Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-23-90MINUTES TUSTIN PLAh'NTNG CO~ISSION REGULAR HEETING JULY 2:~ 1990 C~,LL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., city Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Le Jeune, Shaheen, Baker (Kasparian and Kasalek 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. CONSE17T 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 CQmmissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the consent calendar as submitted. Motion carried 3-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Extension of Conditional Use Permit 89-09 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: TUSTIN AUTO CENTER DEALER'S ASSOCIATION EMILY ZINSER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS 4100 CAMPUS DRIVE, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 TUSTIN AUTO CENTER SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND TUSTIN RANCH ROAD PLANNED COMMUNITY - TUSTIN AUTO CENTER CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 5 TO EXTEND APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-09 FOR 12 MONTHS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission grant an 8 month extension of Use Permit 89-09 by adoption of Resolution No. 2804, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christopher E. Jackson, Sr., Associate Planner Commissioner Baker asked what recourse the applicant had if Mr. Alonzo's time estimate was inaccurate; noted that the dealers are anxious to have signage as soon as possible; and asked what the requirements would be for reapplication if the area was not completed on time. Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1990 Page 2 Staff replied that the applicant has the ability to reapply for an additional time period; and that a simple letter, at no cost to the applicant, was all that would be required. The Director noted that the Commission could approve the eight (8) month extension, by adding a clause indicating that responsibility for extension of the timeframe could be assigned to staff in the event that Caltrans has not completed the work; and that the extension would only be up to 12 months, and only due to Caltrans delays. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:08 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:09 p.m. The Director also indicated that the revised language would only apply to the signs affected by the freeway widening. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2804 revised as follows: Paqe 1, II: Condition 1.3 should be reworded to read as follows: "Approval shall become null and void for all permanent signs (non-freeway signs) within eight (8) months from July 23, 1990, unless building permits are issued and substantial construction is underway. The same time frames shall apply to freeway signs unless Caltrans construction is delayed in which event staff may extend the applicant's permitted time frame up to an additional four (4) months for freeway signs only." Motion carried 3-0. 3. Use Determination 90-02 and Conditional Use Permit 90-17 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST-. THE GOOD GUYS! 1649 ADRIAN ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010-2181 DONAHUE SCHRIBER 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD SUITE 300, SOUTH TOWER NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 2741 EL CAMINO REAL; PHASE II OF THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL; EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (ETSP) - MIXED USE COMMERCIAL IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT BECAUSE THE MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORY OF THE ETSP DOES NOT PRESENTLY ALLOW EMPLOYEE TRAINING CENTERS, AN ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR 85-2, PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED FOR THE ETSP, IS REQUIRED. 1. DETERMINATION THAT A LIMITED EMPLOYEE TRAINING CENTER IS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORY OF THE ETSP; AND 2. APPROVAL OF A CUP FOR AN EMPLOYEE TRAINING CENTER IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RETAIL STORE IN THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Determine that a limited employee training center should be a conditionally permitted use in the Mixed Use land use category of the ETSP by Minute Order; and 2.Adopt Resolution No. 2802, certifying the addendum to Final EIR 85-2 for the inclusion of limited employee training centers in the Mixed Use land use category of the ETSP, as submitted or revised; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2803, approving CUP 90-17, for an employee training center in conjunction with a retail store in the Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1990 Page 3 Tustin Market Place, subject to the conditions contained therein, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Associate Planner Lois Jeffrey introduced Brian Okazaki of the City Attorney's office as the representative for this item. The Director noted that this was technically not a Public Hearing, and that she would prefer input prior to discussion regarding the conditional use permit. