Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-24-90MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 1990 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: PUBLIC CONCERNS: PRESENT: Le Jeune, Shaheen, Baker, (Kasalek absent). Kasparian (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 September 10, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the consent calendar as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Conditional Use Permit 90-07 and Design Review 90-06 APPLICANT/ LANDOWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: STEPHEN C. HOSFORD, INC. 238 W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 102 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 RENGEL & CO. ARCHITECTS 333 EL CAMINO REAL TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 115 EAST SECOND STREET CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-2)/ CULTURAL RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303(C) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). 1. APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OFFICE BUILDING WITH THE ENTIRE GROUND FLOOR DESIGNATED FOR OCCUPANCY BY PROFESSIONAL OR GENERAL OFFICES. 2. APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 90-07 and Design Review 90-06 by adopting Resolution No. 2837, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1990 Page 2 Commissioner Kasparian asked how staff addressed the setback; if a soil verification was required; if the trees were able to be saved; and if the building was on a lot line. Staff replied that the setback would be removed; that soil verification would be reviewed by the Health Department and Public Works; that the trees would be relocated; and that the building is on the east property line with no setback required. Commissioner Kasparian asked about public utility access; if there is room in the driveway design for trash truck access; and if there is a fire hydrant within 150 feet of the building. Staff replied that the public utilities can be located under the drive area; that a trash truck could access the trash area, but would have to back out; that they are asking for a relocation of the trash enclosure closer to the front; and that there is a fire hydrant within 150 feet of the building which was a requirement of the Fire Department. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if a 16 foot driveway access was adequate; and asked why the Public Works Department wants 27 feet. Staff replied that 27 feet is specified by the City; and that Public Works staff is recommending 20 feet with Community Development recommending 16 feet. Commissioner Le Jeune asked why 20 feet was alright. Staff replied that perhaps additional concession should be made due to the scale of the building and the amount of traffic it would generate. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:16 p.m. Richard Renqel, 333 E1 Camino Real, architect for the project, noted that the guidelines for the driveway were too restrictive; that with the site being so narrow, if the driveway is more than 12 feet wide, it would eliminate the landscaping; that they propose a 12 foot one-way drive which would widen slightly near the street with a band of landscaping on either side; and that they propose that the Commission allow a 12 foot driveway which they will widen to 16 feet if problems occur. He also noted that the entire drive area was too large an area to place interlocking pavers throughout; and that they propose to use pavers at the front and at intervals alternating with concrete, or to use stamped concrete with limited depth cuts. He noted that they propose a railing with pickets for the front porch, since the staff-proposed style was not considered "neo-classical" as this building would require. They requested that the garage door be allowed; and noted that they would sign a deed restriction requiring the garage remain with two (2) parking spaces. They also proposed a five (5) foot sidewalk along the property line with parkway landscaping to be maintained by the owner. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a clarification of the location and width of the driveway. Mr. Renqel proposed that they leave the driveway as the applicant indicated, and if there is a future problem, the owner would be willing to add concrete strips to widen it. He then distributed photographs of businesses with 12 foot wide driveways that have no problems. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the illustration does not show where the pavers end, and asked if staff wanted it on all of the parking and drive areas. Staff affirmed. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1990 Page 3 Mr. Renqe~ noted that they are asking for stamped concrete or combination pavers and concrete. Commissioner Baker noted that the illustrations indicate a 12 foot 6 inch access point to the next property; and noted that the handicapped spaces were across the parking lot, not next to the building. Mr. Renqel replied that it was actually a concrete masonry building; and that with the restrictions of the site, it was difficult to locate the handicapped spaces elsewhere. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the photos supplied illustrate 12 foot widths. Mr. Rengel replied that they were of 12 foot drives from wall to property line; and noted that they propose a 12 foot drive with 7 feet of landscaping which would eliminate the narrow feeling of the pictures. Steven Hosford, 238 W. Main St. #102, owner, noted that he initially submitted plans for the building to be at the back of the property, and was reluctant to move the building to the front; that he plans to occupy the building and has been in Tustin for ten (10) years; that they do not deal with the public very much; that they do not anticipate the driveway being a problem; that the pictures presented are all local, with one being 150 yards from their property; referred to the businesses located on Yorba and A Streets whose drives were 12 feet or less; that they propose some portions of the parking area to use pavers, and also suggested using turf block as a possible alternative in some areas; that they are willing to sign documents to retain the garage door; and noted that an open garage would be accessible to vagrants and would provide an unfinished look. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the owner intended to use it as a garage. Mr. Hosford affirmed. The Public Hearing closed at 7:35 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian requested a recap of the applicants positions. The Director listed them as the driveway, pavers, front porch, garage door, and sidewalk; and noted that staff had no opportunity to review the photographs. Staff noted that they were familiar with the buildings, but that the buildings on E1 Camino Real are older with no plans on file; that parking and drive aisle standards are much different now; that they need to address vehicle safety; that the buildings on Yorba are re-use buildings and that the garages are not used for required parking; and that 16 feet, from driveway to parking area, was required for vehicular safety. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if staff was concerned about two (2) cars passing in opposite directions. Staff affirmed and noted that with the driveway being so much wider than the drive aisle there was more danger of vehicles trying to pass one another. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if it could be widened part of the way. Staff replied that it possibly could, but that it was only about 30 feet long. The Director noted that it was a pubic health and safety matter; that the applicant was concerned about the traffic affecting 2nd Street, but that staff was worried about traffic on site; that Public Works noted Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1990 Page 4 that anything less than 16 feet would be a health and safety hazard; and that as a possible mitigation measure they could provide more pedestrian areas. Commissioner Kasparian asked what the width of a car was. The Director replied that a compact was approximately 6 feet 8 inches and a standard was over 7 feet. Commissioner Kasparian noted that if someone was hit while the aisle was only 12 feet wide, it would be too late to enlarge it; that due to the liability, it is not in the best interest of the City; that it is precedent setting; and that he recommends the minimum that staff feels comfortable with. He also asked if there was anyway to mitigate the "concrete tunnel" look. The Director replied that they would not suggest stamp-crete since the project needs texture; and noted that photos are available of ways to improve the aesthetics of the area. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if staff wanted an entire driveway of interlocking pavers like the ones on E1 Camino Real. Staff affirmed, but noted that a combination of materials would work. The Director replied that they could provide a modification to the conditions. Commissioner Kasparian felt they should discourage stamped concrete since it is not common with this type of architecture. Commissioner Baker noted that they were not happy with the pavers on E1 Camino. Staff replied that the pavers were used successfully throughout the Tustin Marketplace; and that stamped concrete requires more maintenance. Commissioner Baker suggested the pavers be put on the drive way portion, but not past the house; and asked if staff was requiring interlocking pavers in the parking lot. The Director replied that they were not asking for the entire area, but that the amount would depend on the design of the pavers; and that staff would create language to enable staff to handle the placement of the pavers. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he did not recognize the safety factor involved; and that with a 16 foot drive the applicant could place landscape strips on either side with shrubbery. The Director noted that there would be a limitation on the type of materials that would work in such a limited space. Commissioner Kasparian recommended that the applicant place a three (3) foot strip on one side of the drive. Commissioner Le Jeune asked about staff's opinion of the picket fence. Staff replied that they would be willing to allow pickets in lieu of a solid fence. Staff also suggested that the garage door be eliminated, since required parking must be accessible at all times. Commissioner Baker asked how many spaces were provided. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1990 Page 5 Staff replied that eight (8) spaces are provided as recommended by the traffic department. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that they now have six (6) plus the garage with one (1) for handicapped. Staff affirmed and noted that they also have one (1) as compact. The Director noted that they are providing the minimum parking necessary although more spaces would normally be required for an office use. Staff noted that the City traffic engineer calculated the use to require only 8 spaces. Commissioner Kasparian asked if staff considered the possible use of the second floor when calculating the parking. Staff affirmed. The Director noted that secured spaces could be provided if they were over and above the required amount. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that it would not resolve the problem if the garage was left open during operating hours; and noted that five (5) years from now there could be a different use. Staff noted that it was difficult to change something that has been allowed. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that it would leave the building unsecured. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification as to why the applicant wants garage doors. Staff replied that he wants covered parking; and that open covered parking may be less secure. Commissioner Baker noted that the Code requires at least 8 spaces; that they may not have adequate parking; the offices do not usually have garage doors; and that the building is very attractive. Commissioner Le Jeune proposed that they eliminate the doors. Commissioner Kasparian noted it should be approved based upon sufficient public parking. The Director noted that the sidewalks were a Public Works Department issue; that they can only present what Public Works would accept; and that commercial buildings are not designed with parkways. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if it would require reductions in sidewalk widths. The Director replied that they were reduced from ten (10) feet to five (5) feet where they are retrofit; and that whatever the Engineering Department requires is imposed as a condition. Commissioner Kasparian noted that the building would have no shrubbery across the front. Staff replied that it would have plantings. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 90-7 and Design Review 90-6 by adoption of Resolution No. 2837 revised as follows: Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1990 Page 6 Resolution Exhibit A, Page two, 3.1(D) should read: "Provide interlocking pavers or other special pavement treatment along on- site drive aisles and parking areas subject to design review approval as to location, materials and color by the Community Development Department." Resolution Exhibit A, Page two, 3.2: delete item C and renumber D and E. Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS: 3. East Tustin Status Report Recommendation - Receive and file. Presentation: Dan Fox, Senior Planner Received and filed. NEW BUSINESS: 4. Appeal of Community Development Director's Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness for Proposed Installation of New Siding APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: G. SANTORI 450 W. 3RD STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 450 WEST THIRD STREET R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)/CULTURAL RESOURCE OVERLAY DISTRICT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301(A) AN APPEAL TO AUTHORIZE THE INSTALLATION OF NEW BUTT JOINT, SHIPLAP EDGE SIDING AT 450 WEST THIRD STREET. Recommendation- It is recommended that the Planning Commission uphold the determination of the Community Development Department by adoption of Resolution No. 2836. Presentation: Christopher Jackson, Associate Planner The Director recommended that all testimony be taken on the appeal even though it was not a public hearing. Commissioner Shaheen asked for the difference in cost of the two widths. Staff replied that there is no difference in cost from one width to another; that they each cost $15 for a 16 foot strip. Commissioner Shaheen reminded staff that the applicant would have to use more of the narrow width and would therefore have to pay more for materials. Staff presented a sample of the materials to be used. Commissioner Shaheen noted that the material is not overlapping. Commissioner Le Jeune reminded the Commission that their decision cannot be based upon the cost involved. Commissioner Baker asked if there was a Cultural Overlay District Committee. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1990 Page 7 The Director replied that there is a Cultural Resource Advisory Committee that was to handle appeals; but that the City Council believed at the time of the Ordinance that the appellant body should be the City Staff with appeals being brought to the Planning Commission; and that the chairman of the Cultural Resources Committee, whom they consult with before acting, was present this evening. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the applicant was to more closely match the materials to the existing siding, would there be a guarantee that the house would still have a B+ rating. Staff replied that based upon information received from 30th Street Architects, the rating would remain intact; that the issue is the architectural appearance of the structure; and that it is the introduction of new materials which ruins the architectural integrity of the building. Commissioner Kasparian asked if this was the type of building that the City would take a sample of the proposed materials to the 30th Street Architects and ask their opinion first. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the original siding was torn down and covered with new material, would it make a difference in the rating. Staff replied negatively. John Sauers, 515 S. Pacific, chairman of the advisory committee, commented that there may be some used material like the existing in some old sheds on Prospect between 3rd and Main Street, but he did not know the cost; that 30th Street Architects recommend that the applicant order the existing material as new through Ganahl Lumber; that the applicant is not alone in being required to comply with the Ordinance in that the building that was moved from First Street will have to build a garage in order to comply; and that the applicant's garage will also require the existing material in order to comply. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for clarification of the subject property and if the garage is salvageable. Mr. Sauers replied that the house requires work and salvage of the garage is questionable. Commissioner Baker asked if the committee prefers the new material or the old. Mr. Sauers replied that it was immaterial to the committee whether the applicant utilized new or used material. The Director replied that Mr. Sauers was referring to used and repaired narrow clapboard or new narrow as being preferred; that the staff considers the proposed wider material as being inconsistent with the style and characteristics of the house. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if staff was only opposed to the width of the new material, not the composition. The Director replied that they had no opposition to clapboard and that the applicant can use new or used materials. Commissioner Kasparian noted that the applicant could remove the old paint if he so chooses. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1990 Page 8 The Director replied that sometimes the material is beyond repair and that the Federal guidelines recognize this, but that the applicant is required to replace the material with the compatible material in the same width. Mr. Sauers noted that these buildings need to be financed and an appraiser would grade this down; and that it is in the applicant's favor to follow the guidelines to increase the value of the property. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if Mr. Sauers was referring to width only. Mr. Sauers affirmed. Commissioner Shaheen asked if there was anything wrong with the interior, electrical, etc. The Director replied that the request was for exterior alterations only, and that is what the staff is required to respond to. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if siding required a permit. The Director replied that it required a Certificate of Appropriateness, since a building permit was required for the work as proposed. Commissioner Baker asked if this was not in the Cultural Overlay District, would it require a permit. The Director replied that depending on the extent of the work, replacement of siding would not always require a permit; but that Mr. Santori is replacing a whole wall in some places as well as done some window work. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he understood that the only time the Cultural Resources Ordinance would be referred to would be if a permit was required. The Director replied that if doing patchwork or minor repair, no, but replacement proposed by applicant required a building permit per the Building Department. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the requirements of the historical resource do not supersede everything. The Director replied that in the Cultural Resource District, the requirements for a Certificate of Appropriateness are more restrictive; that not everything requiring a building permit in the City requires a Certificate of Appropriateness; and that Commissioner Le Jeune was referring to language added to the Overlay District; and that in this case there were permits required in addition to the Certificate for windows. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that it was incorrect to assume that the Cultural Resources Ordinance would only be effective when a permit was required. The Director affirmed; and noted that even though the State recommends such things as exterior paint color being part of the ordinance, the City Council did not want to consider those types of requirements within the purview of the Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Sauers also noted that members of the Committee have to live within the district and that they are neighbors. Mr. Santori, 450 W. Third, applicant, stated that the issue is regarding unfairness; that not once has the issue of the money involved been Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1990 Page 9 discussed; that the house is referred to as one of "Tustin's finest" but that the house belongs to him, not the City; that the proposals are unfair; and that he has moved out for a year to make the changes and is paying rent, mortgage, and taxes; that he is not requesting stucco and aluminum windows. He noted that in the beginning, he asked staff if the siding could be changed if there was a legitimate reason, and he received verbal approval; the cost of the new siding is $.63 cents per square foot and is paintable; the existing siding would cost 5-7 times more; that he has no intention of stripping the lead-based paint from the existing material and would not ask a contractor to do the work either; that the garage he is intending should match the house, but that he cannot afford the additional cost. He also stated that he will not buy used lumber and felt that it was unfair that the City ask him to be exposed to the lead-based paint; that the materials are actually 12 inch siding and shaped to look like three (3) boards, which require special knives; that the materials are at $3-4 per square foot. He stated that he wants to make the house nice; that he has cleaned it up considerably; and that he wants to finish it; but he has a limited amount of money. He stated that he feels that he is being asked to make this house an "original" so that everyone can enjoy it, but that the city does not help with financing; that the low-cost loans available require the applicants to be at poverty level to apply, but that the houses are not available to those at poverty level; that the City is not looking at the right issues; that it is not fair to require him to pay for it to make everyone happy; that in discussing the siding with the neighbors and architects, not one neighbor complained and felt it was not a great change; neighbors just want the house fixed up. He noted that he bought the house in good conscience and was no part in the Cultural Overlay District decision; that he will have to appeal to the city Council; and that it is at his expense for everyone else's enjoyment and is unfair. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the question is the width, and asked if the material was available in any other width; and asked what the width of the existing siding was. Mr, SantoFi replied that it was available in a three (3) inch width, but that there are still no shadow lines; and that the existing siding is approximately 3 1/2 inches wide versus the 5 inches of what he has purchased. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the applicant was aware that the house was identified as a historical resource when he purchased the house; and if he was ever notified that it was a historical resource. Mr. Santori replied negatively; and noted that he was told after he purchased the property around the first of July 1988; that there was nothing in the disclosures or the real estate contract. Commissioner Kasparian asked if he had priced the three (3) inch siding. Mr. Santori replied that it was the same price; that he had already purchased the material with the understanding that he could use it, although the approval was not in writing; that when he weighed the cost of the new electrical, and the new garage he realized he could not afford matching siding; and that a lx12 plank of redwood siding cost almost $4 per square foot. Commissioner Kasparian asked if he purchased enough for the whole house; and noted that lumber yards will take back materials. Mr. Santori replied that he bought almost enough for the house; and that he bought it from Georgia Pacific wholesaler, he has had it for a year, and they will not take it back. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1990 Page 10 Commissioner Shaheen noted that he looked at the house and that he does not see where five (5) or three (3) inches made a difference; that there are no homes in the area to compare it to; that as long as he upgrades the house he should be able to pick his own siding; and that he will not destroy the integrity of the house. Commissioner Baker noted that this is one of the unfortunate things that happens when an overlay is added; and asked the date of when the Overlay District became effective. The Director replied July 1988. Commissioner Baker noted that the people in the area were notified; that there are disagreements as to what is appropriate; that the Committee and the Commission and applicants do not always agree; that something like this does change the appearance of the house, and when that happens in an Overlay District, a Certificate of Appropriateness cannot be issued. Commissioner Kasparian was concerned with whether the City is interested in maintaining a Level B historical resource; that if the Commission agrees to something other than what 30th Street Architects recommends, the City is losing a historical resource; that he hated to see Ruby's torn down, because of its contribution to the Community; that he hates to see this house lose it's rating, and he appreciates that it was purchased by the applicant; that sometimes it is yours but has to be shared with others; and that he is in favor of agreeing with staff. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he is an avid supporter of the Cultural Overlay, but does not agree with every detail; that he does not think that the City should interfere with someone putting siding on the house; that the type of material is acceptable; that the masonite will provide insulation; that the 30th Street report encourages redwood, but that is not the issue; that the size of the siding should be left up to the applicant; and that the applicant needs to reconcile with himself if the rating goes from B to C; that it would be different if it was a dome being added, but that items like siding size should not come under the purview of the Cultural Resources Committee. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to uphold the determination of the Community Development Department by adoption of Resolution No. 2836 as submitted. Motion deadlocked 2-2. Community Development Department decision upheld. 5. Amendment to Desiqn Review 89-82 APPLICANT/ LANDOWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: STANDARD PACIFIC, L.P. 1565 WEST MACARTHUR BOULEVARD COSTA MESA, CA 92626 LOTS 5 AND H OF TRACT 12870 (VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14188) 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. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW 89-82 TO ALLOW REVISIONS TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. Recommendation- It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Amendment to Design Review 89-82 by adopting Resolution No. 2839, as submitted or revised. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1990 Page 11 Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Staff made changes to the staff report noting that the building height will change from 22 feet to 21 feet. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if staff was satisfied. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Kasparian noted that the ceiling was raised from 11 to 14 feet in Plan 2 and asked if it would raise the building height. Staff replied negatively. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Amendment to Design Review 89-82 by adoption of Resolution No. 2839 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. 6. Design Review 90-18 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT CITY OF TUSTIN CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92680 13301 MYFORD ROAD CF (COMMUNITY FACILITY) - 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. APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A 3.0 ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Design Review 90-18 by adopting Resolution No. 2838. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if all new parks would have no street parking. Staff replied that Public Works is working on street parking, and noted that on-site parking was not a requirement. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification extinguisher systems noted on page 3 of Exhibit A. of the fire Staff replied that the condition was presented by the Fire Department and that it would be evaluated at Plan Check. Randy West, Public Works Department, noted that on-site parking for this park was not proposed; that three (3) acres is the minimum standard; that the additional expense would cut into the amenities; and that street parking was under the direction of Public Works and will be taken up by City Council. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that there are parks in Mission Viejo with parking strips. Mr. West noted that this park would not be without off-site parking forever since it is adjacent to a school site; and that when the full system for community parks is in place, it will relieve the need for parking. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1990 Page 12 Commissioner Baker asked if it would be recommended that there be street parking. Mr. West affirmed; noted that parking would be limited to 3-5 spaces; and that parking would be limited to park hours and for two (2) hours only. Commissioner Kasparian asked if Heritage and Myford would have on-street parking. Mr. West replied that Heritage would, but Myford would not. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to approve Design Review 90- 18 by adoption of Resolution No. 2838 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. 7. Draft Siqn Code Ordinance Recommendation - receive and file. Presentation: Rita Westfield, Asst. Director of Community Development Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there should be a meeting of the sign committee prior to the presentation. The Director replied that staff was available to assist the committee with their presentation. Received and filed. STAFF CONCERNS: 8. Report on Actions taken at September 17, 1990 City Council Meetinq. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a clarification in the report of 17% increase in traffic due to Mr. Tutt's car wash. The Director replied that the number of trips resultant of the car wash would increase by 17% along Nisson at Red Hill; and acknowledged that whether there was a car wash use or not, there would be impacts due to the I-5 improvements. Commissioner Kasparian asked how it was denied "without prejudice." The Director replied that the City Council gave the applicant direction that they might review it again with changes. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the City Council gets the full benefit of the Planning Commission Meetings since it only gets an action agenda to work with during their meetings and not the full minutes. The Director replied that staff was not able to provide a full set of minutes within a five (5) day period. Commissioner Kasparian asked if once the city Council approves the action agenda, is all that is in the minutes irrevocable. The Director replied that if an item is pulled off the calendar, staff has the official minutes corrected; and that if an item is appealed, City Council has the full minutes at the following meeting; and that the minutes are not verbatim, but only a synopsis. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1990 Page 13 CON)fISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Kasparian -Suggested we have a flyer on the Sign Code requirements, eg: Signs on windows not to exceed 50 percent of window area; Balloons not permitted; etc. Commissioner Le Jeune -Agrees that a Sign Code flyer is a good idea, but we should get the Sign Code approved first as requirements may change. -Asked about the status of E1 Camino/Newport property and who is the owner. The Director advised that Southern Counties Oil still owns the property, that a letter has been sent out, staff will follow-up. -In regards to tree planting, since we are the "Tree City", are we involved in any related projects? -Has read a very good book from the League of Cities on "Conflict of Interests", will be passing it on to other Commissioners. Commissioner Baker -Inquired about restrictions on loud speaker noise level at the Home Depot in the Tustin Market Place. Could there be a restriction imposed similar to the Tustin Auto Center. The Director advised staff will contact Home Depot, believes they will work with staff in resolving the noise problem. Commissioner Shaheen -Inquired about the status of 2371 Appletree (the resident storing paint, etc. in garage and yard). The Director advised that staff will have a completed report by the next Planning Commission meeting. ~%D0'0URNMENT: At 9:20 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to adjourn meeting to the 5:00 p.m. Sign Code Workshop preceding the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on October 8, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Motion carried 4-0. Donald Le Chairman K~thleen Fitzp~rick S~cretary