subject agenda.
The Director noted that City Hall would be closed from Friday until
noon Monday for moving.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the citizens would be receiving a
mailing regarding water conservation.
The Director replied that it was scheduled to be sent.
COMMISSION CONCERNS:
Commissioner Shaheen
-inquired as to the status of the alley between Tustin Meadows
and Peppertree. Staff replied that a subcommittee has been
created for the City and The Irvine Company to handle the
issue. Homeowners association representatives will be
contacted at a later date.
Commissioner Kasalek
-wished the City well in their move to another facility.
Commissioner Kasparian
-reported that at the Mobil gas station on Prospect and First
Street there are 2 monument signs and they have an additional
angled sign. Asked staff to look into.
-at Prospect Avenue and Miller there appears to be a
landscaping business operating from a home.
Commissioner Le Jeune
-would like to see the kiosk on E1 Camino Real and Main Street
removed permanently.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22, 1991
Page 18
-Sunwest Bank on First Street appears to have changeable copy
on their sign, please investigate for permits.
-Marshalls' center has 2 rooftop signs, check for permits.
-asked if the use of Item 7 was questioned by staff.
replied that Plan documents were supplied, the
reinforced, and very clearly defined.
Staff
issue
ADJOU~T:
Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to adjourn meeting at
10:00 p.m. Motion carried 5-0.
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on May 13,
1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way,
DOnald Le Jeune ~ ~
Chairman
Secretary