Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-22-89HZNUTES TUSTIN PLAMNING COMNISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 22, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIAMCE/IMVOCATIOM ROLL CALL: Present: Baker, Ponttous, Le Jeune, Shaheen, Kasparian PUBL lC COIICERMS: (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.) Minutes of the May 8, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting Modification to Design Review 87-13 {Tract 13038) APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: WESTERN NATIONAL PROPERTIES 630 THE CITY DRIVE SOUTH ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92668 IRVINE PACIFIC 13202,04,06,08 MYFORD ROAD PLANNED COMMUNITY - EAST DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN: MEDIUM HIGH THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1). TO AUTHORIZE THE DELETION OF 64 TWO FOOT WIDE BY THREE FOOT LONG, DRIVEWAY PLANTERS FROM THE PROJECT'S APPROVED SITE PLAN. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the modifica- tion to Design Review 87-13 by adopting Resolution No. 2607, as submitted or revised. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1989 Page two Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of the effect of removing the 64 planters and replacing with potted plants. The Director replied that the planters were originally conceived to provide relief to the garage areas. However, since the slab on the garages is abnormal, the applicant has suggested replacing planters with potted plants. Staff has determined that the separations between garages are too narrow and that plantings would be an impedi- ment and recommends removal of the planters without replacement. APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: Design Review 89-24 THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92714 PROJECT COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN 1) MODIFICATION OF CONCEPTUAL SECTOR PLAN FOR SECTOR 7 2) MODIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN FOR TRACT 12870 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) Approve Environmental Determination for the project by adoption Resolution No. 2613; and 2) Approve Design Review 89-24 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2614. of Commissioner Baker asked if moving of the sidewalk to the curb was in order to create a larger front yard for the units. The Director replied that on the local collectors, staff agrees with the design review committee and Public Works Department that the sidewalks should be moved to curb level due to problems with grade variations and inefficiency of design. APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: Exposed Neon Signs WANDA HAWKINS - DIGITAL EAR 13011 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 BURNETT EHLINE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 2050 SOUTH SANTA CRUZ; SUITE 100 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805 13011 NEWPORT AVENUE, PLAZA LA FAYETTE C-2, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11 TO INSTALL ONE (1) 25 SQUARE FOOT SIGN WITH EXPOSED NEON TUBING Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the requested sign by Minute Order. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Pontious seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1989 Page three PIBLIC I~IIIGS Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 81-20, Design Review 89-15 (Mobil) APPLICANT: PROPERTY/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS REQUEST: MS. RHONDA DAVIS G & H PERMITS 2915 E. LA JOLLA ANAHEIM, CA 92806 MOBIL OIL CORPORATION 3800 W. ALAMEDA AVENUE, SUITE 700 BURBANK, CALIFORNIA 91506-4001 171E. FIRST STREET CG (GENERAL COMMERCIAL)/FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1) AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-20 (MOBIL) TO ACCOMMODATE A 250 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING SNACK SHOP. 2) AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE CERTAIN SITE IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO LANDSCAPING, SIGNS, LIGHTING, AND FUEL PUMPS. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 81-20 and Design Review 89-15 by adopting Resolution No. 2604 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked if any underground work was to be anticipated. Commissioner Baker inquired as to when it the station was last tested for leaks. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the alleyway at the rear of the station connecting it to the Big 0 Tire Store would remain open. Staff replied that there would only be minor replacment of fuel lines at the pump islands; and that the alleyway would remain open, as it was actually an easement for access to Mullin Lumber Company which is located further down the alley. The public hearing was opened at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian asked which department would conduct a traffic study on the effect of the additional traffic from the larger snack shop. Commissioner Shaheen asked if this would be a sit-down or take-out shop. Commissioner Baker replied that it was strictly a take-out store, a mini-mart. He asked if the applicant would be considering application for the sale of beer and wine with the addition. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1989 Page four Mr. Ken Malf, authorized agent for Mobil, stated that the shop currently sells beer and wine. The expansion is to provide extra floor space and Health Department- required storage areas; the tanks were replaced in 1985. For safety reasons, would like to request waiving the required 10 foot setbacks for lighting as defined in Item 4 of the Staff Report. Staff replied that the applicant would be willing to utilize 36 inch lights at the corner of the lot allowing them to locate the lights within the setback area as proposed. If the applicant intended to utilize the 14 foot high lights as proposed, a variance to deviate from the development standard would be required, or there could be an amendment to change the height of the lights to 36 inches. Commissioner Baker noted that the applicant would be adding quite a bit of additional landscaping and was concerned about continued maintenance. Mr. Malf replied that Mobil Oil has an outside firm contracted to provide landscaping maintenance, and felt that there would be no problem maintaining the lot effectively. Commissioner Le Juene noted that visibility was limited when exiting from the rear of the lot onto Prospect Avenue; trees may need to be removed and was concerned about traffic safety. The Director noted that without recommendation from the Public Works Director, she would not suggest traffic signs to be installed (i.e. Right Turn Only). She felt, though, that upon site inspection prior to finalizing the site, the applicant would be willing to trim trees, etc., as required to insure visibility. Responding to Commissioner Kasparian's question regarding the traffic impact study: due to the scale and nature of this project, a study was not required by the Engineering Department. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 81-20 and Design Review 89-15 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2604 revised as follows: "Exhibit A, Item 3.3 add an additional sentence "Fixtures less than 36 inches in height may be located in the setback area." Motion carried 5-0. o Use Permit 89-17 and Temporary Use Permit APPLICANT/ OWNER: THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX 'I' NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 LOCATION: 12442 TUSTIN RANCH ROAD - TUSTIN RANCH GOLF CLUB ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL-GOLF COURSE, EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303(c) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1) APPROVAL TO OPERATE TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE, STARTER'S BOOTH ANC GOLF CART STORAGE FACILITIES WHILE PERMANENT FACILITIES ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION; AND 2) AUTHORIZATION FOR ON-SITE SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES {TYPE 40 AND TYPE 47 STATE ABC LICENSE). Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1989 Page five Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) Approve a Temporary Use Permtt for a clubhouse, starter's 2) booth and golf cart storage facilities by adopting Resolution No. 2609 as submitted or revised; and Approve Use Permit 89-17 authorizing on-site sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages {Type 40 and Type 47 Alcoholic Beverage License) by adopting Resolution No. 2610 attached thereto; as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Senior Planner Staff made corrections to Exhibit A of Resolution 2609. Condition 5 should read: "A chain link fence with vinyl mesh shall be installed to enclose and screen the storage area housing the driving range retrieval, washing and distribution equipment prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the temporary clubhouse." Condition 9 should read: "Hours of operation of the temporary clubhouse and golf course shall be dawn to 10:00 p.m. Hours of operation of the driving range shall be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m." Condition 13 should have additional wording at the end of the sentence: "unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Department." Corrections to Exhibit A of Resolution 2610 were: deletion of Item 5; Item 7 should be changed to read: "Hours of sale of alcoholic beverages in the clubhouse shall be 6:00 a.m. to closing. Hours of sale of alcoholic beverages from the golf course shall be from 6:00 a.m. to closing .... " Commissioner Ponttous inquired if, regarding item 6 of Exhibit A of Resolution 2610, there could be a requirement that persons operating the beverage carts must be at least 21 years of age. Staff replied that "Operation of the mobile beverage carts shall be by persons of a minimum of 21 years of age." be added to the end of item 6. Commissioner Kaspartan noted that on page 5, paragraph 5 of the Staff Report, it states "During tournaments or special events, two or more such carts could be operated." He asked if there was any limit imposed as to how many mobile beverage carts the applicant could have, and if there were no limits, did that make the definition of "tournaments or special events" immaterial. He also inquired as to the amount of fencing enclosing the driving range. Staff replied that no limits were imposed by ABC, and that several mobile carts would be acceptable. The fencing proposed for the driving range will only be along the northerly edge, adjacent to an access road. There is no other fencing proposed, however, there are a large number of trees planted along its edges and the location of the range within the course will provide for additional protection. Commissioner Shaheen asked if it was to be presumed that there will be no future request for permanent use of the temporary facilities. Staff replied that a condition could be imposed prohibiting the retention of the temporary fixtures for future permanent use. The Director noted that Condition 2 of Exhibit A of Resolution 2609 states that this Use Permit is for one (1) year and can only be extended upon approval of the Planning Commission. Planntng Commission Mtnutes May 22, 1989 Page slx Commissioner Baker asked if patrons were permitted to bring their own alcoholic beverages onto the premises. Staff replied that patrons were not prohibited by State law, but could be prohibited by the rules of the golf course. The publtc hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Baker asked if the applicant was in agreement with all of the conditions and changes to the Exhibits, excepting the fence. He also inquired as to whether they would be agreeable to the age requirement for sale from the mobile beverage carts. Mr. Tosh Neminsky, Irvine Company, affirmed agreement to the conditions. Mr. Butch Fogler, employee of the course operator, assured the Commission that it would be possible to require only 21 year-olds to service the mobile beverage carts; the driving