Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-08-90MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING REGULAR XEETING JANUARY 8, L990 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., C~ty Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Pontious, Le Jeune, Baker, 8h&heen, 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 December 11, 1989 Planninq Commission Meeting 2. MODIFICATION TO DESIGN REVIEW 88-44 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: REQUEST: AKINS DEVELOPMENT ONE CIVIC PLAZA; SUITE 175 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 IRVINE PACIFIC LOT 14 OF TRACT 12870 MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - SPECIFIC PLAN AUTHORIZATION TO REVISE PRIMARY RECREATION AREA TO INCLUDE: 1. EAST TUSTIN LEASING AND A SINGLE STORY LEASING/RECREATION BUILDING IN PLACE OF THE APPROVED TWO-STORY BUILDING. DETACHED RESTROOMAND POOL EQUIPMENT BUILDINGS WITHIN THE POOL AREA. AMAINTENANCE BUILDING ACROSS FROM THE PRIMARY RECREATION AREA. A TOT LOT AND BARBECUE/PICNIC AREA IN PLACE OF THE APPROVED SAND VOLLEYBALL COURT, AND; TWO CAR WASHING STALLS IN PLACE OF TWO APPRO.VED GUEST PARKING SPACES. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2734 approving modifications to the previously approved leasing/recreation area design originally approved by Design Review 88-44 subject to the conditions contained in the attached Exhibit A as submitted or revised. 3. MODIFICATION TO DESIGN REVIEW 88-45 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1990 Page 2 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION: AKINS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ONE CIVIC PLAZA; SUITE 175 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 LOTS 1 AND 2 OF TRACT 12870 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AUTHORIZATION TO 1) REVISE APPROVED BUILDING ELEVATIONS; AND 2) ALTER CONDITION 3.6 OF EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 2583 REQUIRING MASONRY WALLS. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2735 and 2736 approving the requested modifications to the project originally approved by Design Review 88-45 as submitted or revised. Commissioner Pontious noted that the applicant for items 2 and 3 had requested that these modifications be removed from the consent calendar and rescheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the consent calendar Item 1 with Items 2 and 3 being rescheduled at the applicant's request. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Commissioner Pontious requested that Item No. 9 be moved to the beginning of the public hearings. 9. USE PERMIT 89-38 AND VARIANCE 89-20 APPLICANT: NORMAN FORD FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH 13955 YALE AVENUE IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92720 CO-APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ALBERT J. AUER TUSTIN CORPORATE PARK LTD. 3300 IRVINE AVENUE, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 2472 WALNUT AVENUE (UP 89-38, VARIANCE 89-20) 2492 WALNUT AVENUE (VARIANCE 89-20) PLANNED COMMUNITY, INDUSTRIAL; IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL ACT. A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A CHURCH ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2472 WALNUT AVENUE AND A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 204 PARKING SPACES TO 103 ON-SITE SPACES. THE REMAINING 101 REQUIRED SPACES ARE PROPOSED TO BE PROVIDED BY A JOINT PARKING AGREEMENT ON AN ADJACENT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2492 WALNUT AND THEREFORE A VARIANCE IS ALSO REQUESTED TO REDUCE ITS REQUIRED PARKING FROM 167 PARKING SPACES TO 66 SPACES. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Certify the Final Negative Declaration for the project as adequate by adoption of Resolution No. 2719; and 2. Approve Use Permit 89-38 and Variance 89-20 by adoption of Resolution No. 2720, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christopher E. Jackson, Associate Planner Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1990 Page 3 Commissioner Shaheen asked if the parking agreement was in writing. Staff replied that the parking agreement was a legal agreement between the property owners and the City. Commissioner Baker asked if this is a recorded document; noted that the times seemed very restrictive; and asked if they would not use the facility at all during the other hours of the week. Staff replied that the agreement will be recorded; that the only times that the church would utilize the facility would be for a limited time on Wednesdays and unlimited time on Sundays; that they are allowed a certain amount of parking during the week; and that the City is only concerned about concentrated uses. Commissioner Pontious noted that they could lease additional space, with restrictions. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what would preclude the congregation from parking in the lot for Building 2. Staff replied that there was no actual prohibition. The Director noted that parking could be handled by directional signage. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that sign requirements should be put in the conditions. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the adjacent owner could withdraw parking rights; and noted that this seemed to be a change from the original guidelines, but that he preferred this. The Director noted that this is a standard reciprocal agreement that continues in perpetuity; changes would require a modification to the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Le Jeune asked how parking would be handled if ownership or tenancy changes. Staff replied that since this has only one owner, and is not a condominium situation, the reciprocal parking agreement would go with the tenancy. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:20 p.m. Bob Michelson, representative for First Baptist Church, noted that they agree with everything; that the parking hours of use will be opposite of the other uses; and that this creates a win/win for all. The Director added additional wording to Condition 3.9, as moved. Todd Ferguson, representing Peppertree Homeowners' Association, noted that they approve of the addition of the church. Norman Ford, First Baptist Church, addressed the Commission. Commissioner Baker asked if Mr. Ford felt that the hours were too restrictive; and if they would have need of the facility for Saturday seminars, etc. Mr. Ford replied that the church had occasional meetings of small groups, but very few daytime meetings. Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1990 Page 4 Commiss~Q~er Pontious asked how many parking spaces were allocated for the church. Staff replied that there were 300 unrestrictive spaces. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen noted that the people on the east end of Peppertree were agreeable to the church utilizing the space. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the City Council has asked to review the guidelines, and wondered if they were looking at it for any special reason. The Director replied that they were not looking for specifics, and that it does not affect the use of the guidelines. Commissioner Baker noted that this facility had good access to the freeway, and was a good use of capital improvements. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to certify the Final Negative Declaration for the project as adequate by the adoption of Resolution No. 2719. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to approve Use Permit 89-38 and Variance 89-20 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2720 with the following revision: Change Item 3.9 to read as follows: "3.9 Ail signs shall comply with the existing sign program and be approved by the Community Development Department and the Irvine Company prior to issuance of sign permits including the following signage: 1) Directional signage shall be installed on the church site directing overflow parking during church services to park on the property to the west of the church site at 2492 Walnut Avenue in spaces designated on the identified reciprocal parking agreement." Motion carried 5-0. 4. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13734 AND DESIGN REVIEW 89- 50 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE BREN COMPANY 5 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 C/O MR. RICHARD K. SASE LOTS 9, 10, I, J AND K OF TRACT 12870 AND PARCELS 3 AND 4 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 89-03, NORTHEAST CORNER OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND LA COLINA DRIVE. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY; EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 24.08 ACRES INTO 118 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1990 Page 5 NUMBERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 118 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS AND 26 LETTERED LOTS FOR LANDSCAPING, PRIVATE STREETS AND EMERGENCY ACCESS PURPOSES. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2740; 2. Approve Design Review 89-50 by adoption of Resolution No. 2741, as submitted or revised; and 3. Recommend to the city Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13734 by adoption of Resolution No. 2742, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Staff made changes to the conditions, as moved. Commissioner Pontious asked if the applicant received a copy of the additions. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification on the size of the area. Staff replied that the applicant requires a radius of 37 feet. Commissioner Baker asked how that compares with the public road requirements. Staff replied that there was a 37 foot minimum with no parking. Commissioner Baker asked if that meant that there was no parking either way; and how wide the median was. Staff referred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the radius of the cul-de-sac would permit a large fire truck or moving van to turn. Staff replied that a moving van would not be able to move within the cul-de-sac. The Director noted that this meets the fire department's minimum standards, but they would prefer not to have anything impede their flow through the project. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:37 p.m. Richard Sase, The Irvine Company, noted that they have modified their plans to include virtually all of staff's recommendations, with the exception of the landscape median. They are proposing a low-density, gated, and well-landscaped project; the landscape median is another amenity; they understand the staff's concerns, but the cul-de-sac has little traffic; their civil engineers reviewed the ability of emergency vehicles to manipulate the median; if the City is asked to take over the street, the CC&Rs would require changes; they believe it is an amenity, but would go by the Commission's decision. Commissioner Shaheen asked if this was their only problem area. Commissioner Pontious asked what the size of the median was. Mr. Sase replied that the median was 20 feet wide. Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1990 Page 6 The Public Hearing was closed at 7:41 p.m. CommissioNer Le Jeune noted that they have been consistent in the past concerning cul-de-sacs, and that he would agree with the recommendation of staff. Commissioner Baker asked if there was only one entrance to the project. Staff replied that there was a second emergency access from Tustin Ranch Road that is a combination paseo and emergency vehicle access. Commissioner Baker asked if that access was wide enough for emergency vehicles. Staff replied that it was a standard 20 feet wide. The Director noted that the curb will be lowered and that turf block will be installed to create a slip-resistant effect for the vehicles. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he agreed with the concerns about aesthetics, but feels that practicality is more important. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by the adoption of Resolution No. 2740. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Shaheen seconded to approve Design Review 89-50 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2741 with the following revisions: Condition 1.3 - The word "all" in the second line should be deleted. Condition 2.1(C) - Please add to the end of Condition 2.1(C) the following: "Subject grading submittal shall comply with all requirements of Condition 4.1 in Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution 2742." Condition 2.1(G) - Please add the following condition as 2.1(G): "Information, plans and/or specifications to ensure satisfaction of Conditions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 in Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution 2742. Condition 2.1(H) - Please add the following condition as 2.1(H): "Information to ensure compliance with Conditions 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 in Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution 2742. Condition 3.8 - Reference to Lot 2 in the last line should be changed to "Lot 61". Condition 4.2(G) - Condition 4.2(G) should be eliminated. Conditions 4.2(H and I) - should be renumbered accordingly. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Shaheen seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13734 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2742, revised as follows: Condition 1.5(E) - Please add the following condition as 1.5(E): "Prior to final map approval, street names shall be approved by the Street Naming Committee." Condition 2.2 - Condition 2.2 should be modified to read: "A separate covenant agreement, or provisions included within the CC&R's, shall be recorded on all Plan 3 units with the detached third car garage that the detached garage shall not be converted to habitable space." Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1990 Page 7 Condition 4.1(B)(4)(a) - Please correct the typo on the third from last line; "he" should read "the". Condition 4.1(B)(4)(b) - "across lot lines." should be added to the end of the sentence. Condition 4.1(B)(4~(d) - "contributory" should be changed to "tributary". Condition 7.1(R) - Please add the following condition as 7.1(R): "Provisions to ensure that the pedestrian gates at the main entrance shall not have locking devices and remain open and accessible." Condition 8.1(E) - Condition 8.1(E) should be eliminated and Condition 8.1(F) should become the new 8.1(E). Condition 9.3(G)(3) - Please change to "Fire Protection Facility Fee." Motion carried 5-0. 5. AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 73-18 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92680 C/O SUSAN JONES CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92680 1400 MITCHELL AVENUE PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1), PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. A REQUEST TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 73-18 IN ORDER TO RECONSTRUCT AN EXISTING PLAY AREA FOR FRONTIER PARK. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve amendment to Conditional Use Permit 73-18 by adoption of Resolution No. 2733, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christopher E. Jackson, Associate Planner Commissioner Baker asked if the Police Department had looked at the plans and if they were satisfied. Staff affirmed. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:47 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:48 p.m. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the amendment to Conditional Use Permit 73-18 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2733 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. e TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14022, DESIGN REVIEW 88-70 AND VARIANCE 89-19 APPLICANT: OWNER: RICHARD C. WEBBER 76-701 NEW YORK AVENUE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 WEBBER FAMILY TRUST 76-701 NEW YORK AVENUE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1990 Page 8 LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: 1062 AND 1082 WASS STREET SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-4) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). REQUEST: 1. TO REALIGN THE LOT LINE SEPARATING TWO PARCELS, INCREASING THE AREA OF ONE OF THE LOTS BY 25 PERCENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NINE CONDOMINIUM DWELLING UNITS; 2. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR THE PROPERTY; AND 3. TO ALLOW A TWO-FAMILY CONDOMINIUM DWELLING UNIT TO ENCROACH A MAXIMUM OF 16 FEET INTO THE 25-FOOT REAR SETBACK AND A TWO-CAR GARAGE WITH A ZERO SETBACK, TO ENCROACH THREE FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 35-FOOT REAR SETBACK. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2727 certifying the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map 14022, Design Review 88-70 and Variance 89-19; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2728 recommending approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 14022; 3. Approve Design Review 88-70 and Variance 89-19 by adopting Resolution No. 2729 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Staff noted changes to the conditions, as moved. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:54 p.m. Richard Webber, applicant, noted that he has been a landowner in Tustin since 1966; that building condominiums is a plus for the neighborhood, since it will provide homeowners and not just more tenants; he agrees with staff's findings, but would like to discuss the stucco colors further; he would not like to put the trash enclosures at the rear of the facility, in order to ensure some privacy; and that there is an area on the east side of the project that might work for the trash, instead of having it at the rear. The Director noted that there has been a general condition added to allow the Director to make minor changes to the application. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that one reason for placing the enclosures away from the front of a project was that the tenants do not always leave the doors closed. Commissioner Kasparian noted that if the enclosures were at the front, it may encourage scavenging near the street. Mr. Webber replied that he would rather it occur in the front than secluded in the rear near the homes. Commissioner Pontious asked what the issue was regarding the colors. Staff replied that the stucco color was too light, and too pink; and that there was not enough contrast with the trim colors. The Director noted that the final exterior colors are subject to the decision of the Community Development Department; but that they would like the applicant to tone down the pink by possibly adding beige to the original color. Mr. Webber noted that he would work with the staff on this item. Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1990 Page 9 Commissioner poDtious noted that this item would be left up to the staff for final decision at plan check. Co~missioner Baker asked if the garage doors were equipped with openers. The Director replied that if there is a parking problem, they can enforce the CC&R's upon complaint. Mr. Webber noted that it would be easy to enforce under a homeowners association; and due to being a smaller project it would be less likely to have a problem. Mark Hepp, Architect, noted that they agree with most of the staff report; and that they are making an attempt to mitigate the architectural elevation facing Wass Street. MaryAnn Lisle, property owner on Wass Street, noted that she has been a property owner for 20 years; her main concern is parking; that the parking conditions are not clear; that the existing units do park on the street; and that she would not like them parking directly in front of her house. There is a regular trash scavenger; she is concerned with the removal of trees, as it is becoming an asphalt jungle; she would like the drive areas clarified; and that repairs are needed on Wass Street due to damage done by heavy trucks. Staff replied that each condominium has a two-car attached garage; the developer will relocate the apartment garages and provide additional parking to meet zoning requirements. In lots 1 and 2 there are 15 open guest spaces in addition to the enclosed spaces; and the project exceeds the parking requirements by providing enclosed garages on the apartments and excess guest spaces. The project still has two entrances; Wass Street will be widened to its ultimate width, but is already a general street with parking along both sides. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he did not foresee a problem with people parking across the street. Staff noted that across the street from this project is County area without curbs and gutters; the landscaping adds quite a few trees; and that the apartment site will retain the existing Olive trees. Commissioner Kasparian asked Ms. Lisle if this answered her questions or fears. Ms. Lisle affirmed. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:13 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian asked for clarifications of the changes made by staff, and if the reference to item 6.3 in Resolution 2729 (f) should be deleted. The Director replied that item 6.3 is not applicable to this condition. Commissioner Baker noted that he is concerned that we are becoming a city of condominiums, but that people consider this an improvement due to problems on that parcel. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to certify the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map 14022 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2727. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1990 Page 10 Commiss~oDer Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 14022 by the adoption of Resolution 2728 with the following revisions: Condition 1.6 change "lighting district" to "City of Tustin 1982 Landscaping and Lighting District" Condition 4.1(B) (4) (b) - "across lot lines." should be added to the end of the sentence. Condition 4.1(B) (4) (d) - "contributory" should be changed to "tributary". Condition 8.1(B) line 4 - delete "noise statement and" and replace with "a". Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Design Review 88-70 and Variance 89-19 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2729 with the following revisions: Condition 2.1 (E), delete "5.7". Motion carried 5-0. 7. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13908 AND DESIGN REVIEW 89-46 APPLICANT /OWNER: BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, INC. ONE PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1100 IRVINE, CA 92714 LOCATION: LOTS 3,D,E, AND FFF OF TRACT 12870 ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. 1. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE 97 NUMBERED AND NINE LETTERED LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT; AND; 2. APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1) Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2737; 2) Approve Design Review 89-46 by adopting Resolution No. 2738, as submitted or revised; and 3) Recommend City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13908 by adopting Resolution No. 2739, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Staff made changes to the conditions, as moved. Commissioner Pontious asked if the applicant had received the changes. Staff affirmed. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:25 p.m. Jack Reimer, Vice President of Bramalea, noted that the average Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1990 Page 11 square footage of the houses was 3,800; that the Irvine Company had asked to increase the square footage of Plan 1 by 150 square feet; the architecture is early California contemporary; they are in complete agreement with the resolutions and conditions; they feel that they meet all of the conditions of the East Tustin Specific Plan; the project consists of many single-family homes ending in cul-de-sacs; they have varying exposures; and there are 17 single- story homes abutting the adjacent properties. Commissioner Shaheen asked if there was an emergency exit. Mr. Reimer replied that there is a five (5) foot meandering walkway, with 20 foot clearance; it is a paseo with posterns moveable by the fire department; there is turf block with landscape vines; and the pedestrian paseo is lit. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the area was paved. Mr. Reimer replied that underneath the turf block is concrete which is driveable. He also noted that the color palette had many variations for each Plan which had been approved by the Irvine Company. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the Plans provided open-beam ceilings; and that he felt that they were not fuel-efficient. Mr. Reimer replied that they will have open-beam ceilings to create volume; and that they have a tremendous amount of glass. Selling prices would range from $650,000 to $750,000. Janine Harmon, 12232 Ranchwood, asked if the 150 square foot modifications would increase the density beyond 50%; and noted that the adjacent residents were below grade level. Mr. Reimer replied that they were minor modifications, and would not exceed 48%; 11 homes would accommodate the increased square footage. The Director replied that the Design Review ensured that the grade levels are below or at existing grade levels. Ms. Harmon asked how they determine the height of the one-story buildings; asked how the heights of these new homes compare with the existing ones on Ranchwood; and how will the homes on the next lot north compare with the existing homes in that area. Mr. Reimer noted that the heights would be 22 feet to 22 feet 6 inches. The Director noted that the Specific Plan has no requirement on heights of single-story houses; that they make a finding that determines there is a general compatibility; and that there is nothing restrictive in the Specific Plan. Ms. Harmon asked if comparison is just by height; and asked what is acceptable and non-acceptable; that just behind her house the grade is higher; and that they have limited the new adjacent homes to single-story to maintain privacy, but they still may limit views. The Director noted that she appreciated Ms. Harmon's concerns; that unilaterally, the Commission does not have the ability to instill height restrictions, but that she can refer the matter to the Policy Committee to be addressed; and that they will discuss it with the Irvine Company. Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1990 Page 12 Commissioner Pontious asked if this would be tabled to the City Council. The Director replied that there is already a Policy Committee of the City Council; and that the Irvine Company will come back with a proposal. Commissioner Kasparian asked if this meant that there could be a 32 foot single-story building. The Director noted that she preferred not to decide this at the staff level, since a policy is needed for future developments. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the CC&R's should give guidance. The Director replied that this would not be covered by the CC&R's; but the initial development plans would make a judgement of what is compatible. Commissioner Shaheen asked if this was the property seen on the field trip that the Commission took. The Director replied that the property seen on the field trip was further north. Judy Almquist, 2281 Pavillion, noted that she is not a resident of Tustin, but that she backs up to a future development; that she is concerned with the height and compatibility of the new homes; that she has an 18 foot home with a view of the hill; and that the Irvine Company has been cooperative. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:47 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded Environmental Determination for the project Resolution No. 2737. Motion carried 5-0. to approve the by adoption of Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Design Review 89-68 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2738 with the following revision: Condition 3.1(A) - line 3, replace "be" with "not exceed". Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to recommend to City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13908 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2739 with the following revisions: Condition 1.5(C) - add to the end of the last sentence "unless located outside of sidewalk widths within public utility easement areas subject to Condition 7.1 P of this Exhibit. Condition 4.1(B)(4)(b) - "across lot lines." should be added to the end of the sentence. Condition 4.1(B) (4)(d) - "contributory" should be changed to "tributary". Condition 4.3 - should reference Resolution No. "2738", not "2739". Condition 6.1(B) - delete "adjacent" and after "residences", add "to the west of Tract 13908" Condition 7.1 - add -P. Provisions shall be made to specifically identify that street light standards and mailboxes may be located within the three foot public utility easement behind the private street right-of-way. Where such facilities are located on private property within the utility easement, notification shall be given to those owners as to Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1990 Page 13 the locations, types and quantities of all facilities as it relates to their specific property. Condition 9.3(G) - replace "Agency" with "Facility". Motion carried 5-0. 8. DESIGN REVIEW 89-68, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-47 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CODY SMALL CMS DEVELOPMENT 3199 A-3 AIRPORT LOOP DRIVE COSTA MESA, CA 92626 14041 NEWPORT AVENUE AT THE I-5 FREEWAY PC-COMM. - PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT A 45,376 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER WITH CARL'S JR. ON A 3.11 ACRE PARCEL AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NEWPORT AVENUE AND THE I-5 FREEWAY. REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DESIGN REVIEW AND USE PERMIT. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Certify the Negative Declaration as adequate for the project by adoption of Resolution #2730, as submitted or revised; 2. Approve Design Review 89-68 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2732, as submitted or revised; and 3. Approve Use Permit 89-47 by adoption of Resolution No. 2731, as submitted or revised; also denying the 50 foot pole sign. Presentation: Beth Schoemann, Associate Planner Staff made changes to the conditions, as moved. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if medical, dental, and chiropractors were considered prohibited uses in a retail center; and if they were allowed as a Conditional Use. The Director replied that they would not be allowed in this project due to the parking problems that would occur with a medical/dental facility. Also, since this is in the Redevelopment District, the City Council desires that uses contribute to the general fund; this could not be achieved with a medical/dental use. Commissioner Shahe~n asked if they were proposing a six (6) inch setback on the southwest property line. The Director replied that a large setback along the rear propertyline for retail/commercial center such as this would create a "no man's land" behind the buildings which tend to be unmaintained and create policing problems. The developer would provide a nice exterior building wall and outer wall. She also noted that the reciprocal access agreement would need to be recorded; if the builder makes building improvements to the Headache Treatment Center, the owner will have to allow access; the applicant has tried to work out an agreement with the owners of the Headache Treatment Center; and no condemnation agreement has been made. Commissioner Kasparian asked about mitigation of the sunlight on the block wall; and asked how high the building was. The Director replied that the building was 18 feet high. Commissioner Kasparian noted that if the building is 12 feet above Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1990 Page 14 the wall, he felt it would look stark, that he could not imagine the residents having to face it; and that it faces west. The Director noted that it would have a textured finish, with a color that was consistent with the Tustin Plaza project; that she did not believe it would have a glare; and that the units affected are close to C Street, and have large yards. Commissioner Baker noted that some of the units were boarded up. The Director replied that they belonged to an absentee landlord; that they are not required to rezone them from R-i; that two (2) years ago when they looked at the area, it was the desire of the Council that existing residences not be rezoned. Commissioner Kasparian asked if they had received any calls from the area; and regarding item 5.14, he asked if there was a maximum or minimum size of loading areas. The Director replied that they had only received one call from Mrs. Sosin of the Headache Treatment Center; and that 12 x 25 is the minimum, but they can be larger as long as they do not affect the turning radius for trucks. Myra Sosin, Headache Treatment Center, noted their concerns: 1) the plans shown at the meeting show a traffic pattern with traffic crossing her property; 2) the plans show a sidewalk going down Mitchell, but they have no agreement for dedication of a sidewalk; and 3) they would like to preserve the large tree on Mitchell. John Rose, homeowner on C Street, noted that he was pleased with the aesthetics, but was concerned with the 18 - 20 foot wall that would go 3/4 of the way down the block; the wall would create a less than inspiring view; there would be light and heat reflection from the wall; he asked the Commission's consideration in requiring the developer to include additional landscaping; and he registered his