Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-11-89MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 11v 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Pontious, 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. CONSENT CALEND~R: (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 NOVEMBER 27, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Commiss%oner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to approve the consent calendar with the exception of Item 2 which was held over for discussion. Motion carried 5-0. SECOND AMENDMENT TO FINAL TRACT MAP 12870, STREET VACATION REOUEST APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8904 SECTOR 8 OF TUSTIN RANCH, TRACT 12870 PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL: EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO FINAL TRACT MAP 12870 IS MINISTERIALLY EXEMPT, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. THE PROPOSED STREET VACATION HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15061 (B.3) OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO (1) AMEND FINAL TRACT MAP 12870 TO ACCOMMODATE PRIVATE ENTRY IMPROVEMENTS; AND (2) DETERMINE THAT THE VACATION OF CHAMPION WAY, TO BECOME A PRIVATE STREET IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) Determine that the vacation of Champion Way for private street purposes, is consistent with the City's General Plan, by adopting Resolution No. 2725, as submitted or revised; 2) Recommend approval of an amendment to Final Tract Map 12870 to the city Council by adopting Resolution No. 2726, as submitted or revised; and 3) Approve Design Review 88-67 by adopting Resolution No. 2727, as submitted. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of page 4 of Item 2, and Items 5 and 6 on this evening's agenda regarding responsibility for maintenance of Champion Way. He wondered how there could be two people involved, the Association and Irvine Pacific, in the maintenance of the same street. The Director replied that the Irvine Pacific Company and their respective development interests would be responsible. Staff noted that lots 21 and 22 would form a joint project creating a master association to share the responsibility of maintaining Champion Way. Presently, Irvine Pacific is the owner of both lots. Commissioner Pontious noted that at this point, as apartments, they are governed by Irvine Pacific. If they are converted into condominiums, the master association is to be divided up and become the individual responsibilities of the separate associations. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded to determine that the vacation of Champion Way for private street purposes is consistent with the City's General Plan, by the adoption of Resolution No. 2725, as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded to recommend approval of an amendment to Final Tract Map 12870 to the City Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 Page 3 Council by adopting Resolution No. 2726, as submitted. carried 5-0. Motion Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Design Review 88-67 by adopting Resolution No. 2727, as submitted. Motion carried 5-Q. PUBLIC HE~RINGS 3. CONTINUANCE OF USE PERMIT 89-38 TO THE JANUARY 8, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue this item to the January 8, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. Presentation: Christopher E. Jackson, Associate Planner Commissioner Pontious asked if there was any public input, even though this item had been continued. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to continue this item to the January 8, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 4. AMENDMENT TO VARIANCE 88-10 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: SYCAMORE GARDENS HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION 14802 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 SYCAMORE GARDENS STOCK CO-OPERATIVE 14802 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 14802 NEWPORT AVENUE, TUSTIN R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301(a)(d) AND (k) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AMENDMENTS TO CONDITION NO.'S 8, 9 AND 10 OF EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION NO. 2543, PERTAINING TO CERTAIN REPAIRS RECOMMENDED IN BUILDING AND PEST INSPECTION REPORTS AND COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE CITY'S SECURITY CODE. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve certain amendments to the original approved conditions for Variance 88-10, by adopting Resolution No. 2724, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Associate Planner Staff noted a few minor changes to the staff report and recommended adding a few words to clarify the amendments, as moved. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the applicant has questions or problems within the next seven days, does he come back to the Commission; and asked if there was any obstruction to compliance. Staff replied that the applicant has seven (7) days to appeal to the City Council. Staff will provide the applicant with a copy of the Resolution, and the City Council can deal with it or send it back to the Planning Commission; this addresses everything; the Homeowners Association has agreed to take care of common facilities prior to the conversion process; and they have 180 days from the time of the recordation of the Certificate of Compliance to make the repairs. Commissioner Shaheen asked how close this comes to satisfying the applicant. Staff replied that it does everything they wanted to do; it puts off the repair to sale; and it makes repair the responsibility of the individual owners. The Director suggested that the Commission might want to continue this without renoticing since there were so few present regarding this item. Commissioner Baker suggested that he thought it best to finish it at this meeting rather than continue it so that the owners could move on; and that they should not have to be delayed any further because their management company was absent from this meeting. Commissioner Pontious agreed. Commissioner Shaheen asked if a copy of this had been mailed, and noted that the Mr. Kvidt was out of town for a few days, but should be back. Staff replied that he was sent a copy last week, and was informed that he would be back today. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 Page 5 Comm~ss~Qner Le Jeun~ felt that, out of courtesy, he should be informed that he has until next Monday to challenge this. Staff reconfirmed the Director's comment regarding the availability of continuing this item. Commissioner Pontious asked if a modification of Page 2 of the Resolution regarding monitoring of the 180 day period could be made; and since the second paragraph allows someone who does not allow access to his unit to possibly get by without repairs upon sale, the language should be changed to state "shall be required to have inspections." The Director said that "with final inspection to verify Code compliance to be conducted by the Community Development Department" could be added. It is required that they have permits, but inspections are not reinforced, and this language would ensure compliance. CommSssioner Shahe~ asked how compliance would be enforced. The Director noted that it would be on the Certificate of Compliance for each unit that did not have an inspection report recorded against it. Commissioner Pontious noted that she felt better about having a little stronger language so as to not let someone slip by; also that this is in fairness to those who had allowed access to their units. The public hearing was opened at 7:20 p.m. Bob Fisher, Sycamore Gardens property owner, could not explain why the property managers were absent; felt that the changes represented what they had asked for; and he urged the Commission to take action this evening so that escrows and refinancings that were in progress could receive their Certificates of Compliance. The public hearing closed at 7:21 p.m. Commiss$oner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to approve certain amendments to the original approved conditions for Variance 88-10, by adopting Resolution No. 2724, revised as follows: "Page 1, item II. line one, after "amends" add "in their entirety"; Page 2, paragraph one, line 15, after "Compliance" add "with final inspection to verify compliance by the Community Development Department"; and Page 2, paragraph two, Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 Page 6 line 5 change "encouraged" to "required" Motion carried 5-0. Se VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13786, DESIGN REVIEW 89-42 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-13 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: AKINS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 1 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 175 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 IRVINE PACIFIC P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8904 LOTS 22, HH AND II OF TRACT 12870 PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. 1. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE THREE NUMBERED AND TWO LETTERED LOTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES; 2. APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT AUTHORIZING 306 APARTMENT UNITS AND TENNIS COURT LIGHTING; AND 3. 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. 2721; 2) Approve Design Review 89-13 and Use Permit 89-42 by adopting Resolution No. 2722, as submitted or revised; and 3) Recommend City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13786 by adopting Resolution No. 2723, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked if drought-proof landscaping was being encouraged for this project as well as other projects; if wheel chair ramps and curb cuts had been installed; and asked for a clarification of the actual acreage; and if the staff report should be considered correct. Staff affirmed that they do utilize drought-proof landscaping; wheel chair ramps and corner access in sidewalks were installed as per the Building Code; and that the acreage may be inconsistent between the blue print and the staff report due to changes in Champion Way; and that the staff report should be the most current Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 Page 7 information. The Director noted that Item 2.1 clarified handicap requirements. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of Exhibit A, Page 3 Item I, where it notes that each unit should have a separate water meter or a separate water shut-off; and felt that the shut-off was more important in each unit. The Director noted that they could not have both a meter and a shut-off valve in a multi-family unit, but there could be a separate shut-off valve. Staff noted that a separate shut-off in each unit should be proposed. Comm~s$%0ner Kasparia~ asked for a change to the wording of Item 2.2, as moved; and noted Item 6 on the Agenda as an example. The Director asked for a clarification from the Commission on this item. ¢0mm%ssioner Pont~ous felt that "consideration" did not mean that they would allow an applicant to think about it, but that it was actually a requirement. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Conrad $~ck, Akins Development, commented that they were pleased with the working relationship with the staff. He noted one condition, Item 3.2 D, should be revised, as moved. Commissioner Pontious asked what the difference would be, cost and maintenance-wise, in putting the rain gutters on the interior versus the exterior. Mr, Sick replied that the cost impact is substantial because it complicates the structure of the unit. It is an integrated eave, built into the roof. The problem is that the exterior wood elements have to be one-hour rated. With opening a cavity for the rain gutter, it poses special rating elements that have to be mitigated as well as the potential of water intrusion into the unit. It is more costly, and more difficult to build into the architecture. It is more difficult to maintain, as exterior rain gutters can be flushed more easily. The Director noted that staff agreed with the applicant's request; and provided further language, as moved. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 Page 8 The public hearing closed at 7:42 p.m. Staff noted that the reference to the tennis courts could be deleted. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by the adoption of Resolution No. 2721, as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to approve Design Review 89-13 and Use Permit 89-42 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2722, revised as follows: Eliminate all reference to tennis court lighting; Exhibit A, page 3, item 2.2 delete "Consideration shall be given to"; on page 5, delete item 3.2 D and replace with: "D. Show all downspouts and gutters. Downspouts and gutters shall be painted to match buildings and be positioned to minimize visual impact by: 1. Locating downspouts at inside building corners where possible. 