Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-28-89MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING CO~ISSION REGULAR MEETING August 28, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Ponttous, Le Oeune, Shaheen, Kasparlan Absent: Baker 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 th~ August 14, 1989 Planning Commission meeting Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the Consent Calendar with the following change: Page f~u6teen, I~em 6, vote was "3-2 (Shaheen and Le Jeune)." Motion carted 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Amendment to Use Permit 88-15 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: DONAHUE SCHRIBER 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD SUITE 300, SOUTH TOWER NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL: COMMERCIAL EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN - MIXED USE THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15311(a) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REQUE ST: AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND THE APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Page two Recommendation: It Is recommended that the Planntng Commission continue the publtc hearing on this application to their next regular meeting on September 1[, 1989 tf all necessary Information ts submitted to staff by August 28th. If the Information ts not available, the matter would be automatically continued to September 25, 1989. Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Associate Planner Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparlan seconded to conttnue the public heartng on the Amendment to Use permtt 88-15 to the September [[, [989 Plannlng Commission meettng. Morton carried 4-0. 3. Use Permit 89-26 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DONLEY-BENNETT ARCHITECTS 12821 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 ARTHUR E. JENSEN 14402 CHAMBERS ROAD TUSTIN, CA 92680 900 WEST FIRST STREET C-2, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11 TO RELOCATE AN EXISTING 670 SQUARE FOOT FREEWAY POLE SIGN SERVING AN EXISTING RESTAURANT (REVERE HOUSE) DUE TO THE WIDENING OF THE NEWPORT FREEWAY. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 89-26 by adopting Resolution No. 2660, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the present copy was approved at one time by the City. Staff replied that it was approved in a previous sign program. Commissioner Kaspartan asked where in the Resolution he would locate the paragraph regarding maintenance of the sign; and he noted that he did not think that the notation in Resolution 2660, Item I. C.4 should be asking Caltrans and Tustin Public Works to approve the relocation of the sign, and staff should reword it to state that the relocation site should be subject to approval. Staff replied that it was noted in the last paragraph of Item 3.4 of Exhibit A; and that it would be changed, as moved. Commissioner Pontlous asked if moving the sign slightly towards the building would hamper the traffic flow. Staff replied that a one- to two-foot movement would not hamper a turning radius, but would create a longer curb line. The public hearing was opened at 7:15 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Page three ~rat9. Smith, representing the architect, noted that the encroachment into the ease- merit had not been approved yet, but they were waiting for Caltrans to approve the site within the next two weeks, and would notify staff as soon as they know the exact location of the sign. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the applicant had given any consideration to lowering the sign. Mr. Smith replied that the owners did not wish to lower the sign. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the sign was two-sided. Mr. Smith affirmed. Commissioner Le Jeune asked about the copy on the sign stating "Turn off next ramp" and if it would ~emain; also how that pertained to southbound traffic on the 55 Freeway. Mr. Smith replied that the copy for southbound traffic stated "Banquet Rooms." The public hearing was closed at 7:17 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen noted that since the Revere House has been in Tustln for quite some time, it should not be penalized by the widening of the freeway. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Permit 89-26 by the adoption of Resol~({on No. 2660 with the following revisions: Item I. C. 4. should read: "The sign relocation site shall be subject to the approval of Caltrans and the Tustin Public Works Department." Exhibit A, Item 1.5 should read: "Caltrans approval of the sign relocation site shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits." Motion carried 4-0. 4. VARIANCE 89-10 APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: LATHAM & WATKINS/BOB BREAK 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 TUSTIN RETAIL LIMITED/GERALD MI SUREK 2100 SE MAIN STREET; SUITE 400 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 13911, 13931 AND 13951 CARROLL WAY SEVENTEENTH STREET (MIMI'S SITE) RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-1) CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT APPROVAL OF A SIGN PROGRAM THAT THE TUSTIN SIGN CODE REGARDING SIGNS VARIES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF SIZE AND LOCATIONS OF VARIOUS Plannlng Commission Mtnutes August 28, 1989 Page four Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Vartance 89-10 for tl~e monument sign only by adopttng Resolution No. 2669, as submitted or re vt se d. Presentation: Sara Pashalldes, Associate Planner Commissioner Shaheen stated that he felt that there should be no stgns posted on the freeway stde of the buildings. Staff noted that tenants within Building I would be permitted to have slgnage along the rear of the building; the applicant is also requesting that the tenants of Buildings 2 and 3, which face the parking lot, have signage along the freeway; the Code only allows for rear building slgnage for tenants of that building. The public hearing opened at 7:20 p.m. Gerald Mlsurek, applicant, commented that until his development began, this site had been a dustbowl, and a gathering place for rubble; they are trying to create a unique u-shaped "homey" center; if they had fronted this center to 17th Street, it would have been fronted to the backside of the service station; it was at staff's suggestion that they return to the Commission after design review and receipt of building permits. This center is extremely unique, with numerous constraints, such as being an in-fill parcel of 2.4 acres, the site is bounded on the north by a residential area; and that the site required noise polution, adequate landscape buffer, and the rear side design features for the buildings to reduce impacts which could affect the residences. They are bounded on the west side by the freeway, and on the southstde they have limited access by Mtmt's Cafe and a lack of access on the back side of the service station; they also had to line up driveways from their center to the driveways of the Tustin French Quarter. Regarding the various requests, they are asking for: Two (2) monument signs--one on 17th Street and one on Carroll Way which could be seen from either direction. The location proposed by Staff for the 17th Street sign would be more toward the restaurant than initially proposed, it would be of very little use to people since it would be seen as they are passing the center and would require them to turn around. They have asked for signage along the freeway that is consistent with the signs in the area. A potential tenant, First Team Real Estate, whose lease is contingent on adequate stgnage, will be competing with a three-foot high sign for Tarbell Realtors across the freeway. They are requesting major stgnage for the three (3) tenants of