Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-11-91MINUT$$ TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 11, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: 7: 03 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Le Jeune, Baker, Kasparian, Kasalek Shaheen 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 F~bruary 25, 1991 Plan~ing Commission meetinq. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-45 APPLICANT: MICHAEL E. HAMILTON, REPRESENTING COLONIAL BIBLE CHURCH IBS MANAGEMENT, INC. 1740 WEST KATELLA AVE., SUITE A ORANGE, CA 92667 OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: NILS-ERIC SVENSSON AND CHERYL MARIE SVENSSON 241 EVENING CANYON CORONA DELMAR, CA 92625 14451 FRANKLIN AVENUE 14450 CHAMBERS ROAD PLANNED COMMUNITY-INDUSTRIAL; COMPLEX IRVINE INDUSTRIAL Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 1991 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. A REQUEST TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MODIFYING CONDITION 4.E.1 OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2759 TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF A 5-FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO 14550 CHAMBERS Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Amendment to CUP 89-45 by adoption of Resolution No. 2884. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner The Public Hearing opened at 7:09 p.m. Michael Hamilton, resident of Tustin at 13531 Apricot, spoke on behalf of Colonial Bible Church. Mr. Hamilton said that putting in the sidewalk would put undue financial hardship on the church; that they did not feel that the sidewalk was necessary; that the members would have to cross a berm to get to it and that they would be more likely to use direct access to the parking lot. He also stated that in speaking with the owner, Mr. Mellin, it was determined that it would require installation of a retaining wall and destruction of some trees, and that he is against having a sidewalk installed; that it would cost $12,000; that the director of Public Works indicated that they be required to install sidewalks connecting the two lots; and that all other terms of the Resolution have been met. The Public Hearing closed at 7:13 p.m. Commissioner Baker asked if the sidewalk between the two driveways has been completed. Staff replied that it is under construction. Commissioner Kasparian asked if Volvotech is spending any money on the sidewalk; what is in the adjacent building; and why Volvotech is involved. Staff responded that the church will be responsible for the cost of the sidewalk; that the adjacent tenant is a distributor; that since Volvotech has made improvements, but the other tenant has not, Volvotech is required to provide a sidewalk; and that the reciprocal parking agreement has tied the three (3) buildings together which requires the improvements to be made to the surrounding properties. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if a reciprocal parking agreement has been signed; and if denial of the application would affect the reciprocal parking agreement. Staff affirmed that an agreement has been signed and recorded, but stated that it would not be affected if this application was denied; and that staff has written documentation from the Public Works Department that they concur with leaving the condition as worded. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if when the application was originally approved if there was ever a question of location of the sidewalks; and asked for a clarification of another property in that location. Staff replied negatively. Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 1991 Page 3 The Director replied that the property in question was regarding a sidewalk in the Red Hill Industrial Center where no other sidewalks were installed; that the Council's direction required the owner to agree to dedicate right-of-way for construction since there was inadequate right-of-way; and that in this industrial center there have been incremental sidewalks installed which benefit the public, not just the applicant. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the sidewalks would eventually continue past Volvotech. The Director affirmed. Commissioner Le Jeune asked about the comment that the owner disapproves of the sidewalk installation. Staff responded that the owner has not communicated that to staff; and that the owner did give concurrence to the proposal by allowing them to use his site for reciprocal parking. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the church would be responsible for building the retaining wall and other improvements. Staff replied that it would be a business decision between the two parties; that the applicant is required to have the improvements completed prior to occupancy of the building. The Director commented that if there is an issue of timing, the City can offer an issuance of a bond, cash deposit or a surety bond, that would guarantee completion of the improvements in a timeframe that the applicant would find amenable to their schedule and financing. Commiss~oDer Kasparian asked if that could be done independently of passing this resolution. The Director replied that it would be an action of approval of the amendment with language regarding the bond. Staff noted that the Planning Commission should specify a time limit. CQmmiss~QDer Baker commented that it would make sense that people would walk out the front door to the parking lot; but that the Resolution does require a sidewalk; and that the City Council must make the change because the Planning Commission does not have the power to do so. ¢ommissiQner Kasparian commented that the sidewalk was for more than the access of the congregation, and should take into account public access; that he votes for denial of the application; and questioned why the trees were put so close to an area where a sidewalk might be installed. The Director responded that the original site plan may have been reviewed for future construction, but that many alterations may have occurred; that within the right-of-way, the City is in a position to enter into landscape maintenance agreements to assure that this will not happen in the future. Commissioner Kasparian noted an Edison vault that restricts the sidewalk to a 22" width; and that the note on the plans should be changed to include such things as vaults, junction boxes, etc. Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 1991 Page 4 The Director stated that staff is bringing back a set of criteria for placement of those devices; and asked if Commissioner Kasparian was suggesting modification of construction drawings that were already approved. Commissioner Kasparian suggested modification of the area around this vault; that he would not hold up this item, but that it will look out of place to have an eight (8) foot sidewalk narrowed down to 22 inches. The Director responded that she would check with the Public Works Department; that it may pose a hardship at this point; and that it would be useful for the Planning Commission to receive the information from the Public Works Department. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she did not see a need for the sidewalk; that Calvary has no sidewalks connecting its parking lots, but that she did not know its parking arrangement; and that this should go to City Council. Commissioner Le Jeune asked about the sidewalk at the Far West Bank. The Director replied that their sidewalk was not City initiated; that they did not make improvements requiring building permits. Commissioner Le Jeune felt that there may not be a need for a sidewalk on Chambers, but that it wa~ in the Conditional Use Permit and they need to maintain the wishes of the City Council; and asked about the grading in front of 14401 Franklin. The Director replied that they are using all available parking areas. She also noted that if they are amenable to the bonding mechanism they could change Resolution 2884, Item 4.1, as moved. Commissioner Kasparian asked what the date of completion should be. The Director replied that they could support up to 180 days. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what would happen if the owner would not allow the sidewalk. The Director replied that the owners were notified of the public hearing and that it was part of the conditions of approval. Staff noted that it was all within the public right-of-way, which would allow the City to install the improvements; that the requirement for sidewalks is part of a City Council resolution and cannot be changed. However, a surety bond can be used to help financing of the sidewalk for the church. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to approve Resolution No. 2884 approving amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-45, request to modify condition 4.E.1 of Resolution 2759 to modify the requirement to install a five (5) foot wide sidewalk adjacent to 15450 as revised: 4.1 Item 2: Construction of the five foot wide sidewalk located adjacent to the curb would be required at 15451 and 14441 Franklin Avenue and 14450 Chambers Avenue. The applicant shall be allowed to occupy the structure at 14451 Franklin prior to completion of sidewalk at 14450, provided the applicant or the adjacent owner at 14450 post a security bond, either cash or surety, acceptable to the Community Development Department and the City Attorney's Office in the Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 1991 Page 5 amount of the estimated construction prior to the release of the Certificate of Occupancy. Motion carrSed 4-0. 3. CoDd~tional Use Permit 90-25 and Desiqn Review 90-37 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, INC. 1200 NORTH HARBOR BLVD. ANAHEIM, CA 92801 THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 330 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 2992 EL CAMINO REAL, TUSTIN MARKET PLACE (LOT 3 OF TRACT 13556) MIXED USE (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. APPROVAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF A FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2885. 2. Approve Conditional Use Permit 90-25 and Design Review 90-37 by adopting Resolution No. 2886, subject to conditions contained in Exhibit A, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner CQm~ss~oner Kasalek asked what the pink area indicated on the illustration. Staff replied that it was the original menu placement area; yellow indicates where it was moved to; blue is the pay area; and that food pick-up is in the same position. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for an explanation of the advantages of moving the menu. Staff replied that it is the slowest ~oint in the system, and that by moving it further up in the system, more cars can wait. ¢omm~ssiQner Kasalek asked if the pneumatic system was originally planned, or if it was included to accommodate the menu placement; and if the applicant has used it elsewhere. Staff replied that it is a change; and affirmed that it is used elsewhere. Commissioner Baker suggested restriping the parking lot so that the drive-up is more to the right; and asked if three (3) years is too long of a review period; that any problems would surface within the first year. Staff replied that a shared trash enclosure is bordering the site; and that a study could be requested anytime within the three (3) years. Commissioner Le Jeu~9 asked what type of mitigation measures are suggested for any problems that m~ght arise. Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 1991 Page 6 Staff suggested moving the menu board. The Director noted that the parking for the entire project is based upon a calculation of tenancies of the project; that there is more parking than needed by the Code; and that if there is a problem, parking could be altered as an option. Commissioner Kasparian stated that he did not envision a problem. The Director cautioned that there may be obstruction for emergency vehicles; that they need to maintain a minimum parking lot aisle of 25 feet for emergency access; and that they do not want cars to stack into the driveway aisle. Commissioner Kasparian asked who was notified; and if the business owners were notified, since they are directly impacted. Staff replied that the Irvine Company and some dealerships were notified; and that the business owners were not notified. The Director noted that it had been posted in the general vicinity and the newspaper; that the City does more than the law requires; and that they do not notify individual businesses. Commissioner Kasparian suggested that staff reconsider use of ficus trees as their roots tend to cause sewer damage; and asked regarding 3.1 of Exhibit A, if standard verbage regarding recycling capability should be included; and asked where the trash goes for recycling. The Director replied that the existing trash enclosure is not within the property limits of this application; that they are not altering the trash enclosure in conjunction with this application; that the hauler takes it all to a facility or landfill where it is then sorted and/or recovered; and that this application, because of tenant installed improvements would not necessitate altering pre- existing trash enclosures. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the program is set up yet. The Director replied that it has not yet been set up; that the bin service meets the anticipated needs. The Public Hearing opened at 7:55 p.m. Jim Middleton, of 1200 N. Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, spoke on behalf of Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc. He acknowledged that all conditions of Resolution No. 2886 except 4.3 and 1.6 of Exhibit A were acceptable to the company. He stated that the play area is screened by a hedge and would like to use their standard furniture since it will not be seen; that their seating accommodates small areas, whereas the suggested units are not suitable for small areas; that their seating is more adaptable and easily maintained. He also referred to an illustration and noted, regarding the traffic study, that this site is probably the smallest in the center; that the red area indicates the buildable area; that they have approval to build over the water easement; that by extending the drive aisle, they have only one car less than In-and-Out; that by moving the menu board forward, they would exceed In-and-Out's amount; that In-and-Out moves the traffic through at a minute per car and that Carl's Jr. would intend to meet that speed; that the pneumatic system is slightly faster than other pay systems; and whether they use pneumatic or cash systems they will still have a six (6) car stack. Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 1991 Page 7 Commissioner Baker asked how many they stack at other locations. Mr. Middleton replied that they average a seven (7) car stack; that the location is not highly travelled since it is not on a major thoroughfare; that they are isolated and that even though cars may stack, it will not impact the center. He stated that they do not mind moving the menu board, but that there is no place to expand the stacking without major rework of the parking; and that the stacking problem would only be at the peak lunch and dinner hours. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if staff has seen the furniture type. Staff provided pictures and handouts playground equipment. of the furniture and Mr, ~ddleton noted that they would rather have plastic and fiberglass in the play area than stone. Commissioner Le Jeune asked how the area is screened. Mr. Middleton replied that it was designed similar to Home Depot with a landscape berm; that heads and shoulders of people might be visible. Commissioner Baker asked if there would be umbrellas and if they would have writing on them. Mr. Middleton replied that there would be red umbrellas without writing. LouSe Caballero, 3501 Jamboree Rd., Newport Beach, also spoke on behalf of Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc. He asked that Condition No. 1.6 be removed from Resolution No. 2886 since they would not knowingly create a hazardous condition; that they employed Bart and Ashton to prepare a stacking and queuing analysis, which concluded that the drive-thru design was adequate; that the site design submitted for approval has greater capacity for stacking and queuing than the initial design; and that they would remedy any potential hazardous conditions. He also noted that the report recommended three (3) cars stacking from the menu board, and that at peak hours there may be cars into the drive aisle; and that the applicant has now allowed for a six (6) car stack. Commissioner Baker noted that they are installing double the amount recommended. Mr, C~bal~ero affirmed. The Public Hearing closed at 8:15 p.m. Staff commented that the approved furniture is concrete and complements the color scheme at the Market Place; and that they feel it is appropriate to maintain the color scheme at the center, especially for the fast food restaurants. Commissioner Le Jeune asked about seating at the entertainment center. Staff replied that the stand-alone restaurants at the entertainment center have been allowed to select a different type of outdoor furniture; but that the fast food restaurants would be required to use the concrete furniture. Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 1991 Page 8 Commissioner Baker asked how many more fast food restaurants were expected. Staff replied potentially two (2) more. The Director replied that there are other uncommitted pads, but that there were originally four (4) fast food pads on the south side. She also noted that there are a variety of sizes of concrete benches; that the aluminum and fiberglass tables deteriorate rapidly; that they wanted to ensure a high-end appearance to the project at a cost that was comparable to the cost of maintaining other facilities; and that it will last forever and maintain its appearance. Commissioner Baker asked if the landlord has approved the concrete. The Director affirmed. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that since Donahue Shriber has agreed in the past, they should be consistent. Commissioner Kasalek asked if there were other play items that would be near the concrete benches; and noted that she was concerned with the safety of the children as they were sliding and running, but if it is isolated, the concrete is favorable. Staff replied that the ball apparatus is the only play item being proposed, and it is isolated from the seating. Commissioner Kasparian agreed with the concern of plastic, and is in favor of concrete. Commissioner Baker asked if the three (3) year provision is in question regarding the stacking. The Director replied that 1.6 provides a monitoring device calling for future alterations if there are traffic problems; that the applicant is suggesting an alternative which is provided in item 3.14, noted as moved. Commissioner Baker asked if vehicle measurement was 20 feet. The Director replied that the original report was 22 feet, and that a standard compact car is 15.5 feet; that with 60% in the compact category, this is a less conservative figure. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2885. Motion passes 4-0. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 90-25 and Design Review 90-37 by adopting Resolution No. 2886, subject to conditions contained in Exhibit A, revised as follows: Exhibit A, No. 1.6: Delete No. 1.6. Exhibit A, Add No. 3.14 to read as follows: "The site plan shall be revised to provide stacking area for six (6) cars from the menu order board to the beginning of the drive-thru lane, maintaining a minimum parking lot drive aisle width of 25 feet. Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 1991 Page 9 A pneumatic tube pay system shall be installed, in lieu of the pay window, in a location determined by the Director of Community Development. A minimum of nine (9) cars shall be accommodated in the drive- thru lane from the site entrance to the food pick-up window." Motion passes 4-0. NEW BUSINESS: STAFF CONCERIqS~ 4. Report on actions taken at March 4, ~991 City Council meeting. Staff reported on the subject agenda. 5. General Plan Work Proqram Commissioner Kasparian asked if the topic regarding electro- magnetic fields should be part of the Environmental Impact Report. The Director replied that at this time there is no set agreement among the experts; and that this would be a subject for the community to address in the scoping sessions. Lois Jeffrey. city Attorney, noted that this is an issue that staff would be watching; that the Public Utilities Commission will have jurisdiction; that a consensus has to be reached at the Planning Commission or the City Council providing direction to the consultants. Receive and file. 6. Sian Code Review Rita Westfield, made a presentation of the Chamber Sign Code Committee Meetings of February 26 and March 6; that the Chamber requested Planning Commission input in response to the Chamber's concerns; and that handouts materials were provided to the Commission for the purpose of discussion. No Planning Commission action necessary. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Kasparian -Attended an electro-magnetic seminar and found it to be very informative and recommended attendance for anyone interested. -Complimented staff on design review work for Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc. -There is a sign north on Prospect Avenue showing a speed limit of 40 mph and right after is a sign for 25 mph; and that it seems to hard to go from one speed to another. Staff responded that the County of Orange may control the signs on that part of Prospect Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 1991 Page 10 -Asked if there is a record of the Planning Commissioner's concerns which is kept. Staff replied that they appear in the Planning Commission's minutes but that staff was keeping track of the Commission's concerns. Commissioner Kasalek -Noted that the telecasts of the City Council meetings, which is done by Community Cable, have been very poor during the last couple of meetings for technical reasons, and asked who handles the cable service. Staff responded that Katy Pitcher of the Public Works Department is responsible for the cable companies in Tustin. She can be contacted regarding any problems with the cable company. Commissioner Le Jeune -Noticed a roof sign at the U-Haul facility on E1 Camino Real, does not recall giving approval for this. -Asked about the status of the property at Newport and E1 Camino Real. Staff responded that a Notice and Order had been sent to the property owner. ADJOU~"~: Commissioner Kasparian moved, Kasalek seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on March 25, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Dona~Le Jeune ~ ' ~ ~ Chairman Kathleen C 1 ~n'cy Secretary