2. Painting gutters and downspouts to match the adjacent roof or plaster color as the location dictates. Final location and color to be subject to approval by the Community Development Department." Delete item 4.11 on page ten; and renumber item 4.12 as 4.11. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13786 by adopting Resolution No. 2723, as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. ® VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13824, DESIGN REVIEW 88-58 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-33 APPLICANT: REGIS CONTRACTORS, INC. 5160 BIRCH STREET, SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 OWNER: IRVINE PACIFIC P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8904 LOCATION: LOTS 21 AND FF OF TRACT 12870 (AS AMENDED) ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 Page 9 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. REQUEST: 1. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE EIGHT NUMBERED AND THREE LETTERED LOTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES; 2.APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AUTHORIZING 317 APARTMENT UNITS; AND 3. 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. 2716; 2) Approve Design Review 88-58 and Conditional Use Permit 89-33 by adopting Resolution No. 2717, as submitted or revised; and Recommend City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13824 by adopting Resolution No. 2718, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Associate Planner Staff made changes to the staff report, as moved. The public hearing was opened at 7:52 p.m. J~m Gilley, Regis Contractors, noted that they would be agreeable to the condition in the CC&R's to police the parking in the driveways of the two buildings with the short setbacks in the center of the project. Commissioner Pontious asked if increasing the setbacks would be impossible or unfeasible. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there would be a parking problem for people with two cars. Mr. Gilley replied that it was possible to increase the setbacks, but that they prefer to police it through the CC&R's; and that there are additional parking spaces on-site. Commissioner Pontious noted that the City has had problems in other areas where they have allowed short driveways; policing might be all right, and that she is all for green space, but was concerned with creating a problem that they know has been created elsewhere and will definitely present problems here. Commissioner Kasparian asked how they plan to police the problem; that his observation has been that with a short setback, people trying to walk on the sidewalk cannot, and must walk in the street; and that he feels that it is best to remove this problem early and not try to police it. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 Page 10 Mr. Gilley replied that it would be policed through the management of the property and the property management company; and, initially, if they do not comply, they will be towed; repeated offenses will controlled by verbage in the lease that would allow stronger action. Commissioner Pontious asked for a clarification of the two buildings in question. Mr. Gilley replied that upon entering the project, the buildings were the ones encountered behind the clubhouse. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if it would be a total of twelve feet that they would lose of the green space if they moved it; and asked what the width of the greenbelt was presently. Commissioner Pontious noted that the buildings were adjacent to the public areas which gives them additional landscaping; and noted that removal of twelve feet would cut the greenbelt down to eighteen feet. Commissioner Baker asked if it was within this type of project that they have prohibited certain lengths of driveways. The Director replied that the provisions of the Code in this particular land use designation do not, but they have done a more exhaustive police analysis. Even with the restriction not being applicable to this land use designation, the police department is asking for compliance, and the Irvine Company has agreed to work with the City on this issue wherever possible. The majority of this project is not a problem, it is just these isolated buildings. The current conditions provide for either moving the buildings for additional setback or providing for the lease agreement document. There may be a way to modify the conditions. Commissioner Pontious noted that she would like to see it minimized to the least amount of problem, possibly by just moving one building and not the other. Mr. Gilley replied that those types of changes would be acceptable to them. The public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if they were precluding parking beyond the 13 feet, or all together; and what the average length of a car was. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 Page 11 Staff replied that the driveways are only 13 feet long, and they would preclude parking in them, at all; that a tenant would have to pull all the way into the garage; the average car length is 15 feet; and from an enforcement standpoint, they have to deal with everyone the same; these units have one garage space and an uncovered space. Commissioner Baker suggested that if they moved the building closer to the street, they would deter use of the driveway and increase the green space in the rear. The Director replied that there is a minimum 10 foot setback on the loop. Commissioner Pontious suggested that one building could move; or they could move both buildings; or they could require them to set both setbacks at 10 feet. Commissioner Kasparian asked if staff had considered all the possibilities, as perhaps moving the surrounding buildings. Staff replied that there is a lot of latitude; there is nothing in the conditions that would disallow them moving another building to increase the setback; and that this should be left to staff to determine the best solution. CommissioNer ~asparian asked for a clarification of the acreage of Resolution 2717. Staff replied that, in both