Building I and minor signage for up to five (5) minor tenants in Building 3. He has outlined his maximum tenancy for the building on his presentation, but would probably only have four (4) tenants requesting signage on the rear of the building. He has also tried to restrict the type of signage on the rear of the building, calling for a two (2) foot letter size to keep consistency to the signs. He felt that the ordinances possibly did not consider centers that have frontage on the freeway, but this should be addressed at this time. Because they are located away from 17th Street, they should be allowed to provide adequate competitive stgnage. He noted that none of the signage would affect the residential properties; that there are various types of signage along the freeway (Revere House, for example); and that it should not be detrimental to Mimi's Cafe, the service station, or Tustin French Quarter. Commissioner Shaheen asked how mmny total signs would be in the center. Mr. Mtsurek replied that there were quite a few, but noted that they were tucked away f~om traffic. Planning Commission Mlnutes August 28, 1989 Page ftve Commissioner Kasparlan asked for a clarification of the original sign concept. The Director replied that the sign plan submitted co~lted with the code: on a rear building facing the freeway or parking lot, signs were limited to business identifi- cation not to exceed 25 square feet, or 5% of the wall area per business. The direc- tory monument location at the Carroll Way entrance; and the front elevations of the buildings were limited to 64 square feet per business. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the variance being requested. The Director replied that they are asking for proposed signs on the rear elevation of Building I (building parallel to the freeway) to have 75 square foot signs for major tenants and 20 square foot signs for minor tenants which are located in Buildings 2 and 3. The code only permits a maximum of 25 square feet per tenant and would only allow building identification for tenants in Building 1. They are also requesting that the east sides of Buildings 2 and 3 have signs of 30 square feet, with the code only permitting 25 square feet per tenant; for the rear elevation of Building 3 they are requesting 30 square feet, with a maximum of 25 square feet permitted. They also want an additional monument sign along 17th Street even though the Code would only permit one (1) monument identification sign for a shopping center. Mr. Mlsurek commented that they went from 25 to 30 square feet due to the setback; he contends that the Code did not consider that stores would have a front and a back requiring adequate signage; other centers developed along the freeway have their usual logo and signage; it is difficult to know the tenants' needs prior to leasing; 75 square foot request is for maximum use; they intend to keep order to the signage with two-foot letters, while presenting the tenants as best they can. Bob Break, Latham and Watktns, passed out a rebuttal to the staff report to the Co~miss~oners outlining his feeling that the requirements set by the staff are more restrictive than the Code intended. He noted that the Code states "the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under similar circumstances to this particular project" and hoped the Commission would understand that the question was whether there was a practical and fair basis for allowing the requested variance. The circumstances presented are that they: are a relatively unique center; are fronted on the freeway; are confronted on the other side of the freeway with signs approved by Santa Ana; have tenants demanding the right to install signs on the rear of Building 1; are across from Tustin French Quarter whose signs are well beyond the city's Code allowances; they are asking for the same advantage as the French Quarter and be able to compete fairly. They are asking for a maximum of 75 square feet for the rear of Building 1, as a convenient check point; they invite the City to impose a two-foot limit as a condition to the variance. Regarding the request to put signs for Buildings 2 and 3 on the rear of Building 1, he was unable to find a definition in the Sign Code for off-premise signage that suggested that their request was for off-premise signage, since the buildings are all part of one center. He noted that the request for 30 square foot signs for Building 3 was well within the standards set by the Tusttn French Quarter project. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the Tarbell Realty building was under the jurisdic- tion of the Santa Ana Sign Code, and has nothing to do with Tustin. Mr. Break replied that since it was a competitor in their vicinity, it should be a factor to be taken into account. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Page slx Commissioner Kasparlan asked if the photograph examples presented by Mr. Break were of 30 square foot signs; and asked staff for their opinion of the size of the Tustin French Quarter signs. Mr. Break replied that they were much larger. The Director replied that the project was approved pursuant to the Sign Code and that staff would have to check each sign to understand how they determined the individual copy area. In many cases, they are separately mounted and may have been calculated based on the highest letter height. There is no height limit. The area is boxed around the highest and lowest letters for calculation purposes. Staff would also look at the issue of the rear of the building in relation to a tenant not in that building having an off-premise sign. There was not a determination that this would be an off-premise sign, since the premise is the development property. The applica- tion was previously discussed with the City Attorney's office and it was clear based upon interpretation and advice that business identification is located either on a monument sign or above the tenancy on the building. Staff could provide legal advice in a separate memo. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the signs in question at the French Quarter were the tenant signs. Mr. Break replied affirmatively; and noted that the Miller's Outpost sign exceeds the 95 square foot limits. He noted that the recognized front of the project is well set back from 17th Street due to the gas station; the visibility is not valuable without a sign; that the center needs to be a successful project, and should not be artific- ially condemned to a mediocre status. The public hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if staff knew if the French Quarter had been issued variances, or not. The Director replied that she was not aware of any variances for the French Quarter signs; and that their situation was different in that the buildings face a front elevation and are permitted up to 64 square feet. The public hearing was reopened at 7:51 p.m. Jack Briton, representing the manufacturer of Tustln French Quarter, noted that there was no variance involved. They are all within the allowed footage of the particular time that they were installed. Miller's Outpost is 4 foot by 35 foot sign which is 140 square feet. At the time, the Code read that due to the volume of square footage and frontage, this size was allowed. The public hearing was closed at 7:52 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen noted that since the project is right across from the French Quarte~, lt l~-6k'~ as though it is part of the same center. He noted that signs flat against the building along the freeway are dangerous, since they require motorists to look directly at the building to read the signs; that the City has approved some double-sided signs; that promotion should be for the entire center, and should not put signs all over the center; that the signs as indicated on the drawings were not in conformance with the Sign Code. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Page seven Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a clarification of the proposed location of the monument sign on 17th Street; and even tf placed tn the proposed location, tf it requires a variance. Staff replied that they propose to relocate it in front of Mtmt's Cafe in a much larger landscaped area which would make it more visible. Commissioner Pontlous asked if the Director was suggesting a continuance. She also noted that the applicant had indicated that in moving the monument sign on 17th Street it would lack visibility, but she felt that a perpendicular sign would be more visible. The Director replied that the applicant's representative noted that the French Quarter permits were in compliance with the Sign Code, resolving the issue. Commissioner Shaheen suggested that the staff look at the project further. Commissioner Kasparian felt that the proposed relocation of the sign would make it so that it was seen as the customers were passing the center, and should possibly be moved closer to the entrance. The Director noted that the entire length was reviewed with the Public Works Depart- ment and the Engineering Manager. Since this is at a freeway off-ramp, and there is other sign clutter for the service station and other obstructions, it would create a potential problem. Commissioner Kasparlan asked if any sign was better than no sign, regardless of where i~'~s located. The Director replied that there is a tremendous volume generated east and west along 17th Street, not counting the freeway ramp, that would provide some advantage. Commissioner Pontlous asked for a clarification of the off-premise signs. The Director replied that the interpretation of the sign ordinance was that a direc- tory for businesses can be located in the monument, however, the actual tenant identification is limited to the location of that tenant. Commissioner Shaheen asked if they could have a directory on a monument sign; and if all tenants are to be on one monument sign. The Director replied that it could be in a monument or pole sign; and that it was up to the applicant to determine what they want on a directory. They have the ability to have a directory of all tenants pursuant to the classification of the code and whether that is described as a multi-tenant shopping center. Commissioner Pontlous asked if they would be allowed to apply for a pole sign. The Director replied that since they are within 500 feet of a freeway, they would be allowed to apply for a conditional use permit for a freeway orientation sign. Commissioner Shaheen asked if this would be a two-faced sign. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Page eight The Director noted that freeway pole signs are only permitted for auto-related businesses such as gas stations and restaurants. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kaspartan seconded to approve Variance 89-10 for the monument sign only by the adoption of Resolution No. 2669. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Pontlous noted that the applicant could appeal the declston to the City Counctl wtth~n seven (7) days. Amendment to Final Tract Map 12870, Street Vacation Request, Design Review 0))-67 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 THE IRVINE COMPANY SECTOR 8 OF TUSTIN RANCH, TRACT 12870 PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL: EAST TUSTIN AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN - LOW DESIGN REVIEW 88-67 HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. THE AMENDMENT TO FINAL TRACT MAP 12870 IS MINISTERIALLY EXEMPT 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. AUTHORIZATION TO (1) AMEND FINAL TRACT MAP 12870 TO ACCOMMODATE PRIVATE ENTRY IMPROVEMENTS AND; (2) VACATE FAIRGATE DRIVE AND A PORTION OF RAWLINGS WAY, TO BECOME PRIVATE STREETS AND; (3) CONSTRUCT PRIVATE ENTRIES AND ENHANCED STREET AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND FAIRGATE DRIVE AND FAIRGATE DRIVE AND RAWLINGS WAY. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) Determine that the vacation of Fairgate ("Township") Drive and a portion of Rawlings Way for private street purposes, is consistent with the City's General Plan, by adopting Resolution No. 2662, as submitted or revised; 2) Recommend approval of an amendment to Final Tract Map 12870 to the City Council by adopting Resolution No. 2665, as submitted or revised; and 3) Approve Design Review 88-67 by adopting Resolution No. 2664, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Associate Planner Staff made revisions to the staff report, as moved. Commissioner Kasparian asked if there was to be a public telephone at the secondary entry only, and not one at the main gate. Staff replied that there would only be a call box with a key pad at the secondary entrance for security purposes. The public hearing was opened at 8:21 p.m. Planntng Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Page ntne Ja~ Pterce, of the Trvtne Company, agreed with all of the changes made by staff and requested two (2) additional changes: 1) Attachment A to Resolution 2665, [rem 7.1 G, should add language to tndtcate that the extertor Improvements be wtthtn their area of maintenance responsibility; 2) Regarding 1.[ p, he was concerned with betng requtred to Install a publlc access onto lot 6, off of Rawltngs Way, because they would 11ke the school district to take access from Rawltngs Way, the remaining portion of whtch would be public. However, at this point, they are betng asked to create plans, bond for the Item, or Install lt, but they have no tdea, as yet, exactly where the district wtll requtre the locatton of the access. They are con- cerned that they will be spendtng money on bonding, and they feel that the school dtstrtct wtll take access from that locatton and that there ts no reason for an out- standing bond. He, therefore, requested that Item 1.1 P be deleted or amended to not requtre them to post a bond or construct the Improvements prtor to knowing where they are destred. The Director agreed with Mr. Pierce regarding the bonding on the issue, because the the driveway and parking lot will not be constructed within the timing of the comple- tion of the street improvements. She felt that the condition be retained and moved to 6.8 as a general condition, as moved. Mr. Pierce noted that that would be acceptable. The Director responded to the request to amend 7.1G by stating that a master assoc- Iation ts only created for purposes of the master association responsibilities, and adding "that are In the areas of their maintenance responsibilities" was posstbly redundant, but could be added If so desired. Commissioner Kasparian asked staff for a clarification of Resolution 2665, Exhibit A, Item 7.1A. Staff replied that the wording was standard language for CC&R documents throughout Tustln. It allows the City to be named a party, providing the City with the ability to enforce the provisions of the documents should the association become delinquent in their responsibilities. At the same time, they wanted it noted that the City should not perform their duties for them in all circumstances. The Director noted that the language was created in conjunction with a committee and the City Attorney's office. There were many liability considerations, but the City recognized that there were many situations, like public health and safety threats, where they might want a mechanism for enforcement. Commissioner Kasparian asked if Item 7.1E.3 of Exhibit A of Resolution 2665 could be reworded for clarity, due to being one very long sentence. Staff replied that it was, in fact, one long sentence, but it was grammatically correct and there was not a good area to break it. Commissioner Kasparlan also asked for a clarification about the reference in the last two lines to "improvements within 300 feet." Staff replied that regarding improvements, lack of maintenance could be detrimental to surrounding property or property improvements within the association or to proper- ties within 300 feet. The impact of an improvement could be expanded. