Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-09-90MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION R~GUAAR I'~.TTI~(~ JULY 9· 1.990 CALL TO ORDER: 7: 00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLED(~E OF ALLE(~IANCE/INVOCAT?ON ROLL CALL: Le Jeune, Shaheen, Baker, Kasalek PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) Minutes of the June 25, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting Permit to Operate a Large 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 Chairman inquire if any person in the audience wishes to submit a protest, and then accept any protests submitted. If a protest is lodged, then the matter should be continued to the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting in order for staff to evaluate the protest. If a protest is not filed, the Commission should approve the subject application without further discussion by Minute Order subject to compliance with all requirements of Ordinance 991. Presentation: Anne Bonner, Planning Technician 3. Final Tract Map 13835 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL MR. NELSON CHUNG RGC 20 CORPORATE PLAZA NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOTS 19, "CC" AND "DD" OF TRACT 12870, NORTHWEST CORNER OF JAMBOREE ROAD AND ROBINSON DRIVE MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1990 Page 2 STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED MINISTERIALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15268(B) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 14.37 ACRES INTO 22 NUMBERED LOTS AND 4 LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 282 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DWELLING UNITS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2796, as submitted or revised, recommending approval to the City Council of Final Tract Map 13835. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the consent calendar with the exception of Item 2 which was pulled from the consent calendar for a public hearing at the July 23, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4. Conditional Use Permit 90-16 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92680 C/O CHRISTINE SHINGLETON 300 CENTENNIAL WAY PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED PROGRAM EIR 88-2 (FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT). APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE TUSTIN CIVIC CENTER Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2800. 2. Approve Conditional Use Permit 90-16 by adoption of Resolution No.2799, as submitted July 9, 1990. Presentation: Christine A. Shingleton, Director of Community Development The Director introduced Mr. John Bates, the architect for the project. Commissioner Shaheen asked what the approximate cost for the project would be; how it would be paid for; and what the approximate date of completion would be. The Director replied that it would cost $8.5 million, with adjustments; $2 Million was donated by developers in the East Tustin area and the Irvine Company, and the City will consider issuance of Town Center Redevelopment Bonds for the remainder; and the timeframe for construction was approximately 30 months. Commissioner Le Jeune asked how the upstairs conference room size compares to the current conference room; and if the plans that were being reviewed this evening were the final plans for the Council Chambers. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1990 Page 3 The Director replied that it is similar to the City Manager's current conference room, but that it is only intended for personal conferences; that if rooms are needed for larger meetings they will be available through scheduling; and that the plans provided were consistent with the schematics that the City Council had approved for the project. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:23 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:24 p.m. Commissioner Baker noted that the Commission has seen the project several times, and that he sees no problem with the proposal. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2800 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 90-16 by adoption of Resolution No. 2799 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. 5. General Plan Amendment 90-01 APPLICANT: OWNERS: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: DENNIS PAQUETTE DIVERSIFIED REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 1500 ADAMS AVENUE, #307 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 MARY LEWIS FAMILY TRUST PAT AND IRA THELEN RUTHANNA CHASE JOSEPHINE WOODBURY CAMIEL HAEGEMAN NORTHEAST CORNER OF HOLT AND WARREN AVENUE R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REQUEST: TO RECLASSIFY THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2798 recommending to the City Council denial of GPA 90-01. Presentation: Sara Pashalides, Associate Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the alternative recommendations were noticed in the Public Hearing. Staff replied that Alternatives A and B would not require a General Plan Amendment, that Alternate C was not advertised. The Director replied that renoticing would be required if the applicant would be amenable to table a request rather than receive a denial. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if it applied to the three options or just to option C. Staff replied that the Commission could also adopt a fourth option by retaining the General Plan Designation and deny the General Plan Amendment, which would allow the applicant an opportunity to pursue either option A or B. