Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-12-90MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY lZv 1990 CALL TO ORDER= 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL= Le Jeune, Baker, Shaheen, 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. L~slie Pontious. speaking as a public citizen, thanked staff and the Commission for their assistance while she was on the Commission, and offered her regrets for leaving. 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. M~nutes of the January 22, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Use Permit 90-1 APPLICANT: CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES 1200 N. HARBOR BOULEVARD ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92803 PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CODY SMALL CMS DEVELOPMENT 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 MISCELLANEOUSMAPSAND RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER PC COMMERCIAL - PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL A 24 FOOT HIGH 72 SQUARE FOOT ALUMINUM CABINET BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 1990 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission either: 1. deny Use Permit 90-1 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: Beth Schoemann, Associate Planner The public hearing was opened at 7:06 p.m. Mr. Rodriquez, CMS Development, noted that they had received staff's recommendations that day, and based upon the comments, felt that it was in their best interest to continue the item; that when the Planning Commission rejected the 50 foot sign, CMS asked for a 24 foot sign to be oriented towards Newport Avenue, however, the staff had oriented it towards the freeway, and CMS feels it would be ineffective; and that they would like time to prepare exhibits. The Director noted that the applicant was notified last Thursday morning that the information was available, but they did not retrieve it until today; and that the applicant had the opportunity to make the new information available to the Commission. Commissioner Kasparian asked what the postponement offered the applicant. The Director replied that it would offer them time. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:11 p.m. The Director asked that the additional information from the applicant be provided prior to the agenda for the next meeting being distributed to allow time for the Commission to review it prior to the meeting. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to continue the discussion of Use Permit 90-1 to the February 26, 1990 meeting, asking the applicant to provide any additional information to staff prior to the preparation of the agenda. Motion carried 4-0. 3. Conditional Use Permit 89-48 and Variance 90-2 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ALLWAYS-SPACE C/O BUILDERS EMPORIUM 1833 ALTON AVENUE IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 1212 IRVINE BOULEVARD RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-l) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 5) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15305(A) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT TO DETERMINE IF "ACCESSORY OUTDOOR GARDEN AND NURSERY USES" ARE CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED IN THE C-1 DISTRICT; TO AUTHORIZE AN OUTDOOR GARDEN AND NURSERY SALES AREA AND INSTALLATION OF A 25 SQUARE FOOT SECONDARY SIGN RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning commission take the following actions: 1. Determine that "Accessory Outdoor Garden and Nursery Sales and Storage" be considered a permitted use subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and 2. Approve Conditional Use Permit 89-48 and deny Variance 90-2 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2751 as submitted or revised. Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 1990 Page 3 Presentation: Christopher Jackson, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked if the applicant would be selling pre- bagged goods only, not in bulk. Staff affirmed. Comm~ssion~ Shaheen asked if the only concern was the size of the sign that was being requested. Staff replied that the concern was whether the sign was allowable within the Code. The Director noted that they could not confirm that the old "garden shop" sign was a legal non-conforming sign. Commi$$$oner Le Jeune asked if they were asking for a special sign; if they are they allowed a free-standing sign; and what the copy would be. Staff affirmed that they wanted a special sign; it would be placed on the wrought-iron fence, or they could incorporate it into their existing sign; and that their existing sign says "Allways Space". Commissioner Shaheen asked if Builder's Emporium had two signs. Staff affirmed. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:25 p.m. Mr. & Mrs. Righter, property owners who had received a public notice, noted that they did not like the addition of new signs; that the large one is already too big; that the lighting in the garden area is annoying; and that the paging system is very annoying. Roger Christman, architect for Builder's Emporium, noted that they did not agree with the staff report; that the use applied for is similar to existing uses; that the exterior lighting in the garden shop is on a time clock; that with renovation of the exterior lights, the lighting will be directed inward away from residences; that the signage of Builder's Emporium consisted of the main sign and a canned sign noting "lumber and garden"; that during the renovation, to comply with the intent of the Code, they removed the 44 square foot "lumber and garden" sign with the intention of refurbishing and replacing with a 25 foot sign. He also noted that the extra signage would assist in identifying their merchandise; that they are far from the curb and hidden by the trees and restaurant; and that they would be entitled to a 75 square foot sign if they were two separate businesses based on the frontage of the building. Also, that this variance would not grant special privileges since many stores in the vicinity have additional signage; and since the Code allows a 25 foot sign on the side and rear elevations, they would like to move one of those allowed signs to the front. Commissioner Shaheen asked if it was a matter of how many signs or of total square footage; and how a second sign would allow them to be better seen from Irvine Blvd. Mr. Christman replied that the would like to be able to have two signs; and that they have been allowed a six foot sign, but feel that an increase to 25 feet would provide better visibility. Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 1990 Page 4 Commissioner Le Jeune asked if they were also asking for additional directional signage. Mr. Christman replied negatively. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the allegations that other buildings have additional signage. The Director replied that each business would have to be reviewed individually; that the Code permits directional signs of six feet, and signs facing other elevations. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the applicant is allowed a six foot sign without a use permit. The Director affirmed, clarifying what was a primary use and that a garden shop would be an accessory use. Commissioner Kasparian asked where the sign would be located, and if it was free-standing. Mr. Christman replied that it would be a sign mounted on the garden shop portion of the building. The Director noted that a six foot sign could be mounted on the wall; that there is an existing monument sign at Irvine Blvd. which could be changed to also add "Garden Shop". Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the store would be displaying plants in front of the store. Robert Satel~i, Builder's Emporium, noted that on occasion, they do put out plants on rolling racks. The Director noted that with the new screened area, the city would not want to see an obstruction of the sidewalk area, but that it would be allowed with a temporary use permit on special occasions. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the paging system was in operation. Mr. sa~ell$ replied that there is still a paging system, but that it will not be needed, and doubt if it will ever be used; that they will resolve any problems with the residents that might occur; that they will abide by any rules that the City proposes; and that they would like to put the sign back up so that they can connect Allways Space with the garden center. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian noted that an individual looking for a garden center utilizes advertising and then searches for the store, whereby, the six foot sign would be adequate. Commissioner Baker asked if there was room for "garden center" on the existing sign; that reference to the garden center would be helpful to him; and asked if the garden shop was a separate business would it be allowed to have a 75 square foot sign. Staff replied that it was a canned sign. Mr. Christman replied that the letters were individual and already at the 75 square foot maximum. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he did not feel that the 25 square foot sign was an unreasonable request. Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 1990 Page 5 City Attorney Nixon commented that if the Commission was leaning towards supporting the variance, they would then be required to note the findings that support the application, as there is no resolution containing the findings supporting it, a consensus would be acceptable prior to the vote. Commissioner Kasparian asked Mr. Nixon if the Commission would be required to find the justification for the application. Mr. Nixon replied that a variance could not be granted without the specific findings to support it. Commissioner L~ Jeune noted that he felt a precedent was established at the Courtyard based on the distance from the street; and that there are two distinct types of businesses within one company. Commissioner Baker noted that he believed extra signage was also granted at Lafayette plaza. Commiss$oner Kasparian noted that he could not find sufficient justification to pass the variance; asked if this situation was unique; and if the old sign was legal. The Director replied that they could not verify the status of the old sign, since they do not have records of when it was installed or approved. Commissioner Shaheen noted that he would like to see the item continued. The Director noted that the Commission could continue the variance and move on the use determination; and made corrections to Resolution No 2751, as moved. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to determine that "Accessory Outdoor Garden and Nursery Sales and Storage" be considered a permitted use in the C-1 District, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 89-48 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2751 as revised with the following revisions: Title: delete "and denying variance 90-2 to install a 25 square foot secondary sign" Item I,A.,line two, delete "and Variance 90-2". Item I,D., delete in its entirety. Item II line three, delete "and denies Variance 90-2, to install a 25 square foot second identification sign at 1212 Irvine Boulevard." Exhibit A, item 2.1 should be changed to read "2.1 All signage shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Tustin." The following items should be added: "2.7 All outdoor garden and nursery displays shall be within an enclosed, fenced area unless special temporary use permits for special events are issued. 