range has a curve-T which forces the golfers to aim toward the middle of the driving range, and the targets are positioned such that the golfers must direct their shots toward that area; so that the operator can maintain control over the over-consumption of alocohol, they intend to maintain strict control over its sale versus bringing it onto the premises. Commissioner Baker referenced a letter from Foothill Community Builders stating tha the maintenance operation shall begin 15 minutes before sunrise, and asked for ~ clarification. Mr. Fogler noted that they like to mow the greens before people are using the course, requiring very small equipment operating 15 minutes before sunrise, which should not bother the neighbors. The public hearing was closed at 7:58 p.m. Commissioner Ponttous moved~ Le Jeune seconded to approve the Temporary Use Permit by the adoption of Resolution No. 2609 with the following revisions to Exhibit A: Replace 5 with: "5. A chain link fence with vinyl mesh shall be installed to enclose and screen the storage area housing the driving range retrieval, washing and distribution equipment prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the temporary clubhouse." Replace 9 with: "9. Hours of operation of the temporary clubhouse and golf course shall be dawn to 10:00 p.m. Hours of operation of the driving range shall be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m." Commissioner Ponttous moved~ Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Permit 89-17 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2610 with the following revisions to Exhibit A: Delete Item 5; renumber the remainder of conditions Add to new item # 5: "Operation of mobile beverage carts shall be by persons of minimum of 21 years of age." Change new item 6 to read as follows: "6. Hours of sale of alcoholic beverages for the type 40 and 47 licenses shall be 6:00 a.m. to closing. Under no circumstances shall alcoholic beverages be sold after 2:00 a.m." Motion carried 5-0. Planntng Commission Minutes May 22, 1989 Page seven Tentative Tract Map No. 13627/Sector Development Plan (Sectors 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) and Hillside Review 89-01 APPLICANT: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: Recommendatt on: actions: 1. 2. 3. 0 THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, BOX 'I' NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 SECTOR 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ROUGHLY BOUNDED BY THE CITY OF TUSTIN EASTERN BOUNDARY AND THE FUTURE EXPANSION OF JAMBOREE ROAD ON THE EAST, PORTIONS OF THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE TUSTIN RANCH AREA AND FUTURE EASTERN BOUNDARY PROPOSED FOR THE PETER'S CANYON REGIONAL PARK ON THE WEST, FUTURE PORTOLA PARKWAY AND THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF TRACT 12870 ON THE SOUTH AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE THE CITY AND PETER'S CANYON REGIONAL PARK BOUNDARY ON THE NORTH. A PORTION OF BLOCKS 40, 41, 42 AND 66 OF IRVINE'S SUBDIVISION, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 88 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORD MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER. EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. 1) A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN EAST TUSTIN SECTOR LEVEL SUBDIVISION CREATING 27 NUMBERED LOTS AND NUMEROUS LETTERED LOTS. 2) APPROVAL OF A LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN AND LANDSCAPING CONCEPT PLAN FOR SECTORS 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. 3) APPROVAL OF PROPOSED MASS GRADING CONCEPT FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN SECTORS 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6 WITHIN THE HILLSIDE DISTRICT IDENTIFIED IN THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following Approve Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2612; Approve the Sector Development Plan and Landscaping Concept Plan for Sectors 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2606, as submitted or revised; Recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Tract 13627 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2603, as submitted or revised; and Approve Hillside Review 89-01 by adoption of Resolution No. 2608, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christine Shlngleton, Director of Community Development Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1989 Page eight Commissioner Baker asked for a definition of a Tentative Tract, and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The Director replied that a Tentative Tract Map is defined under State Subdivision Map Act as the preliminary submittal for a proposed subdivision. At this point the Commission can impose conditions; once the conditions are met a final map can be recorded as the legal lot. A Sector Level Map is required to define large parceliza- tions that are proposed by the company. The Builder Level Maps provide for the actual unit and lot layout for the builders. If a Vesting Tentative Tract Map is requested the applicant would be provided with a vesting right to build under the requirements that were in place at the time that a Tentative Tract Map was approved. In the case of a Vesting Tentative Map, the final map must be recorded within twelve months and there must be a full development plan submitted insuring compliance with all zoning requirements. The public hearing was opened at 9:00 p.m. Mr. J. Pierce, the Irvine Company, noted that they have been planning this last phase with the Planning Staff over the past year, and appreciate the efforts and profes- sionalism of the staff. They are in agreement with the majority of the conditions of approval, excepting the park dedication. Mr. Mike McCla¥, resident with property adjacent to lots 5 and 26, noted that over the past six (6) months, the developers have been working in the area moving dirt and cutting down hundreds of eucalyptus trees. He could not understand how the City could issue a