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1990 Page 4 Commissioner Le Jeune asked if alternatives A and B could be addressed this evening. Staff affirmed, since no Conditional Use Permit was required; but noted that if the applicant wanted to re-subdivide the lots then a future Public Hearing would be required. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:42 p.m. John Lehman, 14032 Holt, noted that his house was the last one at the north end of the street; he is a 16 year resident; he is worried about the area being annexed around him in strips; that with annexing, multi-family density creeps; that he would rather have a friendly relationship with the City and retain the single- family character; that at rush hour, he is a prisoner in his home due to the traffic at Holt and 17th, and that the addition of more multi-family homes on Holt would increase the traffic problems; and that additional families would increase the noise level at the nearby park. Brent R. Fraser, 14411 Holt Avenue, noted that he is a business owner in Tustin, with a family in the unincorporated area; that multi-family dwellings would decrease the property values; and that he hopes that the Commission considers Plan A. Kirk Hahn, 14431 Holt Avenue, noted that he is a 38 year resident of Holt Avenue; that he likes the character of the single-family homes with the large setbacks; that the homes along Holt are being remodeled and improved; that encouragement by the Commission to remain a single-family area would encourage renovation; that they should leave the lot sizes as they are; and he noted that people are willing to invest in the area as it is. William McNiff, 14411 Clarissa Lane, noted that the developer intended the egress for the project be onto Warren Avenue, but he doubted if the applicant intended to provide improvements to Warren all the way to Newport; and that the neighbors attempt to maintain the appearance of their homes. Roy Vincent, 14042 Holt, noted that the houses that existed before the previous multi-family development were allowed to deteriorate; feels that the neighborhood might allow the rest of the houses to deteriorate as well if they feel that the encroachment will continue; and that the City needs to look forward 10 years to determine if this is what we want for the City. Gregg Bunch, 14331 Holt Avenue, noted that he is restoring a 1920's home and has invested at least $150,000; that with the pollution from the traffic and parking he recommends denial of the project. Otto Hahn, 14431 Holt Avenue, noted that he built his home 38 years ago; that he worked for the E-4 zoning; that the people annexed into Tustin wanted to be in the E-4 zone, but that they now want to sell to multi-family developers; that the decor, lifestyle and upkeep will change; and that he would like someday to be in Tustin, but not if this continues. Tom Mau, 14102 Holt Avenue, noted that they invested everything into their new home; that with 70% of the developments in the city being multi-family, it is ludicrous to continue this type of development; that they thought it was a nice community, but at this rate there is no future in it; and that there will be more traffic and congestion, which is not why they spent $200,000+ for their home. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1990 Page 5 Stephen Johnson, 11611 Arroyo, spokesman for the Foothills Communities Association, noted that he was on the North Tustin Specific Plan committee when it was planned; that the FCA predicted the use of the North Tustin property along Holt and Newport which resulted in enhanced use of the property; the FCA objects to the proposal; asked the City to maintain the position of no increase in density; noted that the City of Tustin is upside down in the housing element; that he cannot remember a true 10,000 foot lot being developed since the 1960's; urged the City to maintain some single-family developments to maintain a balance and character; that Warren is a good boundary and that they should maintain the zoning as it is. Maureen Homan, 14371 Holt Avenue, noted that they have lived in their house for 1 1/2 years and have spent $20-30,000 in improvements; that more multi-family dwellings would decrease the value of their home; noted that there would be a 1000% increase in usage; that 57 more homes could mean in increase of 200 cars on Holt; that there would be an increased amount of cars parked on Holt; that there would be an increase in noise with additional residents; and that they do not want a complex built like the one on Pasadena. Dennis Pacquette, applicant, noted that he prepared a specific plan for 6 of the 7 parcels annexed into the City with a maximum of 35 units for 2.3 acres; that the notice sent by the City was misleading in that it indicated the possibility of 25 units per acre; that he now wants a maximum of 14 units on the three southerly most parcels; that there is a high demand for housing in Orange County; that he has not recently seen a 10,000 foot lot developed, as it is economically unfeasible; that he wants to build quality homes in a great location; that the traffic can be diverted away from Holt; that the boundaries of the flood control channel and multi-family to the south would make it a natural area for multi-family; that