Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-09-90MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING /~PRIL 9v 1990 CALL TO ORDER: 7: 00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: PRESENT Le Jeune, Baker, Kasparian (Shaheen absent) PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. 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 March 26, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting 2. MODIFICATION TO DESIGN REVIEW 89-08 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: BAYCREST ASSOCIATES 1 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 275 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ATTN: CARY BREN LOTS 24 AND 25 OF TRACT 12870 (PHASE III) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13501 (CLASS 1) AUTHORIZATION TO REVISE BUILDING ELEVATIONS TO ELIMINATE MULTI-PANED WINDOWS. RECOMMENDATION - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2764 denying the requested modification to the exterior building elevations, originally approved by Design Review 89-08. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 3-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. USE PERMIT 90-1, VARIANCE 90-7 APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES 1200 N. HARBOR BOULEVARD ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92803 CODY SMALL CMS DEVELOPMENT Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 2 LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: 3100 AIRPORT LOOP DRIVE; A-3 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 14041 NEWPORT AVENUE (AT THE I-5 FREEWAY) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # 402-371-1-3 AND MORE SPECIFICALLY AS lOT 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE NEWPORT AVENUE TRACT; A PORTION OF LOT 15 IN BLOCK D OF BALLARD'S ADDITION; AS SHOWN ON MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AND RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER PC COMMERCIAL - PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL A 35 FOOT HIGH 72 SQUARE FOOT ALUMINUM CABINET BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION WITH "DRIVE-THRU" DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE LOCATED ON THE POLE SIGN FACE RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission either: 1. Deny Use Permit 90-1 and Variance 90-7 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2747, as submitted or revised; or, 2. Approve Use Permit 90-1 as revised by staff regarding location, orientation and size by the adoption of Resolution No. 2747(b), as submitted or revised. Presentation: Susan Tebo, Senior Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the three signs with "Drive-Thru" on them were all legal, non-conforming signs. Staff replied that the monument sign for Taco Bell on 17th Street was approved as a monument sign with "Drive-Thru", not as a pole sign. The Director noted that "Drive-Thru" as a directional sign is not prohibited, but must conform to the Sign Code requirements of being six (6) square feet, or not to exceed four (4) feet in height, and to only one per street entryway; monument signs are mostly less than five (5) feet in height and limited to six (6) square feet; however, the applicant is asking for a 35 foot pole sign, up in the air, and not to the standards of the Sign Code. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:10 p.m. Mr. John Baker, Carl Karcher, Enterprises, noted that their intent and desire is to work with the City of Tustin; they are only asking for a sign that fully fits within the Sign Code; they are not asking for a Variance, and personally took offense to the inference that they are asking for an "unsightly" sign; he reiterated their reasoning for opening the new facility; and noted that they want to keep up with the growth and demands of Tustin; the site was chosen because it provides freeway visibility and access for an added customer base; and he agreed that the 35 foot sign could be an inaccurate depiction, but that they have proven that a 24 foot sign would be useless. He presented artists conceptual drawings to conclude that 35 feet was accurate; noted that the Marie Calendar's sign would provide the same visibility that they are seeking; and that "Drive-Thru" is detrimental to the success of the new store. Mr. Jack Vodrey, Carl Karcher Enterprises (and a resident of Tustin for 21 years), noted that he was one of the committee members that drafted the current sign ordinance; that the original ordinance was a weak document that left conclusions up to individual interpretations of staff members; he contributed most of the technical data; and he uses Tustin's Sign Code as an example in other cities, as it is one of the best in the state. He read from the Sign Code: "An identification sign means any sign referring Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 3 to the name, service, or trade of the business." He indicated that the original intent of that statement was to limit the verbage on the sign to the logo, the name, and their service; that most of the signs in the city conform to this concept; that Carl's Jr. Drive- Thru fits the criteria; he felt that there was nothing in the ordinance that indicates that "Drive-Thru' is prohibited; that staff is interpreting the Sign Code in a liberal manner