Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-13-90MINUTES TUSTIN PL~INING COHM?SS?ON REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13· 1990 CALL TO ORDER: 7: 00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGI~NCE/TNVOCATION ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Le Jeune, Shaheen, Baker, Kasalek (Kasparian 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 July 23, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting 2. Final Parcel Map 89-110 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. MICHAEL O. PADIAN IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY 2 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 200 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 MR. KURTIS HOEHN C.D.C. ENGINEERING, INC. 15520 'B' ROCKFIELD BOULEVARD IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92718 SOUTHEASTERLY OF FUTURE JAMBOREE ROAD AND NORTH OF WARNER AVENUE ADJACENT TO PETERS CANYON WASH, (A.P. 434-061-014) M - (INDUSTRIAL) THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED MINISTERIALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15268(B) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE + 2.6 ACRES INTO 1 LOT TO ACCOMMODATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2810 recommending to the City Council approval of Final Parcel Map 89-110. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner 3. Modification to Design Review 88-58 (Tract 13824) APPLICANT: OWNER: REGIS CONTRACTORS, INC. 5160 BIRCH STREET, SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 IRVINE PACIFIC P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8904 Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1990 Page 2 LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: LOTS 21 AND FF OF TRACT 12870 (AS AMENDED) PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303(e) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO ADD A MAINTENANCE, POOL EQUIPMENT AND RESTROOM BUILDING TO AN APPROVED 317 UNIT APARTMENT/CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2811, approving modifications to the previously approved site plan for Design Review 88-58, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached thereto, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Associate Planner 4. Final Tract Map 13908 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA INC. ONE PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1000 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 LOTS 3,D, E, AND FFF OF TRACT 12870 THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 28.68 ACRES INTO 97 NUMBERED LOTS AND 9 LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 97 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2806, as submitted or revised, forwarding Final Tract Map 13908 to the City Council recommending approval. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 5. Permit to Operate a Larqe Family Day Care Home APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MERCITA MCCLAIN 13082 CORTINA TUSTIN, CA 92680 13082 CORTINA PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN -LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2813 approving the permit to operate a large family day care home at the property located at 13082 Cortina. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1990 Page 3 Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the traffic study was completed by the City or by a consultant. Staff replied that it was conducted by the City. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:08 p.m. John Todd, 13092 Cortina, next door neighbor, noted that they probably would not have purchased the house if they had known there was a child care center next door; cited Section 1597.46 of the Health and Safety Code indicating that there must be compliance with the local ordinance, but that a large family day care center must not create a nuisance to the surrounding property, and that there must be adequate drop-off/pick-up facilities with parking for employees; he felt that under the Health and Safety Code, the Planning Commission could consider their spacing, concentration, traffic, parking and noise control; that there is no place for anyone to park in front of his driveway; that the parking report indicated the lack of a problem along the street, but did not address the parking in front of his home; that the rear yard has playground apparatus which overlooks his swimming pool; that he feels it will create a noise problem; that he felt that the Commission should limit the number of children to 8 or limit their ages to 5 1/2 years. Elizabeth Smith, 13072 Cortina, neighbor adjacent to applicant, noted that the day care center is operated quietly and fastidiously; that some of the children that come to the center are siblings, and that the applicant picks up 4, which leaves 4 drop- offs; that she has lived there for over a year and has never noticed a problem with parking; that there is parking in front of the applicant's home along with a three-car garage driveway; and that there is not adequate proof nor any evidence that any of the grounds for denial have been met. Bill Stracker, 13062 Cortina, registered traffic engineer and neighbor, noted that they have seen no nuisance or traffic problem; that there is adequate parking on the opposite side of the street as well in front of the applicant's home; that he has reviewed many day care centers which have problems, but that the applicant's center has shown no impact to the neighborhood. Greg Lynch, 14692 Cheshire Road, indicated that his wife was the first approved large family day-care center approved in Tustin when the State laws were enacted to determine that they were a residential use; that they have run it successfully for six years, with no complaints. He also noted that the intent of the legislature indicated that the family day-care center must be located in a residential area; that day-care homes are to be considered a designated residential use of property; that the