the availability of housing is the reason he is building multi-family homes; that he is interested in the site due to the location; and that he could build affordable housing for people who want to live in the Community. Nancy Hamilton, 18681 Eunice Place, thanked staff for their thorough report and noted that their effort built bridges instead of walls; that the owners seemingly entered into an agreement before the annexation, but Mayor Kennedy recommended against rezoning at that time; that she feels this project is solely for profit; that she likes the neighborhood the way it is; that Holt is busy, but that the fast traffic on Warren, of which there is already too much, would increase; that they currently know their neighbors, and that a condominium project would separate the community since it would tend to be a neighborhood of its own. Elmer Bender, 18232 Lucero, noted that he has been a resident since 1957; that he agreed with the previous speakers; and that the government is supposed to respond to the will of the people which are mostly opposed to the change. Kirk ~ahn, 14431 Holt Avenue, commented on the developer's statement: he would like a repeat of the units constructed south of Warren; a letter submitted by the developer states that he cannot meet the width standards for the driveway and that he cannot provide the extra parking required; and noted that the size of the parcel he wants to develop may require a spot zone change, which might be prohibited. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1990 Page 6 Joseph P. Hammer, 14082 Gershon, noted that the multi-family development would be immediately in front of his home; that at the back of his lot he will soon have the Edison substation; that being locked in on both sides would devalue his property; read the last page of the General Plan amendment regarding zone change 89-03; that on his street there have been at least 12 houses to invest at least $20,000 in the last two years; that they keep up their neighborhood; that he feels that he is a Tustinite even though he has a Santa Ana mailing address; and asked the Commission to please consider families and friends and deny the rezoning. Patricia Thelan, 14442 Holt Avenue, noted that her property was under consideration for change; that in 1950 when they bought their home, there were 1,300 people in Tustin, now there are 48,000; that they have had three zoning changes since then which they have never protested; they annexed to Tustin because they felt they were part of Tustin; that some people were protesting their decision regarding their property, but that she felt that they would not have their homes if they had protested; and that people should be able to do with their property as they please as long as they are not hurting anyone. Roy Vincent, noted that his wife bought their property in the early 1950's; since then part of their land has been taken for road widening and part for the drainage ditch; and that he sympathized with Mrs. Thelan's problems, but that other people have lived there as long as she has and it has no bearing on the matter. Ilene Barcenas, 14402 Dall Lane, noted that she has lived there for nine years; that since the condominiums south of Warren were constructed traffic has become more congested and faster; commented that her daughter was hit by a car on Holt; and would like to see the development stopped. Scott Homan, 14371 Holt Avenue, noted that he was opposed to the rezoning; that the increased density of the parcel site did not allow an adequate buffer to adjacent parcels; that low-density next to high would not flow right; his house was rundown when he purchased it and considered bulldozing it for condominiums, but he is in love with the area and would never allow that to happen in the area; and asked what controls would be put on the developer to retain 14 units. Brenda Kragenbrink, 18192 Wellington, noted that she also had a neighbor child hit due to the traffic on Holt; that she has been a resident since 1971; that some of the existing condominiums are already up for sale; that the condominiums have not been there long enough to determine if they will maintain their integrity; that when she added to her home she maintained the neighbors' privacy; that the area is very considerate of each other; and that the neighbors want it to remain single-family dwellings. Kathy Lehman, 14032 Holt Avenue, noted that at times the traffic is so bad she cannot enter or leave her driveway; that her house has been there 40 years; that the County is investing money in hopes that the traffic problem at Holt and 17th Street will be resolved; that there will be more accidents with more traffic; and that this is not good for the County or the City. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:25 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen commented that he had looked at the area and compared it to several other areas; that the homes are lovely with large lots; and that it is an excellent neighborhood and should be maintained as it is. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1990 Page 7 Commissioner Kasalek agreed and noted that there are a large number of multi-family areas in Tustin; that when annexation was being discussed, the City Council gave assurances that rezoning was not intended; that the City would lose credibility if it rezoned the area; and that she agreed to adopt the Resolution to deny the project. Co~mSss$oner Baker asked for a clarification of the applicant's comment regarding improper noticing. Staff replied that the applicant was referring to the reference in the notice regarding 25 units per acre and deemed it misleading; that the applicant actually only needs to build 15 units per acre when he processes a specific plan for the site; but that the notice had to state what the General Plan would authorize. The Director commented that proposals of this nature would be brought to the Commission concurrently, but with the significance of this project, this one was brought in when it was complete, while others were not complete as yet. Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of the E-4 zoning. The Director replied that it was for Estate Residential; that there were very few houses under this zoning; that the ordinance was adopted so that there were areas of the County that would retain that zoning when annexed. Commissioner Baker commented that anyone has the right to ask for something, but that does not mean that the citizens have to expect it; and that if the city gave its word that the General Plan was not to be changed with the annexation, then he felt it would be inappropriate to change it at this time. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that there is more than adequate multi- family residences in the City; that it is the Commission's obligation to try to maintain the neighborhood as it is; that they should try to stop the escalation of R-3 zoning northerly on Holt; that this has been compared to the 6th Street needs, but that 6th Street has been rebuilt instead of being redeveloped as condominiums; that the Planning Commission has to maintain and encourage single-family development; that he appreciated the brevity of the comments; and that the letters received indicated that the residents did their homework. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to deny GPA 90-01 by adoption of Resolution No. 2798 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. 6. Tentative Parcel Map 90-104 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CMS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 3199 A-3 AIRPORT LOOP DRIVE COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF THE I-5 FREEWAY AND WEST OF NEWPORT AVENUE, LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 OF NEWPORT AVENUE TRACT; A PORTION OF LOT A OF TRACT 541; A PORTION OF LOT 15, BLOCK D OF BALLARDS' ADDITION; LOT 1 OF TRACT 519; AND A THREE FOOT PORTION OF "B" STREET PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 15 TO CONSOLIDATE TEN (10) LOTS INTO FOUR (4). Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 90-104 to the city Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1990 Page 8 Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2795 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Beth Schoemann, Associate Planner Staff made changes to the staff report, as moved. Commissioner Shaheen asked what the area between Building D and A was. Staff replied that there were residential units in that area. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there was one entrance off Newport; and if the wall was going around the complex. Staff replied that there was a main entry off of Newport and that there will be two access ways and one exit. The Director noted that the design of the project has been approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and that they were only looking at the lot configuration. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the residents on C Street were in the noticing territory. Staff affirmed. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:47 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:48 p.m. Commissioner Baker asked if B Street had been widened due to the ingress and egress onto it; and if the project would also exit onto C Street. The Director replied that they are actually secondary accesses required by the Fire Department due to the depth of the property; and that it would not exit onto C Street due to a full wall on the residential boundary. Commissioner Shaheen asked what kind of sign was on Newport; and noted that the buildings seemed to be hidden and would require good signage; and asked about the status of the Alta Dena Dairy. The Director replied that the Planning Commission had already approved the sign program, that the freeway was considered a freeway elevation; that the dairy property was in escrow which was contingent upon finding a new location; and that the dairy asked for a two year extension on the escrow agreement. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 90-104 to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2795 revised as follows: Exhibit A, Page 7, 8.5: After "through the project site" insert the following "(Parcel 1, 2, 3 of TPM 90-104) and adjacent parcel commonly known as the northeasterly 61.5 feet of Lot 1 of Tract No. 519 and Lot 2 of Tract No. 519" Exhibit A, Page 7, 8.7: Delete numbers 2 through 4 leaving only number one reading: The crosshatching on the 25 foot landscaped area on the northeast corner of the map shall be removed. Exhibit A, Page 7, 8.9: Delete "any building permits" and replace with "a certificate of occupancy". Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1990 Page 9 Motion carried 4-0. 