2.8 Lights within the outside accessory garden and nursery area shall be shielded to prevent glare on adjoining residential properties. 2.9 Applicant shall provide acoustical data on the exterior paging amplifier indicating that the decibel levels will not be in violation of the City of Tustin noise Ordinance. In the event complaints are received by the Community Development Department, outside paging shall Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 1990 Page 6 be discontinued when Development Department." Motion carried 4-0. requested by the Community Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to continue Variance 90-2 to the February 26, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. 4. Amendments to Conditional Use Permit 88-01 and Design Review 88-10 APPLICANT/ OWNER: AGENT: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: LAND AREA: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CONTINENTAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. P.O. BOX 715 MECHANICSBERG, PENNSYLVANIA 17055 JAY FALKENBERG BERT TAGGERT & ASSOC./ARCHITECTS 1601 DOVE STREET, SUITE 242 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 WESTERN NEURO CARE CENTER 14851 YORBA STREET AND 165 N. MYRTLE AVENUE, TUSTIN 2.490 ACRES PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (P & I), AND YORBA STREET SPECIFIC PLAN - PROFESSIONAL (pr) ADDENDUM 90-1 TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 88-01 HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE AMENDMENTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). NOTE: EIR 88-01 WAS CERTIFIED ON APRIL 11, 1988 BY THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2485. TO ALLOW MODIFICATIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 88-01) AND DESIGN REVIEW (DR 88-10). RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2748 recertifying Final EIR 88-01 with Addendum 90-1; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2749 approving Conditional Use Permit 88-01, as submitted or revised; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2750 approving Design Review 88-10, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Staff made changes to the staff report, as moved. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:23 p.m. Jay Falkenb~rq clarified issues regarding the Environmental Impact Report by noting that initially the two buildings were to be phased separately; and that they are now trying to complete the two buildings at the same time, but the plans are dependent upon the State plan review process. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if they anticipate a higher level of noise with the current plans. Mr Falkenberg replied that this might cause a longer period of construction which might cause a longer period of noise; and that the original EIR was written as though the buildings would be completed sequentially, but that they are trying to complete them at the same time. Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 1990 Page 7 The Director replied that the addendum notes that the proposal could shorten the construction time. Mr. Falkenbera replied that they were trying to improve the conditions, but may not be able to; and noted that Page 2 of Exhibit A of Resolution 2749, Item 1.11 was deleted on drawings as early as April 18, 1988 as approved by the Commission on April 11, 1988 as a structural consideration; and that the tile interrupts the moment frame. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the changes had been discussed with staff. Randy Watts, continental Medical Systems, noted that they would take full responsibility if there was any problems incurred with the underground parking; and that due to concerns for neighborhood privacy, they removed the balconies from the south elevation, in addition to the construction concerns. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:32 p.m. Staff noted that the set of drawings of April 18, 1988 was not on file, but that there is a set of approved drawings of April 11, 1988 available which is what the staff is basing their comparison on. The Director noted that the staff's position is that there needs to be an architectural transition from the cornice roof treatment on the north elevation; and that the Commission needs to provide direction. Staff noted that they are not suggesting there be a balcony, only a roof projection. The Public Hearing was re-opened at 8:35 p.m. Mr. Fa~kenberg noted that they are in possession of the set of drawings in question; and that the reason for the deletion of the balcony was not for aesthetic reasons, but due to construction concerns. The Director noted that they would be satisfied with modifications to the condition to indicate additional architectural detail to improve the transition at the southeasterly portion of that building and provide aesthetic relief. Mr. Falkenberq noted that the cornice on the north elevation and facade were flattened out due to being in the vicinity of a fire lane; that the lane was not for public access; and that the ground was covered in turf block. Commissioner Kasparian noted that the trees may hide the bareness of the south elevation, but that the Commission would