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Page ten The Director replied that it referred to the 7.1 E introduction which considers item 3 to be part of a list of maintenance standards. The City worked out language with the City Attorney's office, the 1trine Company, and the committee to provide examples of acceptable levels of maintenance standards determined on an individual basis by that association. Commissioner Pontlous noted that an association could use any or all of the items as their maintenance standards, either verbatim, with their own wording, or not at all. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of 7.11. Staff replied that it was often necessary to have the names of officials within an association to contact. For example, the City would be able to follow-up on a member's complaint to see that it was followed through, or in case of a lack of maintenance or emergency, it allows the City someone to contact. Mr. Pierce noted that even though the City Council and staff have indicated that gates on the public accessways would not be allowed, he was still concerned with the security aspect. Originally, they proposed locks on the gates, but the City would like the gates removed completely. To provide the semblance of privacy, he wondered if they could remove the locks, but retain the gates. The Director noted that, in workshops with the City Council, it was clear that they did not want the accessways gated. She felt that with the gates in place, there might be a temptation of the associations to lock the gates, which would create an eforcement problem; that the vehicular gated element would provide adequate security, or an appearance of security; but that the passeos are nice portal entries, and it would be unfortunate to see them gated, locked or not. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the passeos could be retrofitted in case the assocla- tibhs ~e~ide~ to lock'the gates in the future. The Director replied that based upon the decision of the City Council, they would like them to be open to the public. The idea of a gated community is for security, but it also creates enclaves. Another justification to keeping the accessways open is to access the elementary school site. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the gates could be retained for aesthetic purposes, but be left open. Mr. Pierce replied that they would like to create a semblance of privacy and secur- ity. They intend to go with the staff's suggestion, but they were concerned. The Director commented that upon direction from the City Council, the pedestrian accessways should be kept open, not locked, and not obstructed in any visual way. There has been a consistency created with previous projects that the City would like to continue with. Commissioner Pontlous asked if the homeowners could possibly apply for a variance if there were pro61ems with crime. The Director replied that the request would have to considered at the time of submittal. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Page eleven Commissioner Kasparian asked if the school would be in lot 6 and if the only access ~o the schbb~ would be through Fairgate Drive. The Director replied that there has been a condition added to the project requiring public access from the public street of Rawlings Way. The length of the school extends along the right-of-way of Township Drive, and the City wants to ensure maximum pedestrian access. The public hearing was closed at 8:44 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to determine that the vacation of FaJrgate ("~6wnship") Drive and a portion of Rawlings Way for private purposes, is consistent with the City's General Plan, by the adoption of Resolution No. 2662. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend approval of an amendment to Final Tract Map 1~870 th'the City Council by adopting Resolution No. 2665 with the following revisions: Exhibit A Item 1.1 should be changed to read "1.1 Prior to issuance of the first building permit or other grants of approval for development of lots "DDD" "EEE","FFF" "GGG", "HHH", "III", "JJJ" and "KKK" or other lots affected by t~e Amended Ma~ with the exception of subdivision walls constructed by the subdivider of Tract 12870, as amended, on each parcel within the boundary affected by the Amended Map, the subdivider shall prepare plans and construct or post security guaran- teeing construction of all new or altered construction required within the public right-of-way and any necessary changes to improvements originally approved for Tract 12870 in conformance with applicable City standards, includ- ing but not limited to the following:" Item 1.1 P. has been deleted. Item 1.2 has been deleted. Items 1.3 through 1.6 have been renumbered to read 1.2 through 1.5. Item 3.1 has been changed to read: "Any damage done to existing street improve- merits and utilities shall be repaired before final acceptance of private street and landscape improvements installed as part of Amended Map 12870 and Design Review 88-67." Item 6.1 "within City's responsibility" has been dropped from the paragraph. Add: 6.7 "Until compliance with Condition 7.1, subdivider shall be responsible for maintaining any and all in~rovements installed pursuant to Design Review 88-67." Add 6.8: "Public access from the cul-de-sac of Rawlings Way shall be required an~ l~talled onto lot 6 (school site) at a point in time when the driveway parking lot is constructed on school site. Said access shall have a minimum width of 24 feet. Planntng Commission Mtnutes August 28, 1989 Page l~el ve Paragraph 7.1 "amended final map" has been dropped from the first sentence and replaced with "first builders level subdivision map to all lots within Sector 8 of the East Tustin Specific Plan". Item 7.1 G, first sentence, after "improvements" the following has been inserted: "in areas of their maintenance responsibilities". Item 7.1 J, first sentence, after "walls" the following has been tnserted:"under Master Homeowners' Association maintenance responsibility". Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Design Review 88-67 by the adoption of Resoluti~6 No. 2664. Mo~ton carried 4-0. 6. Use Permit 89-27 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: UNION SIGN CO./CHARLES LASTER P.O. BOX 10533 SANTA ANA, CA 92711 ALDERSGATE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH/FRANCES LASTER 1201 S. E. IRVINE BLVD. TUSTIN, CA 92680 1201S. E. IRVINE BLVD. PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL A 32 SQ. FT. DOUBLE-FACED ILLUMINATED MONUMENT SIGN WITH CHANGEABLE COPY. INTERNALLY Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 89-27 'by adopting Resolution No. 2661, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Sara Pashalldes, Associate Planner The public hearing was opened at 8:47 p.m. Francis Laster, representative for Aldersgate United Methodist Church, noted that the present sign was installed over ten years ago with the largest letters on the new sign being 2 inches high; that the traffic along Irvtne Boulevard has increased in amount and speed; and they hoped that the City would allow a double-faced sign, which would be in keeping with the church colors, would update their property, and would be similar to other church signs with reader boards in the area. Commissioner Shaheen asked if there was any opposition from the neighborhood. Commissioner Pontlous asked if there was any opposition to the brown lettering. Mrs. Laster replied that the brown letters would be acceptable, and that the addition of flowers at the base would be a beautiful addition. The public