Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-16-90MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING CONNISSZON REGULAR NEETING NOVENBER 26~ 1990 C~,LL TO ORDER: 7: 03 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEG'rP. NCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: PRESENT .' LeJeune, Shaheen, Baker, Kasparian, Kasalek PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE 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 DISCUSSEDAND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the November 13, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. 2. Final Tract Map 13786 APPLICANT/ OWNER: AKINS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY JAMBOREE CENTER 5 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 400 IRVINE, CA 92714 LOCATION: LOTS 22, II AND LLL OF TRACT 12870 ZONING: MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED MINISTERIALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15268(B) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 13.69 ACRES INTO 3 NUMBERED LOTS AND 2 LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 306 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2854, as submitted or revised, forwarding Final Tract Map 13786 to the City Council recommending approval. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner 3. Final Tract Map 13735 APPLICANT: OWNER: REGIS CONTRACTORS, INC. 5160 BIRCH STREET, SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 IRVINE PACIFIC P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOCATION: LOT 1 OF PARCEL MAP 88-315 ZONING: MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 1990 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED MINISTERIALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15268(B) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 10 ACRES INTO 6 NUMBERED LOTS AND 8 LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 238 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2855, as submitted or revised, forwarding Final Tract Map 13735 to the City Council recommending approval. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner Commissioner Kasparian moved, consent calendar as submitted. Kasalek seconded to approve the Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS= 4. Conditional Use Permit 90-29 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: SANG K. KIM (ALL-STAR CLEANERS) 13771 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 NEWPORT AVENUE PARTNERS, LTD. 13891 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 13771 NEWPORT AVENUE, SUITE #4 PLANNED COMMUNITY - COMMERCIAL (PC-C) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH AN ON-PREMISE DRY CLEANING FACILITY WITHIN AN EXISTING TENANT SPACE AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13771 NEWPORT AVENUE, SUITE #4. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2856, certifying the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for the project; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2857, approving Conditional Use Permit 90-29, subject to conditions contained in Exhibit A, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner The Public Hearing was opened at 7:08 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:09 p.m. Staff made changes to Resolution No. 2857, as moved. Commissioner Kasparian asked if exhaust system would create noise. Staff affirmed that there would be some noise, due to the release of steam, but that the noise would be mitigated and the applicant is subject to the Tustin Noise Ordinance. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the Negative Declaration by adopting Resolution No. 2856 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to approve Conditional User Permit 90-29, by adopting Resolution No. 2857 revised as follows: Exhibit A, Page 1, Item 1.4 should read: "...the applicant signinq and returning...". Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 1990 Page 3 ~o~ion carried ~-0. OLD BUSINESS: 5. DesSgn Review 90-17 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: FAT FREDDIE'S RESTAURANT 1571 EL CAMINO REAL TUSTIN, CA 92680 EDGAR PANKEY 2915 BRISTOL COSTA MESA, CA 92626 1571 EL CAMINO REAL C-2 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION OF A PINK COLORED AWNING TO REPLACE A PREVIOUSLY EXISTING TURQUOISE COLORED AWNING. Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner Commiss%oner Le Jeune asked if the fabric was an approved awning material. Staff affirmed and noted that there is a vinyl or polyester blend coating on the sample. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she brought this to the Commission because she understood changing of the awning to be a financial burden for the owner of Fat Freddie's; she would like to consider the problem in a spirit of compromise or as a good will gesture to show that the City is willing to work with its neighbors. She feels that the color is alright; and is asking for a reconsideration to drop the requirement of changing the color back to turquoise. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that the original item came to the Commission as a package including color change, fabric, and neon. Staff replied that the original package had turquoise; they then added the neon which violated the design review approval; that as a condition of permitting the neon, they asked the owner to restore it back to turquoise; the owner applied to the Community Development Department and to the Commission to retain the pink awning, but it was denied. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what has happened to the turquoise awning. Staff replied that the new restaurant owners were unaware of the design review requirements and they replaced it due to it being weathered. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he had thought the new pink awning had faded, but he now feels that it may just be the composite from the roof and it may just need cleaning. Staff noted that any outstanding violations were brought current. Commiss%oDer Le Jeune commented that the only problem at this time is whether the City should pursue removal of the pink awning and returning it to its original color. Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 1990 Page 4 Commissioner Shaheen noted that he agreed with Commissioner Kasalek, and stated that he felt it was nice as it is and that it would be too much to ask of the owner to return it to turquoise. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the business changed hands; and if the new owner did not know of the requirements. Staff replied that the original applicant on the design review is not the current owner on the application. Commissioner Kasparian asked if there is a procedure, whereby, if a business changes hands, the new owner is required to determine if there are any outstanding requirements. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, stated that there has been the same owner all along, but different tenants; and that the tenant has changed the awning. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the property owner is the original applicant. Staff replied that the owner has remained the same, and is not the original applicant. Ms. Jeffrey replied that there is an owner of the property and an applicant which is the tenant of Fat Freddie's Restaurant. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he had a preconceived idea about some of the businesses "thumbing their noses" and pleading ignorance to the City, but he feels that the second tenant may not have known that a condition existed; that he still feels that there is an obligation that the City should maintain their position; and asked if the Commission could approve the current color on a conditional basis, with the proviso that if the current owner makes future improvements he would be obliged to return to the original color that was approved for his building. Ms. Jeffrey replied that the Commission should first consider the history of the project; that in April there was a proposal to approve the pink awning; that there was a discussion regarding the person in charge being unaware of the color requirement, it was considered by the Commission, the Commission decided against it, and a Resolution was adopted. She also stated that if the Commission wishes to change the decision, they should formalize it at a subsequent meeting by approving another design review. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if it could be accomplished on a Consent Calendar basis. Ms. Jeffrey affirmed. Commissioner Kasparian reiterated his position that if the applicant makes any upgrades, he should be required to change his awning back to turquoise. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if Commissioner Kasparian would be satisfied to allow it to come back if there was any change to the awning. Commissioner Kasparian replied that he would not be satisfied with just the awning; that he is suggesting a conditional approval; and that he feels that the issue is greater than just color, that he cannot see the Commission deciding something, then backing down. Commissioner Shaheen disagreed; that the applicant might remodel so that the turquoise would no longer be appropriate; that he should Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 1990 Page 5 be allowed to leave it; and if he redesigns the building, he should then have to have a new color approved. ~Q~missioner Le JeuB~ agreed that it should come back to the Commission if it needs replaced. Ms. JeSfrey suggested that the current item come back as a modification to the design review. She also noted that the current situation has three (3) options: the staff can be directed to initiate code enforcement activity; the Commission can allow more time to comply; or the Commission can modify the previous design review through a formal action. She stated that she did not recommend the Commission leave the item as it is, because they would be sanctioning the violation of the design review. Commissione~ Kasalek noted that she felt that much of the time the business community is probably not "thumbing their noses" so much as not knowing; that she feels they have a responsibility to find out, but that there is often a language or ignorance problem. Commissioner Baker stated that he feels that if he was not involved with the Commission he would not know limitations on banner signs, for instance, and agreed with Commissioner Kasalek that there may be some ignorance on the part of the business community. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Baker seconded to request that this item be brought back to the Planning Commission as a new Design Review under the consent calendar. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Development Status Report Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Received and filed· NEW BUSINESS: Notification of Cancellation of December 24, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. Received and filed. STAFF CONCERNS: Report on Actions taken at November 19, 1990 City Council meeting. Presentation: Rita Westfield, Development Asst. Director of Community COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Kasalek -Asked who was in charge of the meeting rooms at the Library. Staff advised it would be the County of Orange. Commissioner Kasparian -Asked about the status of Pacific Center East, Sycamore and Red Hill, in regard to the circulation and transportation issue. Staff advised consultant's response to comments on draft EIR was received and staff would check to see if this issue has been responded to. -Inquired about the location of traffic signal boxes being a hazard to pedestrians and vehicles, specifically at Newport Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 1990 Page 6 and E1 Camino. Jerry Crabill, City Traffic Consultant, advised that the boxes are placed so that when an engineer is at the box with the door open making changes he has the best view of traffic. In regard to the box at Newport and E1 Camino, it could be a telephone box, sometimes they install these without advising the City and that he would look into the matter. To prevent this from happening in the future we could review the permit procedure more closely. -Asked about the status of Karl's Mercedes lot at Newport and E1 Camino. Staff advised our Code Enforcement Officer is handling this now, a letter has been sent and we have been in contact with the County Health Department due to a possible soil contamination issue. Commissioner Le Jeune -Advised that in regard to Karl's Mercedes lot, maybe Mr. Greinke would assist us with weed abatement and demolition proceedings since he was concerned about the appearance of the wood lot across the street. Commissioner Baker -Advised that the street lights are still out along Bryan near Red Hill Avenue. ADJOURNMENT: At 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to adjourn meeting to the Sign Code Workshop at 5:00 p.m. preceding the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on December 10, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Motion carried 5-0. Ka~hleen Fitzpatrick Secretary