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the parking situation had been adequately taken care of. Staff recommended mitigation measures to limit the number of students and instructors/employees to a number that would not allow greater spaces than a similar use would have. Commissioner Baker asked if a list of the parking consumption was being compiled for the Market Place; and noted that seeing a parking plan might assist them in their decision. Staff replied that the architects have a computer program with a running tabulation of the parking usage; noted that as each restaurant is approved, the spaces required are deducted from the tally; that the Commission was getting into the merits of the conditional use permit, and that they should focus on the use determination. The commission agreed to approve Use Determination 90-02 by Minute Order, as moved. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Commission was required to have a consensus to pass any items this evening. The Director replied that only a majority was needed. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the applicant requested a sign. Staff replied negatively. Commissioner Shaheen noted that a public sign would not be necessary. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:26 p.m. Daniel MacDonald, architect for the project, noted that they are not taking any of the designated store front; that the entrance is hidden on the side of the store; and that they would appreciate a directional sign. Greqg S~eele, Vice President of real estate, noted that the hours are appropriate; that most of the conditions meet with their approval; that they are concerned about the restriction on the number of students, and that they need the flexibility to have greater than 20 students at certain times. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that they could fit more than 20 people in the facility, and asked if the applicant meant that their needs would increase around the holidays, etc; asked how many students there would be at any one time; and asked how long the classes were. Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1990 Page 4 Mr. Steele affirmed and noted that they are willing to car-pool or bus so as not to use more than 15 spaces; that in preparation for Christmas, they might need to have two classes from 8-5 or 9-6 which would run concurrently. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the number of students was unacceptable; if the students coming from other stores would arrive as a group; and asked what the maximum number of students would be. Mr. Steele replied that it would be restrictive at certain times of the year; noted that some students would travel together for product training which would last 1-2 weeks, but that new employees would not necessarily; noted that the classes may run long one day, but that they would not be running a second shift; and that they would need to be allowed a maximum of 40 students with two (2) coordinators. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen asked if certain parking spaces were designated to certain stores; and noted that regardless of how many spaces were approved, they could not verify. Staff replied that it was easier to check on the number of students than to verify that they are only using the allotted number of spaces; and that it would be difficult to control the students coming from other locations. The Director noted that 40 students was greatly in excess of the assurances staff received during the application process; that the applicant indicated that it would be closer to 15 students; that staff would prefer that the hours of operation be changed and let the applicant shift the training to two (2) sessions rather than to alter the number of students; and that staff would recommend denial if the Commission approved 40 students. Commissioner Baker noted that he was concerned with four (4) stores opening at the same time; that all employees would need to be trained; and that they were going from a small training facility to an on-going school. Staff replied that the training would be ongoing with new employees and new merchandise; asked if this was the only training center in Orange County; and of the four (4) stores opening in Orange County, how many would have a training center. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Steele replied that for the four (4) stores, this was the only training center; noted that the classes would be comprised of 15-20 students, but seasonal peaks may require more and they did not want to be in violation if they had a few extra; that as they open more stores they will open more training centers; and when they cannot use the Tustin facility further, they will open a new center. Commissioner Shaheen noted that regardless of what they allow the applicant for parking, they cannot control the use. Commissioner Baker agreed with staff, and commented that there was a lot of space in the facility. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he was also concerned with the additional space and that they could accommodate more than 20 people. Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1990 Page 5 Commi~s~Qner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Determination 90-02 by Minute Order. Motion carried 3-0. Co~issioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2802 as submitted. Motion carried 3-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2803 revised as follows: Exhibit A, Page 2: Delete item 3.3. Exhib%t A, Page 2: Revise item 4.1 to read, "identification sign only, having a maximum area of six (6) square feet to be located on the entrance door only to the training facility." 