like all sides to be reasonably nice looking. Commiss~oDer Shaheen asked how much the company had invested in the project. Mr. Watts replied that there was more money in the facility than anticipated; and that the original working budget was unrealistic. Commiss$oner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the bulk storage of oxygen. Mr. Watts replied that it was a bulk horizontal system which was to be located on the property; that they have to meet strict Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 1990 Page 8 architectural requirements of the State; and that it will cut down on deliveries since it is piped directly into the facility. Commissioner KasparSan asked if it would be piped under the street. Mr Falkenberq replied that the piping will no longer go under the cul-de-sac, but run along it. Commissioner Baker asked if the freeway expansion would have any effect on the facility; and if there would be a sound attenuation wall. The Director replied that the project was approved by Cal Trans; and that a wall would be deleted at this location, but that they would install additional landscaping. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if all of the local street corners had wheel chair ramp cut-outs. Mr. Watts noted that most of the current patients have severe head injuries, but that the new facility would be a general rehabilitation unit with more mobile patients. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the Planning Department needed to renotice the public. The Director replied that it was renoticed and that there were no replies. The Public Hearing re-closed at 8:50 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he was application as presented. in favor of the Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to recertify Final EIR 88-01 with Addendum 90-1 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2748 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 88-01 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2749 with the following revisions: Exhibit A, item 1.12 change "superseded" to "deleted". Change item 3.2 to read as follows: "3.2 Revise landscape plan to provide more mature plant stock along the west property line. The plant materials shall be of appropriate size, quantity, spacing and species to visually screen the hospital complex, as determined by the Community Development Department." Change item 1.11 to read as follows: "1.11 Revised elevations for the north and south sides of the Acute Care (Medical Rehabilitation) Hospital (new building) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department and shall include a decorative cornice or other design/facade embellishments on the north elevation and also additional architectural detailing to improve the architectural transition at the southeasterly portion of the southerly (courtyard) elevation." Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Design Review 88-10 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2750 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 1990 Page 9 5. Status of Sign Code Update Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to nominate Commissioner Kasparian as the second Committee member to the Sign Code Committee. Commissioner Kasparian accepted. Motion carried 4-0. NEW BUSINESS Chairman ~ Jeune asked that the appointment of a Vice Chairman to the Planning Commission be agendized for the February 26, 1990 meeting. Motion carried 4-0. STAFF CONCERNS 6. City Council Action Aqenda February 5, 1990 COI~ISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Le Jeune asked staff about the date that the information on Recycling would be on the agenda. Commissioner Baker asked about the status of: dirt piles at Newport and Main, noting that the fence is open; getting street lights on Bryan between Red Hill and Browning; and the wood lot on E1 Camino Real. He also thanked staff for their reliability. Staff responded that they would follow up on enforcement of the fencing on the Newport and Main site and noted that the project is still in plan check and the applicant is awaiting certification from the Orange County Health Department. Staff also indicated that they would follow through on Code enforcement on the wood lot. Commissioner Shaheen asked about the status of the installation of lights in Magnolia park and an update on the status of the property between the Peppertree homes and Tustin Meadows. The Director noted that the lighting of the park would be up to the Public Works Department and would make an inquiry of Community Services; and that the storm drain between Peppertree and Tustin Meadows is in design and the City is waiting to see just what type of future easement area will be needed. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if staff sent notices of public hearings to both the Tustin News and the Tustin Today. He also asked whether all political candidates had been informed about the political sign regulations. The Director noted that the notices must be published in an adjudicated newspaper, which the Tustin Today is not. She also noted that the City Clerk was insuring that all political candidates receive a copy of the Sign Code regulations regulating political signage. The Director reminded the Commissioners about the upcoming League of California Cities Planning Commissioner's Institute. Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 1990 Page 10 At 9:10 p.m., Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission on February 26, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Motion carried 4-0. Penni Foley Secretary