disapproval for a 50 foot sign for Carl's Jr. Commissioner Pontious asked if the recent development approved on First Street included additional landscaping; and if it was possible to accommodate this request for additional landscaping. The Director replied that it required installation of landscaping on the developer's side of the wall, as well as additional landscaping on the apartment owner's side; and that due to the configuration of the lot, there was not a lot of depth to create room for the landscaping; but that the developer could add architectural upgrades, such as eaves and additional landscaping where applicable. Commissioner Shaheen requested that the wall be painted with a washable paint in case of graffiti. Cody Small, CMS Development, noted that he appreciated the assistance of the property owners and the staff; that they have tried to work out an agreement with the owners of the Headache Treatment Center, then tried to integrate their structure into the project; for integration, they wanted access from Mitchell Street, but they could not come to agreeable terms. Commissioner Pontious asked if access is denied, would there be no Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1990 Page 15 improvements along Mitchell Street. The Director referred to Item 1.9 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2731, in which it notes that the City is not party to expenses incurred for street improvements. Mr. Small noted that they were moving Carl's Jr. to a larger facility in a superior location with freeway exposure and freeway access; they anticipate spending $2 Million; they need to generate substantially higher sales to recoup their expenses; the pole sign is paramount; that the Code does not provide for a 50 foot pole sign, but allows a 24 foot sign within 500 feet of a freeway; also, the reflection that may result from the wall, could be mitigated with bougainvillea; and they could provide a softer color to lessen the impact of the structure. Commissioner Kasparian asked how they could install bougainvillea in a six (6) inch space; and that it was basically a good idea, but impractical. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that nothing would be able to grow between the building and the wall. Commissioner Baker asked how long the building was; and asked the residents how close they were to the wall. Mr. Small replied that the building was about 200 feet long. Mr. Rose replied that they face it from just across C Street. The Director noted that the building was about the height of the adjacent residences; that the height includes an enclosed parapet for air conditioning units; and added wording to Item 5.20, as moved. Commissioner maintenance. Kasparian asked who would be responsible for The Director replied that it would be the responsibility of the residents; and that whatever irrigation was required for the vines would be installed on the center's side of the wall, but maintenance of the trees would be the responsibility of the property owners. Commissioner Pontious noted that the additional plantings were not required, but this allows the property owners to request it. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the setback would be moved from six (6) inches to 18 inches; and if irrigation would be affected by the foundation. The Director replied that it would be moved to 18 inches for irrigation; and that since they use pop-up planters, they would not be affected by the foundation; this property is different from the project on First Street, since there is no difference in grade level. Mr. Small requested the changes in writing. The Director replied that they could provide the changes in writing, but that it would delay approval of the project. John Baker, Carl's Jr., noted that this site was proposed due to the freeway access; that on Page 9 of the Code, there is allowance for a 24 foot pole sign, which also allows for a 50 foot sign if the applicant can show just need. He stated that this site gets Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1990 Page 16 virtually no visibility due to being 25 feet below grade level; he noted that several other businesses in the area use pole signs, so a precedent would not be set; that he is concerned with what is appropriate for this store; and that the sign would provide drive- thru notification to drivers on the freeway. Commissioner Kasparian asked what lane the photographs of the off- ramp were taken from (based on pictures passed out by the applicant). Mr. Smal% replied that they were taken from the west side of the freeway, in the center lane going south. Commissioner Kasparian noted that the line of sight for lane 3 or 4 would be considerably better; and asked if they knew about the 50 foot limit in the beginning. Mr. Small affirmed. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if this would be affected by the freeway widening; and that since the trees seem to block the sight of the location, that would be improved with the widening. The Director replied that the final configuration has recently been approved by Cal Trans. Commissioner Pontious noted that the signs referred to were all non-conforming; and that the owners of the signs could change the copy but not the structure and still comply. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that Marie Calendar's sign does not exceed 24 feet. The Director noted that no pole sign is permitted as an outright use within the City. Mr. Baker noted that the photo from the far right lane still shows extreme visual blockage; and if they are 24 - 26 feet below grade, the facility would be even more blocked. Commissioner Baker noted that it would be a difficult place to maneuver across lanes to get to the exit in time. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:54 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he was opposed to the 50 foot pole sign. Commissioner Baker noted that he felt that the wall was disturbing; that it was presumptive to design someone else's parcel into the plans; that he was not comfortable with the project, that the set back should be moved to 18 inches as a bare minimum; but that he was not opposed to a 24 foot pole sign. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he was in agreement with both Commissioners; and that a 24 foot pole sign might be visible without the trees. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the pole sign would affect the applicant's ability to have a monument sign. The Director replied negatively; also that the Design Review was scheduled for January 15; that Use Permits are final unless appealed, but would be dealt with separately from the Design Review. Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1990 Page 17 Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to certify the Negative Declaration as adequate for the project by the adoption of Resolution No. 2730. Motion carried 5-0. Commissione~ Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Design Review 89-68 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2732 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Use Permit 89-47, denying the 50 foot high pole sign by the adoption of Resolution No. 2731 with the following revision: Condition 1.4(B) after "gaming establishments" add "adult bookstores and massage establishments." Condition 5.11 - Change to read as follows: "A revised, detailed project sign program including design, location, sizes, color and materials shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Community Development. The sign program shall include project identification, addressing and directional signs to direct autos to proper access, parking and loading and include any traffic restrictions. All signs shall be in accordance with the Tustin Sign Code and subject to the proper permit requirements; reflecting the following: One (1) business identification sign per tenant per building frontage. Maximum size front wall: 15% of wall area not to exceed 75 square feet. Maximum size rear and side wall: 5% of wall area not to exceed 25 square feet. Hanging arcade signs not to exceed one sign per tenant nor larger than six (6) square feet per face. Signs must be below the roof line and maintain a seven (7) foot clearance from sidewalk or pedestrian level to lowest point of sign. One (1) monument sign for center identification not to exceed 75 square feet or six (6) feet in height per street frontage. A tenant identification directory may be incorporated on the center identification monument provided the sign does not exceed 75 square feet per face nor six (6) square feet per tenant. ° Traffic and secondary signs shall be standard sizes and utilize decorative metal posts. Actual size, design and location shall be subject to Community Development Department Director Condition 5.18 add at the end of the sentence "and shall be used for storage and display space only." Add Condition "5.20 The rear elevations of Building D shall be revised to provide additional architectural relief and treatments to reduce the starkness of this elevation including increasing the building setback to 18 inches and corresponding reductions in floor area as appropriate, installation of landscaping particularly wall climbing vines and shrubs to reduce the visual impact and where agreements can be obtained from adjacent single family residences installations of 24" box trees at 20 foot intervals in a species type and planting location approved by the Director of Community Development." Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUBII~$B 10. STATUS REPORT, ORANGE COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATION: Instruct staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1990 Page 18 Amendment requiring land use decisions to be consistent with the Orange County Waste Management Plan. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to instruct staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendment requiring land use decisions to be consistent with the Orange County Waste Management Plan. Motion carried 4-0 (Shaheen absent). NEW BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS 11. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Development Director of Community COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Shaheen complimented the Public Works staff on the increase in traffic control. Commissioner Kasparian asked the status of the Sign Code. The Director noted that the City Attorney is in the process of making their comments and assured the Commission that they will have adequate time to react to the Code changes. Commissioner Baker thanked staff for the information on the wood lot on E1 Camino Real and asked who will make decisions on ridge questions regarding the property next to Racquet Hills on Lot 5. The Director has encouraged property owners to meet with the Irvine Company and Standard Pacific, who have looped these property owners in on the process. She indicated that these property owners have indicated that they are satisfied with the response they are receiving to date. ADJOURNMENT At 10:15 Commissioner Pontious moved, Baker seconded to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission on January 22, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Motion carried 5-0. Chairman