7. Conditional Use Permit 90-15 and Design Review 89-58 APPLICANT: AGENT: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: BEACON BAY ENTERPRISES, INC. 260 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 MCCULLOCH ARCHITECTS 260 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 330 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 2762 EL CAMINO REAL (LOT 1 OF TRACT 13556) MIXED USE - 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. 1. APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A FULL SERVICE CAR WASH, GASOLINE SALES AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE (SERVICE STATION), A CONVENIENCE MARKET AND A COMPREHENSIVE SIGNAGE PROGRAM FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 2. APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2793. 2. Approve Conditional Use Permit 90-15 and Design Review 89-58 by adopting Resolution No. 2794, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner The Public Hearing was opened at 9:00 p.m. Patrick Shea, representing Beacon Bay Enterprises, questioned Item 3.1 A of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2794; presented pictures showing the surrounding facilities without a screen wall and noted that they felt there was no reason to build a screen wall of any height due to their setback; that it would close them in; that it would close off the drying area which they like to let customers see; and that the screen wall would be over 100 feet long. He also asked for a clarification of the requirement in Item 3.1 B to provide decorative paving. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a clarification of the location of the screen wall. Staff replied that the ETSP requires all parking areas abutting arterial highways, such as E1 Camino be screened by a 30 - 42 inch screen; that the perimeter of the parking area at grade is shown at 86 feet; that the existing berm at the approximate location of the berm is at 87 feet, and the City does not feel that one foot provides adequate screening. The Director noted that the Commission would not have the discretion to change this requirement, and that the applicant must submit a variance request; and noted that the applicant could increase the berm, but that he objected to the increased landscaping upkeep. Mr. Shea replied that Donahue-Shriber required that the landscaping and berms not be changed, but that the applicant had volunteered to Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1990 Page 10 double it; and would be glad to resubmit that as a mitigation measure. Staff noted that they are working with the developer to upgrade the landscaping along E1 Camino; and that the drying area, being an area of high activity, is different than the mere parking of cars. The Director noted that the area in question is just around the parking lot areas. Commissioner Shaheen noted that the west side of the site had an existing six foot wall. Staff replied that the applicant will cut it down to 42 inches high. Mr. Shea presented more pictures of the E1 Camino streetscape and noted that the berm would be carried to the corner, then lowered around the corner; and that the wall begins at the higher point of the berm. Commissioner Baker asked if there was a requirement in the ETSP regarding a low wall; and asked the purpose of the wall. Staff replied that it required opaque screening which could be a berm or other device 30-42 inches high; and that landscaping is not enough. The Director replied that the wall was to buffer parking areas; that some pads have been dropped, but that certain portions are close to the top of a berm. Commissioner Baker asked if the applicant was protesting the portion of the wall going around onto West. Staff replied that they are protesting the entire wall. Commissioner Kasalek asked if all of the areas had the same wall. The Director replied that a wall or additional berm area may not be required if there is a minimum of 30-42 inches of opaque screening provided. Mr. Shea proposed that as an alternative to a 42 inch wall, they would like to create a berm of a minimum of 30 inches from whatever height the Planning Commission chooses; and noted that it was the confinement of the wall that concerned him. Commissioner Baker asked what would be on the applicant's side of the berm. Mr. Shea replied that they would create a hill between the property line and the parking; that a berm greater than 30 inches currently exists; and that they could lower the site of the car wash. Commissioner Kasalek noted that there was a problem with who would maintain the berm. Mr. Shea replied that the developer indicated that anything on the inside of the berm was the responsibility of the applicant, and that the outside is the developer's which could not be changed; and noted that they have heavy landscaping around 12 of their car washes in Orange County. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there were bushes on top of the berm; noted that with berm and wall they would be have 5-6 feet of Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1990 Page 11 screening; and noted that the worst situation was at West and E1 Camino. Mr. Shea replied that it would be visible along E1 Camino and at the corner; that they were being requested to build the fence behind the bushes. Commissioner Baker noted that 5-6 feet from the level of the sidewalk would block the car wash. Mr. Shea asked if they could ask for a 30 inch limit with berm, wall, and plantings (with the exception of Myford and the driveway); and noted that the back of Home Depot was not screened at all. The Director noted that the top of the berm needs to be 30 inches higher than the adjacent parking grades; that there is issue regarding the limits of work, and the conditional use permit; that ownership is not lease lines; that the Planning Commission has the ability to impose conditions; and the developer and the applicant can work out the landscaping between them. Mr. Shea noted that they did propose heavy landscaping along E1 Camino, but it was denied by the developer, not the City. The Director provided language to change the condition, as moved. Mr. Shea noted that they have installed a glass wall and a 36-40 inch high wall to provide for as much visibility and light as possible for the customer; that out of the eight bays, only three have visible equipment that could probably be mitigated with landscaping; and that they wish to leave them open for the customer's view. ~ommissioner Shaheen asked which condition the applicant disagreed with. Mr, Shea replied 3.2 A of Exhibit A. Commissioner Kasalek asked what the purpose of the louvers was. ~o~missioner Shaheen asked if the louvers would preclude the client seeing his car go through the wash. The Director noted that there were two issues: 1) how the customer walks through the facility, and 2) viewing the equipment is like a marketing device for E1 Camino Traffic, she asked the applicant to walk the Commission through the floor plan. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the louvers cut down the light. Mr, Shea replied that they cut it down, but do not cut all of it out; and noted that it was not consistent within the center as other merchants can display their wares in the front of the stores. Commissioner Baker asked if the applicant considered the machinery his "wares"; asked if they would not have a sign stating that they are a car wash; and noted that they should cover up the machinery so that it looks better. Mr. Shea replied that if the customers see the machinery, they know what is in the building. The Director noted that they could provide something to mitigate the problem. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1990 Page 12 Commissioner Baker asked if the professionals could suggest something; and that the machinery looks trashy after a number of years and should be screened. Mr. Shea asked if there would be objection to open bays elsewhere than where the equipment is. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the Commission has to decide if the screening is necessary, then the applicant has to work out the type of screening with the Community Development Department. Mr. Shea presented further pictures of the signage at the Market Place; felt it unfair to be referred to as less than a major tenant since they occupy over two acres with three buildings and three businesses; noted that they will occupy the entire corner; their tower is 38 feet tall and would like to put signs on three side that are proportionate to the size of the tower; that the building is 192 feet long; that the three sides were chosen for their visibility; that this is the most expensive site and building that Beacon Bay has gotten involved in, and they will therefore have to do a very good job. Commissioner Le Jeune asked staff to clarify the sign request. Commissioner Baker asked if the main problem was the tower sign. Staff replied that the sign program for the Market Place sets standards for free standing pads; that the aggregate area exceed the maximum allowed by the sign program; this is spelled out on page 5 of the staff report; for the E1 Camino Real elevation, the applicant is requesting 87 square feet, but the maximum allowed is 64 square feet; for the east and south elevations, the 63 foot logo exceeds the 25 square foot maximum allowed. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if these criteria applied to other businesses in the Market Place. Staff replied that these standards were only for the free standing pads. The Director replied that they are already proposing a freestanding monument sign; and that the rest of the pads would not have that advantage. Mr. Shea replied that the monument sign would only provide information regarding the type of gas they sell and the prices. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a clarification of the yard signs allowed. Mr. Shea replied that they are located on the islands, are not visible from the street, and are immovable. He also noted that the sign code calls for 25% of wall area not to exceed 64 square feet; that this building is 192 feet long; that there are much larger signs in the immediate area; that Home Depot has signs 100 square feet on a tower slightly larger than theirs; and that theirs requires additional identification since they are running three businesses, are larger, and are on a corner. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the applicant was asking for 87 feet on the north elevation; and if the east elevation allowed 25 feet. Mr. Shea affirmed that they were requesting 87 feet on the north elevation; and noted that Unical is involved so a stylized "76" may be used on the tower instead of a "BB". Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1990 Page 13 The Director replied that only the tower exceeds requirements, but that the other signs on the elevation relate to specific businesses. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the east elevation faces West Drive. Commissioner Kasalek asked how large the tower was. Mr. Shea replied that it was 38 feet tall by 20 feet square. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the south elevation looks toward Home Depot. Mr. Shea affirmed and included the parking lot. Commissioner Baker asked how high the Home Depot tower was. Commissioner Kasalek asked the size of the Home Depot sign. The Director replied that it was 50 feet high and that the signs were 100-200 square feet; that the proposal was submitted as a comprehensive package recognizing that with the developer finding major tenants provided restrictions on the smaller tenants; that this was a concession to providing a sign program that would look at all issues; and that there is no comparability between a free standing pad and a major tenant. Commissioner Le Jeune asked developed like this one and entertainment center. if any other tenants were to be if they were restricted to the Mr. Shea asked the size of the pads. The Director replied that there were a number of pads yet to come before the Commission, that they could come in with a bank, small office use, or whatever is allowed within the mixed use areas; and that each site varied in size [plus or minus one (1) acre]. Commissioner Kasalek asked if there was still an option of a 5 x 5 sign. The Director affirmed. Mr, She~ asked for a clarification of the 25 foot requirement. The Director replied that if the businesses were issued separate business licenses at the same location, they would be permitted their own 25 square foot signage. Mr. Shea asked if the sign on the tower indicating "Beacon Bay" and the sign on the wall indicating "auto wash" would be combined to create 25 square feet. The Director affirmed. Staff replied that only the E1 Camino elevation is allowed a combined square footage of 64 feet; and that directional signs are not involved. Mr. Shea asked if they were required to use decorative paving at the entrance only or in the interior, as well; and noted that they would be using concrete with expansion joints. Commissione¥ Le Jeun~ asked for clarification of the concrete plans. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1990 Page 14 Staff replied that item 3.1 B notes that the decorative paving is only required at the entrance, exits, or interiors; and that the applicant needs to submit plans to the Planning Department which could be approved at staff level. The Public Hearing was closed at 10:10 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Commission was in agreement about the fencing and berming; noted that they would like the equipment screened; and that plans could be done at staff level. Commissioner Baker noted that landscaping would be a temporary measure, until the landscaping grows; noted that he believed in signs; and would stick with the sign code until something better came along. The Director replied that they could not control landscaping; and provided language for the required screening, as moved. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if 88 square feet was alright on E1 Camino elevation, with restrictions of 25 square feet on other elevations; and noted that there would be no signage on the Myford side of the tower. Mr. Shea replied that the center's monument blocks the tower. Commissioner Kasalek asked how 88 square feet would look on the tower. Commissioner Baker noted that some signs look fine large, and others do not. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he received a consensus on 88 square feet for the E1 Camino Real frontage only. The Director changed item 6.3, as moved. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2793 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 90-15 and Design Review 89-58 by adopting Resolution No. 2794 revised as follows: Exhibit A, Paqe 2, 3.1 A.: Should be revised to read: "Provide a minimum 30 inch high screen wall or opaque berm extending along E1 Camino Real, where the proposed building is not parallel to the perimeter of E1 Camino Real. The top of berm or wall at any point shall be 30 inches higher than adjacent inside parking lot grade." Exhibit A, Paqe 2, 3.2 A: Should be revised to read: "Provide louvers or other compatible architectural screening for openings consistent with the Market Place design at the E1 Camino Real (north) building elevation where mechanical equipment is visible subject to approval of Community Development Department." Exhibit A, Paqe 6, 6.3: Should be revised to read: "Front - 25 percent of wall area, not to exceed 88 SF" Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1990 Page 15 NEW BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS 8. Report on Actions ~aken at July 2, 1990 City Council Meeting. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Development Director of Community Received and filed. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Shaheen asked status of the Cosmopolitan apartments. The Director replied that the Commissioners would be informed after the workshop regarding the southwest improvements. Commissioner Le Jeune thanked the staff for the new brief cases. ADJOURNMEI~ At 10:24 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune motioned, Baker seconded to adjourn the meeting to the 5:30 workshop preceding the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on July 23, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Motion carried 4-0. Don~[ Le Jeu~e ~ ~ Chairman Ka~-~. tzpa~ick Secretary