hearing was closed at 8:52 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Kaspartan seconded to approve Use Permit 89-27 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2661. Motion carried 4-0. Planntng Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Page thirteen 7. Conditional Use Perndt 89-25 and Design Revtew 88-66 (Kumagal) APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. HENRY KUMAGAI 19021 CANYON DRIVE VILLA PARK, CA 92667 240 E. FIRST STREET C-2 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL)/FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FULL SERVICE CARWASH Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission either: 1) Certify the final Negative Declaration for the project as adequate by adoption of Resolution No. 2658; and 2) Either approve Conditional Use Permit 89-25 by adoption of Resolution No. 2659 or deny Conditional Use Permit 89-25 by adoption of Resolution No. 265g(d). Presentation: Daniel Fox, Associate Planner Commissioner Shaheen asked if the Post Office had been approached regarding its expansion plans; he noted that the Post Office may not be large enough to handle the growth in East Tustin, and they may have an objection to having a car wash at that location. The Director replied that as part of the public notification process, they notify properties on the Assessor's rolls, but the Post Office is only a tenant on the land where it is located. The Post Office has expressed needs for expansion and there are conditions for an annex site on E1Camtno Real west of Myford Road for future consid- eration. However, the expansion needs of the Post Office should not be the basis of the decision, but the goals and objectives of the First Street Specific Plan relative to the findings and issues of the staff report. The City Attorney felt that the Commission should confine the issues to the First Street Specific Plan; that they should not go out of those bounds to determine what the Post Office may do in the future. Commissioner Kaspartan asked what the point was of sending letters to residents within 500 feet if not to notify people of a pending project and the possible impact. The City Attorney replied that the factors that needed to be considered are those set forth in the First Street Specific Plan. Commissioner Kaspartan felt that, as a Planning Commission looking at the total picture, it was difficult to ignore the impact of East Tusttn unless they know that there is a future availability of land for a new postal facility; and if the Post Office was prohibited from building facilities elsewhere, there may be a real problem. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Page fourteen The Dtrector noted that tt was Important to recognize the need for postal services, but relative to this application, they should consider: 1) whether thts development ts appropriate and feasible, and when Integrated wtth the rest of the development on thts block, contribute to the Improvement of that area; and 2) does it Improve the stte circulation between properties and the other goals and objectives which balance maximum development wtth compatible uses as requtred by the Ftrst Street Spectflc Plan. Commissioner Shaheen asked how many cars they anticipated washing each day. Based upon the staff report, he felt that tt would be a lot of trafftc tn and out of a 30 foot frontage; and asked how much frontage and depth does the property have. Staff replied that a traffic report was prepared, and indicated that based upon facilities of this nature and size, it could be anticipated to have up to 900 vehicle trips per day. It broke down to 40 trips during the morning and evening peak hours and distributed the rest throughout the day, with Saturday afternoon being the heaviest. In general, a car wash generates 50% more trips than a service station would. The Director replied that the lot was approximately 110 by 200 feet. Staff noted that this is a small piece of property for this type of facility, which is evidenced by the site plan, in that they have not been able to provide a secondary access, it is a very tight facility, there is not enough stacking area for drying the vehicles, and there is not a large entrance stacking area. Commissioner Shaheen asked if there has been an attempt by the applicant to gain access to the rear of the property. Staff referred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Kasparl.a.n asked what the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) figures would be; and if it would change if this business was approved. The Director replied that the ICU at First and Prospect was .61 during a.m and .75 during p.m. peak hours. The Traffic Report suggests that the ICU figures would not change during a.m. peak hours, but would increase from .75 to .77 during p.m. peak hours. It would remain at Level of Service "C", which presently exists in the area (Summary finding No. 4 of Traffic Study). Commissioner Shaheen asked what the traffic count was on First Street at that point. The Director replied that it was in Appendix B of the report and was broken out by movement. The public hearing was opened at 9:05 p.m. Planntng Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Page ftfteen Oennts McCullough, project architect, noted that they are fully aware of the Comaflsston's concerns towards auto use along Ftrst Street, and that most of the concerns are justified. He noted that Mr. Kumagal is presently a businessman in Tusttn who wants to continue to do business wlthtn the City and feels so strongly about the potential for this buslness in this area that he is willing to comply with all of the conditions. They feel that they have addressed most of the concerns of the staff In providing a facility that ts compatible and ts a good neighbor to all of the other establishments along First Street. He feels that the design would function well for Mr. Kumagal. Regarding Inter-site circulation, tt was considered, but since they are only open on the south and east, the through circulation was not possible. They would have liked an entrance from the southeast, they felt that although tt would beneftt the car wash, they would be unable to provide a benefit to the Post Offtce after they take away three parklng spaces. Commissioner Pontlous noted that, regardless of her decision tn the matter, she felt that It was an outstanding plece of architecture. Commissioner Kasparlan asked If there would be a max¶mum of seven (7) employees, and ~ked for a clarification of their positions; and how many cars could be tn the car wash at any one time. Mr. HcCullou~h replted that the car wash was fully automated, the gas pumps were self-service, there would be two (2) attendants vacuuming, one (1) at cashier station (which would be the manager), and four (4) drylng. Recognizing their limited room, the Idea was to have most of the employees drying so as to expedite the exit of customers; and there would be two (2) cars in the facility at one time. Commissioner Kasparian asked how two cars at one ttme could equal 900 cars per day; and tf tt wo~ld be open seven (7) days per week. Mr. Kuma~at, the owner, stated that there could be four (4) cars in at one time, but it 'is not large enough to clean 900 cars per day; he felt that gOO per day was proposed as a maximum by the Traffic Study; and that the hours would be 8:00 a.m. to 5 or 6:00 p.m. seven (7) days per week. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that he was concerned with the number of people on ~te. He felt that b~sed upon comparison with other car wash facilities, it was not unusual to have ten or twelve people working at one time. Commissioner Kaspartan asked if a gas station and car wash would be subject to dif- ferent safe~y regbl~tions than a gas station only; and does self-serve pose any problems. The Director replied that they would still have to comply with all regional require- ments of AQMD, vacuum recovery, fire department and water control, and sanitation district for discharge of industrial waste; and that self-service would not matter, they still have to comply with the requirements. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the number of parking spaces for seven (7) employees was addressed; and suppose the applicant actually has ten employees. Planning Commission Mtnutes August 28, 1989 Page stxteen The Director replied that the number of employees on site was provided by the appli- cant. The staff then referred to a publication, The Zoning Bulletin, which provided the standards for car washes. The City does not currently have a standard, but the publication had done a nationwide survey. The Commission can clarify in the Resolution limiting the number of employees on the premises at any one time. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the applicant would be able to comply with conditions 1)mitihg the number of employees on the site at any one time based upon the number of parking spaces available. Mr. Kumagat replied that they could rent parking spaces in the adjacent parking lot, if needed. He noted that he was also considered purchasing adjoining property for an exit. Commissioner Pontlous asked if they could limit the number of employees to seven (7) given the present configuration and that any additional employees would be contingent on the applicant securing additional parking spaces. The Director noted that she would create language for this issue, as moved. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the applicant was leasing or buying the property. Mr. Kumagat replied that he had purchased the land about one and one-half years ago. Pete Dwln~er, construction consultant, commented that the goal was to meet, as closely as possible, the First Street Specific Plan goals. As shown in the architec- tural model, they achieved the goals with extensive landscaping, shielded the First Street traffic and public from the operation, the pedestrian amenities, and client comfort. They addressed the sound attenuation problems by enclosing all of the equipment within the building and the air conditioning in a well within the roof, and provided a neighbor-friendly project. Mr. Kumagai will be the owner-operator of the facility, providing pride in ownership and maintenance. He has been in the auto business his entire life. He wanted to develop this property as a car wash, and as a first class project as an asset to the First Street area and Tusttn in architectural design and as a revenue-generating facility. The public hearing was closed at 9:20 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen noted that the architectural design was beautiful and would be appropriate tn a number of areas. This area, however, is not appropriate: the access is bad, it conflicts with the Post Office, it precludes good traffic, conflict with the islands, and it does not have enough square footage to be effective. In his opinion, it would require 45-50,000 square feet to have an effective car wash. There should be other accessibility besides the First Street frontage. He did not think it would work in that location. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that discretionary items were the most difficult for the Commission to decide upon. However, they have to make the determinations based upon the First Street Specific Plan goals. He commended the architectural design, but was concerned with the traffic, and that it was placed very close to the corner. He felt that it was not the proper use of that lot. Commissioner Kasparian concurred. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Page seventeen Commissioner Pontlous commented that tt was a difficult decision, that she was Impressed with the presentation, but she referred the applicant to the City Council for appeal. The Director commented that the applicant has been tremendously cooperative and very responsive to the guidelines. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparlan seconded to deny Conditional Use Permit 89-25 by the adopt)6n of R~olution No. 2659. Motion carried 4-0. 8. Zone Change 89-02/Dest~n Review 89-52 APPLICANT: OWNER: DAVID MELILLI COMPANY 23010 LAKE FOREST DRIVE, SUITE E LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 C/O MR. MELVIN MELILLI NORMAN B. SCHMELTZER 640 W. FIRST STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 KENNETH H. DART, ET. AL. 440 W. FIRST STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 C/O MR. CARL GREENWOOD LOCATION: 630 AND 640 WEST FIRST STREET ZONING: CG PUD (GENERAL COMMERCIAL-PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)/FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIEDNMENTAL STATUS: REQUE ST: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT IN CONFORM- ANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1) A REQUEST TO AMEND THE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 640 W. FIRST STREET FROM "OFFICE AS PRIMARY USE" TO "COMMERCIAL AS PRIMARY USE" 2) A REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT BONUSES PURSUANT TO THE FIRST ~TREET SPECIFIC PLAN. 3) DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 5,825 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER LOCATED Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: Recommend certifi- cation of the final Negative Declaration for the project to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 2666; Recommend approval of Zone Change 89-02 to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 2667; and Approve Development Bonuses pursuant to the First Street Specific Plan and approve Design Review 89-52 by adoption of Resolution No. 2668, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Associate Planner Commissioner Shaheen asked if there was a reciprocal agreement with 7-11; and if there would not be a barrier between the two buildings; and asked about the barrier shown on the site plan. Staff replied that as a condition of approval, there would need to be a reciprocal agreement, but at present there is only a tentative agreement with 7-11; the site would function as one site; and that there was no barrier, only the large Jacaranda that would remain on the property. Planntng Commission Action Agenda August 28, 1989 Page etghteen The Dtrector noted that staff has recelved the direction In wrtttng from 7-11. Commissioner Ponttous asked If the site plan proposed was the correct version and if the additional parking spaces would be Installed. Staff replied that the site plan proposed was correct, and as a condition of approval, improvement plans for the modifications would need to be provided at the plan check stage. Commissioner Kasparian asked how this new building would affect the view of the apartment tenants behind the site; and if there was any compromise as to utilities easments at the back of the building. Staff replied that the eave line of the rear elevation comes above the balcony of the apartments; by suggesting the pitched roof in the rear, as well, it reduces a lot of the building mass. He noted that there was no room on the subject site for access to the back of the building. The applicant would be required to obtain permission from the property owner for construction and subsequent maintenance. The existing block wall jogs several inches to two feet onto the apartment property. The Director noted that the applicant has designed the wall so that the footing extends onto their property, which means that no construction will occur across lot lines; if the applicant has difficulty in gaining access, it would be a problem that he could contest. Regarding maintaining existing roof lines, the eave of the adjacent apartment building is above the slope element of the roof line of this project to reduce potential impact. If the