as they see it; the Code states that there can be the name, service, or trade of the business, but cannot include the name of specific products or brand names. He stated that he was grieved to see staff members perverting the ordinance to their own will; and suggested that "Drive-Thru" be allowed as a service. Mr. Dan Gjurqevich, Regional Director of Operations for all Orange County Carl's Restaurants, noted that their goal is to bring the new restaurant up to a current status; that out of the 60 restaurants he represents, the ones with the drive-thru provide 43% of their business from the drive-thru; they feel that this is a positive location due to the success of their location nearby, and due to the spontaneous purchases made by people noticing their freeway sign; and that it was very critical to the operators to be visible, and to let the guests know that there is a drive-thru for their convenience. Mr. Robert Aran, Attorney on behalf of Carl Karcher Enterprises, and State Counsel to the California Electric Sign Association and the Sign Users Council of California, addressed the staff's comments: He noted that precedents are not set because one person is allowed, under certain circumstances, a sign that is a different height than another's; there are no such things as precedents; that staff should be concerned that the general welfare of the area residents are not affected by what is asked for; that the City has the right to reasonably exercise the power to regulate the time, manner and location of the signage of the community; but that the City does not have the power to control sign form of content; that by not allowing "Drive-Thru" the staff is controlling the content of the sign, which is not permitted by law. He commented that, unless the staff had owned a restaurant, their conclusion that a 24 foot sign was enough was unjustified. He also noted that by the time Cal Trans has completed their work, it is conceivable that this restaurant will not have generated enough business because it was unable to advertise properly by the identification of "Drive- Thru". Based on his analysis, the applicant's request is reasonable. Mr. Chester Maharaj, 15622 California Street, Tustin, noted that he felt that it was time that Tustin re-looked at its ordinances because of all of the changes occurring in the City; that big business should not be able to "bull-doze" their way and get what they think they want; that the citizens have to live here; that the staff has done a good job by suggesting a 25 foot sign; that, aesthetically, the applicant's request is not right. After looking at the presentation, he noted that the two photographs are different, one with a wide-angle lens, and one with a medium telephoto lens. He also noted that he felt that the City Council (sic) should be careful in passing things like this, as it is easy for a business to "bull-doze" in, but that the citizens have to live with it. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m. Commissioner Baker noted that there were a lot of comments questioning staff's presentation and asked for a confirmation from the City Attorney. Ms. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, affirmed that the presentation is correct; that the presenter's for Carl Karcher's have a different interpretation of the City's Code and that they are entitled to make that argument; however, based on the Attorney's office Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 4 analysis, they support staff's interpretation. Commissioner Baker asked what Cal Trans would be doing at this location; and asked for a confirmation of the number of signs that the applicant will have. Staff replied that the freeway widening would be initiated at this location within two (2) years; that the property owner could trim the trees to six (6) feet, and that the photographs are misleading; and that they will have three (3) building signs, a monument sign, and the pole sign. The Director replied to the applicant's presentation: 1) regarding qualifying for a freeway sign--this is not an outright permitted use, the decision regarding the sign and its content is up to the discretion of the Planning Commission; 2) regarding the content of "Drive-Thru"--staff is not indicating that it is inappropriate signage, but is permitted on street frontages with up to six (6) square feet per sign face; that the applicant's statement from the previous meeting's tape that the purpose of the sign was to "direct the pedestrian and vehicular traffic", met the exact definition of the Sign Code's definition of a directional sign; and 3) regarding Mr. Aran's representation of staff's abilities--She felt that it was a bit of an arrogant position; that Carl Karcher's owes the staff an apology; that they have the ability to make decisions of this nature; and that they are looking out for the best interest of the Community. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if a representative from CMS was present. Staff noted that they preferred not to be involved; they have negotiated a lease with the applicant. Commissioner Le Jeune asked the applicant if they had signed a lease with the developer. Mr. Baker replied that they have not signed a lease, as yet; that the developer had no schedule for trimming the trees; that the situation between Carl's Jr. and the developer is changing, and that Carl's Jr. may purchase the property. Commissioner Kasparian asked the applicant for his reaction to staff's comments regarding Cal Trans trimming the trees. Mr. Baker replied that their main concern is Cal Trans' timetable which seems to be moving and is far behind the applicant's timetable to develop; that trimming is an option that might be available; the trees will grow back; and that they have to make a decision on this major investment prior to knowing how the trees will affect the sign. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification as to whether or not the applicant has permission to trim the trees. Mr. Baker replied negatively. Staff replied negatively, as well, and noted that CMS Development has the permission to trim the trees; that she has spoken to Cal Trans and CMS Development; and that she has a copy of the permit. Commissioner Kasparian asked the applicant if they had an agreement with the property owner to trim the trees; and why not, if it was so important. Mr. Baker replied that the development is changing dramatically relative to Carl's Jr.; they may have less control to trim; CMS Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 5 told Carl's that they do not intend to trim the trees if they do not have to, as it would incur a $22,000 expense; that there are safety problems involved; and that it must be coordinated with Cal Trans. Comm%s$ioner Kasparian noted that even if the 35 foot sign is approved, the trees are going to grow; and if there is no control in the future, they would be having the same problem. Mr. Baker agreed and noted that he did not know the nature of the growth of these trees. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the sign was intended to be oriented to draw in traffic from Tustin or the freeway. Mr. Baker replied that it was to draw in freeway traffic; and that any comment he made to the contrary on previous tapes must have been a misstatement. Commissioner Kasparian asked if one of the photographs show that even at 35 feet the sign is partially hidden. Mr- Baker affirmed, and noted that they were only asking for the minimal amount that they required. Commissioner Le Jeune commented that in the past he has voted against freeway oriented pole signs due to new tenants expanding them and leaving them there forever. Commissioner Baker noted that the 24 foot sign reaches to the level of the freeway; that by the time they reach the off-ramp, people are face-to-face with the sign; he feels that there is no need to go to the higher sign; that it is difficult to negotiate the lanes at that point for exiting on impulse; and that the customers they will attract will probably have already made the decision to get off the freeway for food or fuel. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he is also in favor of signage appropriately done; that the 24 foot sign would be adequate; and that it is incumbent on the applicant to deal with the property owner to keep the trees trimmed. He also noted that he was in favor of the "Drive-Thru" reference on the sign as it might be recognized as a particular feature of some customers. Mr. Baker asked for time to rebut the comments of the Commission. Ms. Jeffrey commented that the public hearing would have to be re- opened; and that a rebuttal session was inappropriate. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to approve Use Permit 90-1 and Variance 90-7 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2747(b), as submitted. Motion carried 2-1, Le Jeune opposed. Commissioner Le Jeune introduced Rita Westfield, Assistant Director. 4. USE PERMIT 90-08 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: FERIDOUN REZAI 203 TROJAN STREET ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92804 SAME 15642 PASADENA AVENUE R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 6 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY, 11 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON A PARCEL THAT IS ADJACENT TO ANR-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) LOT AND WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. RECOMMENDATION - 1. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2761, approving the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for Use Permit 90-08; and 2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2762, approving Use Permit 90-08, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached thereto, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked if the side facing the residences &would be windowless. Staff replied that the rear elevation is windowless; that the Building Code requires one (1) window in the bedroom and living areas, but were deleted; and that the only window remaining on the eastern elevations is in the stairwell. Commissioner Le Jeune asked when they began receiving complaints; and whose responsibility it is to notify the neighbors. Staff replied that the project was in the framing stage, but did not recall which month that was; and that the latest complaint regarding the mailing list was in March; that State law requires the City to ensure that such notification occurs, but that the applicant provides the mailing list and that this mailing list was provided by Orange Coast Title Company; that the radius map was accurate, but the typed list did not include all of the property owners on the map; and that this is not a common occurrence for lists provided by a title company, as they have access to the most current tax assessor's tax roles. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the City does the mailing. Staff replied that the City prepares and mails the notice using the labels provided by the title company. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Paul Zukowsky, 15641 Myrtle Avenue, presented pictures of the project to the Commission; noted that 17 families that are located just behind the project were left off of the mailing list; that the Tustin City Code is not in conformance with other city codes, and cited some examples; that the neighborhood is confused; that the buildings are not in conformance with the buildings in the neighborhood; that it would cause loss of comfort and privacy and lower property values; they request that the buildings be redesigned to conform to other apartments and condominiums adjacent to R-1 lots on Myrtle Avenue; that the approval of this project was an injustice to this neighborhood; asked why they were left off of the mailing list for the initial hearing, as is required by State law; and that something needs to be done to resolve these problems and that they would like to work with the Planning Commission to resolve them. Ms. Kathleen Arnold, 15631 Myrtle Avenue, noted that the Ordinance states that this cannot be more than a one-story project, and that it must be 150 feet from the residents; the apartments that were Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 7 built on Pasadena in the past had to abide by this ordinance; asked why this particular project does not have to abide by the ordinance as the others have; that No. 18, Aesthetics, on Page 5 of the Environmental Initial Study Form make it sound like all of the windows on the project were deleted, but that only the windows on the end were deleted; that the windows on the side are more offensive; and that she cannot use her pool, entertain, or open her bedroom windows, now. Ms. Lakonda Mitchell, 15621 Myrtle Avenue, noted that in February Fred asked her to sign a paper to pass through her property; she asked him how far from the property line they were going to build the buildings and was told 30 feet; that there would be no windows facing her house; she was then told it would be 17 feet away, and that it is actually 10 feet from her property line; she cannot open her windows or drapes in the living room; there are two (2) lights on either side of the building that will flash into her home; and that she can no longer do anything in the backyard. Ms. Connie Gordon, 15661 Myrtle Avenue, noted that she is against the project because her privacy is also gone even though she is two (2) houses down from the project; and that had they been notified of the first public hearing they would have been to it. Ms. Sandra Zukowsk¥, 15641 Myrtle Avenue, noted that the windows affecting her are on the side of the building; that she needs to leave her windows open since she has no central air conditioning; that not only has she lost her privacy due to the windows, but that she will also have their lights shining into her bedroom at night; and that she is also opposed to the building. Mr. Dean Karels, 17191 Corla, presented pictures to the Commission of what they used to look at and what they now look at; and also one of another two-story building on the street that did not affect any of the residents on Myrtle or Corla; asked how the research of the special plans was done by the staff; noted that at one point this area was designated as a blighted area, which he deemed to be an overcrowded, uncared for area; in his efforts to improve his lot he was stopped by the building department for lack of a permit; and asked if the Commission "rubber-stamps" the Building Department's reports, or do they do research themselves. He also cited various items on the Environmental Initial Study Form as being inaccurate, notably: 2(c)--there will be a reduction in air flow; 4(d)--there will be a reduction in agricultural crops; 13(a)- -that there is inadequate parking allocated, and that the overflow will park on Pasadena which is already crowded; 13(f)--there will be traffic hazards, children may be hurt, there are no local playgrounds, and the schools are overcrowded; 15(a)--there will be an increase in energy usage compared to the single-family dwelling that used to be there; 16--compared to a single-unit dwelling, 11 units will overtax everything; and 18--the buildings have changed his view of the sky. Ms. Mary O'Rourke, 15632 Myrtle Avenue, noted that they were never notified, and that they are sad that not one of them knew anything; asked how a special permit could go through without notification; she now looks upon a beautifully kept house with a 2 1/2 story building behind it; that she feels it will devalue the homes; that it is non-conforming to the houses on their street; that she is upset that her house has not sold; that this is an economic obsolescence; that they are all affected by this, have no control, and that something should be done. Mr. Philip Schwartz, 14841 Yorba Street, representing the applicant, noted that they were approved after a hearing and found out some months later about the error in notification and were subsequently stopped. He noted that only some people were not Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 8 notified, and that they sent out a separate mailing to some of the adjoining property owners advising them of the activity; the project meets all of the Codes and provisions of the City; they have a multi-million dollar investment; they have made adjustments to the design and would like to accommodate the neighbors as best they can; and that they support staff's recommendations on this issue. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if they sent out separate notices; and asked when the letters were sent. Mr. Schwartz noted that they sent out separate letters and have offered some copies to the staff. Staff noted that the copies he was referring to were dated July 11, 1989, asking for right of access, and indicating that they would be building an ll-unit project; and that staff had a copy of letters sent to Lakonda Mitchell and Kathleen Arnold. Commissioner Baker asked if the letters were sent to the residents on Myrtle. Mr. Schwartz replied that those letters and others were sent after the public hearing; that there has been a lot of activity for some months; and that it should not be a surprise to anyone. Commissioner Le Jeune asked when the initial framing was completed. Mr. Schwartz replied that the framing was done in mid-February. Ms. Kathleen Arnold, 15631 Myrtle, noted that she never received the letter that Mr. Schwartz was referring to; that she only verbally granted permission to measure to two workers while the house was still standing. Mr. David Wursba, 15662 Myrtle, noted that the project dramatically decreases the property values on the west side of Myrtle; that there are several errors in the Environmental Initial Study Form: 2(a)--that they may get exhaust from the residents of the new buildings since the buildings are only 10 feet from the property line; 2(b)--may have substantial odors from garbage which will probably be stored at the rear of the project; 2(c)--the new buildings blocks sunlight and wind which may decrease the temperature by 5-10 degrees; and 18--the aesthetic view has been destroyed. He noted that the proposed changes are not enough, that the buildings should be changed to a one-story structure that would be compatible to the rest of the neighborhood; and that before determining that the aesthetics have not been reduced, the project should be seen from the back yard of an affected property owner. Mr. Karels noted that all of the homes were built with the living rooms to the rear of the house, and that it is not only the bedrooms that are affected. Ms. Zukowsky, clarified that 17 residents were left off of the mailing list. Mr. Larry Barnett, 15751 Myrtle Avenue, noted that even though he is not directly affected by this project, it could feasibly happen up and down the street in the future; that he feels for these people; and that it should never have been allowed to happen. Mr. Chester Maharaj, 15622 California Street, took exception to Mr. Rubin's statement that the people should close their bedroom windows; that there was a mistake made and the people should not suffer; asked what the setback requirement is; that his feeling is that someone thought that the old people on Myrtle Avenue would do nothing about the project; that there is currently a saturation of Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 9 apartments and that they are having a problem with graffiti, now; that the building should be reconstructed; and that this project is not being built because Tustin is running out of space, but because someone wants to make money. Ms. Jane DeMong, 15702 Myrtle Avenue, fought the apartments that were trying to be constructed 25 years ago; they do have graffiti; it is ruining all of the property values in their neighborhood; and that it is rather odd that the only people that did not receive letters were the ones that back onto the project. Mr~ Edward Cortes, 15701 Myrtle Avenue, noted that if the area is considered residential, it should be kept that way; that he has been proud of the way Tustin has been kept, but that things are drastically changing and he is very disappointed with the new construction. Ms. Josepha Walsh, noted that she lives straight down the block from this project, and that now all they see as they look down the street is this immense monstrosity blocking the view; that there is no sun for the people directly affected; and that they are indirectly affected by the project's presence and are very saddened. Ms. Kay Toice, 17262 Medallion Avenue, noted that a very costly mistake was made, but that it was a mistake which should be rectified by removing this "blight" that has affected everyone. Also, that even though there is a cost involved, it is less than the people involved, and money should not be the issue. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:40 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked the Director to clarify the findings of the Environmental Initial Study Form. The Director responded to the questions raised regarding the Environmental Initial Study Form by first noting that SEQA requires support for every determination made; that staff is not permitted to provide conjecture; that they must reference regional and local documents; and that they must have facts from the residents supporting why the determination should not have been made. She also clarified some of the questions raised about individual items in the report: Item 2) The AQMD provides a standard for which the air emissions have to be exceeded before a project would have a detrimental impact on air emissions, and this project would not be subject to that threshold; the trash enclosures would have to meet all County health department requirements with regards to being in a fully enclosed area; they refer to the SCAQMD for thresholds regarding air movement, moisture, temperature, or any change in climate, but for this project shadow and shade issues are possibly relevant and the Community Development Department could ask the applicant for a shade and shadow study to demonstrate to the residents how they would be affected; Item 13) There is a parking demand created by residential dwelling units; as a mitigation measure there is a guest parking requirement, but they cannot ask for more than the Code requirement even if there is a problem; there have not been many multi-family structures built in this vicinity to the recently adopted Code, and if the Commission needs to increase the parking they would have to change the Code; Item 14) The Public Service and Energy impacts were all reviewed by the appropriate agencies; schools may be potentially impacted, but the problem is mitigated by the fact that this project which is within the TUSD is required to pay a school facilities fee of $1.52/square foot for construction and renovation of abandoned school facilities; Item 15) Although there is more demand on a project of 11 units versus 1 unit, the issue is not whether there is more demand, but if there is service capacity to handle that demand; Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 10 according to the service providers contacted, they indicate that the existing systems, with the conditions of approval, would provide the adequate utility services; and Item 18) The aesthetics relate to the design of the building and privacy of the neighbors; and also the viewscapes; and if it is the opinion of the Commission that additional work is required, staff could work with the applicant to provide the additional information. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what the minimum setback would be for this project. Staff replied that it would be ten (10) feet from the rear property line; that one building is ten (10) feet, and the other is slightly over 24 feet; and that it does not matter whether it is single- or two-story. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he felt bad that the citizens were not noticed; that the issue of privacy has come before the Commission many times; he wondered if he would have changed his mind if these people were present at the original public hearing; and he noted that the builder is following the original directions of the Commission. Commissioner Baker noted that it seems like everything is legal, almost; that if only a couple of people were not noticed, it might not be a problem, but 17 unnoticed people is a problem; that he would be upset if all of a sudden he had a 2-3 story structure in his backyard; that he presumed that everyone within 300 feet were notified of tonight's meeting; that he was concerned with appearance, noise and lights; that he has a difficult time with this resolution since he signed it last year; he respects the opinion of the staff and City Attorney, but in this case he also respects the feelings of the people and would have trouble approving the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he feels that the applicant should take some responsibility for the inadvertent mailing list error; that the people were not given due process; that he prefers to continue the issue to determine mitigating dialogue between the builder and the homeowners to reach a common ground; and that the builder does have a substantial investment, but that money is not everything. Commissioner Le Jeune requested direction from staff to create dialogue for the continuation. The Director agreed that the recommendation is favorable; that the builder and applicant would probably also want some direction in terms of the types of concessions that the Commission would like; and that the staff could provide the shade and shadow study. Commissioner Kasparian noted that his personal opinion is that he would like it reduced to one story, but is not sure it is viable; his actual direction would be to encourage the residents to offer suggestions for mitigation; and asked the Director if the specifics for the continuation would have to come from the Commission. The Director replied that his recommendations to go to the residents for suggestions would be as though it was designed by committee which may result in more antagonism; that different property owners along this street have different interests; that he could direct them to meet with the applicant to suggest some alternatives and bring that back to the Commission before a lot of expense is paid in redesign. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he could not recall a project not going through based on the privacy of the next door neighbor; that mitigating measures, like trees, have been installed; that going from a two-story to a one-story would probably not be possible. Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 11 The Director noted that anything is possible; but that there may not be a sentiment on the part of the Commission to start at the beginning; that everyone bears some of the responsibility, and how do we reach a consensus and achieve some of the mitigation; that there may be a variety of design solutions, and that there is a lot of room to address the issues; that if the applicant has no willingness to discuss the issues, then there is no sense continuing. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that some high apartments on First Street have line-of-sight restrictors to limit privacy invasion of the residents below; that the Commission should do everything they can to mitigate the problems raised. commissioner Kasparian noted that he would prefer to postpone this issue so that the Commission can provide concrete recommendations to satisfy the concerns of the residents. The Director replied that in the meantime the Commission could request that the applicant be present to discuss the mitigation measures that would be financially feasible. Commissioner Baker asked if this was continued for two to four weeks, or to a date certain; and if they would have to renotice. The Director replied that if it was continued to a date certain, it would not have to be renoticed; and that May 14 would be possible. Mr. Schwartz replied that the 14th of May would not be feasible. The Director replied that it could be scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting after the workshop on April 30 at 7:00. Mr. Schwartz noted that he did not know if two weeks was enough or not as they have not heard any of the directions as yet. Commissioner Le Jeune concurred that they also need time to determine direction; that they want the applicant and the staff to work together in the shortest period of time possible to determine if there are any mitigating measures that can be accomplished. The Director noted that she hoped that the applicant could bring some ideas to table. Mr. Schwartz noted that he could not provide more parking, etc., and that he did not know if two weeks was enough. Mr. Kasparian noted that after listening to the individuals that spoke this evening, the applicant should have been able to determine some ways to mitigate their concerns; if staff is asking for ideas from the Planning Commission, then the applicant should also be able to; that he understood some of the concerns of the residents, and plans to address them; and that within a two week period of time he should be able to make some determination and that the applicant should also be able to. Co~missioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to continue to April 30, 1990 at which time the Planning Commission and applicant will discuss mitigating features of redesign to allay some of residents' concerns that have arisen. Motion carried 2-1, Le Jeune opposed. Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 12 5. VARIANCE 90-06 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CHARLES ROBINSON 175 SOUTH A STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 175 SOUTH A STREET R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13501 (CLASS 1) AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A 120 SQUARE FOOT FRONT PORCH WITH A SETBACK OF NINE FEET WHERE CITY ZONING CODE REQUIRES A 20 FOOT MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance 90-06 by adopting Resolution No. 2763, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to approve Variance 90- 6 by adopting Resolution No. 2763, as submitted. Motion carried 3-0. OLD BUSINESS 6. CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT Presentation: Christine A. Shingleton, Director of Community Development NEW BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS Commissioner Le Jeune asked when the staff would be requesting applications for the vacant Commission position. The Director replied that, shortly, there will be a notice sent to both newspapers regarding the open position. 7. Report on City Council Actions Taken on April 2, 1990 Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Development Director of community COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Le Jeune asked for extra seating to be added for those standing outside City Council meetings, if the builder in item 4 could appeal the postponement decision, and when the water works building would be updated. Lois Jeffrey replied that the builder could not appeal since the postponement was not a final action. The Director replied that the improvements to the water works building have been budgeted and she will provide a full report. Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 13 ~.DJOURI~E~ At 9:45 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to cancel the April 23, 1990 meeting, to adjourn to the grading manual workshop at 5:00 p.m. and then to proceed to a scheduled Planning Commission meeting on April 30, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, 92680. Motion carried 3-0. Penni Foley / Secretary ChairmanD_.on.ald Le Jeu~e ~ ~