Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-22-90M I N U T E S TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1990 CALL TO ORDER: 7:02 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Le Jeune, Baker, Kasparian, Kasalek (Shaheen absent) 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 DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the October 3. 1990 and October 8. 1990 Planning Commission meetings. Commissioner Baker noted for the record that it was not he that made the comments under Commission Concerns of the October 8 meeting as stated. PRESENTATION: Habitats for Humanities Jenny Humboldt, Orange County Habitats for Humanities, gave a short presentation of their program for the Commission. She stated that the program is not based on charity, the organization works with families to build homes. It was started in 1976 by Millard Fuller, and there has been an Orange County chapter since 1988. Its objective is to address the problem of providing housing in Orange County. It has a board of directors and 400 active volunteers. They are presently building 53 homes in Orange County in Anaheim, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Santa Ana. Their goal is to build 50 houses per year. They acquire the houses/land at low or no cost and utilize no interest loans. They build modest homes, maximize their use of volunteer labor and material donations, and work with churches. They have received two Register charity awards, and the Irvine Company has donated $100,000. The houses are sold at no profit, and the owner receives a 20 year interest free mortgage. The money is recycled into the main fund for use with future houses. The families that meet the criteria have to have an income less than the median income for Orange County, but have to be able to make the mortgage, with 1% down payment. They must have steady employment with a history of financial responsibility, and must donate 1000 hours of "sweat equity" in their home or another. They do not select based on race or religion. This is not a handout, but a hand -up. They are building a community, and some of the people acquire skills that help them improve their position. The Santa Ana project is in conjunction with the Civic Center Bario Housing Project, the Anaheim project was donated by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, and the Rancho Santa Margarita project is in conjunction with Fieldstone, who donated the land and entitlement. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1990 Page 2 They also have a project in Brea in the design stage, and future plans for Huntington Beach and Fullerton. This provides a positive alternative for low income housing. She noted that their board of directors would be happy to meet with the Planning Commission. Art Humboldt, Habitats for Humanities, challenged the Commission and the City to work with the organization in partnership as they are updating or amending the General Plan to provide an alternate for low-cost housing. Commissioner Kasparian moved. Baker seconded to approve minutes. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Modification to Conditional Use Permit 90-18 APPLICANT/ OWNER: ALDERSGATE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 1201 S.E. IRVINE BOULEVARD TUSTIN, CA 92680 LOCATION: 1201 S.E. IRVINE BOULEVARD ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REQUEST: MODIFICATION OF CONDITION 2.1 OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2821 RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION OF A BLOCK WALL TO ALLOW A CHANGE IN MATERIAL OR OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2844, as submitted or revised, modifying Condition 2.1 of Conditional Use Permit 90-18, adopted by Resolution No. 2821, to permit a change in construction material for a required play yard fence from a slump block wall to double - sided wood fencing. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner The Public Hearing was opened at 7:16 p.m. David Miller, chairman of the building committee at Aldersgate Methodist Church, noted that he was concerned about not understanding the reasoning for the requirement of a 6 foot 8 inch screening wall between the play yard and the adjoining property which is at least 150 feet away. He noted that the current fence is 3-4 feet and more due to the incline; that the neighbors along the west side have a 6 foot fence; that the State required a 4 foot fence; and that they will double -side all fences required. He requested that they be allowed to delay any changes until the proposed changes to the play yard, parking lot and facility are made within the next year or year and one-half. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the applicant did not realize that a 6 foot 8 inch fence was required when the original approval was given; and if the fences were identified on the plans. Mr. Miller replied that at the time of the initial ruling, the planners had not informed them of the requirement; that they did not address the fence at the public hearing; and that the State Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1990 Page 3 requires a 4 foot fence which would have been indicated on the plans. The Director advised that the Commission can impose its own conditions via the conditional use permit process; and that they should have a case planner involved to review this item. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:25 p.m. Staff indicated that the applicant was willing to postpone the change; but that staff does not recommend postponing the change due to the school presently being in use and that the expansion plans have not yet been submitted. Commissioner Le Jeune asked about the blue shaded area of the illustration. Staff replied that the blue area indicated single -sided fencing that was installed without permits. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if staff was requiring double -sided fencing along the blue and yellow shaded areas; and if it was for aesthetics. Staff affirmed and stated that it was to provide compatibility and that it should be painted or stained to match the building; that it was for aesthetics and to meet the zoning requirements; and that there is a section in the Zoning Code allowing the waiving of height requirements. Commissioner Kasparian asked what type of fencing was required. Staff replied that the Code required a slump block wall or solid fence. