Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-24-89MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COFt4ISSION REGULAR MEETING July 24, 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 CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the July 10, 1989 Plannin~ Commission meetin9 2. Final Tract Map 13822 APPLICANT: DURFEE GARDENS PARTNERSHIP 1700 RAINTREE ROAD FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 OWNER: SAME LOCATION: 14372 S. YORBA STREET (S/E CORNER OF YORBA PLACE) R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: AND NORWOOD PARK FINAL MAP IS A MINISTERIAL PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.73 ACRE PARCEL INTO SIX (6) LOTS WITH A CUL-DE-SAC FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SIX (6) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES Recommendat i on: approval of Final No. 2640. It is recommended that the Tract Map 13822 to the City Planning Commission recommend Council by adopting Resolution Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Page two Modification to Sector Land Use Concept and Statistical Summary, .Tract 12870 APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 PROJECT IS CONSIDERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN REQUEST: CHANGE THE SECTOR LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN ON LOTS 18 AND 19 OF TRACT 12870 (SECTOR 7) FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: Approve Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2644; and approve Modification to the Concept Land Use Plan and Statistical Summary by adoption of Resolution No. 2645. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Le Jeune abstained). PUBLIC HEARING 4. Vestin~ Tentative Tract Map No. 13835 and Design Review 88-71 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. NELSON CHUNG RECREACTIONS GROUP OF COMPANIES 20 CORPORATE PLAZA NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 LOTS 19, CC AND DD OF TRACT 12870, NORTHWEST CORNER OF JAMBOREE ROAD AND ROBINSON DRIVE PC (PLANNED COMMUNITY), EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED 1. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 14.37 ACRES INTO 22 NUMBERED LOTS AND 4 LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 282 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DWELLING UNITS. 2. APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1) Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2636; 2) Approve Design Review 88-71 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2637 subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, as submitted or revised; and 3) Recommend to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13835 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2638 subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Associate Planner Planning CommisSion Minutes July 24, 1989 Page three Commissioner Le Juene asked if there was any provision for solar heating to be installed now or in the future. Commissioner Pontious commented that she felt it was provided in the swimming and recreation areas. Staff replied that it was a standard condition for it to be plumbed in the recrea- tion areas but not the residential sections. Commissioner Kasparian asked how they arrrived at a requirement of two and one-half parking spaces per unit. Staff replied that as a requirement of the East Tustin Specific Plan the project was to provide two and one-quarter spaces per unit. However, since they are providing enclosed garages, they must provide an additional quarter space per unit, including guest spaces. Commissioner Pontious asked for a clarification of the location of the parallel parking. She commented that she was concerned about parking in front of the units. Staff replied that there would be parallel parking in the area that Commissioner Pontious was pointing to on the visual, also various turnouts in the loop that widen to 32 feet to provide for parallel parking, and perpendicular parking in front of some of the clusters. The public hearing was opened at 7:12 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7:13 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen commented that he felt that this project was well done and was a beautiful concept. Commissioner Pontious concurred. Commissioner Pontious moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the Environmental Determination ~or the project by the adoption of Resolution No. 2636 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to approve Design Review 88-71 by the adoption of Resolution 2637 subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13835 by the adoption of Resolution 2638 subject to the conditions in Exhibit A, as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Page four 5. Conditional Use Permit 89-22 and Variance 89-08 (Michaelson) APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. RON MICHAELSON 16561 ALLIANCE #17 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 MR. DAVID GAON MAX CROSS & CO. 1807 E. OLYMPIC BOULEVARD;#100 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90021 222 W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 201, STEVEN'S SQUARE PR (PROFESSIONAL OFFICE) DISTRICT THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1) A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE A TELEVISION COMMERCIAL ACTING WORKSHOP TO BE ESTABLISHED IN THE PR (PROFESSIONAL OFFICE) DISTRICT AND CULTURAL RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT 2) A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED PARKING FROM SEVEN SPACES TO ONE SPACE Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 89-22 and Variance 89-08 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2639, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Associate Planner Commissioner Baker asked if the Commissioners were working from a current plan of Stevens Square, or if there was a current one available. Staff replied that a current plan was not available, and that they made a note to that effect in the report. The plan that the Commission was viewing was the one that was originally approved for the development. Commissioner Shaheen asked if one parking space was sufficient. Commissioner Baker asked if there would be a deficiency if they used all seven of the spaces. Staff replied that for a 336 square foot office one space