City shall authorize the Conditional Use Permit,if required, as long as the family day-care home complies with standard local ordinances regarding spacing, concentration, traffic control, and noise; that the person must be in violation of one of those for the CUP to be denied; that it would be difficult to be in violation without being in operation. He indicated that Mr. Todd was asking the Commission to deny this use, illegally, when no violation has been shown. He also stated that the traffic is extremely minimal; that it comes at different times; and that the parents do not stay long. Mr. Todd asked the Commission to abate the conditions by limiting the number of children; that he felt that 10 cars in the morning and 10 in the evening would create a traffic problem since it would be more than would normally be expected in a neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1990 Page 4 The Public Hearing was closed at 7:28 p.m. Brian Okazaki, City Attorney's office, reminded the Commission that State law strongly favors the establishment of large family day- care homes; that the Commission's determination would depend solely on whether the applicant has complied with the provisions of the Tustin Ci~¥.~code; that so long as the local law is satisfied, there is no discretion to deny the permit, deny the size less than the maximum of twelve (12), or limit the children based on age. Commissioner Shaheen asked if these were preschool children; and noted that preschools required 35 square feet inside and 75 square feet outside per child. Mr. Okazaki indicated that the age was not to be considered at this point. Ms. Smith affirmed that they are currently under age three (3). The Director replied that this is not a preschool, and is licensed under different laws. Commissioner Baker asked if the Commission could suggest some privacy screening. Mr. Okazaki replied that the applicant only has to comply with the specific height requirements of the fencing. Commissioner Kasalek noted that whether a well run day-care facility has six (6) children or twelve (12) makes little difference; and that if a problem arises later on, they can take action, but that the law is clear, now. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2813 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. 6. Variance 90-10 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ROBERT L. GARVIN 2361 FIG TREE DRIVE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 2361 FIG TREE DRIVE PLANNED COMMUNITY - RESIDENTIAL (PC-R) CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) APPROVAL TO PERMIT A GROUND LEVEL MOUNTED SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA INSTALLATION AT A HEIGHT OF THIRTEEN (13) FEET WHERE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF TEN (10) FEET IS STATED. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance 90-10 by adopting Resolution No. 2812, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of the height requirements. Staff replied that the inspector puts the dish at its maximum rotation, and that it has a required clearance for free movement. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the information regarding the helicopter noise and cellular interference came from the engineer. Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1990 Page 5 Staff replied that when it was installed, it was done so without proper permits; the applicant originally wanted an eight (8) foot dish but was unable to receive proper transmission with the smaller dish, and that the larger dish is adequate. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if shrubbery would be planted; asked what height the bushes in the photographs would grow to; and noted that any trees in front of the dish would be distracting for reception. Staff replied that some had been planted, with more to be installed according to homeowners association requirements; that they would probably grow to 15-20 feet; and that the applicant consulted with the engineer for placement of the shrubs. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that if the picture shows the maximum elevation, the reception would be blocked out by the growth. Staff concurred. The Director noted that there will also be significant landscaping within the right-of-way along Tustin Ranch Road which might also interfere with reception. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the homeowners association indicated how high the bushes could grow; and felt that they would not allow the bushes to grow high enough to screen the dish. Commissioner Shaheen asked if this had been approved by the homeowners association. Staff affirmed. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:41 p.m. Robert Garvin, applicant, noted that the pictures were facing in an easterly direction; that the junipers would reach approximately 18 feet, and will obscure, but not entirely cover the dish; that the homeowners on each side and along the street approved of the dish. Commissioner Kasalek asked for a clarification of the bushes in the pictures. Mr. Garvin replied that they were the junipers. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:43 p.m. ~om~ssioner Kasalek noted that she was aware of the CC&R's of Peppertree; that the main emphasis is that the dish be obscured; and that there are no complaints by the neighbors. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to approve Variance 90- 10 by adoption of Resolution No. 2812 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. 7. Conditional Use Permit 90-06 and Design Review 90-03 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: MR. BILL COLLINS 430 WEST MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 430 WEST MAIN STREET SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-l) Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1990 Page 6 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3), SECTION 15303 1. TO ALLOW A SECOND SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. 2. APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT. AND Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 90-06 and Design Review 90-03 by adopting Resolution No. 2808, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner The Public Hearing was opened at 7:48 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:49 p.m. Commissioner Baker presumed that the neighbors had been noticed. The Director noted that the project has undergone a number of design changes; that the architect had done a good job incorporating the historical features into the structure. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 90-06 and Design Review 90-03 by adoption of Resolution 2808 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. 8. Zone Chanqe 90-1 and Conditional Use Permit 90-3 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: EUGENE F. TUTT TUSTIN AUTO SPA, INC. 11980 RED HILL AVENUE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 1501 NISSON ROAD C-1 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. A REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE A ZONE CHANGE FROM C-1 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL) TO CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL) AND IN THE EVENT SAID ZONE CHANGE IS RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A CAR WASH ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Certify the Final Negative Declaration for the project as adequate by adoption of Resolution No. 2814; 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 90-1 by adoption of Resolution No. 2815; 3. Approve Conditional Use Permit 90-3 by adoption of Resolution No. 2816, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christopher Jackson, Sr., Associate Planner Commissioner Kasalek asked when the signal at Nisson and Red Hill would be upgraded; if there were any plans to widen Nisson; and if parking on both sides of Nisson would be removed. Staff replied that it would be coordinated with the widening of Red Hill under the I/5 Freeway, which could be at least a year before completion; that Nisson is not slated for widening; and that parking would be allowed on the residential side only. Commissioner Baker asked how the percentage of contribution was derived for the signal; and when the traffic study was done. Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1990 Page 7 Staff replied that it was determined by the total vehicle count; and that the traffic study was completed two (2) weeks before Caltrans began construction along Nisson, which was still open. Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of the numbers of cars going into and coming out of the Exhibit for Santa Ana Car Wash. Staff replied that the numbers were at the peak hours and that there may have been some already on the property; and that the traffic study was prepared at the City's request. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the billboard sign was on the property; and if the billboard sign on Red Hill was involved. Staff affirmed that there is a sign on the property; but that the sign on Red Hill was not included. Commissioner Kasalek asked for a clarification of determining peak hours. Staff replied that the applicant has operated several car washes, and that the peak hours were determined between himself and the consultant. The Director noted that the peak in- and out-bound numbers are based on actual peak hour counts; that a variety of scenarios could be built into the counts, i.e. people or employees having lunch in the vicinity, etc.; and that these were the actual counts. Commissioner Kasalek asked if there were any counts besides the peak hours. The Director replied that they performed a full count of all activity, but that peak hours had also been required to be determined. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:12 p.m. Eugene Tutt, applicant, noted that he appreciated the time that staff spent in trying to create a development that would be good for Tustin; that he would not like to be held to including 35 palm trees as illustrated; that this proposal will be well done and is a good location. Joseph Cubeiro, president of Martin Communications, noted that he did not agree that the billboard was detrimental to the project; that the billboard has been in this location for 30 years; that they are in a legal battle with Caltrans for compensation; that they are under Caltrans law to not relocate or maintain the life of the billboard unless the applicant receives the approval of the City; that they object to the removal of the billboard because they have a 20 year lease; and that the State of California requires the City to offer just compensation for removal. Michael Shea, consultant for the project, responded to Commissioner Baker's questions regarding number of vehicles at peak hours; that the Santa Ana Car Wash was chosen because it was a hand car wash, but it does have gasoline for sale; that the reason for fewer cars coming out than going in was due to queuing coming out; that over the course of a day, there would be an equal number of cars coming and going. Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1990 Page 8 Mr. Tutt noted that the billboards were constructed 30 years ago when the property was part of the County; that the signs are legal non-conforming signs; that over the last 10 years, any application he has made has had a condition imposed for removal of the billboards; that the billboards constitute a significant income to his family; that Caltrans removed two (2) of them and a portion of the third,~that he does not intend to remove the last one; that the removal of an existing legal billboard is illegal under state law; and that if they intend to make the application contingent upon removal of the billboard, he would have to take the matter further. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there was another sign on Red Hill that belonged to Mr. Tutt. Mr. Tutt replied that it is a legal, non-conforming sign that he leases from Martin Communications. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:25 p.m. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, replied that the City has the authority in issuing the CUP in requiring the removal of the billboard; that the beautiful new buildings redevelop the site and create a new use; that it is an entitlement for the piece of property on which the billboard sits; that the Commission must look at the whole site when making the findings; that the billboard detracts from the new use; that there is authority to place conditions on a CUP that are necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the City; that the Commission should be aware that there are risks in approving this application, and that it may be subject to litigation, but that she believes there is authority for the Commission to proceed. Commissioner Baker asked if this would be considered a taking. Ms. Jeffrey replied that she did not believe so since it would be due to being a valid exercise of the police power. Commissioner Baker asked if Nisson Road would be widened; that the illustration shows a left-turn pocket; and that the project is appropriate for the location and is tremendous. Staff replied that the Public Works Department did not believe that the project did not generate enough traffic to require payment for that upgrade; but that it would be installed in the future since it was part of the capital improvement program. Commissioner Kasalek noted that she was concerned with the amount of traffic on Nisson and that it backs up past the proposed project at peak hours. Staff repl~ied that the signal was not computerized which would allow the traffic to flow better onto Red Hill; and that the signal upgrade would significantly improve the situation. Commissioner Kasalek noted that the high school foot traffic was significant every morning; that it is already difficult to exit from the Shell station; and that she was concerned that the traffic would be stopped there over the next year. Staff replied that the improvements to Nisson Road would take at least 6-8 months; that during that time the City would be coordinating the signal upgrade; that the applicant is trying to coordinate his project with the opening of the road; and that the traffic report and Public Works Department indicate that the project will not make a significant impact on the area. Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1990 Page 9 Commissioner Kasalek asked if there would be less traffic on Red Hill. Staff replied that when the area of Red Hill under the overpass is widened to six (6) lanes and the signal is computerized there will be a significant improvement to that area; and that the level of service at the area is proposed to reduce from a level F to E or D. Commissioner Kasalek noted that even though there would be more lanes, traffic turning right onto Red Hill may still want to turn left onto the freeway, thereby causing a back-up onto Nisson. Staff replied that there would be normal interruptions; but that in comparison to the freeway and Red Hill widening the flow will be significantly better. The Director noted that the peak hours of the residential traffic on Nisson are significantly different from the peak hours of the car wash which is primarily mid-day; that if this property was developed as offices or retail use, the peak hours could exacerbate the problem; that this could be the best use of the property; and that the traffic volume will continue to be significant on Red Hill until the other projects are in place. Commissioner Shaheen asked if there would be litigation over the billboard. Commissioner Le Jeune replied that it was likely. Commissioner Baker noted that even though billboards were not the favorite type of sign, he was inclined to go with the applicant on this matter. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to certify Final Negative Declaration by adoption of Resolution No. 2814. Motion carried 4-0. ¢ommSssioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2815 recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 90-1. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 90-3 by adoption of Resolution No. 2816 as submitted. Motion carried 3-1, Baker opposed. 9. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-47 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CODY SMALL CMS DEVELOPMENT 3199 A-3 AIRPORT LOOP DRIVE COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 14041 NEWPORT AVENUE AT THE I-5 FREEWAY PC - COMM. - PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. WAIVER OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL #6.5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2731 REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO EXECUTE A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH CAL TRANS AND ELIMINATE REQUIREMENT OF A "CITY OF TUSTIN" IDENTIFICATION SIGN. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission delete Condition No. 6.5 of Resolution No. 2731 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2807, as submitted or revised. Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1990 Page 10 Presentation: Beth Schoemann, Associate Planner The Public Hearing was opened at 8:50 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:51 p.m. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to recertify the Negative Declaration as adequate for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2817 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to delete Condition No. 6.5 of Resolution No. 2731 by adoption of Resolution No. 2807 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS: 10. Completed Tustin Historical Survey Recommendation - Receive and file. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Development Director of Community Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he felt it was a good decision to make the area an Historical District. By consensus, received and filed. 11. Status Update on Siqn Code Update Recommendation - Receive and file. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Development Director of Community Commissioner Shaheen asked if the workshops for the Planning Commission were on certain dates at 5:30 p.m. The Director replied that the dates listed were for the week of the meetings and that staff will confirm with the Commissioners for date and time. By consensus, received and filed. NEW BUSINESS 12. General Plan Conformity/E1 Modena-Irvine Channel LOCATION: REQUEST: EL MODENA-IRVINE CHANNEL FROM LA COLINA - RED HILL CHANNEL TO RED HILL AVENUE ADOPT RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS CONFORM TO THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2809, finding that the proposed flood control improvement project conforms to the Tustin Area General Plan. Presentation: Rita Westfield, Asst. Dir. Community Development Commissioner Le Jeune asked about the storage of a trailer along the flood channel at Browning. Staff replied that she did not know its purpose. Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1990 Page 11 Commissione~ Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2809 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. 13. General Plan and Zoninq Determination - Unclassified Exces~ Freeway Property Recommendation - Receive and file. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Shaheen asked the size of the property. Staff was unaware of the size since it has no parcel map. Commissioner Le Jeune asked who owned the property. Staff replied that the State of California owned it as a right-of- way for the freeway. Commissioner Shaheen noted that there may be no deed of title recorded with the title company. The Director replied that the Commission has the ability to use zoning and general plan authority; but that the City would not have the ability to utilize all of its building implementation techniques; directed the Commission to move towards the designation issue rather than the specifics of any one proposal; that public input is necessary; and that Caltrans should not have the opportunity to discuss the merits of the proposal without neighbors having the same opportunity. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there were similar parcels to be addressed. The Director replied that there are some ramp modifications, but they are private transactions; that they do not know of any other right-of-ways outside of the City; that there were previous exchanges along Tustin Ranch Road and the I/5 Freeway. Commissioner Shaheen asked if there would be trucking for the proposed maintenance facility. Staff replied that there would be smaller trucks for their landscaping facility; and that it would mainly be for storage of equipment. Commissioner Baker noted that the yard at the 22 Freeway was unattractive; that this is a nice shopping center and apartments; that there is no reason to move now and move back in a few years; and that it would be doing an injustice to the people. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the public should be involved; and that he would not like a maintenance yard there. The Commission rejected the Caltrans proposal to use the site as a storage yard and asked that a workshop be held to discuss the options and report back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation. The Director asked for direction, whether to come back as a zone change or suggest public workshops. Commissioner Shahe~B suggested it be moved to a commercial district with similar zoning as in the south side. Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1990 Page 12 Commissioner Le Jeune suggested that they hold workshops to discuss the options. The Director asked to limit the priority of this project due to the time constraints and workload. The Commission concurred that there was no immediacy. 14o Fire Safety and Fence Requirements Brochure Recommendation - Receive and file. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Development Director of Community By consensus, received and filed. 15. Urgency Ordinance for City-Wide Interim Zoning Regulations for the Sitinq of Hazardous Waste Facilities Recommendation - Receive and file. Presentation: Rita Westfield, Asst. Dir. of Community Development By consensus, received and filed. STAFF CONCERNS 16. Report on Actions taken at August 6, 1990 City Council Meeting. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Development Director of Community COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Baker inquired about the status of Fat Freddies awning, he said the old one has not been removed yet. The Director advised that she had just talked to the owner today and that the new awning is on order and the old awning will be taken down when the new awning is installed. Commissioner Le Jeune advised that there is still a problem with the mobile recycling center at Alpha Beta Market. Several vehicles were parked at the location and broken glass is not being cleaned up. Staff advised they are aware of the problem and are in the process of following up, possible solution may be to reconsider their CUP or other conditions to alleviate problem. Also that the Zoning Code prohibits placement at the rear of the building. Commissioner Le Jeune advised that there appears to be a change in the pole sign for Circle K/Thrifty Gas on Newport Avenue and presented a picture taken of the sign. Staff affirmed there had been a change and no permits have been issued for the change. The Director advised that there was a CUP on the building and sign and the complaint would be followed up on. Commissioner Le Jeune wanted to report that the traffic signals at Main and E1 Camino are great. Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1990 Page 13 AD~OU~E~ At 9:25 p.m., Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to adjourn meeting to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on August 27, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Motion carr~_d 4-0. Donald Le ~eufie ' ~ ~ Chairman K~thleen Fit~rick- Secretary