Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-25-91MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 25~ 1991 CALL TO ORDER: 7: 04 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: 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. Minu~es of the March 1%, 1991 planning Commission meetinq. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, introduced John Shaw as the new City Attorney who will take over her position as of the next meeting. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Conditional Use Permit 91-04, Variance 91-06 and Design Review 91-06 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CATHY KLEIN 1422 EAST FRANZEN SANTA ANA, CA 92701 TUSTIN MASONIC TEMPLE ASSOCIATION c/o DAVID POOLE 1801 EAST PARKCOURT PLACE, SUITE I SANTA ANA, CA 92701 305 EAST MAIN STREET CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A PRE-SCHOOL TO ACCOMMODATE 59 CHILDREN IN AN EXISTING BUILDING, INCLUDING THE APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO LOCATE A Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1991 Page 2 PERIMETER FENCE WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolutions, as submitted or revised: 1. Resolution No. 2888 approving Conditional Use Permit 91-04 and Design Review 91-06, and 2. Resolution No. 2889 approving Variance 91-06. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner Staff made corrections to Resolution No. 2888, as moved. Commissioner Kasalek noted that she did not see anything posted on the building or in the vicinity, and asked if staff did post notices regarding the hearing. Staff replied that the property was posted ten (10) days ago, but not on any walls of the structure; and that the City is required to notify the public in one of three ways, and that the City utilizes all three methods of notification. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if this was on three (3) separate parcels, and if they are owned by one owner. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Kasparian asked about the absence of a traffic study; noted that he felt that 59 cars twice a day would warrant a study; that, in the absence of a traffic study, that it should be noted in the staff report as not being a problem; and asked if people entering and exiting the area would use Main Street or use Preble to 3rd Street to Prospect; and that there is already a lot of traffic on Main Street and asked if this would impact Main. Staff replied that the issue of a traffic study is routed to the Traffic Engineer, and that he did not identify it as an issue on this application; that the staff report is focused on the concerns of the Commission. Commissioner Kasparian asked what the recourse would be if this is approved and becomes a problem in the future. Staff responded that the Commission would not be liable; that a mitigation measure might be installation of a signal; that the surrounding street systems are designed for the amount of traffic that would be generated; that this building has been vacant for a while, but that it was an office in the past which generated traffic; that the Planning Division is comfortable with the Engineering Division not requiring a study; and that a signal and study would be at the City's expense as part of the capital improvement budget if it was ever needed in the future. Commissioner Kasparian was concerned that the traffic would be concentrated at morning and evening times, and not spaced throughout the day. Staff replied that 59 vehicles would not be considered a large increase at the peak hours; and that the Traffic Engineer looks at a large percentage increase in relation to the current traffic count. Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1991 Page 3 CqmmissioneF KasparSan asked if this application could be required to install iow flush toilets; and asked for a clarification regarding the gate. Lois J~ffre¥ commented that it would be a good idea, but that it would have to be a policy decision; and that there is nothing unique about this project to justify imposing the requirement on this project. Staff responded that the gate on Main Street is behind a telephone terminal; that all exits are required to conform to the Building Code; and that the Fire Department requires panic hardware so that all exits can be operable by anyone. Commissioner Kasparian also asked for a clarification regarding the dedication of this Use Permit. Staff replied that it is an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate, in the event that the City would widen Main Street; and that it is a standard condition. Commissioner Shaheen commented that even though there would be 59 children, there would be 2-3 from some families; that the parcel is zoned for commercial; that a shopping center would generate more than 59 cars; that there is a strict state code for pre-schools; that they have been approving pre-schools in residential areas, and that he feels this to be the correct place for one. The Public Hearing opened at 7:22 p.m. James Kincannon, 13691 Red Hill Avenue, architect for the project, suggested that "landscaping plans" be eliminated from Item 2.1 B; that an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate cannot be revoked, and encompasses the structure as well as the land; asked if the dedication is made, who pays for the structure demolition, the City or the owner. He cited an example of dedication where the Planning Commission waived the dedication of the street since it required the removal of the building. He also noted that the location of the fence on Main Street is not on the right-of-way; that it is a six (6) foot high wrought iron fence that is not considered a structure and may be placed in a landscaped area; that the State only requires 75 square feet for children's play areas; that when Main is widened, the fence will be at the property line; that the fence was changed to 100% wrought iron on the revised plan. Regarding the trellis, he stated that the State requires a certain percent of shaded area for the children; that the lease stipulates that the applicant cannot alter the exterior of the building; that there is a 3/12 pitch on the building and a 6/12 pitch on the trellis; that matching the existing roof pitch would not be an aesthetic achievement. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the dedication was a policy of the City Council. Staff explained that it was required as part of the conditions of approval; that they would have to address the City Council to have it waived; and that "landscape plans" could be deleted from 2.1 B. She also noted that regarding the variance, the findings are in the staff report; that staff took the findings into account; that the play yard has sufficient play yard area to accommodate State law if it is moved to the position recommended by staff; that there is no argument for staff to provide findings that would be required to locate the fence where the applicant has requested; and that since a building permit is required, it is considered a structure. Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1991 Page 4 Commissioner Le Jeune referred to the illustration and noted that it indicated there is ten (10) feet from the sidewalk to the fence; asked if the applicant is asking for an additional ten (10) feet; and if the building was in the right-of-way; asked if Main Street was widened, would the applicant have to relocate the fence at their own expense way. Staff affirmed that they would be required to have a total of twenty (20) feet and indicated that the Code for this district requires a front yard setback ten (10) feet from the ultimate right-of-way line; that the Engineering Department indicated that the owner is required to dedicate the land, and that anything else would be compensated for by the City; and that moving of the fence could be a condition of the resolution, but that it would be a justification of a non-conforming use; and that it could end up being a fence at the back of the sidewalk. Staff indicated that the trellis cannot be attached to the building; that the Planning Commission could direct staff to work with the applicant to revise the trellis and leave the design subject to Community Development Department approval; and Item 3.lB could be revised to accommodate. Commissioner Baker asked what the course of action would be if an agreement could not be reached. Staff replied that an option would be to come back to the Commission, but that if the Commission is considering that option, there should be accompanying direction; and that staff believes that the elements could be designed more compatibly and still provide the same purpose. Commissioner Kasalek asked the dimensions of the trellis. Staff replied that they are 8 feet by 8 feet square; that two are to be placed together in the play area and the other is at the entrance; that they are all alike with open slats on the top. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there was a roof or if it was strictly for shade. Staff affirmed and replied that it was for filtered shade. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the fence has to be set back to the point where the property line would be when Main Street is widened; why they cannot move the fence when the street is widened; and asked why they need a separate permit for the fence. Staff responded that the condition would require a twenty (20) foot setback, which is ten (10) feet from the ultimate right-of-way; that staff thought they needed the fence location to meet State requirements for the outdoor play area, but that has not been shown; and that even though the applicant indicated that the wrought iron fence was not a structure, the Building Department requires a permit. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the application indicated a prohibition to tie the trellis to the building. Staff responded that, since they are a tenant, they did not have full control of the building, and they cannot physically attach anything to the building. Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1991 Page 5 Commissioner Kasalek asked if the five (5) staff members indicated were all that the school would need. Mr. Kincanno~ replied that that number represents the number that the State licensing board requires per the number of children. He also noted that the Uniform Building Code (UBC) does not recognize a six (6) foot wrought iron fence as a structure. Staff affirmed that the UBC does not recognize it as a structure, but that the City is allowed to adopt amendments to the Code, and that a wood fence (including wrought iron) of five (5) feet or greater requires a permit. Mr. Kinc~nnon responded that they could propose a five (5) foot fence. ¢ommissione~ Le Jeune asked if it would meet the State Code. Mr. Kincanno~ replied that a fence was not required at all. Staff responded that anything over three (3) feet in the front yard is subject to the setback requirements. Cathy Klein, applicant, noted that the area could be used for the playground; that it has to be planted and watered, and noted that there is a water shortage; that, regarding traffic, the children come and go over a two-hour period in the morning and evening; and that the trellis is a shaded area for children to eat lunch, and that a roof would not enhance the building. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that he was not suggesting that it had a roof. The Public Hearing closed at 7:51 p.m. Commissioner Kasalek noted that she was concerned with the amount of parking in relation to the amount of staff; noted that the Learning Village, who is licensed for 70 children has 6 staff, 3 aides, and one administrator, has a lot of congestion even though they have more parking; that the businesses across from this application are concerned about the staff using their parking places; asked if there were any alternatives to add more parking; and noted that if the parking was moved, would it give them a reason to move the fence line. The Public Hearing was re-opened at 7:54 p.m. Mr, Kincannon responded by stating that he was also the architect for the Learning Village and that they are leasing eight (8) or more spaces; that the parking that was provided met the City and State Codes; that parking has been provided as per staff requirements; and that this project meets the City's and State's Codes for parking stalls, and meets the State's Code for the number of staff to children ratio. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune called for a consensus regarding the trellis. Commissioner Kasalek replied that the roof was not very attractive, but necessary; and that she would like the staff to work with the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1991 Page 6 The Commission determined that the trellis should be left as submitted. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that the dedication must be resolved at the City Council; and noted that the question was whether the Commission should allow them to build on the lot line or dedicate the entire twenty (20) feet. Commissioner Baker stated that he felt they should approve the application as submitted, so that they can use the footage in the play area; and asked if there is an option allowing the fence to remain ten (10) feet back of the sidewalk. Staff replied that a private agreement could be included stating that if the dedication were to occur, the applicant could then relocate the fence ten (10) feet behind the ultimate right-of-way. Commissioner Kasparian noted that moving the fence would be minor in relation to moving the building. Staff responded that the applicant would be responsible for moving the fence. Lois Jeffrey suggested that the Commission follow staff's advice. Staff provided the new language, as moved, to replace Item 3.1 B that is being deleted. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to approve Resolution 2889, as revised by changing: Item I.A, Page 1: ...property located at 305 East Main Street. Item 1.5, Page 1, Exhibit A: Delete "by" in the first sentence. Item 2.1.B, Page 2, Exhibit A: Delete "and landscaping plans". Item 3.1.B, Page 4, Exhibit A: Delete entire paragraph and replace as follows: The southerly perimeter fence may be located in its proposed location subject to the applicant and property owner executing an agreement with the City, subject to approval of the Director of Community Development Department and City Attorney, stating that the fence will be relocated, at no expense to the City, 10 feet northerly; should the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate Right-of-Way on Main Street be executed. Said agreement shall be recorded against the property prior to the issuance of building permits. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to approve Resolution No. 2889, as revised by changing: paragraph 1, Page 1, to read as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING VARIANCE 91-06 TO AUTHORIZE AN ENCROACHMENT OF 10 FEET FROM THE ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT-YARD SETBACK THE SOUTHERLY PERIMETER FENCE AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 305 EAST MAIN STREET. ~tem I.C.: Delete paragraph 2, and replace as follows: 1. The existing building on the site already encroaches into the required front yard setback stated as 10 feet. Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1991 Page 7 The proposed fence is required in order to assure safety in the operation of a pre-school on the site and due to the existing building's location, it would be physically impossible to link the southern elevation exit/entrance door to the play yard without encroaching into the setback. Item I.D.: Delete remainder of sentence after "safety of the children and" and replace with: ...that conditions of approval have been included in Resolution 2888 to assure that a 10 foot front yard setback is maintained in the event that the City should execute the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate Right-of-Way recorded on this property at any point in the future. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 90-10 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MORRIS/DEASY/DILDAY 444 WEST OCEAN BOULEVARD, #1514 LONG BEACH, CA 90802 HOWARD & ANNA LARNARD AMERICAN CABLE SYSTEMS OF CALIF. INC. 13816 RED HILL AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 137 SOUTH PROSPECT AVENUE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2) THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-10 TO AUTHORIZE THE INSTALLATION OF A SIX FOOT DIAMETER MICROWAVE DISH ON THE FIFTY FOOT TOWER AT 137 SOUTH PROSPECT INITIALLY APPROVED BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-10 Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 90-10 by adopting Resolution No. 2887, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked if 34 feet 6 inches was the distance to the top of the dish; why they are using sky blue; and asked if there was anything to prohibit the applicant from installing additional antennae on the roof. Staff replied that the disk would be centered at 34 feet 6 inches; that the original conditions of approval of CUP 90-10 required sky blue; and that the City Code prohibits roof top antennae without screening. CommissioDer Baker asked the current height of the tower; and how long it has been completed. Staff responded that it is 50 feet; and that the permits were pulled in June 1990, but that they have not yet received their final permits. Commissioner Baker asked if the antennae must be removed as soon as the applicant receives his final permits; and if the antennae are being replaced by dishes. Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1991 Page 8 Staff responded that before the inspectors provide the final permits, the roof mounted equipment must be on the tower; that not all antennae are being replaced by dishes; that there are three (3) microwave dish antennae for specific channels, and that there will be different style antennae to replace the roof mounted antennae for different channels which will provide a cleaner look. Commissioner Kasparian noted that the dish is to be in addition to the roof antennae. staff clarified that this application is for a new dish. Commissioner Baker asked if for an illustration of this new dish. Staff responded that this was on the previously reviewed plans. Commissioner Le Jeune asked why they would approve a project that would not be done until the other work was completed. Staff replied that it was a separate application made by a separate applicant to expand their original approvals; but that staff is concerned with the lack of response in the field with removal of the roof antennae and the undergrounding of the equipment; that if they do not carry out their original conditions of approval, then revocation hearings may be considered; but that they would like to give the new applicant the benefit of the doubt that they will complete the original application before adding more to the tower. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a clarification of the remainder of the project. Staff responded that the plans show the details for the new antennae. Commissioner Baker stated that the Commission has nothing to base their decision on. Lois Jeffrey stated that when CUP 90-10 was approved there was an exhibit showing three (3) one-foot diameter microwave dishes and six (6) antennae; and that the roof antennae will be removed and the six antennae are on previously approved plans. Commissioner Baker reiterated his concern that there is no illustration of the new six (6) foot dish which is much larger than the support. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if staff had any other illustrations. Staff replied negatively; and read from the original staff report of June 11, 1990, regarding the visual impact of the tower. The Public Hearing opened at 8:14 p.m. Kenneth Friedenreich, 625 N. Grand, Santa Ana, Orange County News Channel Marketing Director, noted that they are manufacturing a product called "News" and that they are not a utility, but a provider; that as provider of a program service, they were asked by the predecessor to carry out the process of adding the dish to the tower. He noted that they have followed all processes of the City ordinances; that they request consideration for the new general manager at Continental Cablevision; that they are delivering a high quality product; and that the applicant is a third party. Bill Peterson, General Manager of Continental Cablevision, noted that the nine (9) roof antennae are being consolidated to six (6) Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1991 Page 9 on the tower and are to be placed above the proposed dish; that they would not increase the height of the tower; that they intend to follow through with the Commission's requirements; that undergrounding has been more complicated than they expected, but that they are working on bids for completion. Co~miss~oner Le Jeune asked about the lack of an illustration; and when they anticipated completion. Mr. Peterson indicated that the antennae would consist of six (6) cross pieces with 3 1/2 feet on either side of the tower; that the rest of the antennae should be moved this week and the undergrounding should be completed within 30 days. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:22 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian noted that requiring them to move the antennae first was a good leverage measure; that the six (6) foot dish should be low enough so as not to detract aesthetically. Commissioner Baker commented that he did not like the 50 foot tower initially; that two people at the Charette commented on the appearance of the new tower; that he now has difficulty visualizing the antennae and dishes in Old Town Tustin and doesn't feel that it belongs there. Commissioner Shaheen asked if there was any other way of accomplishing their needs. Commissioner Kasalek agreed that there was no other alternative, even though it is not attractive. Commissioner Baker asked if there was another way to accomplish the project; and noted that he has heard no testimony regarding alternatives. Lois Jeffrey stated that addition of a new item was the issue, not the height of the tower. Commissioner Kasalek stated that the dish would be less obtrusive if it was lower. Staff replied that it must be placed in line-of-sight for reception. Commissioner Shaheen stated that it provides a service to the City and that it requires the maximum amount of output for best reception. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the height of the building was identified in relation with the height of the dish; and asked how tall the building is. Staff replied that the height of the building on the site was not in the way of the dish, but that other buildings were; and that she did not have the building height. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that it was appropriate for the conditions to include that the new dish should not be installed until the original CUP is finalized. ¢ommissione~ Kasparian mgve~, Kasalg~ seconded to approve the Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 90-10 by adopting Resolution No. 2887, as submitted. Motion carried 4-1. (Baker opposed) Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1991 Page 10 OLD BUSINESS: 4. Development Status Report STAFF CONCERNS: 5. Report on actions taken at March 18, 1991 City Council Meeting Commissioner Le Jeune asked for clarification of Colonial Bible Church's appeal regarding sidewalks. Staff replied that the wording deferred installation of the sidewalk for up to six (6) months if they chose, and the church wanted the condition removed altogether. Staff reported on the subject agenda. Determine Planning Commission terms Staff passed out slips of paper for the Commissioners to secretly choose the date of their reappointment. Baker and Shaheen chose the date of 7/15/91; and Le Jeune, Kasalek, and Kasparian chose the date of 7/15/92. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Le Jeune - noted that the Commission will miss Lois Jeffrey and wished her well. Commissioner Kasalek - asked if the Commissioners could receive an updated copy of the Southwest Neighborhood Project report. Staff responded that a copy would be provided in their next packet. Commissioner Shaheen - noted that a house on Sycamore that has been remodeling has a lot of vehicles in the back yard and asked if that was legal; and would provide the address. Lois Jeffrey stated that it could be a nuisance. Staff asked for provision of an address. Commissioner Baker - thanked Dan Fox for attending the League of cities meeting with the Commissioners. Commissioner Kasparian - asked staff to verify whether the house next to St. Cecelia's Church has any historical significance. Staff responded that they would look into the matter. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kasparian moved, Shaheen seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1991 Page 11 The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on April 8, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. ~ ~ Jeune ~ Chairman Ka~hlee~ -Clancy~ ~7~ Secretary