4. Us~ QeterminatioD 90-01 (Van D¥~en) APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: COLLY A. VAN DYKEN 150 E. THIRD STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 SEYMOUR NOZICK 13662 DALL LANE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 621 S. "B" STREET PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PM) CODE - TUSTIN ZONING THIS ITEM IS NOT CONSIDERED A PROJECT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. TO DETERMINE IF PET GROOMING FACILITIES SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (PM) DISTRICT. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission determine that a pet grooming facility is not considered similar to other uses permitted in the PM District and therefore, not permitted within the PM District. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner CQmmissioner Le Jeune asked staff to clarify the issue regarding allowing churches in an industrial tract. The Director replied that there was a PM district zoning ordinance amendment which allowed churches in the PM and MM zone; that anything permitted in the PM zone is automatically permitted in the manufacturing district; that it would automatically be subject to a conditional use permit; that it required a public hearing with notification of surrounding residences; and that there is only one PM district in the City, which is the area bounded by B Street on the east, by 6th Street on the north, and the freeway on the south. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if use determination made by the Commission would only affect that specific piece of property. The Director replied that it would also affect the M District. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if that was with a Conditional Use Permit. The Director replied that it would be with whatever determination was made. Commissioner Le Jeune preferred that it go through a public hearing process and a zoning amendment since it could have an affect on future proposals. Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1990 Page 6 Colly Van Dyken, owner, asked for an explanation of the PM zoning district; noted that she did not foresee a problem with a grooming shop in that area; that they were in another commercial center in town which they have outgrown; and presented letters from tenants indicating that they do not object to the presence of her shop. Commissioner Le Jeune asked the size of the facility. Ms. Van Dyken replied that the new facility is 2,000 square feet, and her present shop, which is 1,350 square feet, is too small; that she does not understand why they are not allowed within the PM district; and asked how one street changes the zoning. Commissioner Le Jeune replied that it was not uncommon to have different zoning across street boundaries; that the concern of the Commission is setting a precedent as the change may affect other areas. Ms. Van Dyken asked what the objections would be to having a grooming shop in that area. Lyn Van Dyken asked if there could be exceptions to the background criteria; and noted that because something is unlisted does not mean it is unworkable; that there is no traffic problem; that she currently has a green zone for 15-20 minute parking; that the employees use only a few spaces; and that regarding it being a possible public health problem, it seems unlikely since most people have pets without them being a hazard. Elaine Underwood, employee, noted the purpose of the Industrial District, and rebutted it by stating that they groom most of the City's dogs; that they are non-competitive to the industrial part of the City; that the industrial section is to serve the residents of Tustin, and that since they serve the City, they should be eligible to reside in that zone. Glory Van Dyken, sister of owner, read a letter composed by herself and the landowner; noted that this business was desirable and necessary; that no merchandise is sold; that the animals are kept in a clean atmosphere; that the animals are delivered and picked-up by their owners or vans; that no animals are left overnight; that it is a "grooming factory"; that they do not want customer exposure; that they should not be next to a restaurant; that it is not heavy industrial use; that they recommend approval of the application; and noted that with denial, the Commission is avoiding its responsibilities and that they would appeal to the City Council. Jim Potts, customer, noted that he hated to go against staff recommendations, but that he felt that this application would be appropriate; that there is no traffic problem; that there is a limited number of pet grooming facilities in the City; and that even if it sets a precedent, he feels it should be approved. Dr. John Cafferty, customer, noted that pet grooming is not explicitly prohibited; that it is amazing that there is a pet grooming facility next to a restaurant; that this was not a place needing many parking spaces; that they should be an allowed use in the PM district; that being on the fringe of an industrial area is the perfect location for this type of business; that this is a sensible move for Tustin and the applicant; and that it is difficult to find 2,000 square feet of space unless it is office space. Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1990 Page 7 ~omm%ss~Qner Le Jeune agreed that there are very few pet grooming facilities in the City and that he would not be opposed to permitting it in the PM district. Commissioner Baker noted that he was concerned with traffic and parking; and asked if the area was noticed. The Director noted that this is not a public hearing, and not an application; that this is a use determination that would affect the entire district; that the Commission could determine that this use was similar to the uses found in the manufacturing district, as an outright permitted use or a conditionally permitted use, or they could determine that it was not similar or that there should be more analyses done; that the Commission must determine if the use is appropriate to the entire district; and if it is similar then it has to come back as a Conditional Use Permit application, which would allow the ability to impose conditions. Commissioner Le Jeune felt that it should be done with conditions and should return as a CUP. Commissioner Baker felt it should be considered as a CUP. The Director noted that it would be similar to the use determin- ation of the training facility; that the applicant in this case indicated that it be considered an outright permitted use without additional application process; and indicated that the Commission needed to make a Minute Motion stating that a pet grooming facility is similar to other uses in the PM district as a Conditional Use Permit. The Director also noted that the Planning Commission's decision regarding a Use Determination was final; and that after a Public Hearing on a Conditional Use Permit there would be the right to appeal to the City Council. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Determination 90-01 to only permit pet grooming in the PM District subject to granting of a Conditional Use Permit. Motion carried 3- 5. Amendment No. 2 to Use Permit 85-9 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MARTIN DEIDRICH DEIDRICH'S COFFEE 13681 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 CARVER DEVELOPMENT 13891 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 13681 NEWPORT PC-C (PLANNED COMMUNITY-COMMERCIAL) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO AUTHORIZE AN OUTDOOR SEATING AREA AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED BY USE PERMIT 85-9. ~e~Qm~eDdation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2805 amending the Development Plan approved by Use Permit 85-9 to accommodate outdoor seating for Deidrich's Coffee and modifying the shared parking agreement approved by Amendment No. 1 to Use Permit 85-9. :Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1990 Page 8 Presentation: Christopher Jackson, Sr., Associate Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the present outdoor seating would be eliminated° Staff replied that it would be relocated to the new area. Commissioner Baker asked if the number of parking spaces included the spaces across 6th Street; noted that the corner of the center near Deidrich's demands a lot of parking, whereas the other end of the center always has spaces; and asked if the space in front of Deidrich's was green-lined. Staff affirmed; noted that there is enough parking available, but this section is in high demand; noted that since all tenants were in agreement with the restrictions, staff did not have a problem as long it helped relieve the parking problems; and that there are 18 spaces up to Souplantation, with 7 having restrictions. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:21 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he did not want to see 18 seats in the back and 14 outside the shop. Staff replied that the amount of seats could be enforced through the conditions. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2805 as submitted. Motion carried 3-0. 6. Variance 90-09 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: DONLEY-BENNETT ARCHITECTS 12821 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 ARTHUR E. JENSEN 14402 CHAMBERS ROAD TUSTIN, CA 92680 900 W. FIRST STREET C-2 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEQA PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1) REQUEST: AUTHORIZE THE REDUCTION OF 33 REQUIRED PARKING SPACES TO A TOTAL OF 65 SPACES FOR THE EXISTING RESTAURANT AS A RESULT OF THE SR-55 FREEWAY AND FIRST STREET WIDENING PROJECTS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance 90-09 by adopting Resolution No. 2801, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked where the overflow parking would be located if it cannot be located on site. Staff replied that there is very little street parking available in the immediate vicinity and that it would probably be on unauthorized neighboring sites, and closed business lots. Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1990 Page 9 Commissioner ~e Jeune asked what would prompt the staff to monitor the situation. Staff replied that it observations by Public Development Department. would be prompted by complaints or Works inspectors or the Community The Director replied that this was similar to the monitoring program on other parking variances like Plaza Lafayette and the Assistance League; it provides a mechanism to mitigate the required CEQA monitoring; that it ensures that if something is granted then there is continual monitoring of the field condition; without these conditions, staff has no ability to mitigate pending problems; and that in granting a variance, staff cannot guarantee that there will not be problems unless able to monitor the situation. Commissioner Shaheen asked if they have had recent problems; and that they could use a valet program if they are overcrowded. Staff replied that there have been no complaints received. The Director replied that a parking demand study would be required and alternatives be recommended to meet the demand, with valet service and tandem parking being options; that the options would have to be explored under a traffic analysis; and noted that this is one of the worst intersections in the City. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:30 p.m. Norman Richards, son of original builder/founder, noted that the Revere House has a long standing tradition in Tustin; that the Caltrans construction is causing a lot of stress and hardships; that the City is also widening 1st Street at that location; that he is in favor of the variance, but the conditions are beyond his control mainly in relation to the rear parking; that they have a month-to-month lease with the owner of the lot; that they do not want the Revere House to leave Tustin or close, but that the conditions may put enough economic strain on the business that it might be necessary; and that he would hope that the business could continue in Tustin for another 40 years. ~reqory Bennett, architect, noted that the signaling across 1st Street will help; that the widening of 1st required taking of 6 spaces; that Caltrans took 33 spaces; that the owners are having to deal with an impossible situation; and that they cannot reaccommodate to get more than 77 spaces. He also noted that since Caltrans'is already looking at completion in 2 1/2 years he would like Item 1.3 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2801 to be increased from 18 months to 54 months; they would like to be able to remodel the existing use without changing the seating capacity by clarifying Item 1.4 so that it would not render the variance null and void; they would like to have Item 1.5 deleted since they cannot negotiate a long-term lease with the lot owner; and they would like Item 1.6 deleted, but would look into a parking study, a valet program, purchase of land for parking, or reduce seating capacity to stay within the limits of the variance; and noted that Items 1.5 and 1.6 create a hardship because it makes them unable to settle their financial situation with Caltrans. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a clarification of the parking deal and Caltrans' involvement. Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1990 Page 10 Mr. Bennett replied that Caltrans took possession in December so they could proceed with stage 2 of the widening program; Caltrans is letting them park on their land until the retaining wall is ready to be installed; the monument sign was relocated; they are taking these steps for the City and Caltrans; and in a few years the City will re-dedicate a strip of land in front of the property which will be added to the landscape area of the property. Commissioner Le Jeune asked who Items 1.4 and 1.5 have a detrimental affect on. Mr. Bennett replied that it was with Caltrans, who was attempting to value the property; if the applicant accepted the variance as it is, Caltrans would remove the entire structure and determine a value for the lost business and property; that these conditions are so restrictive, that it would put them out of business if they cannot keep the 33 parking spaces; and that at this point, they are paid for every space that Caltrans takes. Commissioner Baker asked how many spaces are on their property; and asked how many Caltrans was taking from them and from the neighboring lot. Mr. Bennett replied that they have 98 spaces and lease 33; that Caltrans would be taking 32 spaces of theirs and none of the leased spaces; that the neighbor is losing very little property, and they can maintain the same number of spaces with restriping. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the adjacent property was landlocked. Mr. Bennett replied that it was landlocked by access, but the owner could redevelop his lot configuration and create access. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the neighbor had a restaurant in front of the motel. Mr. Bennett affirmed. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if staff felt that 18 months was adequate time for the applicant; and noted that there was quite a difference between 18 months and 54 months. Staff replied that 18 months was actually longer than the typical 12 months for a variance; that 18 months was to apply towards the 65 space reconfiguration, and that after construction, another plan would need to be submitted to increase to 76 spaces; and that it would not be unreasonable to assume that they could reach 65 spaces within 18 months. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the applicant has to reapply for an extension if the work is not completed in 18 months. The Director replied that instead of a time designation, they could reword the condition to tie it to Caltrans taking possession of the property and designating the construction easement; that the additional 11 spaces can be tied to Caltrans release of the property associated with the construction easement, as referenced in Item 3.3, which was changed, as moved; and changed Item 1.3, as moved, to indicate reference to Item 3.3. Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1990 Page 11 Commissioner Shaheen noted that the Revere House is an institution in the City; that the owner is prepared to do what they must to continue the success of the restaurant; and that the City should do everything possible, within the letter of the law, to accommodate them. Commissioner Baker felt that they were accommodating the applicant. The Director noted that there are restrictive limitations in the Non-Conforming Use Ordinance that would allow the applicant to repair and maintain, so long as the maintenance work did not exceed 50 percent of the replacement value of the currently assessed valuation of the building, which could be quite low; they would have the ability to apply for a variance as a separate application. She provided language for Item 1.4, as moved; noted that since there is monitoring capability with Item 1.6, Item 1.5 could be changed, as moved; and added Item C, implementation of mandatory valet parking, to Item 1.6, as moved. Co~missioner Baker noted that the Revere House has been around since long before the freeway; that the parking is limited, now; and that he is concerned about the reduction in spaces. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2801 revised as follows: Exhibit A, Page 1, item 1.3 should read, "...construction is completed for the approved temporary 65 parking space site plan within 18 months of the date that the right-of-way taking agreement with Caltrans is signed and that all construction is completed for the ultimate 76 parking space site plan after the Caltrans freeway construction easement is released within time frames noted in Condition 3.3." Exhibit A, Page 1, item 1.4 insert after area seating modifications. "The restaurant use may be maintained, repaired or portions thereof replaced, so long as maintenance, repairs or replacements do not exceed fifty (50) percent of the building's assessed value as shown on the last equalized assessment roll." Exhibit A, Page 1 and 2, item 1.5, Delete everything after "...notice to the Community Development Department." Exhibit A, Page 2, item 1.6, add item "c. Implement valet parking." Motion carried 3-0. 7. Use Determination 90-03 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ORANGE COAST GROUP, INC. 3020 OLD RANCH ROAD, SUITE 440 SEAL BEACH, CA 90740-2751 MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORP. 2100 S. E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 400 IRVINE, CA 92714 MIMI'S PLAZA 13911 - 13951 CARROLL WAY C-i, RETAIL COMMERCIAL THE REQUESTED USE DETERMINATION IS NOT A PROJECT AS DEFINED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; THEREFORE NO ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. A DETERMINATION OF USE TO CONSIDER IF A HEALTH CLUB SHOULD BE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE C-1 DISTRICT. Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1990 Page 12 Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission determine that a health club is not like or similar to permitted uses or conditionally permitted uses in the C-1 district, and therefore should not be permitted, subject to a Conditional Use Permit or as an outright use, by Minute Order. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Associate Planner Staff noted that the applicant chose not to be in attendance for rebuttal. Commissioner Le Jeune asked where else in the City a C-G Zone would be found. Staff replied that the center directly across Carroll Way and Red Hill Center at Newport and Irvine were in the C-G Zone, and that the zone is dispersed throughout the City; that C-i, C-2 and C-G all abut residential areas. Commissioner Baker noted that the parking is too limited in Mimi's Plaza already. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to deny Use Determination 90-03 by Minute Order. Motion carried 3-0. OLD BUSINESS 8. Development Status Report Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Development Director of Community NEW BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS The Director asked who was interested in attending the American Planning Commission Association Seminar in Newport Beach, September 10 - 14, 1990. Commissioner Shaheen advised he would like to attend. Commissioners Le Jeune and Baker advised they would not be attending. 9. Report on Actions taken at July 16, 1990 City Council Meeting. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Baker asked about the status of the lights on Bryan. Staff replied that a memo had been sent to Public Works Department and that this was part of the light replacement program and it could take 90-100 days when working with Edison. Commissioner Le Jeune inquired about plants in front of the pillars at the East Tustin Market Place on Jamboree Road. Staff advised that plans are being reviewed at this time and that the plants would be similar to those in front of Chic's Sporting Goods. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the pole sign at the Tustin Car Wash at Newport and Main was going to be removed. Lois Jeffrey replied that this project is being reviewed at this time due to repairs being done without permits. Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1990 Page 13 At 9:25 p.m. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to adjourn meeting to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on August 13, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Motion carried 3-0. Kay ~itzpa~ic~t Secretary