the Resolution and Exhibit A, the figure should be 14.10. Commiss$oDer Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by the adoption of Resolution No. 2716, as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Design Review 88-58 and Conditional Use Permit 89-33 by adopting Resolution No. 2717, revised as follows: Exhibit A, page 4, D. change separation from "15" to "10"; and on page five, change item E to read "The materials and design of chimney caps shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department." Notion carried 5-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to recommend City Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 Page 12 Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13824 by adopting Resolution No. 2718, revised as follows: Exhibit A, page seven delete item 5.6 and renumber 5.7 as the new 5.6. Motion carried 5-0. NEW BUBINESS 7. PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR CHURCHES LOCATED IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Presentation: Sara Pashalides, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasparian commented that he felt that the guidelines were good as a start. He asked if the tone of their position in the report was such that the needs of any church wanting to come into an industrial area would be subservient to the industrial needs; for example, if industry needs to work on Sunday and was noisy, could the church not complain. Staff replied that any church is evaluated with the adjacent uses; and if a church needs to add interior noise attenuation to buffer surrounding noises, then they would need to do so. The Director asked if a conditionally permitted use should regulate the tone of the regularly permitted use. Whether it be a church or other conditionally permitted use, philosophically, the intent of the district would not be achieved, and would be inconsistent with the intent and purpose statements in the districts. Commissioner Pontious noted that it was unfortunate that churches are having difficulty finding other locations; that this was their effort to find an affordable place with the space that they need; but that the City is trying to accommodate the churches, but at the same time not overrun the purpose of the industrial district. CommissioDer Baker asked for a clarification of the 1200 feet requirement. Staff replied the requirement is for churches within the industrial area that are adjacent to a different zone that happen to have other churches, schools, hospitals, etc within 1200 feet. The Director noted that the church on Sixth Street is an example of this problem, where there is a school and another church in the vicinity. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 Page 13 ¢o~mission~r ~ontious asked for a clarification of Item 7. The Director noted that on the second line they should insert "and sites with multiple buildings..." after multiple uses. CommSssioner Ba~er asked if this would be discouraging the usage on Sixth Street but not prohibiting. The Director affirmed. Commissioner Pontious commended Ms. Pashalides and staff on their efforts. Commissioner Kasparian asked if they could postpone their acceptance of the document for one week so that he could go over it further. The Director replied that since they have a number of applicants waiting for approval, they need the guidelines in order to have the ability to impose conditions or modify an action. Nova Pa~, Attorney and church member of Harvest Fellowship, noted that he agreed with Commissioner Kasparian in that the plan needs more study; since the classrooms would be utilized more by young people who do not drive, the parking requirements seem to be impractical; he was concerned with the hours of availability, due to church functions mainly being held at times when there would be no parking problem; was concerned with the restriction requiring churches to be limited to single buildings since most of the industrial buildings were in a condominium fashion with common walls; was concerned with noise restriction rights; and that the Commission should not make general rules like being more than 1200 feet from any other pubic institution; the plan is too generalized and he would like to see it more specific. The Director noted that the parking requirements contained in Guidelines are less restrictive than what the City has been using; it is also consistent with the East Tustin Specific Plan and the City of Irvine and City of Costa Mesa. The provisions of several of the PC Community districts specifically state that the off-site parking has to be above the minimum requirements of that district. The only way to justify it is by a Parking Demand Analysis. This protects the outright permitted uses within the district. Even with the existing planned community districts, with the large propensity of multiple buildings there are many single tenant buildings that would provide adequate opportunity. It is difficult to regulate tenants of multi-tenant buildings, and it would be a constant monitoring problem. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 Page 14 Commissioner Pontious noted that this does not prohibit a small congregation from going into a multi-use building. The Director commented that regarding the issue of the 1200 foot minimum, there are events related to the schools, annexations may extend the industrial boundary, and there may be technical schools, etc, which may have higher trip generation factors related to them. She also noted that if the Commission directs the staff to come back with a code amendment in the future, they would then isolate the types of uses and the trip counts associated with them. At this point, they have nothing to use as a basis for getting the adequate information they need for reviewing an application. John O'Hanion, 12282 Singing Wood Drive, Santa Ana, member of Colonial Bible Church, felt that it was important to address these issues today even though they were only standards. Regarding the 1200 foot distance between uses, he felt that the availability of parking should be the determining factor in case of incompatibility; and that regarding reciprocal parking, if the adjacent property owner is willing to dedicate his land in parking on weekends and restrict his own parking, that should not go into the equation for parking requirements. Since the church has made a significant