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the fencing was recommended due to the noise generated to the neighbors. Staff replied that it was for security and noise; and that the Police Department recommends that for security the fence should not continue all the way around due to the driveway off of Wass. Commissioner Kasparian asked about a sidewalk on the illustration; and noted that a child could jump over a 4 foot fence. Staff replied that the area needs to be secured; that a child could possibly jump a 4 foot fence, but that the applicant informed her that the fence was 5 foot. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if staff was asking for a double -sided wood fence; if the slats are on the in or outside of the existing single -sided fence; and what the yellow and black areas on the illustration indicated. Staff replied that if the applicant is willing to do one side, it should be consistent; that the slats are on the outside facing the parking lot; and that the yellow area was modified to slump block wall and that staff recommends compatibility; and that the black area is chain link. Commissioner Baker noted that the play yard is surrounded by chain link; and asked how high the chain link is. Staff advised that based on the recommendation of the Police Department, there would not be a solid fence around the play yard; and that it is 4 feet high. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1990 Page 4 Commissioner Le Jeune asked when the fencing along the blue area was installed. Staff replied that since there were no permits pulled, she was unsure, but assumed that it was done between the original approval and this date. Commissioner Kasparian asked how the day care center could be approved with a 4 foot fence when the State requirement was 6 feet 8 inches. Staff replied that the State requirement is 4 feet, and the City's is 6 feet 8 inches. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if 6 feet 8 inches represented the maximum height a fence could be. Staff affirmed. The Director advised that the Code requires a 6 foot 8 inch play yard enclosure for nursery schools; and that the Planning Commission has the authority to reduce the maximum height. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he was confused by the issue and that they cannot justify requiring a 6 foot 8 inch fence when there is a 4 foot fence around the play yard; that he is willing to promote fencing no higher than the original fence; that double - sided would not provide more protection; and that the fences should be the same height. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that it was not a matter of the height of the fence, but that it be double -sided. Commissioner Kasparian noted that the Resolution requires a 6 foot 8 inch slump block wall fence. Commissioner Baker agreed with Commissioner Kasparian and noted that he felt that they were asking for inconsistencies. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she did not understand the need for the yellow area, since it was unnecessary due to the Police Department requiring the back to be open. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, recommended that they bring this back and check the Code; that the Commission cannot change the requirements altogether; and that the staff needs to look at the development standards which may require a variance. The Director recommended a visual presentation to clarify the issues. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to postpone action on Conditional Use Permit 90-18 by continuing item to the regular scheduled Planning Commission meeting of November 14, 1990. Motion carried 4-0. 3. Conditional Use Permit 90-27 APPLICANT: LENNY'S PASTA AND PIZZA LDA RESTAURANT INVESTORS, LIMITED PARTNERS 3752 HAVERFORD IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715 OWNER: COLCO PROSPECT 1520 BROOKHOLLOW, #35 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1990 Page 5 LOCATION: 17602 SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 104 ZONING: PC -C: PLANNED COMMUNITY - COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ON-SITE SALE OF BEER AND WINE FOR CONSUMPTION ON THE PREMISES (ABC LICENSE TYPE 114111) IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT USE. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 90-27 by adopting Resolution No. 2843, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked if Item 1.3 of Exhibit A should indicate "beer and wine only" instead of "liquor." Staff agreed that it should be corrected. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:48 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:49 p.m. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Baker seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 90-27 by adopting Resolution No. 2843 revised as follows: Resolution No. 2843, Exhibit A, Page 1, item 1.3 should read: "...the sale of beer and wine commences within...". Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS: 4. Design Review 87-37 INITIATED BY: OWNER: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CITY OF TUSTIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 330 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 TUSTIN MARKET PLACE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS NOT A PROJECT, AS DEFINED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL ACT (CEQA). APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED PLANS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the amendment to Design Review 87-37 by adopting Resolution No. 2848 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Commissioner Baker commented that he had great confidence in the current staff, and that the wording could be changed in the future in case of a different staff. Commissioner Kasparian felt that the wording was ambiguous, but agreed. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1990 Page 6 Commissioner Kasalek noted that she had every confidence in their competent staff. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to approve the amendment to Design Review 87-37 by adopting Resolution No. 2848 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. 5. Development Status Report Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Received and filed. NEW BUSINESS: 6. Design Review 90-29 APPLICANT: RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL 9 EXECUTIVE CIRCLE, SUITE 190 IRVINE, CA 92714 OWNER: THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 330 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 LOCATION: 3015 EL CAMINO REAL (LOT 3 OF TRACT 13557) ZONING: MIXED USE (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR THE PROPOSED RESTAURANT. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2845. 2. Approve Design Review 90-29 by adopting Resolution No. 2846 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Staff made changes to Resolution No. 2846, as moved. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if staff was requiring the red color to be compatible. Staff replied that they are asking that the red color provided should be the same as the red approved for use by El Pollo Loco; that there are other restaurants asking for red to be added to the palette; and that they are asking the Market Place developer to select one shade of red to be used throughout. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the decision could be made at the Community Development Department level. Staff advised that the applicant was available for comment. Richard Powers, manager of architecture for Red Robin, commented that they utilize a standard sign which is manufactured in quantity and would like to apply for a deviation from the requirements; and Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1990 Page 7 that they would like Condition 3.2 of Exhibit A to be changed to a "stolit-type" of material. Commissioner Baker asked what is being used in the Market Place. The Director replied that the conditions do not cite the manufacturer's type of stolit, and that there is a wide range of products available. Staff replied that the term "stolit" is how it is typically referred to, and that it would be an acrylic texture coating. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that the Commission would not like to make changes to the Resolution if the products available are consistent. Staff revised Condition 6.2 of Exhibit A, as moved. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2845 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to approve Design Review 90-29 by adopting Resolution No. 2846 revised as follows: Resolution 2846, page 1, item I -C in the first sentence, Tustin should be capitalized. Resolution 2846, Exhibit A, page 3, item 4.2 should read: "...on-site of alcoholic beverages is contingent...". Resolution 2846, Exhibit A, page 5, item 6.2 should read: ."does not exceed the standards below, or up to 10% increase in sign area as a minor modification regulated by the Director of Community Development:...". Motion carried 4-0. 7. Interpretation of Parking Requirements APPLICANT: RANDY ROBERTSON (AGENT) 33912 EL ENCANTO DANA POINT, CA 92629 OWNER: OCTIVIA M. DIEHL C/O MR. BRUCE AUSTIN 10416 ECHO RIVER COURT FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 LOCATION: 1972 YOLANDA WAY ZONING: R-2: DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS ITEM IS NOT CONSIDERED A PROJECT AS DEFINED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REQUEST: TO PERMIT THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING NON- CONFORMING DUPLEX WITHOUT REQUIRING CONFORMANCE WITH CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planning Commissioner Kasparian asked if the applicant intended to expand the existing home or construct new dwelling units. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the construction will be like the adjacent units. Staff replied that there would be no new units; that the new units would be over the existing units; and that they will go beyond the adjacent units. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1990 Page 8 Commissioner Baker asked if there are two (2) spaces per unit; and if there is a garage door opener. Staff replied that they will have two (2) spaces with independent access; that spaces are located behind the garage; and that a car could block access by parking in the driveway. The Director noted that only three (3) spaces were provided while this location was under County jurisdiction. Commissioner Kasalek noted that they could also park on the street. Commissioner Baker asked if they were adding three (3) bedrooms; and noted that they are looking for a large family. Staff replied that they are adding three bedrooms, baths, and a family room. The Director commented that there is an unusual lot line on this property; and that the parking spaces would have to be created parallel to the street which would eliminate the open courtyard effect. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if they would be establishing a precedent by approving this item. The Director replied that they would be, but only in regards to the parking non -conformity; that others would have to comply with the Code or apply for a variance. Commissioner Kasbarian asked if the surrounding properties had 2-3 parking spaces; and that they should not expand to four (4) spaces. Commissioner Kasalek agreed. Commissioner_ Kasalek moved, Baker seconded to approve request by adoption of Resolution 2849-A as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. 8. Use Determination 90-04 APPLICANT/ CLARENCE J. TURNER OWNER: TRICO REALTY, INC. 201 PAULARINO AVENUE COSTA MESA, CA 92626 LOCATION: 14751 - A FRANKLIN AVENUE ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 5) FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15305 REQUEST: TO DETERMINE THAT "AUTOMOBILE SERVICE AND REPAIR" IS PERMITTED WHEN THE USE "DOES NOT" OCCUPY AN ENTIRE BUILDING OR DEVELOPABLE LOT OR PARCEL IN THE IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Le Jeune advised that he agreed with staff and was unwilling to make a use determination on this item. Commissioner Baker commented that he was concerned with shops that change tires and create an environmental hazard due to body painting. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1990 Page 9 Staff replied that they do no painting, and that the only body work is installation of prefabricated fiberglass car tops, installing tires and grills. He also noted that the Fire Department's original concern was with the glue application process which was inconsistent. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the neighbors have not been notified and have had no opportunity to comment on possible past problems. Commissioner Kasparian commented that the applicant might change; that they do not want to see strip shops in this area; that businesses like Volvotech are easily regulated; and that he is in favor of the current code. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that anytime there is a request to make a zone change, there should be a public hearing. Staff replied that the idea behind the use determination process is to provide for uses that are not listed in the Code; that some are very similar; and that this situation does not apply. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, advised that she was concerned that the applicant was seeking an interpretation; that the Code is clear; that it would be a bad precedent for the Planning Commission to utilize the use determination process to eliminate clear language; and that it is clear that this use is prohibited. The Director stated that staff tried to point out these issues to the applicant. Thomas Edwards, representing the applicant, stated that it was the intent of the applicant to determine that the type of after -market service items do not qualify as auto service or repair; that since they are not licensed by the State, the facility cannot align tires, and no mechanic is employed. He also stated that they consider their portion of the building to be an individual building; that they have been operating for three (3) years and are inspected bi-annually; and that the question of the glue application has been taken care of. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a definition of a building. The Director did not concur with the applicant; that even though there is a fire wall, that does not mean it is a separate building. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to deny Use Determination 90-04 by Minute Order. Motion carried 4-0. STAFF CONCERNS: 9. Report on Actions taken at October 15, 1990 City Council meeting. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a clarification of the water system analysis Workshop and if it would be held in the Council chambers. The Director replied that the Mayor asked for a complete evaluation of the water system and that it would be held in the City Managers Conference room. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Kasparian -Wished to correct a statement made at the October 8, 1990 meeting, page 18 of the minutes approximately 2/3 of the way Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1990 Page 10 down the page under Commissioner Kasparian, should read: "...he did not want to defer the decision to her...". -Asked that a change be made to the October 8, 1990 minutes as follows: Page 20, approximately half way down the page under Commissioner Baker moved, should read: "...Sign Program (up to a maximum of 10%..." -Suggested that in regard to the railroad car switching tying up traffic, could we write the railroad a letter advising them to change the switching hours from peak traffic hours to off- peak hours. -Expressed his concern that the sides of the car wash at Newport and Main Streets are open to the public right-of-way and pedestrians may be sprayed by water and wax. The Director advised that we do not have the ability to impose standards at this time unless owners come in with a proposed plan. Commissioner Baker -Asked if we have been contacted by the applicant of Nisson Car Wash. The Director advised that due to litigation over the billboard issue that the City Attorney's office is handling. Commissioner Kasalek -Inquired about the status of the land between Tustin Meadows and Peppertree. The Director advised that the disposition of the property depends on the completion of the storm drain work. Staff will get an update for the Commission from Public Works Department. Commissioner Le Jeune -Wanted to thank both newspapers for the publicity and coverage of the Planning Commission meetings. -Asked if there were plans for screening of the car wash at Newport and Main streets. Staff advised that design review approvals are in process and that landscaping will provide screening, but there will be no building changes at this time. There has been discussion of a complete remodel in the near future. The Director reminded the Commission that the operation is a legal non -conforming use and we need to be sensitive to the issues. -Inquired about the status of the General Plan update. The Director replied that a consultant has been chosen and that a draft will be brought before the Council in November. -Reported that cable coverage of the City Council meetings has been very bad, with static, etc. The Director reminded the Commission that permits for installation of a new tower complete with satellite dish at Continental Cablevision was approved and should alleviate this problem. -Read of a city using a video camera to record code enforcement items. Thought this would be a useful tool for our City. -Inquired about the status of the abandoned service station at the corner of Newport and E1 Camino streets. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1990 Page 11 ADJOURNMENT At 8:50 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded to adjourn meeting to a Sign Code Workshop at 5:00 p.m. on November 5, 1990 and then adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, November 13, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Motion carried 4-0. Kaitherine Fit trick Secretary