Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-29-90MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 29v 1990 C/~LL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: PRESENT: 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 14, 1990 Planning Commission Meetinq 2. Parcel Map 88-316 APPLICANT/ OWNER: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN MINISTERIAL EXEMPTION REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE LOTS IN TRACT 12870 TO CREATE TWO NEW NUMBERED LOTS. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2776 recommending approval by the City Council of Final Parcel Map 88-316. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development 3. Extension of Variance 88-10 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: SYCAMORE GARDENS HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION 14802 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 SYCAMORE GARDENS STOCK CO-OPERATIVE 14802 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 14802 NEWPORT AVENUE, TUSTIN R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301(a) (d) AND (k) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. APPROVAL OF A 90 DAY EXTENSION OF VARIANCE 88-10 TO AUGUST 14, 1990. Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 1990 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2775, approving a 90 day extension of Variance 88-10. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Associate Planner 4. Final Tract Maps 13701 and 13990 APPLICANT/ OWNER: AKINS DEVELOPMENT 5 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 400 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 LOCATION: LOTS 1, 2 A, B AND C OF TRACT 12870 ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY, EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 34.5 ACRES INTO 161 NUMBERED LOTS AND 25 LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 161 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2777, as submitted or revised, forwarding Final Tract Maps 13701 and 13990 to the City Council recommending approval. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked that the issue on Planning Commission concerns related to public noticing be referred to the City Council. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve consent calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 5. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188; Design Review 89-82; Variance 90-08 APPLICANT/ LANDOWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: STANDARD PACIFIC, L.P. 1565 WEST MACARTHUR BOULEVARD COSTA MESA, CA 92626 MORSE CONSULTING GROUP 4860 IRVINE BOULEVARD, SUITE 201 IRVINE, CA 92720-1999 LOTS 5 AND H OF TRACT 12870 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. REQUEST: 1. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE 57 NUMBERED AND 4 LETTERED LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. 2. APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 3. APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 3.6.3, SUBSECTION A.2a), RELATING TO FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 1990 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2765; 2. Approve Design Review 89-82 by adopting Resolution No. 2766, as submitted or revised; 3. Deny Variance 90-08 by adopting Resolution No. 2771, as submitted or revised. 4. Recommend City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 by adopting Resolution No. 2767, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the requirements for sprinkler systems on lots 6, 16, and 17; asked if the protection would be residential sprinklers; and why only these three lots were affected. Staff replied that Resolution No. 2767, page 5, Item 5.3 refers to fire sprinklers; that the requirement was a condition set by the fire department; that lot 17 especially required the sprinklers due to the shape of the lot and its access; and that lots 6 and 7 may be required to have sprinklers due to an easement. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he felt that Section 791371 regarding garages and carports was wrong and would be defeating the intent of a setback; and that he did not think it was a valid representation of the Commission's intent. Staff replied that the wording was part of the applicant's justification for the variance; she also noted that there were two (2) changes of language in the staff report, as moved. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:16 p.m. Kirk Watilo, 2331 Pavilion Drive, noted that his property is near the lots affected by the construction; that with the original plans the residents had questions regarding the slopes and setbacks; that he questioned the drainage and if there would be a buffer in the way of a horse trail; and asked if there would be wrought iron fencing or block wall along the new property lines. Staff noted that there is a five (5) foot wide easement with a concrete drainage ditch; the property line of lot 5 is on the upward side of the easement, but that the ditch would be separated from the new property owners by a block wall. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the old fences would be removed. Staff replied that there are mostly chain link fences, and did not know if the applicant intends to replace them, or not. Shirley Jensen, 2325 Pavilion Drive, noted that her property backs up to lots 6, 7 and possibly 8; that she is very concerned about drainage; that the ditch was replaced about two years ago, and was originally about twice as large; that she has contacted the Irvine Company numerous times after a rain because it completely floods her yard; and that the current ditch will not be sufficient. Staff replied that there were hydrology studies done which took into account all of the water coming off the slopes and the streets above, and that the new drainage system will address those. Commissioner Baker asked for specifics regarding the water flows. Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 1990 Page 4 Scott Stowell, project manager Standard Pacific, noted that the new drainage proposal gets re-routed at lot 26 into a pipe within the tract at lot 17; it then goes to lot 6 and is taken into a culvert; it is then taken into the storm drain system. He felt that drainage problems from the past will be diverted and handled. Mrs. Jensen noted that if the problem is not totally corrected, the water will continue to drain into her yard; and asked what her recourse would be. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, noted that it behooves the applicant should work closely with Mrs. Jensen, and monitor the drainage system. Mr. Stowell noted that the facility is located on a lettered lot; it is owned by the homeowners association who has a direct means of access and has a responsibility to maintain it; that there are 13 expensive homes that could also be affected by the drainage and that it is in the best interest of the homeowners association and Standard Pacific to maintain it. Commissioner Kasparian asked if there would be a "Y" junction to divert some of the water to an existing channel. Mr. Stowell replied that all upstream water from lot 17 will be diverted; that the ditch will then pick up any slope runoff; that there is a 24" pipe behind lot 15 to drain the upper cul-de-sac on Pavilion; and that the water is then picked up at lot 6 and taken underground. Commissioner Kasparian noted that part of Mrs. Jensen's problem could be from water coming from the upper street. Mr. Stowell noted that most of the water is outletting to natural ground, but will not have the same opportunity to spread. Mr. Watilo noted that it would have been nice to have a walking or bike trail between the homes, but he sees that they have not been included; and that they assumed that the whole drainage system would be underground. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a description of the facility and who would maintain it. Mr. Stowell replied that there will be a concrete structure that will terminate at a culvert which will be covered by a cone; that the maintenance would be ensuring that the cone is clear to prevent backup of water; maintenance would be ongoing and routine. Commissioner Kasparian noted that the design seems to be more than adequate, but that if it is not maintained then Mrs. Jensen should take up the matter with the homeowners association. Mr. Stowell noted that in lot 6 where there is an easement for maintenance of the drainage facility, there is an overflow which would divert the water onto the new streets. Mrs. Jensen noted that before the new lots were excavated her property was higher, but that it is now level; asked what would now stop the water from flowing onto her property. Mr. Stowell noted that they intend to lower the lot directly behind her property. Mrs. Jensen asked how much lower they intend to make the new lots. Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 1990 Page 5 Commissioner Baker referred to a problem that occurred previously at Browning and Bryan and noted that the Irvine Company did a tremendous job on the channel. skip Shultz, civil engineer for Standard Pacific, noted that the pad would be approximately 1 1/2 to 2 feet below existing ground; that the natural lot is sloping away; all properties would be draining towards the ditch; and that the top of the ditch would in all cases be lower than the existing property owners. Commissioner Baker asked if all existing properties would be draining into the ditch. Mr. Shultz affirmed; noted that the ditch is sized to accommodate a 100 year storm; that the existing ditch outlets adjacent to her lot may be causing the flooding; and that they will hopefully mitigate any problems. Mrs. Jensen noted that she felt that her property was currently higher than the ditch; noted that if the water is rising now, and that the new lots would be raised, that does not help her problem. Mr. Shultz clarified his comments by stating that the lots would be lower than the natural ground now. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if they foresaw any problems with the new drainage system. Mr. Shultz replied that they did not see any problems, now. Judy Almquist, 2281 Pavilion Drive, noted that her property backs up to lot 5; she thanked Standard Pacific and the Tustin Community Development Department for their cooperation in working with the homeowners in the area. She noted her concerns about the shrubbery behind the homes, including their type; the existing ditch would have to be reconstructed, and they are not sure where the lot lines are; that they have a lot of foliage which acts as a guard; that she is concerned about the CC&R's regarding addition of a second story to the single story homes. Her main concern was the height of the single story homes on lot 5; that they have a view of the hill which provides extenuating circumstances; the height of the homes on lots 14, 15, 16, and 17 are at the lowest point on the existing lots; it sets a precedent for homes on the flat land on future sections; and then she passed out information that was compiled to clarify her issues. She then proceeded