Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-11-901~ I NUT E S TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE L~v ~990 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGI/~NCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Le Jeune, Shaheen, Baker, Kasparian 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 May 29, 1990 Planning Commission Meetinq Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS= 2. Conditional Use Permit 90-10 (Continued from May 14, 1990) APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: JOSEPH CASASANTA, GENERAL MANAGER CONTINENTAL CABLEVISION 13816 RED HILL AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 HOWARD & ANNA LARNARD AMERICAN CABLE SYSTEMS OF CALIF. INC. 13816 RED HILL AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 137 SOUTH PROSPECT CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CEQA. TO INSTALL A 53 FOOT TALL HIGH FREQUENCY RADIO RECEPTION TOWER WITH THREE ATTACHED MICROWAVE DISHES AND SIX ANTENNAE AT 137 SOUTH PROSPECT. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) Certify the Final Negative Declaration for the project as adequate by adoption of Resolution No. 2772; and 2) Approve Conditional Use Permit 90- 10 by adoption of Resolution No. 2773, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christopher E. Jackson, Associate Planner Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1990 Page 2 Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there would be nothing below the 30 foot mark on the tower. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the exhibit presented by staff; if the tower requires additional support; and if the 50 foot tower could be installed without guy wires. Staff replied that the tower would not require the guy wires due to being constructed of a lighter weight material. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:08 p.m. Mr. Joseph Casasanta, Continental Cablevision, introduced himself to the Commission. Commissioner Baker asked if the illustration showing a metal tower with small cross beams would be representative of the pole's design. Mr. Casasanta affirmed and noted that the cross members would provide a support structure to eliminate twisting in the wind. Commissioner Kasparian asked how the antennae would be accessed for maintenance; if the tower was hinged; and asked how high the tower could be before it required a warning light on top. Mr. Casasanta replied that the tower is not hinged; that the trilateral design allows maintenance personnel to climb up and belt-off for safety; and that they were depending upon the lighting atop the Xerox building for warning. The Director replied that the requirement for lighting relates to the glide slope for the airport approach; that a 50 foot tower within the City is not within the parameters that would require additional lighting; but that requirement of the addition of a small red light would be an inexpensive safety precaution. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the applicant considered additional screening on the roof of the building around the air conditioning ducts that would remain. Mr. Casasanta replied that the current parapet should cover most of the air conditioning apparatus; and that further requirements would require the landlord's approval. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m. Staff noted that it would possibly be better to paint the duct work, perhaps sky blue, since the skirting may attract more attention. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if staff could review the alternatives for screening air conditioning equipment. The Director asked if the Commissioner intended to leave it to the staff's discretion; and that they needed to ask the applicant for a commitment on the issue. The Public Hearing was re-opened at 7:18. Mr. Casasanta noted that they only lease the building and that he cannot commit to any work without conferring with the owner. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1990 Page 3 Commissioner Baker noted that since the installation of the tower and the satellite dishes were also on leased property, then this is a mute point. Commissioner Shaheen noted that applicant would have to refer to the landlord for permission to make alterations to the building. Mr. Casasanta noted that part of the Conditional Use Permit was to get the owner's approval. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what was in the Code regarding screening. The Director replied that the Design Review criteria related to the architectural appearance of existing improvements; that they use their discretionary authority for the design review of new buildings; and that should it be the desire of the Commission to impose a condition, it would be better than to leave it up to the judgment of the staff. Commissioner Kasparian noted that this imposition is not germane, because his work is not uncovering the ductwork. Commissioner Le Jeune felt that there is a City requirement regarding this. The Director replied that the Design Review Committee has adopted policies relating to rooftop screening. Commissioner Le Jeune asked the applicant and staff to look at the building to determine the appropriate course of action. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m. Commissioner Baker noted that he is happy with the service, but did not like the idea of a five-story tower in the middle of town; that First Street has a Specific Plan; that they have "battered" Carl's Jr. regarding the height of their sign, and decided that a rose- colored awning was inappropriate; he also noted that the utility companies are putting their lines underground, but they are considering a five-story tower; and he noted that he would have a difficult time voting for this tower. Commissioner Le Jeune recapped the options available. Staff replied that the options are a 30 foot tower with the antennae left on the roof, or a 50 foot high tower; and that according to the City's consultant, there are no other options. Commissioner Baker asked if there was an option of using another site. The Public Hearing was re-opened at 7:25 p.m. Mr. Casasanta noted that they have spent the last couple of years exploring the alternatives which did not improve the quality of service, nor could they guarantee continued service if they tie into another cable company; and that the signal from the Xerox building provides the best signal. Commissioner Baker noted that he appreciated the applicant's problem but that he did not like the idea of a five-story tower in the middle of town. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:27 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1990 Page 4 Commissioner Kasparian noted that he felt that the ideals of the First Street Specific Plan have disappeared as evidenced by the addition of a car wash on First Street; but that the tower was unobtrusive compared to the car wash. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a clarification of the height of the tower at Sixth and B Streets; and noted that with a 50-foot tower most of the antennae will be out of the general view. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Kasparian seconded to certify the Final Negative Declaration by adopting Resolution No. 2772 as submitted. Motion carried 3-1. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 90-10 by adoption of Resolution No. 2773 revised as follows: Paqe 2: add condition 2.4 to read as follows: *** "A warning beacon light shall be added to top of tower as a caution for aircraft approaching John Wayne Airport." Motion carried 3-1. 3. Conditional Use Permit 90-12 (Continued from May 29, 1990) APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DIKRAN YAZMACIYAN CAFE LE PALMIER 13041 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 BURNETT-EHLINE PROPERTIES 2100 S. STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92806 13041 NEWPORT AVENUE C-2; CENTRAL COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5, SECTION 15305(A) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ON-SITE SALE OF BEER AND WINE PLUS THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE FOR CONSUMPTION OFF THE PREMISES (TYPE 41 ABC LICENSE) IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT USE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 90-12 to authorize on-site sale of beer and wine only (Type 41 ABC license) by adopting Resolution No. 2774, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christopher E. Jackson, Associate Planner Commissioner Shaheen asked if sale of alcoholic beverages would be on-site only. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2774, item 2.9. Staff replied that this was a standard condition of the ABC guideline. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the intent of the condition is to require adequate supervision. Commissioner Kasparian noted that Item 2.1 should be amended to note that no off-site sales of beer and wine would be authorized. The Director agreed and suggested that the condition be reworded to include all alcoholic beverages, as moved. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1990 Page 5 The Public Hearing was opened at 7:38 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:39 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked about the status of the Exxon station's application. The Director replied that the court overruled the City's position; that the CUP has been reinstated; that there is a hearing before the ABC; that there is a petitioning process for people opposing the matter; that the ABC previously recommended denial and will probably continue to take that position, but there has been no action as yet. Commissioner Shaheen asked if this is a restaurant or a deli. Staff replied that it is a sit-down restaurant and deli. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 90-12 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2774 revised as follows: Page 1, 2.1: change to read: "No off-site alcohol sales for any type of ABC license is authorized." Motion carried 4-0. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 69-286, Conditional Use Permit 90-09 and Design Review 89-20 (Continued from May 14, 1990) APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MOBILE RECYCLING CORPORATION 11292 WESTERN AVENUE P.O. BOX 125 STANTON, CALIFORNIA 90680 C/O MR. SAMUEL S. TOTOR C.C. HUMPHRIES 30001 CROWN VALLEY PARKWAY LAGUNA NIGUEL, CALIFORNIA 92677 14551 RED HILL AVENUE C-2 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1 & 3) PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15301 AND 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1) AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A 170 SQUARE FOOT BULK VENDING RECYCLING FACILITY IN THE PARKING LOT OF THE ALPHA BETA SHOPPING CENTER PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION 9232(b)(v) OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE. 2) MODIFY THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ORIGINALLY REQUIRED FOR THE ENTIRE CENTER FROM 288 TO A NUMBER ALLOWED BY THE CITY'S CURRENT CODE. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1) Approve Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 69-286 by adoption of Resolution No. 2785, as submitted or revised; and 2) Approve Conditional Use Permit 90-09 and Design Review 89-20 by adoption of Resolution No. 2769, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Shaheen asked if this was the same facility that had been at that location. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1990 Page 6 Staff affirmed, and noted that the new facility is proposed to be located in two parking spaces near the Chevron station. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what the maximum length of the container would be. Staff replied that it would be 21 feet long by 8 feet wide by 8 feet high; and that the two spaces allocated for the container are not considered in the number required for the center. Commissioner KasDarian asked for a clarification of the operating times since they were not indicated in the current resolution, but were noted in Resolution No. 1051; and noted that the hours of operation should be consistent with that of the center. Staff replied that Resolution No. 1051 was the original Conditional Use Permit for the center; that their operating times were less than allowed by Code; that the Code states that the facility could not operate between midnight and 6:00 a.m.; and that they are still subject to the requirements of the Code, but staff could provide language for the current Resolution, if requested. The Director noted that the hours would be the same as the hours in Resolution No. 1051. Staff noted that the applicant's choice of hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Tuesday through Saturday, were much more limited than would be allowed; and that the hours of operation were indicated in the application. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the area behind the building was an unauthorized location. Staff replied that the Code requires that the facility be placed a minimum of 75 feet from the property line; that the rear corner was an inappropriate location; and that it would not provide the visibility that the applicant desires. Commissioner Shaheen noted that the facility provides a great service. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:58 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:59 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that there was a lot of activity on Saturday; that he was concerned about the facility being located too near the service station and a major entry to the center; and asked if there was a loading zone area. Staff replied that customers must park in marked spaces. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the unit could be moved to stall 14 so that it would be further from the entrance, since it might create a traffic hazard due to a blind spot; asked if they needed to specify where the loading would be; if the doors swing back and tie open; and that he was concerned about the speed of people entering the center. Staff replied that moving the facility closer to the shops would provide better visibility and better loading; that it opens to the south for loading; that they could be tied open; that the mass of the unit might be a consideration for moving it away from the entrance. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1990 Page 7 Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the four spaces around the unit could be marked for recycling only. Staff replied that there are four extra spaces that could be so marked. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the operator often leaves items outside the container until he can sort them; and that there is not a lot of room inside since the paper takes up about 60% of the space. Staff replied that the operators have been more lax since it has been located in the rear of the building. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked how often the bin was replaced. Mr. Samuel Totor, applicant, replied that it would be replaced when it was about 3/4 full; and that it will be picked up three days each week. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there was only one person operating the facility; and asked what happens to the items at the close of day if there is not enough room to store them inside. Mr. Totor affirmed; and that they try to anticipate the amount of materials and schedule a pickup if needed. Commissioner Kasparian asked what the busiest days and times were. Mr. Totor replied Saturday and Tuesday. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that on Saturday there was not enough room to store large bags of cans. Mr. Totor replied that a large truck picked up glass, cans and plastic on Saturday afternoon. Commissioner Le Jeune reiterated that there is often a lot of material left outside the unit; and asked if there was a way to provide a screen for those items. Mr. Totor noted that people often leave items outside on Sunday and Monday; and that they are also concerned about items being left out overnight. Commissioner Kasparian asked if there were actually two trailers, as the drawing shows a 40 foot facility. Staff replied that the drawing show that two sites are designated, but that the trailer only occupies one site. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:01 p.m. Staff noted that it was suggested to relocate the facility two spaces towards the center with four spaces surrounding it. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 69-286 by adoption of Resolution No. 2785 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 90-09 and Design Review 89-20 by adoption of Resolution No. 2769 revised as follows: Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1990 Page 8 Page 2: add condition 2.5 to read: *** 2.5 The location of the recycling facility shall be relocated a total of 2 spaces to the west. Motion carried 4-0. 5. Conditional Use Permit 90-13 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92680 C/O SUSAN JONES CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92680 14652 PROSPECT PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (88-2) FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW PARKING AREA, PICNIC GROUNDS AND A PLAY AREA FOR COLUMBUS-TUSTIN PARK. 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. 2783; and 2) Approve Conditional Use Permit 90-13 by adoption of Resolution No. 2784, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christopher E. Jackson, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked if there were any other handicapped considerations other than what was indicated in Exhibit A; if the 180 spaces includes plans for the gymnasium; and if there was to be fencing around the play area. Staff replied that they will have to comply with the State requirements of Title 24; that the parking included the requirements of the gymnasium; and that there is to be no fencing around the play area. The Director noted that there will still be fencing around the ball fields. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he was concerned with the children playing, and suggested speed signs within the parking lot. Staff replied that the Public Works Department did not determine a need for speed signs, but that they could refer it back to them. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the area by the pump building has been utilized as part of the park area. Staff replied that Community Services indicated their concerns that play should not be near the pump; that one of the concerns of the EIR was how close the aisle was to Prospect; and that the park was located farthest away from Prospect as possible to comply with the EIR. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:14 p.m. Marie Shultz, 17731 Westbury Lane, noted that she was delighted that the park is being developed; that she understood that there Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1990 Page 9 would be more park and parking areas where the drainage ditch is located; and asked how long the gymnasium had been in the plans. Susan Jones, Community Services, replied that the master plan for phase 2 began in 1982, and that the gymnasium has been in the plans from the beginning; that in 1987, the task force was reconvened and a public hearing was held for the neighbors to discuss the location; that the tot lot was located near the tennis courts for parent's convenience and for liability; and that the storm drain was completed 2-3 years ago. Ms. Shultz noted that she and her neighbor, Ross Hollins never received a notification of the change of plans; that her understanding of the original plans were that the play area would be located so that the police would have direct visibility; and asked how many picnic facilities there would be. Steve Lanq, designer for the park, noted that the picnic area would be an informal area with approximately five tables for use by the visitors to the play area or ball field. Ross Hollins, 17732 Westbury, noted that he was concerned with the traffic flow and the two driveways; that there have been several accidents at this location; that traffic should be directed towards Beneta; and asked if the new entrances differ from the current drives. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the entrance at Prospect is 27 feet wide, and Beneta is 26 feet wide; and asked if the driveway was in the same location. Mr. Lanq replied that there will be a slight divider for ingress and egress to make it safer; and that the driveway is located closer to the fields. Commissioner Baker noted that there used to be ingress and egress at separate locations and that they are now combining them. Staff replied that there will be a center median at the entry, and that there will be a required right-hand turn for exiting; that they wanted to minimize traffic on Beneta due to it being a residential street; and that the peak hour of use is not the peak hour of the street. Mr. Hollins noted his concern about traffic turning left onto Prospect; asked if the gym was for the joint use of the public and the school; asked if the land was being donated to the school or being maintained by the public; and if the gym would be open to the public on weekends and evenings. Ms. Jones replied that the City retains the possession of the gym, but that it is for use of the school; and that it would be available on weekends and evenings. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what the prospective date completion of the gym would be. for Ms. Jones replied that she did not know, but that it was to be addressed in the financing plans. Mr. Hollins asked if the funds have been appropriated for the park and asked when it would be completed. Ms. Jones replied that the funds for the park, parking lot and storm drain were allocated; and that construction would probably commence after Tiller Days in late October. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1990 Page 10 The Public Hearing was closed at 8:28 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what OCFCD stood for. Staff replied that it was Orange County Flood Control District. Commissioner Baker asked if there would be a sign or a physical barrier at the driveway on Prospect; and asked how the lighting of the park would be controlled. Staff replied that the median was not illustrated but was in the Conditions of the Exhibit. Mr. Lanq replied that they would be working with the Public Works Department to meet their requirements, but that they would be box type lights on low poles, directed downward; that they should be able to use the minimum required to provide for safety and security; and that it would be on a timer with minimum lighting remaining for police surveillance. Commissioner Kasparian asked about the notification of the people who take their children to school on Beneta Way. Staff replied that there may be people affected within the 300 feet that drive their children to school, but they have received no negative comments. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he was still not comfortable with the layout and suggested a proposed area to increase the picnic area; that he was not prepared to support Item 2 and asked if someone could look at this another way. Staff replied that this was the best alternative that they could create; that the EIR was a major factor in consideration of the layout; and that there were many constraints due to the drive aisle. Mr. Lang noted that the area being isolated is close to the street and that they did not want to encourage use of the area by children; that the gymnasium will be a buffer to the play area; that when the gym is in place it will not be easy to see around the pump building; and that liability was a concern and the landscaping is already in place. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he was suggesting additional parking spaces in that area. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, noted that if there is a redesign, they need to re-do and re-issue the EIR; that this could be done, but not without delaying the project; that regarding the Conditional Use Permit, they must consider the design and the impact on the neighbors; and that the issue is the compatibility with the surrounding uses. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he would understand better if the EIR indicated more substantive reasons for not providing parking in that area, but feels it is subjective, as it is. The Director noted that when the Environmental Document for the Town Center Redevelopment Project were adopted, there was a traffic engineer hired who made specific recommendations; that the task force was comprised of 12 individuals appointed by the City Council who explored the facility needs and alternatives; and that this is the best possible design at this point. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1990 Page 11 Commissioner Kasparian noted that he was not suggesting relocating the driveway, but that with redesign of the area they could utilize a lot more of the valuable land and still meet the requirements. The Director replied that the task force recommended passive use of the area near the pump station; that staff could follow up if the Commissioner chooses, but that there would be delays; and that staff feels that the evaluation is adequate. Commissioner Kasparian suggested that perhaps he did not understand the liability issue, but that he was not convinced. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the aisle spacing at the bottom of the drawing was too small. The Director noted that the area has a standard radius. The Public Hearing was re-opened at 8:45 p.m. Ms. Shultz noted that her living room and kitchen look out at the park; that the children never go through the pump station area and that there is no destruction; that there will be increased parking problems with the addition of the gymnasium and that a few more parking spaces would not hurt. The public hearing was closed at 8:46 p.m. Commissioner Baker asked if future EIR documents could add more spaces as the demand increases. Commissioner Kasparian replied that when the park area is built, it will not be changed. The Director noted that from the facility considerations, they would not be prepared to ask for modifications unless they ask for additional recommendations from the Community Services Department. Commissioner Kasparian asked how long that would take. Ms. Jones replied that it would go back to the citizens task force, parks and recreation, and the Planning Commission, which would take at least 2-3 months; and that the Commissioner should consider that this has been discussed by several groups with a lot of input; and that the engineering department and consultant have been working closely to determine safe flow patterns and adequate parking to accommodate all of the facilities. Commissioner Shaheen asked if after the gym is built, would it be possible to utilize the parking area as suggested by Commissioner Kasparian. Ms. Jones replied that may be possible, but they have currently provided adequate parking for the gymnasium. Commissioner Kasparian asked if they could not change it now, how could they in the future. Mr. Lang indicated that there would not be sufficient space to include a full parking bay; that they set up the parking to allow for an adequate drop-off area for the ball fields; and that by moving the parking area up 10-15 feet causes problems with circulation. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he felt it should remain the way it is so as not to interfere with parking near Beneta; that he does Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1990 Page 12 not want to hold up the project; and that he would rather have bushes and trees since they have more than adequate parking already. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded Environmental Determination for the project Resolution No. 2783. Motion carried 4-0. to approve the by adoption of Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 90-13 by adoption of Resolution No. 2784, as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. 6. Variance 90-03 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CRAIG BATLEY (RE/MAX REALTY) 17561 E. SEVENTEENTH STREET TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 MICHAEL PATIN 5418 SHANNON DRIVE YORBA LINDA, CA 92686 17561 E. SEVENTEENTH STREET PLANNED COMMUNITY - COMMERCIAL (PC-C) CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11), SECTION 15311 TO ALLOW A MONUMENT SIGN TO ENCROACH 10 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 15-FOOT BUILDING LINE SETBACK AND ON A 100-FOOT WIDE LOT WITH LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 150- FOOT STREET FRONTAGE. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance 90- 03 by adopting Resolution No. 2779, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the height of the sign would be lowered if the sign was dropped to eliminate the air space below it. Staff replied that the applicant could put a concrete base underneath it without lowering the height. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the drawing given to the Commission represented the Resolution. Staff replied that the building setback line is scaled correctly but that the graphic representation was off. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:06 p.m. Craig Batley, applicant, noted that his building was located between two large two-story buildings, which could be missed by anyone passing at 45 m.p.h.; that he is requesting a perpendicular sign to be in conformance with the area; that he will accept the recommendation of the staff, but would like the Commission to consider returning it to perpendicular; that all monument signs in the area are within 2-4 feet of the sidewalks; and that since this sign would be 15 feet back, the necessity that this sign be perpendicular is even greater. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that based on the drawings, he assumed it was a perpendicular sign. Staff replied that Condition 1.1 of the Resolution requires that the sign be re-oriented so that it is parallel; that the drawing is shown as the applicant proposed; that the north side of the 17th Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1990 Page 13 Street has not been widened to its ultimate width; and that the signs cited by the applicant are at a location where the street has been widened; and that the ultimate widening would be approximately 18 feet. The Director noted that widening of 17th Street is on the Right- of-Way map, but not on capital improvement plans. Commissioner Shaheen asked why staff is requiring a parallel sign. Staff replied that it was due to the site being unique and not being entitled to a monument sign; that this site and the adjacent site share a common driveway; that staff feels that it would create a more unified front with the neighbors with a parallel sign; and for safety due to possibility of blockage of vision on exiting the driveway. Commissioner Le Jeune asked the approximate square footage of the building. Mr. Batley replied that the building was 6,000 square feet. Commissioner Le Jeune commented on the small businesses on Yorba with monument signs and asked if the decision was based on zoning. Staff affirmed. The Director noted that Yorba is in the PR Zone which has separate development standards; this type of issue has created the most confusion within the Sign Ordinance, and that the new sign code will have more equity. Mr. Batley noted that the very reason that they are not allowed a perpendicular sign, is the very reason that they need one, namely the size of the building; that they are planning to lower the sign near ground level in conformity with the other monument signs on the street, which would lower the height by about one foot; that they have noted about 30 buildings that have parallel signs on a small frontage around the City; and that all of the signs along the street, except the one next door, are perpendicular. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the staff agrees that all of the signs are perpendicular. Staff affirmed that the majority are. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:15 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian noted that in addition to the fact that this building does not have frontage that permits signage, there is a telephone pole and a light standard that block the view of the building; and that with the applicant's concession to lower the sign, he would be agree to allow a perpendicular sign. Commissioner Shaheen agreed, and noted that due to their highly competitive business and the horrendous traffic on 17th Street, they were entitled to a decent sign. Commissioner Baker noted that he would agree if the applicant would lower the sign to four feet. Commissioner Kasparian motioned, Le Jeune seconded to approve Variance 90-03 by adopting Resolution No. 2779, revised as follows: Page 1, 1.1: remove the first sentence "The site plan shall be revised to show the proposed monument sign oriented parallel to the street and in alignment with the west wall of Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1990 Page 14 the structure"; and change the second sentence to "...pedestal base, and reduced in height by one (1) foot, to meet the zoning code definition of a monument sign." Motion carried 4-0. 7. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14110; Design Review 89-72 APPLICANT/ LANDOWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: LDM DEVELOPMENT 25241 PASEO DE ALICIA, #150 LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 LOTS 11, M, O & P OF TRACT 12870 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. 1. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE 4 NUMBERED AND 7 LETTERED LOTS FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES TO ACCOMMODATE 129 DWELLING UNITS. 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. 2780; and 2) Approve Design Review 89-72 by adopting Resolution No. 2781, as submitted or revised; and 3) Recommend City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14110 by adopting Resolution No. 2782, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christopher E. Jackson, Associate Planner Staff noted the applicant's concerns about having a privately owned and maintained sewer and water system and changed Resolution No. 2782, as moved. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that this was the first time that a request of this nature was brought to his attention; and asked if it was typical. Staff noted that the Irvine Company's concern was that with a privately owned and gated street they might not have access. Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of the driveway issues. Staff replied that cars overhanging onto their driveways inhibit flow; that the police department would like to have them all eliminated; and considering that there are only 13 out of 129 that violate the standards, the police department agreed to allow some that do not conform. Commissioner Baker asked if there was language that would require the homeowners association to police the matter. Staff replied that Item 9 (H) of Exhibit A of Resolution 2782 included the matter in the CC&Rs; and changed the last sentence, as moved. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the reason for the requirement of less than 9 and greater than 19 feet. Staff replied that between 9 and 19 feet there is a consciousness that the vehicle may be overhanging onto the sidewalk; and that Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1990 Page 15 because there are 13 driveways that are non-conforming, they do not want the tenants to park in them. Commissioner Kasparian asked where the trash receptacles were located. Staff identified five locations on the map; and that they have followed the standards of the steering committee for trash enclosures. The Director noted that based upon the advice of the City Attorney's office, Condition 3.9 was added to request that a letter be provided by Great Western Reclamation regarding handling of recycling measures, which will soon be implemented by Great Western. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the Statistical Summary in Exhibit A complied with the East Tustin Specific Plan for the distance between principal structures. The Director replied that there are two standards within the Specific Plan, one for attached single-family products and one for multi-family condominiums/apartments. Commissioner Kasparian noted that Item 1.7 should be added to the text of Item D of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2781; and Item G should be changed. The Director agreed and made the changes, as moved. Commissioner Kasparian noted that Item 5.6 of Exhibit A of Resolution 2782 did not apply to this project. The Director replied that there is a separate provision for apartments; that the project will have to be fully sprinkled, and made changes, as moved. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:45 p.m. Forest Dickason, representing LDM Development, noted that they were concerned about the trash pick up and reclamation; that they anticipate problems providing extra dumpsters for recycling; that he feels that the City's policy regarding the density requiring enclosures is flawed; that he feels that they would be much better off with individual pick ups; that Great Western has provided them a letter approving individual pick ups, but is not within the City's policy; and he feels that the City should re-evaluate. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there were trash enclosures at their other facility. Mr. Dickason replied negatively; noted that they are higher income condominiums by the golf course; that enclosures are something associated with apartment densities; that people at apartments do not have two-car garages that can accommodate trash barrels. Jon Bassman, Denelian Associates, noted that recycling was a future issue that the City would have to deal with; that a dumpster program might be devised, but that there will always be a few parties who do not comply; and that a code enforcement detection system would be difficult to enforce with a dumpster facility. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:51 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the trash enclosures would preclude the residents from separating their trash. Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1990 Page 16 The Director replied negatively; and noted that on the other LDM project, the finance director granted an exception; and noted that there are cost justifications for the homeowners and the trash company; that all of the issues were explored with the trash company; and that the matter was taken to the City Council East Tustin Policy Committee who established criteria under which individual pick ups in multi-family projects would be permitted; all issues were fully explored and they have developed a policy resolution in conjunction with the Irvine Company that is passed onto the builders; the project would have to be under ten dwelling units per acre to be granted an exception; that if they are to open the entire East Tustin area to individual can pick up, they have to open up the Franchise Agreement, and they are not prepared to do so at this time; they are aware of the recycling issues; they will not be recommending individual can pick up; and that staff would not have the ability to waive from the policy as provided by direction of the City Council. Commissioner Kasparian asked how much area was being committed for the enclosures; and if they can be used for pick up of recyclables. Mr. Dickason replied that there are two (2) enclosures that are 10x20 feet and three (3) are 10x18 feet. Mr. Bassman replied that he could not comment on the adequacy of the enclosures for recycling. The Director replied that Great Western will provide a letter to the developer at Plan Check stage indicating their requirements. Commissioner Kasparian asked about sidewalks along the perimeter. Mr. Dickason replied that there will be sidewalks. Commissioner Baker motioned, Le Jeune seconded to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2780 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker motioned, Le Jeune seconded to approve Design Review 89-72 by adopting Resolution No. 2781 revised as follows: Page 2, 2.1, D should read "...1.5, 1.6, and 1.7..." Page 2, 2.1, G: after "a maximum of 45 dBa's" add a period and remove from "and that the" to "55 dBa's." Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker motioned, Le Jeune seconded to recommend City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14110 by adoption of Resolution No. 2782 revised as follows: Page 2, 1.5, C: First sentence shall be removed. Second sentence: "Terminal sewer manholes shall be provided at property line, plus master water metering at both entryways." should be moved up to Paragraph A to be the last sentence. Page 6, 5.6: Change paragraph to read: "A manual and automatic fire alarm system and fire sprinklers shall be installed as required by the 1988 Uniform Fire Code Section, as amended." Page 9, H.: Last sentence "9 to 15 feet in length." should be changed to read "9 to 19 feet in length." Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS Public Works - Status of Red Curbing at Newport Avenue and Andrews Street. Presentation: Public Works Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1990 Page 17 9. Grading Manual Presentation: Christine A. Development Shingleton, Director of Community Received and filed. NEW BUSINESS 10. Capital Improvement Program - General Plan Conformity RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2786 finding that the 1990-1991 Capital Improvement Program conforms to the City of Tustin General Plan. Presentation: Christine A. Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Kasparian asked if item 10 was regarding the Council Chambers; in item 30, what reconstruction of interlocking pavers meant; about the status of the City entrance signs; and if the four inch water lines were being replaced due to being defective. The Director replied negatively to item 10; that since the pavers are set in sand, and since some settling occurs, some places need reconstruction; that construction will begin within 30 days at the East Tustin entrances; and that the water lines are being brought up to state of the art. The Director also noted that there would be a budget session on June 12 at 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2786 finding that the 1990-91 Capital Improvement Program conforms to the City of Tustin General Plan. Motion carried 4-0. STAFF CONCERNS 11. Report on Actions taken at June 4, 1990 City Council Meeting. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Development Director of Community Received and filed. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Kasparian -Expressed concern about the loose bench on Seventeenth Street. The Director advised that the Public Works Department has been advised of this condition. -Asked about a hotel being built in the East Tustin Development Agreement. Staff advised that the original agreement requires a hotel. -Encouraged staff to have Sign Code meeting in month of June. Commissioner Shaheen -Asked about the status of 2 story apartment complex on Pasadena. Director advised that there had been a meeting between the developer and the residents on Thursday, June 7, 1990. Director also advised that no agreement had been reached. The matter would be presented to the City Council at the regularly scheduled June 18, 1990 meeting. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 1990 Page 18 At 10:15 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune motioned, Baker seconded to adjourn meeting to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on June 25, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Motion carried 4-0. 'P~nni Foley Secretary