would be all that was required and has been supplied as a part of the Stevens Square development. As a workshop or a professional school, however, parking is required for the staff and also one space for every two students. Due to the limited evening hours, there would be no deficiency, but there would be during the daytime. Since there is so much parking available during the evening hours, this could be considered a "shared use" of the parking. The public hearing was opened at 7:20 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Page fi ve Barbara Cox, 450 1/2 B Street, noted that she lived directly opposite Steven's Square; that there was heavy traffic two to three nights per week by occupants using Stevens Square in the evening which parked on the street; if the vehicles parking on the street were moved to Stevens Square, she wondered how that would affect Mr. Michaelson's project; that they now have traffic on the street until 9:30 at night which is past her mother's bedtime and causes a disturbance. She also wondered what the teaching would involve, if it was noisy or quiet, and if it would be a noise nuisance due to the sound carrying from the second floor. Ron Michaelson, applicant, commented that since this was a television acting work- shop there would be no music or noise. It would all be on-camera, very quiet, and for total climate control of the room, the door would always be closed. This would be taught for television commercials as well as for professionals who have trouble with public speaking, etc. The class would have a maximum of ten people, but usually only six to seven. Commissioner Pontious commented that Item 3.1 notes that students will sign the log at the beginning of each session agreeing to the condition of no off-site parking, and wondered if the applicant was aware of the condition. Mr. Michaelson noted that he was aware of the condition, and commented that if the class used all of the seven alloted spaces, there would still be ample parking avail- able since the Square had approximately 38 spaces available not counting the parking garage. He also noted that the maximum number of cars he has seen after 7:30 p.m. was three or four. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there would be any activity in the office during the daytime. Mr. Michaelson replied that he would be the only one in the office during the day- time so that he could do paperwork or prepare for the workshop. He is the only employee. Commissioner Baker asked if starting at 6:00 p.m. would be difficult. Mr. Michaelson replied that he preferred the class begin after 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian asked if there was an inconsistency between the staff report which notes 7:30 to 10:30 and the Resolution which notes 6:00. He also asked if the class could conceivably begin as early as 6:00. Commissioner Pontious noted that the staff provided the availability of the parking area from 6:00 since the daytime users would probably be finished by then. Mr. Michaelson noted that he could not conceive of the class beginning before 7:00, as it was designed for working adults who usually were not able to attend a class prior to 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian asked who would enforce the parking prohibition. Commissioner Pontious noted that it was not a case of enforcement, it was being set up in case of complaint by the neighbors, whereby the City could then revoke his variance for non-compliance. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Page six Mr. Michaelson asked if the sign-in sheet should be signed before each class session, and if he was to keep it on file or turn it into the City each time. Commissioner Pontious replied that the sign-in sheet should be signed only once per session, and should be kept on file for the City to review in case of complaints. Ms. Cox asked if the applicant intended to use the facility on the weekends. Mr. Michaelson replied that it would not be used on the weekend, it would only be used two nights per week (possibly three in the future), and that there would also be no children taught. Staff commented that he spent some time with Ms. Cox regarding her concerns about parking on B Street. Apparently there is a tenant who is a psychologist who con- ducts seminars and workshops in the evening. He noted that he completed a service request to review the matter, since, to his knowledge, there should be no one there that late in the evening. The public hearing was closed at 7:36 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 89-22 and Variance 89-08 by the adoption of Resolution 2639, as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Variance 89-11 APPLICANT/ OWNER LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MARIA ROLDAN 17502 CHATHAM DRIVE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 17502 CHATHAM DRIVE R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301.E OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A KITCHEN ADDITION UNDER AN EXISTING ROOF OVERHANG THAT WOULD ENCROACH THREE FEET INTO THE REQUIRED TEN FOOT STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance 89-11 by adopting Resolution No. 2643, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7:41 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to approve Variance 89-11 by adopting Resolution No. 2643 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 198g Page seven OLD BUSINESS 7. Results of Traffic Engineer's Study for Champion Development Project (Use Permit 89-21 Recommendation: Receive and file. Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he was happy to support this issue and felt that staff did an excellent job working with the residents. Commissioner Kasparian asked if "litter" included oil and grease or if it just meant cardboard, paper, etc. Staff replied that litter meant debris, but that the auto accessory use was com- pletely deleted. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to receive and file. Motion carried 5-0. 8. Sign Code Revisions - Update Recommendation: Receive and file. Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to receive and file. Motion carried 5-0. NEW BUSINESS 9. Design Review No. 88-68 and 88-69 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE CO. P.O. BOX I 500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 LOTS 31 AND 32 OF TRACT 12870 (PHASE III AREA OF EAST TUSTIN) PLANNED COMMUNITY - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS I TO INSTALL TWO, 2 ACRE PARKS FOR PRIVATE RECREATIONAL USE IN THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Recommendation: Review No. 88-68 by adoption of Resolution No. No. 88-69 by adoption of Resolution No. 2642. It is recommended that the Planning Commission: Approve Design 2641 and Approve Design Review Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Page eight Staff noted changes in the staff report, as moved. Commissioner Baker noted that Page 2, Item E of Resolution No. 2642 listed five foot sidewalks. He wondered if it is normal for them to be six foot wide or five foot. He asked if it could be added to the conditions that the sidewalks be unobstructed. Staff replied that the original design plans show six foot sidewalks, but that five foot is acceptable; they just needed to be sure that the Irvine Company made the changes to the plans; and it is a standard requirement that the sidewalks be unobstructed. The Director noted that it was not necessary to add wording to the Conditions as it was already covered; and that the Public Works Department would ensure compliance, particularly regarding light poles, fire hydrants, etc. Commissioner Baker asked if any street parking would be allowed. Staff replied that they were not planning to allow street parking, but do not know if the final decision had been made. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he understood that the project had to be plumbed for solar, but he wondered if there would be adequate roof space on the recreation building if they opted for it. Staff replied that the roof would possibly be large enough, but she could not be certain as she was not an expert on solar requirements. Commissioner Pontious asked if there would be crosswalks to the passeos from the developments. She felt that if the plan was to restrict car traffic, that it should be safe for pedestrians. Staff replied that at this time there was no provision for crosswalks, and that they would have to look at each site and each paseo to determine their proximity to the curbs in the road. The answers would be determined by the design layouts which are not yet available. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to approve Design Review No. 88-68 by adoption of Resolution No. 2641 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Juene seconded to approve Design Review 88-69 by adoption of Resolution No. 2642 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to approve Design Review 88-68 by the adoption of Resolution 2641 subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A with the following revisions: Exhibit A, page 3, 3.6 first sentence should read: "The trash enclosures shall be equipped with solid metal framed, self-closing, self-latching gates." Exhibit A, page 5, 4.2 J, Delete the last sentence beginning with "Earth mounting..." Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Page ni ne Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Design Review 88-69 by the adoption of Resolution 2642 subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A with the following revision: Exhibit A, page 4, 3.11, line 2 the lot numbers should read "24, 25, 26 and 27." Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS 10. City Council Action of July 17, 1989 meetin9 Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development No Plannin~ Commission action necessary. 11. Workshop for North Entertainment Village, Tustin Market Place Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adjourn their regular meeting to a workshop to study and informally discuss the proposed design of the North Entertainment Village, identify issues or concerns and provide direction to staff and the applicant. No approval is requested at this time. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner CO)IMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Shaheen requested that the City explore the feasibility of installing traffic signs at Alder Lane and Fig Tree Drive to slow traffic. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the dentist will have to conform to the signage of the Colco center';' he noted that there are a lot of signs hanging over the freeway side of the Sixth Street property; asked why the buildings at the corner of Browning and Nisson had been leveled; asked whether tapes had been ordered from the League's Planning Commissioner's Institute; if it was a requirement for real estate agents to notify prospective buyers of the Cultural Overlay District requirements; and if there was a question about the requirements of the District, who is in charge. Staff replied that the building leveling was a part of the freeway widening project, and that problems with other property owners was delaying construction. The Director affirmed that the dentist would have to conform to the center's signage, and that he was restricted to five parking spaces; that she felt that the tapes had been ordered, but that she would look into it; Real Estate agents have to inform buyers of the zoning regulations; the Cultural Overly District is an underlying zoning district for which they have to provide information; when the ordinance was adopted, every property owner in the program was noticed by mail. Commissioner Kasparian requested that staff look into the weeds and fire hazard conditions at the northeast corner of Prospect and 17th Street. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Page ten The Director noted that she did not feel it was within the City boundaries, but would refer the matter to the appropriate agencies. Commissioner Baker requested a status update on the house on Red Hill and Garland. The Director replied that they are on a current enforcement action on the property and could provide a status update at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT At 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to adjourn to a Workshop for the North Entertainment Village immediately following the meeting and adjourn the Workshop to the next regular meeting on August 14, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Motion carried 5-0. Leslie A. Pontious Chairman 17~n~i FoleY Secretary (PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR PAGE NINE OF THESE MINUTES)