Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-27-89MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 27, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Pontious, Le Jeune, Baker, Shaheen, Kasparian The Director introduced two new Planning Commission staff members, Susan Tibo, and Paula Rankin. 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.) 1. Minutes of the November 13, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting 2. Final Parcel Map 88-350 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: CALIFORNIA CIVIL, INC. ON BEHALF OF THE IRVINE COMPANY & THE LAURELWOOD HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 AT & SF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO TRACT 8029 SOUTH OF THE I-5 SANTA ANA FREEWAY ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 15 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Page 2 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A ONE LOT SUBDIVISION, CREATING A .48 ACRE PARCEL IN A PORTION OF THE ABANDONED AT&SF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Final Parcel Map 88-350 to the City Council by adopting Resolution No. 2707, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Associate Planner 3. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-03 and Design Review 88-62 RECOMMENDATION: Pleasure of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to approve the Consent Calendar with the following modification to paragraph 2, page 26 of the minutes changing "November 27, 1989" to "December 11, 1989". Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Use Permit 89-40 APPLICANT OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: KEVIN KRAGENBRINK HOPE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 1372 IRVINE BLVD. TUSTIN, CA 92680 1372 IRVINE BOULEVARD PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 5) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15305 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. A REQUEST FOR A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW COLONIAL BIBLE CHURCH SCHOOL TO OPERATE ITS K-6 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT THE HOPE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (1372 IRVINE BLVD.) FROM DECEMBER 1, 1989 TO JUNE 15, 1990. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following action; 1) Determine that private schools are similar to public schools and are a use permitted subject to a use permit approved in the Public and Institutional District by minute order, and; 2) Approve Use Permit 89-40 by adoption of Resolution No. 2711 as submitted or revised. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Page 3 Presentation: Christopher Jackson, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked if this application would be affected if the State or County refuses a day care license as possibly required in Item 1.5 of Exhibit A of Resolution 2711; and if the traffic study takes into account the affect of a rainy day on traffic flow. Staff replied that it would affect the before and after school care, but not the normal school hours from 8:45 to 2:45; and that the traffic study was done based on a worst case scenario, which would probably include rainy days. The Director noted that this facility has an abundance of parking; loading is only required in 21 spaces; and as long as adequate signage is installed directing the traffic into and out of the site, it should not affect traffic on Irvine Blvd. Commissioner Pontious felt that people would enter the facility from Red Hill to avoid a left turn at Fourth Street; and asked if the one-way traffic would prohibit this entry; and if a few of the spaces in the south section of the lot could be designated for loading and unloading. Staff replied that as there are parking spaces on the south side of the building, people will be able to enter from Red Hill; the available spaces would not be assigned; that there are about 35 spaces in the area, which would accommodate the 14 spaces required for staff and any others; and that they could designate two or three spaces along the south side and move the employee parking to the southern perimeter. The Director noted that the Traffic Engineer recommends that a letter be sent to each enrollee identifying the entrance as Irvine Boulevard. only, with a one-way system required. Commissioner Kasparian made corrections to Exhibit A of Resolution 2711, as moved. The public hearing was opened at 7:20 p.m. Kevin Kragenbrink, Pastor of Hope Christian Church, noted that traffic entering from Red Hill would have access to the Tustin Plaza, via a cooperative agreement; they would be willing to designate spaces for loading on the south side of the lot, but he noted that there are a substantial number of spaces available in the morning and afternoon. He also asked if there could be any consideration to allow them to take occupancy as stipulations are Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Page 4 being met, especially in regard to the building department requirements; the school is hoping to move in on December 4; fire upgrades are being made; and if the remaining upgrades were not safety related, could they possibly get a temporary occupancy permit. The Director replied that the Planning Commission had no authority over the Uniform Building Code; since the new use is converting office areas for assembly use, safety issues are paramount; the staff could bond on signage, but could not vary from the Building Code. Commissioner Pontious asked if grades 3-6 would still be located in another area. Mr. Kraqenbrink replied that it is no longer applicable. Commissioner Baker asked if the facility has been inspected by the Fire Department, as yet. Mr. Kraqenbrink replied that there has been a preliminary fire inspection done and that they are in compliance; sprinklers will not be required if the second grade is kept on the first floor; the remote alarm system is being installed as per the requirements. The Director noted that the Fire Department would provide a set of approved plans with locations of sprinklers that might be required; and that the applicant needs to coordinate with the Fire Department to provide a letter and a stamped approval of the site plan with any improvements. Staff commented that the fire alarms are required, but that the sprinklers are not required as long as the second grade is on the first floor. The public hearing was closed at 7:26 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to determine that private schools are similar to public schools and are a use permitted subject to a use permit approved in the Public and Institutional District by minute order. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded, to approve Use Permit 89-40 by adoption of Resolution No. 2711, revised as follows: Exhibit A, item 2.4 (4) add "and require six (6) additional 90 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Page 5 degree loading and unloading parking spaces on the south side with removable signage." Item 3.5 reference should be to the Orange "County" Fire Department. Item 3.7 reference should be to first or second "grade" pupils Item 4.1, line one, delete "submit" Item 4.1, C. first word on line 6 should be "then" Item 4.1, F reference should be to Orange "County" Fire Department. Motion carried 5-0. 