to dispute the letter of 2/13/90 from Norm Smith, Vice President of Land Development for Foothill Community Builders, mostly noting that the homes are not all 30 years old, many are much newer, and that the facts regarding height comparisons of single story homes in the area were incorrect. Glen Almquist, 2281 Pavilion Drive, noted that their main concern was the height of the homes; passed out a photo collage of the homes questioned in the letter presented by Mrs. Almquist; reviewed the photo presentation with an overlay indicating the heights of the proposed buildings were at 25 feet high; noted that the homes do not average 30 years; that 23 feet for a single story home is excessive for economical reasons; and that 19 foot vaulted ceilings are very high. He also noted that the three (3) homes adjacent to them should be compatible; that they propose a maximum height of 18-20 feet from the pad; and requested that Standard Pacific consider rotating the homes 90 degrees so that the existing residents do not have to look at the long side of the building. Janine Harmon, 12232 Ranchwood, asked how the maintenance crew would access the ditch. Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 1990 Page 6 Staff replied that at lot 6 there is a permanent easement that could be accessed by maintenance people on foot with a wheelbarrow; that the channel will be configured with a flat bottom; and that gates will be provided. Mrs. Harmon questioned the ability of a man on foot to deal with cracks caused by an earthquake or roots. Staff replied that the five (5) foot permanent access is for routine maintenance; that, for major damage, there is an easement varying from 15 to 25 feet along the ditch; that the purchaser of the lot will be aware of the easement and machinery will be able to move along it; that there is a wrought iron fence that can be easily removed to allow equipment into the ditch area. Mrs. Harmon noted that the original intent of the height of the buildings was clearly understood; that even though there was not a height restriction set at that time, they felt that the Planning Commission and the City Council understood the need for compatibility; that 23 feet is not compatible; that the Commission sets a precedent each time a new tract map is approved; that the Commission needs to be compassionate and understand that the existing residents are going from gorgeous open space to accepting development. Mr. Stowell noted that 1) they understand the staff's recommended denial for the variance, but they believe their request to be valid; that their goal is to provide diversity; that the specific plan did not adequately handle turn-in garages. 2) they concur with staff's condition to include the paseo; but that the paseo might encourage mid-lot crossing to the school and that their consultant concurred. 3) Resolution No. 2766, Condition 3.1 B: they feel that the condition is not customary and will not provide desired results; that it will provide a constraint to the homeowner; that they do not feel that the homeowners will like looking at the stairs and that they might tear them out, thereby wasting the cost incurred; and that if this condition cannot be deleted, they would like it changed to be required on 10 feet or greater. 4) He noted that they are sensitive to the Almquist's and others' opinions; that they did not design the houses for volume, but included flat ceilings; they are 4,000 square foot homes with a minimum pitch of 4 and 12; they have revised the homes down to 23 feet from 25 feet; they have maximized the rear yard setbacks on 15, 16, and 17; and that they designed the roofs to be less massive which increases the amount of viewable area between the homes. The feel that they have met and exceeded the criteria of the specific plans in every case; they have larger lots and setbacks, and have complied with guidelines; and that height was not a specific criteria, but they have tried to be sensitive. Commissioner Kasparian noted that there was a minimum pitch on the roof, and asked if the ceiling height was minimum. Mr. Stowell replied that the height of the ceilings were 11-12 feet in large rooms to provide as much light as possible; that a roof that is too low in such a large room would appear to enclose the occupants; and that it is inconsistent with the architecture of today. Mrs. Harmon asked what size the room was that required an 11 foot ceiling. Staff replied that the kitchen/dining/family room is roughly 46 feet; there were no devising walls, but there may be three foot high counters; and that the widths were 16-18 feet. Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 1990 Page 7 Commissioner Kasparian noted that a 40 foot long room with an 8 foot high ceiling would be like looking through a tunnel. Mr. Almquist asked for a clarification of 4 and 12 pitch in relation to the dimensions of the houses. Staff replied the plans for these houses were actually almost 70 feet x 70 feet square. Mr. Stowell noted that there are other single story homes in the area that are 22.7 feet. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the square footages compare to that of the new homes. Mrs. Almquist noted that their homes are approximately 4,000 square feet; and if there are homes that are 22 feet, then another study should be done; and that when comparing the compatibility of setbacks they are on 1/2 and 3/4 acres lots with large rear setbacks. The Director noted that it might be helpful for staff to clarify the staff's basis for height criteria; that there was a letter provided by the company, but that since they did not agree with all of the points made in the letter, staff did their own evaluation. Staff noted that they responded on March 8 with their own evaluation; that the original purpose of the survey was to identify heights of buildings abutting lot 5 and to identify structures of similar height and volume of structures proposed. The applicant initially proposed 25 feet; a lot was done to eliminate roof area; that the structure adjacent to the Almquist's is 22 feet with an average height of 17 feet; and that the Plan 3 home, at 23 feet, has an average height of 17.5 feet. Commissioner Kasparian asked for the location of the Almquist home on Exhibit C. Staff noted that it was the "L-shaped" lot, and it is divided by the property line of lots 15 and 16. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification about the possibility of modifying single story homes for a second story. Mr. Stowell replied that within the CC&R's they will restrict anyone from adding a second story to a single-story home; and that the homeowners association has architectural standards and a committee that would prohibit it. The Director noted that staff would add a condition for the CC&R's. Commissioner Kasparian asked about the paseo being a possible walkthrough for school children. Staff replied that the City Traffic Engineer felt that a paseo at that point would allow better access to the public facilities outside of the site; that Rollings Way ends at a T-intersection at Township; that cars would be stopping at that point; that a crosswalk could be placed at the north side of Rollings Way, which would not be considered mid-block. Commissioner Kasparian asked if staff was satisfied that this would not propose a hazard. Staff affirmed. Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 1990 Page 8 The Public Hearing was closed at 8:25 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a clarification of the requirement to provide access to 36 inch slopes; if this was for general areas or private, as well; and for slopes greater than 36 inches high, would someone have to be able to walk across the top. Staff replied that it would be required within backyards; that they are concerned about maintenance of slopes that are 10-12 feet; that it is easier to traverse across from the top; and that it would be an access device to the top. The Director noted that stairs may seem awkward, but that a variety of mechanisms would be allowed just to ensure access for maintenance. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that three (3) feet was only waist high. The Director noted that the slopes could be at a much greater height within one yard, with an average height of 36 inches; and that they are looking for grading concepts on the plans which the applicant will provide at the point of precise grading. Commissioner Shaheen asked how wide the top of the slopes were. Staff noted that the width varies depending on the location. The Director noted that the condition was a standard condition on other projects within East Tustin. Commissioner Baker asked if this requirement was for a typical slope. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if this requirement has been applied before and if the homeowners could use other mechanisms. The Director noted that the steps could be stepping stones; and that slopes are sometimes modified by the homeowners. Commissioner Shaheen noted that several Planning Commissioners met with the residents; that the main concern was backyard visibility, which seems to be resolved; that 3-5 inches will not make a significant difference; that drainage has been resolved; that there needs to be a diversity in designs; that he does not think that the new homes will detract from the value of the existing homes; and that he does not see a valid objection to the proposal. Commissioner Baker asked for a response on the request for a variance. The Director replied that there are provisions within the Specific Plan dealing with turn-in garages, but not within this land use designation; and that the applicant desires creation of a larger street-scape in this area which staff cannot support due to required variance findings. Commissioner Baker asked if they have given up a few feet on lot 15 and 16 at the bulb at the end of the cul-de-sac. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Kasparian felt that there was nothing to warrant an additional eight (8) feet; that moving the garages would be detractive; that from the point of origin, there has been a Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 1990 Page 9 considerable improvement in appearance; and that the developer has done more than his share in considering the view of the existing homeowners. Commissioner Baker noted that he felt a compromise should be considered on the slope height; asked if the slope warranty would be in effect; and asked what the maximum slope would be. The Director replied that this tract was not within the hillside district and there would be no slope warranty; that the slopes can be up to about 10 feet; and suggested that the staff would consider five (5) feet as an alternative. Commissioner Le Jeune received a consensus for changing the requirement from three (3) feet to five (5) feet or higher. Commissioner Baker asked if it was the developer who decides what mechanism the homeowner should utilize. The Director affirmed. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the slopes would be in the backyards and not up the walls contiguous to the other homes. Staff affirmed; and noted that the greatest slope occurs at the north end and is 15 feet. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that enough concessions have been made. Commissioner Baker asked if the houses could not encroach within the 30 foot setbacks. The Director affirmed; but clarified that the plate height limit on lots 15, 16, and 17 provided further limitations. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to approve the Environmental Determination by adopting Resolution No. 2765 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to approve Design Review 89-82 by adopting Resolution No. 2766, Exhibit A, as revised: 1) Item D, should be changed to read: "...Conditions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8..." 2) Item 3.1 B should be changed to read: "All sloped areas greater than five (5) feet high..." 3)Item 4.1 delete item B and renumber. 4) Item 5.1 should read: "Payment of all fees is required in accordance with Condition..." Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner KasDarian moved, Shaheen seconded to deny Variance 90- 08 by adopting Resolution No. 2771 as submitted. Commissioner KasDarian moved, Baker seconded to recommend the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 by adopting Resolution No. 2767 as revised by adding: R) No second story addition shall be permitted on lots 6 through 17. S) All additions on lots 15, 16, and 17 shall meet the required minimum 30 foot rear yard setback, and no addition shall be higher than the plate height of the main structure. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 1990 Page 10 6. Conditional Use Permit 90-12 APPLICANT: DIKRAN YAZMACIYAN CAFE LE PALMIER OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: 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 lICENSE) IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT USE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 90-12 by adopting Resolution No. 2774, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christopher E. Jackson, Associate Planner Commissioner Baker asked if this restaurant was in the same location as the Greek Restaurant; and noted that with approval of the Greek Restaurant they allowed off-site liquor purchases. Staff replied that it was within the same center. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a verification of this issue; and recommended continuation to the next meeting. Staff asked if the concern was related to the off-site sale. Commissioner Baker affirmed. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of "off-site" sales. Staff replied that it would allow a customer to purchase a bottle of wine or beer to be consumed off-site. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the guidelines require restriction of off-site sales within 300 feet. Commissioner Baker asked if this had to be noticed if they continued it to the next meeting. Staff replied negatively. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to continue Conditional Use Permit 90-12 to the June 11, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS 7. Development Status Report Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner No Planning Commission action necessary. Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 1990 Page 11 NEW BUSINESS 8. Appeal of Design Review 90-17 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION FAT FREDDIE'S RESTAURANT 1571 EL CAMINO REAL TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 EDGAR PANKEY 2915 BRISTOL COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 1571 EL CAMINO REAL C-2, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1 AUTHORIZATION OF A PINK COLORED AWNING TO REPLACE A PREVIOUSLY EXISTING TURQUOISE COLORED AWNING. It is recommended that the Planning Commission affirm staff's denial of Design Review 90-17 by adoption of Resolution No. 2778; as submitted or revised. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked what the approximate installation was. date of Staff replied that it was installed approximately 8 or 9 months ago. Mr. Steve Zeno, co-owner, noted that the awning has been up for 11 months; that when they installed it they were unaware that they needed a permit to change the color; that they installed this color because it creates a happy tone that is consistent with the restaurant; that their customers like it; that the old one was badly in need of repair; that it cost $6,000 to install it; and that it looks beautiful to him. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the additional neon was added without a permit; and if they were unaware that a permit was required. Mr. Zeno replied that the sign company that installed it used the same neon, but some different words; and requested that he be allowed some time if the Commission requires him to change the awning as they do not have the funds to purchase a new one at this time. Commissioner Le Jeune inquired as to the whereabouts of the turquoise awning. Mr. Zeno replied that it was badly damaged and unpresentable; and that with the new awning he was trying to improve the atmosphere of the area. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what material was used in the new awning. Mr. Zeno replied that it was a canvas with a coating on the outside. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he does not care for the color, and, moreover, that he feels it has faded considerably in the past year. Commissioner Shaheen asked for a clarification of the photograph presented to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 1990 Page 12 The Director noted that the turquoise awning was originally approved; that the applicant was asked in August to address the issue; that staff have been pursuing a Code Enforcement action for the last 8 or 9 months and not received any response; they finally received a letter and application in late April and scheduled the item for the Planning Commission as soon as possible. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if they went from November to April without a response. The Director affirmed. Commissioner Baker noted that they were aware of it last August. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he felt that does not fit the building; and that they already have a lot of exceptions with the neon and the pole sign. Commissioner Baker asked what the alternatives were: could he suggest a different color, or could he remove it entirely; and that the applicant noted that it was an economically difficult time. Staff noted that the building was approved with the turquoise awning so he needs a new design review application to remove it. The Director noted that if the Commission upholds the decision, they could give him a period of time to comply with the decision; if he decides to remove it, they could accept it without a new design review fee. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he felt since there are turquoise appointments on the building, he could go back to turquoise, and he prefers to insist on it instead of working with four or five different colors that might be similar to rose. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if this would go on to the City Council. The Director replied that the Commission's decision was final on a design review appeal. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to deny Design Review 90-17 by adoption of Resolution 2778 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. STAFF CONCERNS The Director advised that the Commissioners had been provided with the formats for the Standard Conditions of Approval and Resolutions and she would like their comments within one week. 9. Report on Actions taken at May 21, 1990 City Council Meeting. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Received and filed. Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 1990 Page 13 COI, I~ZBBZON CONCERNS Commissioner Kasparian -Asked about the required restriping of Andrews and Newport as result of the shopping center project. Staff advised that Public Works Department has been advised and that parking is limited, due to the construction, and restriping would be done at the conclusion of the construction and that they will again refer this to the Public Works Department. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a member of the Public Works Department to attend the next Planning Commission meeting to respond to his concerns. -Expressed his concern about the sign problem, wanted to know if we could get full time enforcement. The Director advised that this is being addressed, a request for a full-time code enforcement officer has been submitted for the next budget and that it will be presented to the City Council within the next few weeks. She also stated that at this time the southwest portion of the City was receiving priority and enforcement is being handled on a complaint basis. She further advised that Staff is currently working on a sign ordinance. -Asked about the legality of shopping centers with shared parking where tenants are putting their names and time limits on parking spaces. The Director replied that the Code is silent on the matter. Where there is a problem during certain times of the day, staff has authorized some time limit or tenant restrictions on certain projects. Commissioner Baker -Wanted to know if we could limit the use of Canvas/temporary type signs. Commissioner Shaheen -Advised that there is still a problem at 2371 Apple Street, dumping of paint in driveway, Mercedes parked on side with weeds growing around it, paint being stored next to vehicle. Staff advised that a reinspection would be conducted. -Asked about the status of the Cosmopolitan Apartments. The Director advised that we are sending out a Notice and Order at this time, advising of the violations and laying out corrections needed and specific time frame for the corrections to be completed. Commissioner Le Jeune -Stated that he noticed many time limits on parking spaces and does not think it is appropriate. The Director advised that the issue would be addressed in the parking ordinance. -Asked if Budget Workshop had begun and is it open to the public. The Director advised that the preliminary workshop is scheduled for June 4, 1990, 5:00 p.m. and is open to the public. -Asked when the next meeting of the Downtown Historical Society was scheduled and if someone had a complaint to whom do they appeal. The Director replied that the Committee does meet on a regular schedule. Complaints and appeals are however referred to the Planning Commission, not the Cultural Resources Advisory Committee. -Advised that Allways Space still has barbed wire and extensive use of temporary banners. Commissioner Baker -Announced that the Chamber Mixer is this Thursday, May 31, 1990, 5:30 p.m., at Sanwa Bank, 701 E. First Street. Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 1990 Page 14 ADJOURNMENT At 9:30 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to adjourn meeting to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on June 11, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Motion carried 4-0. Penni ~j~ey J Secret~ry cD~.~rlmdanLe'~'e~n~ ~ ~