financial commitment prior to these guidelines being adopted, they are highly motivated to see these points be considered; and suggest that churches with applications in process be considered independently of the guidelines. Robert PlummeT, Reverend Colonial Bible Church, noted that they have committed themselves to the City of Tustin at great cost. They would have liked to have been in the new developments, but could not feasibly finance it. The only way they could economically survive was in an industrial building. Having fulfilled all the standards and requirements and submitted their application, they are now, retroactively, being given something that may jeopardize their ability to survive as a congregation. He asked that the Commission at least do something about the 1200 foot requirement which directly impacts their pending facility. ~e supports Mr O'Hanion's suggestion that the City continues to process those applications that were filed prior to the adoption of the guidelines. Commissioner Shaheen asked how many applications there are for churches in the industrial area. The Director replied that there have been two and there are possibly two more. Also, that this particular church has submitted an application which has been determined to be incomplete. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 Page 15 Commissioner Pont~ous asked what is within 1200 feet of their facility. The Director noted that the statement was made that the issue should be the adequacy of parking, but that the staff tried to concentrate on what is the intent of the industrial district. In reviewing the EIR for the industrial district, it did not consider that there would be a propensity of closing concentrated institutional uses and without such a standard, the original EIR might be inadequate. This would have to be reviewed with the City Attorney's office. There are two alternatives: 1) to shut everything down while they do a supplemental EIR to address the particular issue; or 2) does the City provide guidelines that let's the City justify that there is not a significant concentration of institutional uses within the district. Commissioner Pontious noted that this would eliminate the need to go back to the EIR, which would be a time consuming process that would hold up any applications in process at this point. She questioned the speakers as to whether or not they understood the issue. Mr. plummer affirmed. Co~missioner Baker asked what their concern was regarding the 1200 foot requirement; and asked staff how the 1200 foot figure was determined. The Director replied that it is a little less than a city block; it was not designed to preclude individual church applications; it was determined by the purpose and the intent of the district. Churches are not even an intended use in that district. Commissioner KasDarian asked if this Resolution was passed, would it then be retroactive to those who have already applied. The Director replied that these were guidelines for consideration only; these were created based on direction of the Commission from the last meeting. ~Qmm~ssioner Pontious noted that the 1200 foot requirement does not prohibit their project. It is just a guideline. Mr. O'Hanion noted that their people were contacted that day. Commissioner Pontious asked what the other use was that was within the 1200 feet. Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 Page 16 Mr. Plummer replied that there was a church 1150 feet away, and that the church that was continued this evening, was 900 feet away, both with parking on-site. Commissioner Le Jeune asked when their issue would be coming before the Commission. The Director replied that since their application was currently incomplete, she did not have a scheduling date available. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he felt that staff had provided exactly what the Commission requested in a short period of time; and that every issue would be carried on its own merit; these are not cast in concrete. Commissioner Baker noted a change to Item 8, as moved; and noted that the guidelines are within the best interest of everybody. Commissioner Pontious noted that she would not look unfavorably at a 50 foot differential, but that the guidelines are necessary. Commissioner Pontious noted that all comments made this evening would be taken into consideration. Staff asked if the Commission was interested in staff pursuing a code amendment as their time permits. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to establish policy guidelines for reviewing Conditional Use Permit requests for churches in Industrial Districts by the adoption of Resolution No. 2715 revised as follows: Page 4, item 7 line two, after "and" add "sites with multiple"; and page five, item 8 last line delete "school" Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS 8. STATUS REPORTS Daniel Fox, Senior Planner No Commission action necessary. STAFF CONCERNS 9. CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN AT DECEMBER 4, 1989 MEETING Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 Page 17 Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Development Director of Community No Commission action necessary. CONCERNS Commissioner Shaheen questioned the possibility of residents receiving discounts at the golf course. The Director responded that it was unlikely because the course is public, but privately owned. This has been an issue discussed by City Council. Commissioner Baker noted that the lighting at the Market Place was not being dimmed as per previous conditions of approval. He also complained about the condition of the wood lot behind Jack-in-the-Box. The Director responded that staff would follow-up with the management of the Market Place properties. She also noted that the wood lot would be effected by the Cal Trans taking of property. As Cal Trans acquires right-of-way the wood lot will be used as relocated parking. The other option is that the leasee would be given notice upon issuance of building permits on the Greinke site of the freeway. At 9:10 ~ommissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to adjourn to a Photo session on January 8, 1990 at 6:45 p.m. and then to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission on January 8, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Motion carried 5-0. Penni Foley Secretary Leslie Ann~ Pontious Chairman