5. Variance 89-18 APPLICANT/: OWNER LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: KEVIN ELLIS 18561 SANTA ISADORA FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 13662 GREEN VALLEY DRIVE R-3 2700 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) TO PERMIT A 119 SQUARE FOOT FRONT ROOM ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A 3.6 FOOT SIDE SETBACK WHERE A MINIMUM 5 FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance 89-18 by adopting Resolution No. 2712 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of the location of the proposed construction. The Director replied that the room had already been constructed without benefit of building permits prior to the home going into foreclosure. Commissioner Baker asked if that fact had been noted in the Resolution. The Director replied that the staff report details it as a "partially completed" room; it is not occupied, as they have not received a permit for occupancy. The public hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. Mike Caro, partner of applicant, noted that the house was purchased with a lot of problems, but that they were unaware of the absence Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Page 6 of a variance. The public hearing was closed at 7:36 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to approve Variance 89- 18 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2712 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Design Review 89-40 and Conditional Use Permit 89-41 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: IN-N-OUT BURGER, INC. 13502 E. VIRGINIA AVENUE BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706-5885 THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE P. O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 2992 EL CAMINO REAL (TUSTIN MARKET PLACE) PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL: EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN - MIXED USE COMMERCIAL THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (FINAL EIR 85-2), WHICH SERVES AS A PROGRAM EIR FOR THIS PROJECT. NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A 3,148 SQUARE FOOT FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW IN THE SOUTH ENTERTAINMENT VILLAGE OF THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2708, certifying that Final EIR 85-2 is adequate to serve as the Program EIR for the subject project; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2709, approving Design Review 89-40 and Conditional Use Permit 89-41, for the In-N-Out Burger restaurant, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached thereto, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Associate Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the tower was the same height as E1 Pollo Loco's tower. Staff replied that the E1 Pollo Loco tower would be 32 feet and this would be 28 feet high. Commissioner Shaheen asked if they were using the approved colors. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Page 7 Staff replied that the colors proposed by the applicant were on the small materials board, but that staff has required the colors be changed to the darker shades of tan and purple from the approved materials board; and that the window and door frames are a bronze color as shown on the plans, but have been changed to a white color. Commissioner Shaheen felt that the building lacked interest. Staff replied that they are requiring additional landscaping with additional embellishments; the darker color paint will accent the shadows; the accent colors will be painted on the inside of the reveals; all of this will provide greater interest. Commissioner Shaheen commented that the building did not look like any of the other In-N-Out Burger facilities. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that neither did the E1 Pollo Loco. Commissioner Baker asked if there was any further information regarding the new laws from AQMD for drive-up windows. The Director replied that there was very tentative information; at this point it is not mandatory; there is flexibility in the local application of the plan; there has been no additional follow-up from AQMD on when they would affect local jurisdictions; and it would only affect future approvals of drive-up windows, not existing. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the corporate red and yellow colors would be permitted; and if the soils engineer required by Exhibit A of the Resolution should be registered. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Pontious asked for a clarification of the relocation of the lot line. Staff replied that a lot line adjustment had already been approved. The public hearing was opened at 7:48 p.m. Leo A. Laure, representing In-N-Out Burger, noted that they understood and agreed to all of the conditions as set by the staff. The public hearing was closed at 7:49 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Page 8 Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2708, certifying that Final EIR 85-2 is adequate to serve as the Program EIR for the subject project. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2709, approving Design Review 89-40 and Conditional Use Permit 89-41, for the In-N-Out Burger restaurant, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached thereto, as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Second Amendment to Use Permit 88-8, Variance 89-16 and Use Permit 89-36 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: RUBY'S DINER, DOUG CAVANAUGH 17212 WHITTIER STREET COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92627 COLCO LTD., JIM COLLINGS 17320 RED HILL AVENUE, SUITE 190 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 17582 E. SEVENTEENTH STREET OAK TREE PLAZA PLANNED COMMUNITY - COMMERCIAL (PC-C) THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO MODIFY SITE PLAN, PERMITTED USES, REQUIRED PARKING AND SIGN PROGRAM AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM SIZE PERMITTED FOR A REAR ELEVATION SIGN AND TO PERMIT THE ON-SITE CONSUMPTION OF BEER AND WINE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No 2710 approving the modification to Use Permit 88-8, adopt Resolution No. 2713 approving Use Permit 89-36, permitting on-site sale of beer and wine and adopt Resolution No. 2714 denying Variance 89-16 relating to the size of a rear elevation sign. Presentation: Sara Pashalides, Associate Planner Staff noted that the variance application for the sign had been withdrawn. Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of Table 1; and questioned the figures presented. The Director noted that the 30% walking traffic figure was an assumption that the Traffic Engineer supports based upon standard Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Page 9 engineering practice; also by parking demand studies and methodologies prepared by the Urban Land Institute, and the American Planning Institute; the technical support documents have been provided to the Commission in the past. Commissioner Baker asked if the 30% reduction would be applied at all times; and if there really could be less of a parking need at 1:00 than at 12:00. Staff replied that the 30% reduction does not apply at 10:00, but does between 12:00 and 3:00. Commissioner Pontious noted that her experience supports the assumption that there is less traffic at 12:00 than 1:00. The Director commented that the figures are based on field experience of the traffic experts; the 30% factor is standard; and the figures cannot be manipulated easily. The public hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. James Coilings, Colco Ltd., noted that he was available for questions. Commissioner Pontious asked the applicant if he agreed with all of the conditions. Mr. Collings affirmed. The public hearing was closed at 8:06 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen commented that if the staff was comfortable allowing fewer spaces than normal, then he agreed. Commissioner Le Jeune asked about the previous application for additional square footage for medical use, and if there is no objection to retail centers having medical offices. The Director replied that at the time that Dr. Carter's application came before the Commission, the justification for a traffic study was not input by the applicant; without the justification, there was not basis for staff recommending approval of the proposal; staff's original concern was to not piece meal any approvals for parking reductions until a traffic study was completed. Staff noted that the applicant was uncertain of the tenant mix, and could not produce a traffic study at that time. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Page 10 Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there would be any more restaurants in the center. The Director replied that the conditions are explicit, showing suite numbers with maximum square footages for restaurant uses; the locations are pre-fixed, and any modifications would have to be brought back to the Commission. She noted that Condition 1.4 of Exhibit A of Resolution 2710 is important, in that the applicant agrees to sign an agreement stating that they cannot apply for any modifications to the mix of uses on the site in the future. Commissioner Baker asked how many spaces were lost due the changes in the flood control plan. Staff replied that nine (9) spaces in the rear and two (2) in the front would be lost; 195 square feet would be lost from the video building, and approximately 2,000 square feet overall; then number of parking spaces that were eliminated was unaffected by the changes, as noted in the parking study. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there were other examples of building over flood control channels. Staff replied that the bank building in the next center was built over the same channel; the new requirements could be due to changes in the Orange County Flood Control District policies, or due to inabilities to work through the conditions and necessary paperwork. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he felt that the mixed-use parking idea was a more realistic approach than to rigidly apply numbers for compliance; that the condition requiring new applicants to go through the procedure for qualifying for the existing number parking spaces was appropriate; and that he does not take the figures as absolute. The Director noted that Condition 1.5 has been added as a failsafe in case a parking problem is reported in the future; a new parking study would have to be provided, and if a parking problem is found to exist, the applicant has to mitigate these impacts. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to adopt Resolution No 2710 approving the modification to Use Permit 88-8. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to, adopt Resolution No. 2713 approving Use Permit 89-36, permitting on-site sale of beer and wine, as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Page 11 OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 8. Emergency Services Preparedness Plan Status RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner No Planning Commission action necessary. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the plan covers coordinated efforts from each section of the City, with team captains; if there was a 7-8 point earthquake tomorrow, could the City go into action; and if there is a communications center. The Director replied that the City is updating the plan to add annexes; it will be a more state-of-the-art plan consistent with State law; and that each department has responsibilities with resources identified; but that a measured simulation would test the plan; communications are handled by the police command center. Commissioner Pontious asked if there was anything in the plan to upgrade properties that are below standard. The Director replied that under the Unreinforced Masonry Ordinance, the City must provide a survey by January 1, 1990 to the State Seismologist of structures that have been certified and; a program must be submitted regarding how the City intends to facilitate any rehabilitation. Until the Building Official position is filled, there will be no more work done other than that required by January 1, 1990. Once the new official is on board, in approximately six weeks, they will work with the property owners in developing a program. Also, there needs to be a program that goes beyond advising people that their buildings are substandard. STAFF CONCERNS 9. Actions of the November 20, 1989 City Council Meeting Presentation: Development Christine Shingleton, Director of Community COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Le Jeune noted his concern regarding the neon sign at Walnut and Newport for Carburetor King asking if a sign is non- Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Page 12 conforming if the copy has been changed. The Director noted that if any improvements were made that required a building permit including those that extend the life of the sign, then the conformance of the sign would be looked into. There are some technicalities that will be dealt with in the new sign code. Commissioner Shaheen noted that there is some sub-standard housing at the corner of E1 Camino Real and Browning. The Director noted that some of that property will be impacted by the freeway widening. Commissioner Kasparian noted that on Irvine Boulevard between Newport and Holt there is a sign that is broken and dilapidated and he would like to see some enforcement done on this sign. He also noted that he contacted Southern California AQMD regarding the Certification of testing equipment, specifically at Pro-tek. He indicated that he was very satisfied with their test equipment monitoring procedures. ADJOURNMENT At 8:38 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission on Monday, December 11, 1989 at Chambers. Penni Foley Secretary 7:00 p.~. in the City Council Leslie Annd Pontious Chairman