Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-30-90MINUTES TUST~'N PLANN'FNG CONM'rfJf~'rON REGULJ~R MEETING APRIL 30, 3.990 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL PRESENT: Le Jeune, Baker, Kasparian, Shaheen 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 April 9, 1990 Planning Commission Meetinq Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the subject regarding public noticing was scheduled for a future agenda. The Director replied that there will be an informational memorandum forthcoming regarding this subject. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Temporary Use Permit 90-3 APPLICANT: AUTOMATE 14402 RED HILL AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: EUGENE F. TUTT P.O. BOX 461 TUSTIN, CA 92680 14042 RED HILL AVENUE C-1 - RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX (6) MONTHS RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the subject Temporary Use Permit by Minute Order. Presentation: Anne Bonner, Planning Technician Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the property behind the station had been torn down, and if the station was to be removed in the future. Planning Commission Minutes April 30, 1990 Page 2 Staff replied that the adjacent structure had been taken down, and that the station will remain but they will lose the pole sign. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:05 p.m. Mr. H. G. Cooper, president of Automate, noted that the pole has had their name on it for almost 10 years; that with it being 75 feet high it was the tallest in Orange County; that thousands pass it daily; that it is a substantial sales tax generator; that 20- 25% of their business is due to the sign; that since the removal of the sign, they have had numerous calls daily asking if they are still in business; and that they have a letter from Cal Trans intimating that they could "grandfather" the sign to another part of the property. Also, that there is a property condemnation hearing set for next September; that the property owner does not have enough funds to put up another sign; that the burden of responsibility lies with Cal Trans; that they paid for a sign with the lease; that they should not have to put up $10-20,000 for the installation of a new sign; and that they would like a six (6) month extension for the temporary sign until such time that they determine the intent of Cal Trans and the property owner. Commissioner Shaheen asked why they needed six (6) months; and asked the staff why they were only recommending 90 days. Mr. Cooper replied that six (6) months is the longest that the Commission will grant an extension for; that when the gas station closes, the applicant intends to take over the whole property; and that at this time they do not have any freeway oriented signage. Staff replied that only the property owner would be receiving any settlement money; that staff has not seen a special agreement between the applicant and the property owner; and that he is able to apply for a permanent wall sign. Commissioner Shaheen asked if it was correct that whether the Commission granted three (3) months or six (6) months, the applicant would be installing his own wall sign. The Director replied affirmatively. Commissioner Kasparian asked if it was reasonable to expect the applicant to submit plans for the sign he expects to install after the Cal Trans construction is completed; and he asked if the difference between three (3) and six (months) approval meant that the applicant would have to apply a second time. Staff replied that the applicant wishes to submit plans after the Cal Trans work is completed; however, that staff believes the applicant can proceed with the sign prior to Cal Trans action and has determined that three (3) months is a reasonable time for the applicant to have plans drawn up. Commissioner Baker noted that the entire construction project along the freeway has been a problem; that he thinks six (6) months would be acceptable; but that he does not care for a tall pole sign. Mr. Cooper noted that the September hearing was applicant but with the property owner; and that permanent sign as soon as possible, not a banner. not with the they want a Commissioner Le Jeune asked what type of permanent sign they wanted. Planning Commission Minutes April 30, 1990 Page 3 Mr. Cooper replied that they would like the largest sign that the City would approve. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the applicant felt that Cal Trans suggested that a grandfather clause would permit them to reinstall a 75 foot pole sign. Mr. Cooper affirmed that their original understanding was that the sign would be taken down and moved to another location. The Director noted that she believed that the pole sign (billboard) had been previously denied a Variance for relocation on the same site; that the City has written correspondence from Cal Trans indicating that the sign (billboard) did not meet the 500 foot setback requirements from a landscaped freeway; and that Cal Trans verbally represented to the City that they would not support the pole sign unless the City did. Mr. Cooper noted that they have never received any correspondence from the City or Cal Trans regarding this information. The Director replied that the property owner applied for a variance request on the property over 12 months ago. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the applicant felt that three (3) months was an inadequate amount of time to submit plans for the new building sign. Mr. Cooper replied that one of the reasons for the six months extension is financial. Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification from staff on the financial issue. The Director replied that any financial hardship incurred by the business for replacement of the sign or loss of goodwill would be negotiated by Cal Trans with the property owner and would be unlikely that Cal Trans would be negotiating directly with the leaseholder. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:22 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian noted that even though it might cost the applicant additional money, he would have to apply twice, anyway; and that he felt that three (3) months was adequate. Commissioner Baker asked if the applicant would be negotiating with Cal Trans between now and September. Commissioner Shaheen stated that he felt that there was no reason to deny the applicant the six (6) month extension; and that by limiting the approval to three (3) months would they be forcing the applicant to install a permanent sign. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to approve Temporary Use Permit 90-3 for six (6) months by minute order. Motion carried 3- 1, Kasparian opposed. 3. Use Permit 90-08 APPLICANT: FERIDOUN REZAI 203 TROJAN STREET Planning Commission Minutes April 30, 1990 Page 4 OWNER: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: ANAHEIM, CA 92804 SAME 15642 PASADENA AVENUE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUEST: APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY, 11 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON A PARCEL THAT IS ADJACENT TO AN R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) LOT AND WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. RECOMMENDATION - Pleasure of the Planning Commission. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Associate Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the shadow study was equivalent to a worst case shadow. Staff replied that the model made the profile of the building worse than normal and that the example is perhaps the biggest shadow that would possibly be cast for the two dates indicated, but that the study did not truly evaluate the impacts on all properties. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the types of trees proposed for the eastern elevation. Staff replied that evergreens would be installed for year-round screening. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Phillip Schwartz, representative for Mr. Rezai, noted that they prepared revisions to the architecture; did shade and shadow studies based on the worst case of summer and winter; and that installation of trees would alter the shading. He also rebutted the claim that property values would decrease; noted that they have done their best to mitigate the issues; and asked for an opportunity to rebut any forthcoming comments. Paul Zukowsky, 15641 Myrtle, noted that even though the Carl's Jr. sign would have no direct impact on any residents, the Commission disallowed a height increase, whereas, this issue affects a lot of people; that the residents submitted a petition of 60 signatures; he asked if laws were to protect the criminal or persons violated; he asked if the zoning laws were to protect the planners or the citizens; he asked how the decision was reached that allowed this conditional use permit to be granted. He quoted City Code 9291(c) regarding use Permits and noted that the petition shows that morals, comfort and general welfare are at stake; that the photographs presented were taken with a deceptive lens to make the new building look farther away from the property lines; that even with removal of the end bedroom they still have a monstrosity to look at; that the project is not in conformance with the rest of the neighborhood; that the project affects the residents of the entire neighborhood, that the project would be setting a precedent in the area; if the same number of people had turned out for the original public hearing, this building would have never been approved. Ms. Kathleen Arnold, 15631 Myrtle, is opposed to this project, and read the ordinance regarding this type of construction. She asked how this Conditional Use Permit was permitted; the buildings are injurious and detrimental to their property; that they cannot use their backyards as they have no privacy; that the dumpsters are proposed at the back fence and will be noisy early in the morning Planning Commission Minutes April 30, 1990 Page 5 when the trucks empty them, and there will be odors and flies since the covers will not always be closed; that they have no view now; that their living rooms look directly out into their backyards; that the apartments will lower their property values; that modification to the units are not acceptable, and that the entire buildings should be demolished and started over. John Landolfi, 15661 Myrtle, noted that he could not understand how this project could be allowed to be put up; that a drive-by view of the units from the neighborhood was not enough, he offered the Commission an opportunity to view the buildings themselves; the buildings should be cut down to one story to complement the rest of the neighborhood. Sandra Zukowsky, 15641 Myrtle, offered Commissioner Shaheen (who was absent at the previous meeting) photographs of the views from their residences. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there was a copy of the petition for the Commissioners' review. The Director replied that they had one in the files. Ms. Zukowsky noted that she felt that the planning department did not have the resident's best interest in mind in March 1989; noted that she felt that this project was in violation of Tustin Zoning Code 9291. She asked if zoning codes are permitted to be violated, who would protect her family and the residents of Tustin, and where would the Commission draw the line for future applicants. She felt that the applicant's proposed changes were insulting; and that she would like to see this project reconstructed to conform to the rest of the neighborhood. Kathleen Arnold, spoke for Laconda Mitchell: Ms. Mitchell is very angry. She feels that the builder has invaded her privacy. She cannot open her shades and blinds without viewing the horrible monstrosity ten (10) feet from her wall, she has not had a decent night's sleep since its construction. She recommended the original request to demolish it be put into effect. She then read a letter from a realtor indicating that the apartment complex would devalue Mrs. Mitchell's property by a comparable value of $20,000. Dean Karels, 17191 Corla, stated that most people will not be home from work yet at 3:00 p.m. at the time of the shade and shadow studies. He wanted to know what it would be like at 5 or 6 p.m. He asked what a study would look like with a building with a peak roof. He noted that he felt that a gross injustice had been done to the neighborhood; that the building is injurious and detrimental to the neighborhood; that the comparison of the Tustin Royale senior's building presented by Mr. Schwartz at the last meeting was not a comparable building; that he feels that this building should be torn down and re-excavated and graded and that the builder should submit new plans. David Worsba, 15662 Myrtle, rebutted Mr. Schwartz's shade and shadow study for the worst times presented; noted that the distance of the chimney from Mrs. Mitchell's yard is only 8.3 feet; that this project is setting a precedent which would be dangerous for the neighborhood; that the building does not conform to the neighborhood; that the project will create negative property values; that even if there is a cost involved to tear down the building and start over, it should be done; that there is a proportionally greater impact on the two (2) adjacent property owners who are widows; that the project should be torn down and replaced by a single story building. Planning Commission Minutes April 30, 1990 Page 6 Ms. Jane DeMong, noted that comparative values are now $20,000 lower in the area. They expect the City of Tustin to take care of the residents, and to at least obey the laws; asked if the list is going to get lost again; and noted that she loves Tustin, but does not like to see this kind of thing happen. Ms. Mary O'Rourke, 15632 Myrtle, noted that she feels that the only acceptable alternative is to tear down the building and rebuild as a one story unit; based on the original City Code; that this project is a definite infringement on their homes; that should this building be allowed to continue in its present state, with the applicant's minor adjustments, the environmental state of affairs will no longer be a small problem as the report now states; that she has a great pride in Tustin; and that Conditional Use Permits, variances, etc. should be especially scrutinized; that the people in the neighborhood have invested their money, homes, and lives in improving Tustin, they pay taxes and have rights; that the only way is to oppose apartments that are built to other than the original Code. Mr. Mark Mensario, 15761 Myrtle, noted that he has been a resident on Myrtle for 27 years; when they did put in apartments behind his residence, they were relieved that the ordinance required that they be single story within 150 feet of the property line; that the Commission has to see the building to believe what a monstrosity it is and invited the Commission to view it; that he shares the concern about the property values being negatively impacted; that he would favorably consider the original rules set up applying to residential areas. Ms. Josepha Walsh, 17281 Corla, noted that the shadow will affect the heat in pools; that the sun is almost overhead in the afternoon and is not an effective time to measure the study; and commented that the building should be returned to one story, and should not be allowed to be built within eight (8) feet of the property line. Mr. Karels commented that at the last meeting the cost that the applicant has incurred was brought up, but that this type of endeavor is a risk; and he hopes that the cost of this project is not an issue at this time. Mr. Schwartz commented regarding this evening's comments; read from the staff report of April 9, page 5, paragraph 2, and indicated that Mr. Rezai has completed the tasks required; this project meets the City's codes; that this is a family-investment; that the construction loan is on-going; that the modifications incur a heavy financial impact on Mr. Rezai; that the photographs are city- provided; that he questions the letter from the real estate agent, because, as a sales agent himself, he would not tell the Commission anything regarding an appraisal since it is a violation of the law and their code of ethics. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the shade study was conducted with a flat roof at worst case. Mr. Schwartz noted that they squared the building at the top peak; that the study indicates the worst case at December 21 and June 21 (then moved away from the microphone to explain the illustrations). The Director noted that what was provided was rudimentary and did not provide staff with the ability to fully evaluate and quantify the impact on all the potential properties that could be affected by shade and shadow; that what has been provided is inadequate; that what is required by CEQA is to define the impact on all properties, and the information provided will not allow that. Planning Commission Minutes April 30, 1990 Page 7 Commissioner Le Jeune asked if additional work would have to be done. The Director affirmed. Chester Miraq, 15622 California Street, noted that he could not understand why on an important issue like this that the Commission did not receive a copy of the petition; asked why the applicant should do the shade study; and should not an impartial person do the study. Commissioner Le Jeune asked staff who is responsible for a shade and shadow study. The Director replied that shade and shadow studies are done and paid for by the applicant. Mr. Mirag continued by stating property values have dropped; that if one bedroom can be removed, why not 11; the people of Tustin are the ones who pay for the Commission, and they come first; and that the only way this can be solved is by the Commission viewing it themselves. Mr. Zukowsky, noted that he purchased his home five (5) years ago; when they could afford to purchase a house, they put every penny into the house; that he feels that he has gone through more hardship than the builder could ever; that the Commission is for the people of Tustin, not Anaheim, etc.; that the people of Tustin are all crying out for the Commission to listen to them; and they are saying "tear it down!" Kay Toice, 17262 Medallion, noted that she is a part of the community that is being affected; that it is not just the four or five homes behind the building, but the whole neighborhood; that the 17 people left off the list would have had this input before the use permit was granted; that the applicant would not have had this cost if he had made sure the mailing list was correct; and that this building should be torn down or at least taken down to one story. Ms. DeMong asked if there are more trees, who will water the trees when rationing is in effect. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen asked how many people are involved in the 300 foot radius. Staff replied that there are 73 names on the mailing list. Commissioner Shaheen noted that 17 people represented 20%. The Director noted that when a mailing list is not provided by a title company staff checks for accuracy; but they do not check when the work is done by a title company; that the title company information was either purposefully or unpurposefully faulty; that immediately following original complaints they notified the City attorney's office and ordered the builder to stop work. Commissioner Shaheen noted that he feels that the people are correct and that this should be reopened. Commissioner Le Jeune replied that the matter has been reopened and brought back to the Commission; and that they are to make a determination based upon the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes April 30, 1990 Page 8 Commissioner Kasparian noted that there is a lot of reference to the Code and the legality of what occurred; that this property has been zoned as R-3 for a long time; and that everything done up to date in an R-3 lot has been allowed, even up to 35 feet high. The Director noted that 35 feet is allowed provided that within 150 feet of an R-1 zone a Conditional Use Permit would have to be approved. Commissioner Kasparian noted that, at the time, the project was originally approved by a Conditional Use Permit. The Director replied that the original action was null and void due to the improper noticing. Commissioner Kasparian noted that whether it is legal or not it is half completed. The Director replied that the findings that would have to be made would be based upon the staff report and the information from the Public Hearing. Commissioner Shaheen noted that if a title company fails to give proper notification, then the title company is at fault. Tom Nixon, City Attorney, noted that the original Conditional Use Permit was determined to be invalid due to the improper notification; that regarding the action of the Commission this evening is to determine if a CUP should be issued at this time; and that specific findings would be required to determine that the particular use would not be injurious to the adjacent property. The Director noted that an alternate would be to not take a specific action and require the applicant to provide additional alternatives; if what has been provided is inadequate, the Commission could take action and deny the CUP or provide additional direction to the applicant modifying the project. Commissioner Kasparian noted that they are almost back to designing by committee; and that he finds it difficult to suggest alternatives. Commissioner Shaheen noted that he felt that a meeting of the title company, the property owner, and the builder was necessary to determine fault. Commissioner Le Jeune replied that they needed to provide direction so that the project can proceed; that financial consideration was not an issue. Mr. Nixon replied that the financial aspect as a detriment to the properties in the area is one factor of many that the Commission should look at; and that the issue of fault is not a factor as to whether issuance of a use permit is appropriate. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the expenses incurred by the builder to date are also not a factor to be considered. Mr. Nixon replied that the expenses of a builder are not to be considered; that the Commission looks at a project as a whole and the impact of the project on the surrounding area. Commission Le Jeune asked if they were now back to "square one". Planning Commission Minutes April 30, 1990 Page 9 Mr. Ni~on affirmed. Commissioner Baker asked if the original CUP was invalid, and to issue a new Use Permit were they required to have new findings; and noted that they were not provided with findings. The Director replied that the Commission did not direct staff to provide findings at the last meeting, but to explore an alternative design by the applicant. Commissioner Baker commented that at the last meeting it was not clear to him that the original CUP was invalid. The Director replied that it was made clear in the staff report and during the meeting of April 9. Commissioner Baker asked if Commissioner Kasparian was aware of the invalidity. Commissioner Kasparian voiced his surprise. The Director noted that staff also provided a confidential memorandum provided by the City Attorney's office. Mr. N~xon noted that it was the opinion of the City Attorney that if the original CUP was challenged in court by these residents left off the mailing list, the challenge would be successful and the CUP would be declared invalid. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that if plants were one of the mitigating measures, they should be required to plant those that only grow to a height to insure privacy; that it is obvious that a mistake has been made, but it was not a mistake by the builder; and that the original CUP was justified by no complaints being received from the property owners at the time; but he feels that they would not have approved a building this tall. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to deny Conditional Use Permit 90-08 by minute order. Motion carried 4-0. The Director provided findings based upon Resolution No. 2762: A) Establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for, under the circumstances of this case, will be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, as evidenced by the following findings: 1) The proposed project is not in conformance with existing single family residences located within 150 feet of or adjacent to the subject property, or with existing apartments on the east side of Pasadena Avenue (north and south of the subject property), as all of the single family residences are one story in height and the neighboring apartment projects fare either completely one story in height or one story within 150 feet of the R-1 zoned properties. 2) The proposed project will impact the privacy of the adjacent single family residences as bedroom windows of the proposed apartments will be able to look down into rear yards of said residences. 3) The proposed project will cast shadows over the adjacent single family residences that will encompass a majority of the rear yards and in some cases, will often extend beyond the houses themselves into portions of the Planning Commission Minutes April 30, 1990 Page 10 front yards. B) The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, and to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, and therefore should not be granted. Commissioner Le Jeune informed the audience that the matter would most likely be appealed to the City Council. The Director noted that the residents will be notified. 4. Amendments No. 2 to Conditional Use Permit 87-7 an 79-20 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ROLLO S. PRICKFORD, PASTOR RED HILL LUTHERAN CHURCH 13200 RED HILL AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 13200 RED HILL AVENUE PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1), PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO CONVERT AN EXISTING 2,100 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT INTO A LIBRARY AND COMPUTER LEARNING AREA AND TO ENCLOSE AN EXISTING 2,025 SQUARE FOOT SHADE STRUCTURE INTO THREE PRE-SCHOOL CLASSROOMS. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Amendment No. 2 to Conditional Use Permits 87-7 and 79- 20, by adoption of Resolution No.1 2768, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christopher E. Jackson, Associate Planner Staff made changes to the staff report, as moved. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the entire complex was originally designed for 400 students and if they have not exceeded 400. Staff affirmed. The Director asked staff to reread condition 4.4 to determine if it still applies to the noise ordinance. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:15 p.m. Mr. David Bell, spoke on behalf of the church. Commissioner Baker asked what will happen to the current library. Commissioner Kasparian asked how many students were in the computer room at any given time. Mr. David replied that the library will move to the basement and the current room would be expanded to accommodate a larger art room; and that there would be about 10 students using the room. Mr. Richard Yaberg, 13162 Silver Birch Drive, noted that he lives across the street from the church; that they are having a problem with settling; that within 300 feet there is a house that has been sitting empty for 12 years due to a poor foundation; the house next to his has leaks and cracks; that there are more people coming to Planning Commission Minutes April 30, 1990 Page 11 use the school; that they are getting landlocked and are having trouble competing with the traffic generated by the school; and asked why the notification was only published in the Tustin News. Commissioner Le Jeune replied that it may be the only newspaper that would pick up on local hearings. The Director noted that they have to use a newspaper of local and general circulation; that the Register and the Tustin News both would print local hearings, but it was policy to use the Tustin News. Mr. Yaberq noted that there could be possible flooding in the computer room if it is located in the basement. Mr. Rollo Prickford, 1111 St. Vincent Place, noted that the present school attendance is about 220, which is approximately 100 less than a couple of years ago; and that these changes would not make a significant impact on traffic in and out of the parking lot. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:25 p.m. Commissioner Baker noted that since the school was originally approved for 300-400 students, there is no change in the number; the changes presumably will not change the numbers; that he appreciates the comments about the computer room being flooded; that he realizes there is daily traffic going in and out of the church; but he sees no reason to deny the request. Commissioner Kasparian noted that the computer room flooding is for the applicant's consideration; that the cracks in the street are not germane to this issue, but should possibly be addressed to the staff. Commissioner Le Jeune had no problem with the application; but asked staff if the Public Works Department should respond to this gentleman's concerns. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Amendment No. 2 to Conditional Use Permits 87-7 and 79-20, by adoption of Resolution No. 2768, as revised: Page 1 of Resolution, item I-A sentence should read as follows: ...Red Hill Lutheran Church .... ; Exhibit A, Page 3, 4.4, delete "said activity"; Exhibit A, Page 4, insert paragraph between 4.4 and Fees: "Basement Library and Computer Room Conversion A. Plans shall comply with building codes, City ordinances, and State and Federal law and regulations. This includes Title 24 (e.g. energy and handicap accessibility, etc.) If similar use is not proposed on ground level then handicap accessibility is required." Motion carried 3-0, Shaheen absent. OLD BUSINESS 5. Development Status Report Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded to receive and file Development Status Report. Motion carried 3-0, Shaheen absent. 6. Update Water Department Facility Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development No Planning Commission action necessary. NE~ BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes April 30, 1990 Page 12 ST~FF CONCERNS Report on Actions taken at April 17, 1990 City Council Meeting. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Kasparian -Requested that the Planning Commission review Standard Resolutions for editorial content. The Director suggested that the Commission receive copies of the Design Review and Subdivision Resolutions and make corrections concurrently. -Requested information regarding the status of the Citywide recycling program. The Director advised that the Public Works Department is handling exclusively and will transmit information as available. -Asked whether the Notice of Public Hearing to property owners could go out via certified mail. The Director replied that ensuring mail goes out is not the problem and suggested that due to mail cost and time involved it would be more cost effective to utilize first class mail as permitted by law. He asked if the Director had experienced anything like the notification issue on the Pasadena Project before. The Director responded that in her 18 years in planning, the Pasadena Project was the most severe noticing problem she had seen. Commissioner Baker -Asked if tapes had been purchased from the League of California Cities meeting. The Director advised that she thought they had been ordered and that she would follow up. Commissioner Le Jeune -Asked if there were any qualifications required of a person requesting public information. The Director replied that there may be a charge for information and it may not be readily available, but that public information was available to anyone. -Asked about the status of the Market Place Auto Sculpture. The Director replied that she had not heard from the developer but believes there may be plans to plant grass in place of the rocks. -Advised that the Sign Committee was making significant progress and would be scheduling a meeting in a couple of weeks. -Asked about fish flags at Ricoh. The Director advised that they were for a special celebration and did have a temporary use permit. -Suggested that even though we are meeting required State procedures on the Public Hearing Notification he would like to see the City's procedures exceed the minimum notification requirements. The Director advised that the Community Development Department had implemented a new procedure to prevent this from occurring again. Planning Commission Minutes April 30, 1990 Page 13 At 9:45 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Le Jeune seconded to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Planning Commission meeting on May 14, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Motion carried 3-0, Shaheen absent. Chairman Penni Foley/~ Secretary