rear setback is not granted, the rear yard area will be a nuisance and be a continual enforcement issue. The public hearing was opened at 9:35 p.m. Carol Altman, apartment owner, felt that this would be a better look on First Street, than the storage yard, but they will have to remove a large avocado tree, and move the Victorian house. She noted that all of her units' living areas face the rear of her facilities, and that this project, therefore, impacts them tremendously. She noted that in the staff report, the water flow would not be affected. However, at the rear elevation of the building, they will have to install three (3) feet of additional soil for water runoff, thereby extending the roof up an additional three (3) feet. Tenants will then look upon a solid mass wall; whereas, their present view is of a Victorian house, avocado tree, and they get plenty of light. She is fearful of a loss of rents and property value. During construction, they will have to be on her property, near the living quarters of her tenants. During construction, workers will have to walk along the entire length of her property to work on the wall. She felt that lowering the building to ground level would help with light, etc. She felt that the applicant could install the building without the additional grading. Regarding the Environmental Study: A) there will certainly be a displacement; B) certainly will change topography; C) due to raising of building, drainage will change; Environmental Evaluation, paragraph 3, there would be a significant change to the water drainage; that the slope on the rear elevation could be more extensive. She feels that she may have tenants moving during construction and fears for her financial welfare. Commissioner Shaheen asked what Mrs. Alt man was proposing; and noted that whatever was built on that property would affect her property; asked how many units she had; and commented that she had to approve access from her property for construction. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Page nineteen Mrs. Alt man replied that she understood their reasoning for placing the building at the rear property line, but it creates a solid wall for her; there is currently no problem with fire access, but with the new structure, she feels that the only way the fire department could assist her would be from the front, and might be ineffective; she has four units, three face the rear area; she realizes she will be affected by whatever is built there; attractive landscaping might help. Commissioner Pontlous asked for a clarification of the grading and drainage issues of this lot. The Director replied that the Environmental Study suggests significant negative impacts; there is no significant negative change to the drainage pattern; it does require that the applicant drain to the street to the existing storm drain. The Victorian house has a drainage pattern which is not pursuant to City Code and will have to be modified to City standards. Commissioner Pontlous noted that anything done to the property would require similar grading to ensure drainage to the street. The Director noted that the grades on the 7-11 site may be a misrepresentation, in that, since they have a different street frontage they are able to blend out their drainage to both streets. The drainage from this site must drain to the street, and not to adjacent sites, and to match up the reciprocal agreements, the grades will have to be compatible. The avocado tree is being removed, but they are retaining the much larger, more historical Jacaranda tree in the front of the project. Staff felt it would be a hardship to require the rear yard area, since due to the price of real estate in the area the applicant required marketable retail frontage. Mrs. Alt man commented that the reduction in parking spaces would cause customers to util)ze her parking space along Pacific and in front of her units. Commissioner Pontlous noted that there would be 40 spaces altogether. The Director added that the 7-11 will increase by 4 spaces which means there would only be a net shortage of one (1) space. Tustin's parking standards are high as compared to most jurisdictions. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the only problem was the height of the ground; he suggested bougalnvlilea be Installed to improve the view. Mrs. Alt man noted that the wall which would be 16 1/2 feet high and is 8-9 feet from her tenants living room windows was a major issue; but did not like the idea of maintaining such a vine. David Meltlli, applicant, noted that they are aware of the sensitivity of the devel- opment of this site. They feel that there are many positive aspects of this project in combining two small properties. He noted that the Victorian House is to be moved to 6th Street; the two subject properties will eliminate two (2) driveway approaches which are very near the intersection of First and Yorba. Commissioner Shaheen asked if there was any way to resolve the Mrs. Altman's problems. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Page twenty William Hockenberr¥, project architect, noted that since they need to drain to First Street, there is no option but to raise the rear of the building; all surfaces (except planters) will be hard surfaces, providing 100[ runoff. The Abigail Abbott building is raised to approximately the same elevation; 7-11 forellnes are about the same, but due to the rear having a dramatic drop-off, there may be runoff which goes through the fence. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the whole building could be lowered from 18 feet to 15 feet; and if there was another place for the air conditioner. Mr. Hockenberr¥ noted that there is a ten foot ceiling plus the structure; the City ordinances require that the parapet wall be six (6) inches above the air conditioning equipment on the roof. Moving the air conditioning units was not a viable option. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the apartment building wall would stay or be removed; and asked where the property line actually was located; and if it would be worthwhile to plant some trees along the fence. Mr. Hockenberr¥ replied that the concrete block wall could be installed from their sid~ of the property, but they would need to stucco it from the other side. He noted that the wall will act as a reflective surface, providing additional light into the north facing apartments. He noted that the property line was nine (9) inches to the south of the building wall. Mrs. Altman stated that the applicant would be removing the wall. The Director noted that the wall could not be removed without the property owner's permission. Commissioner Pontlous stated that an agreement must be made between the property owner and the developer if they choose to take down the wall. Mr. Hockenberr¥ stated that part of the wall is on their property, and that is the portion that ~ill be removed. Commissioner Shaheen asked if there were any tenants as yet for this project. The Director stated that developing each of the parcels individually would defeat the objectives that would be achieved with this consolidated development and would create more problems with traffic and preservation of the characteristics of the site. She also noted that if landscaping installation along the wall was desirous of the property owner, she could request it, but would have to provide right of entry to the developer. Wording was added to the Resolution, as moved. Mr. Hockenberr¥ addressed several issues of the Staff Report: 1) building color could be essentially the same color as Abigail Abbott; 2) tile configuration is intended to be "S" tile; 3) the monument sign was intended to be uniform with the shade struc- ture, and would add to street scape; if the overall shade structure was reduced to six feet, he felt there would be a liability problem. The top structure is for design purposes. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Page twenty-one The Director felt that this was not the only alternative available for stgnage that would be consistent with the architecture while achieving the City's objectives; the precedent created could create future problems; they are receiving a number of other bonus items; stucco color could be an exact replication or compatible color with Abigail Abbott's color. Jeff Thompson stated that he and his wife would be the recipients of the Victorian House. He felt that he represented the most significant impact of the project, as he is preserving the oldest historic structure within the City. It will be returned to a home use from an office use. Commissioner Le Jeune commended the Thompson's on their success with the remodeling of two other homes within the Historic District. Commissioner Kasparlan asked if moving of the house was conditional upon approval of this resolution. Commissioner Ponttous affirmed. The Director noted that a design review application has concurrently been approved subject to this zone change. Mrs. Altman asked for a clarification of her fire concerns. The Director replied that the fire issue was dealt with on an individual site basis. This project would not be required to provide fire access or protection for the adjacent property. Properties that are greater than 150 feet in length are designed to accommodate the required fire flow and access that the building needed when it was constructed. Mr._~ockenberr¥ stated that the roof structure has a 2 hour rated assembly, and the building has an automatic sprinkler system. Therefore, the potential of fire from their property to Mrs. Altman's was substantially mitigated. The public hearing was closed at 10:22 p.m. Commissioner Pontious reviewed a summary of the issues: 1) reducing the rear yard setback to zero; 2) allowing a nine foot tall monument sign; 3) bench trellis structure. The Director noted that the items summarized were the lot consolidation bonuses, but that the parking variation is mandatory. The staff recommends that the Commission allow the nine (9) foot tall pedestrian trellis structure within the front yard, but deny the nine (9) foot tall monument sign and reduction of the rear yard setback. Mrs. Altman asked about the issue of tenants that would be likely to move during construction. Commissioner Ponttous replied that they were trying to address as many of Mrs. Altman's issues as they could. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the problems would be worked out between the property owner and the d&veloper. Planntng Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Page twenty-two The Director replied that it would be worked out between the two parties, but that the Community Development Department would be willing to help the property owner with wording of her request; terms of the condition were added to the Resolution, as moved. Commissioner Kasparlan asked who would be responsible for maintenance of the trees. The Director replied that since there would be no access to her property from the applicant's side of the property, she would be responsible for maintenance. However, she has the right to refuse the trees. Commissioner Kasparian commented that the Commission tries to mitigate the concerns o~' ~p~icants as they are able. Commissioner Pontlous moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend to City Council certifi- cation of the Final Negative Decl~ation 'for Zone Change 89-02 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2666. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 89-02 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2667. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Pontlous moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Development Bonuses pursuant to the First Street Specific' Pla~ and approve Design Review 89-52 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2668 with the following revisions: Exhibit A, add Item "1.9 Developer shall install wall climbing vines on rear building wall and )nstall Eucalyptus or another tree species at intervals subject to approval by the Community Development Director along rear property line if requested in writing within 30 days of approval of this Resolution by the property owner. Said request shall include provisions for right-of-entry to developer for installation of trees and access for construction on the developer's project site." Exhibit A, item 3.5 should be changed to read "3.5 Final exterior colors shall be subject to approval of Community Development Department." Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSX#ESS NEW BUSIMESS 9. ,E,xposed Neon Slcjns APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: FAT FREDDIE'S RESTAURANT 1571 EL CAMINO REAL TUSTIN, CA 92680 EDGAR PANKEY 2915 BRISTOL COSTA MESA, CA 92626 1571 EL CAMINO REAL C-2, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL Planning Commission Action Agenda August 28, 1989 Page twenty-three ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11 TO ALTER AN EXISTING SIGN CONTAINING EXPOSED NEON TUBING Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the requested sign alteration by adoption of Resolution No. 2670; as submitted or revised. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Steve Zenos, business partner, noted that when he started his business, he tried to modify the parking area, the landscaping, and replaced ripped awnings to improve the site. Commissioner Pontious commented that what he has done has been wonderful for the area, but that he needed to follow the procedures of the City. Mr. Zenos did not know that they needed a permit for a replacement awning. The Director noted that he was given the option of applying for design review approval for the pink awning. However, they have installed unapproved internal illumination. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the requested sign altera- tion by adoption of Resolution No. 2670 with the following revisions: Add Item II. 3. "Prior to permit issuance the existing exterior awning shall be returned to its approved condition (canvas, turquoise non-illuminated) or shall obtain appropriate Design Review approval for the existing unapproved awning. Motion carried 4-0. STAFF CONCERNS 10. Report on Council Actions - August 7, 1989 Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development COI~IISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Shaheen thanked staff for the stop sign on Fig Lane. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that a building on Yorba required persons using the handicapped parking to drive across the lawn. The Director noted that those are turf blocks. Commissioner Kasparian asked if there was anything the City could do, such as Code Enforcement on the apartments at the corner of E1 Camino Real and Browning. The Director noted that staff would look into this matter. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Page twenty-four Commissioner Shaheen mentioned that he had received a complaint regarding the proces- sing time of a building permits. He noted a letter received from Durfee Gardens. The Director noted that there is a standard initial review period of 14 days, however, reviews are completed on a first come, first served basis and the volume of activity in the department occasionally results in a longer review period. The applicant in the particular case mentioned has done grading without permits and is upset due to receiving a "Stop Work Notice". The Director responded that staff would be happy to prepare a response for his signature addressing the issues brought up in the letter. ADJOURNMENT At 10:45 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 11, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Motion carried 4-0. ¢ Chairman Penni Foley Secretary