notice of public hearing, his first legal document of the work to be done, when all of this work has been going on for the last six (6) months. He wanted to know, on the maps, where Lower Lake Drive was in conjunction with the work being performed. The Director replied that there has been a number of activities occurtng in this vicinity that relates to the retarding basin, north of A Street; construction of the outlet that will drop into the golf course for drainage; grading activities for Tustin Ranch Road and Tract 12870; diseased eucalyptus wind rows have been removed; trees in conjunction with the retarding basin had to be removed; re-vegetation will be provided along the retarding basin. Mr. William Collins, 2261 Pavilion Drive, Santa Ana, commented that he lived in the area adjacent to lots 5 and 26; he wanted to thank the Irvine Company for working with the neighbors and for establishing good communications. He felt the neighbors were in general agreement with the Tentative Tract Map, except for: two-story homes adjacent to the tennis club will interrupt their views, and will be incompatible with the area; there is a berm present on lots 5 and 26 at the property line between the Irvine Company and the homes, which they hoped to have reduced overall; and they invited the Commission to view the area. Mr. Pierce pointed out on the map for Mr. McClay that Lower Lake Drive construction is due to development of the retarding basin; and regarding Mr. Collins' comments about the berm, the slope is approximately at grade at their property line and increases 15-20 feet in height as it moves away from the property line. Planntng Commission Minutes May 22, 1989 Page ntne Commissioner Baker clarified for the recording that the retarding basin was at the south end of the regional park, where the eucalyptus trees have been removed, at the end of Lower Lake Drive; there are no plans for connection of a street with Lower Lake or Foothill. Glen Almquist, M.D., 2281Pavillion Drive, Santa Ana, noted that the 20 foot berm was their greatest concern at this point, due to the way it bisects the neighborhood and dtstrupts the natural flow of the surrounding area. Mr. Pierce commented that they have met with the concerned parties and have committed to returning to them with a plan outlining a particular grading plan. How to deal with the grading will be determined at time of starting of development. Lot 26 will not go above its present height. Commissioner Baker clarified that there would be two additional opportunities for the neighbors to speak and additional time to negotiate with Irvine Company, and that this was not part of the agenda. The Director noted that the Commission was not dealing with grading issues of specific lots, at that time, only actual lot configuration. There would be two additional opportunities for the homeowners to review the precise issues pertaining to each of the lots in question. Lot 5 is rough graded; precise grading will be proposed in conjunction with the Development Design Review. Lot 26 has Tract Map Process for individual builders, and also a Hillside Review of Grading Concepts. The applicant is willing to meet with the residents to hear their concerns, which will be addressed in the planning process. She noted that the mass grading plan for Tract 12870 was completed and approved in conjunction with the sector level map. This evening's meeting is to look at the lot patterns for Sectors 4 and 5, and whether they meet the Specific Plan. The Commission was not being asked on Lot 26 to decide on the grading grading concept or future lot patterns for specific developments, at this time. Judy Almquist, 2281 Pavillion Drive, Santa Aha, noted that as President of the Committee for Compatibility, representing 120 homes and 500+ members, she needed to assure compatibility between the old and the new; they are not part of Tusttn, but feel as though they are residents of the City; they take a lot of pride in Tustin. The objective this evening was to make the Commission aware of the 20 foot berm in Sector 8; they are afraid it will reduce their land values; and feel that when it is in place, they will be unable to change it. She objects to the way Lots 5 and 26 line up, producing a 20-foot difference in height on the property adjacent to her home and Mr. Collins' home; if a two-story house were built on the 20 foot high lot, the residents would look directly down into her backyard. The Irvtne Company has agreed to cooperate and make plans compatible, and has agreed to hold their mass grading plans until further review by the homeowners. Carl Greenwood, 2102 Racquet Hill, Santa Ana, represented the Racquet Hill neighbor- hood; as a group they were concerned with Racquet Hill Drive remaining a dead-end. They have been informed by the Irvine Company that the street will not go through, but they are concerned that in 15 years, decision-makers may change, and decide to put it through if there was a cul-de-sac in place. Lot 26 density was approved higher than on Lot 5, but the Irvtne Company agreed to make changes. They are concerned with the hillside east of the Racquet Hill area being a focal point for the golf course and the entire East Tustin area. They, too, encouraged the Commission to make a field trip to the area. Planning Commission Mtnutes May 22, 1989 Page ten Mr. Donald Williams, 2032 Lower Lake Drive, Santa Ana, noted that he is a recent resident to the area, with property adjacent to the construction site. He inquired as to whether Lower Lake Drive would go through. His concern was that the new area would generate a lot of traffic with no exit to the north; the new area to the east of his home would be more greatly populated than his area and would possibly provide a majority vote if they wanted to extend the street; He felt that opening up Lower Lake Drive as an arterial would be disappointing, and would like the Commission to provide guarantees that it will remain a cul-de-sac. He also asked regarding the Regional Park: if the park land was dedicated but not accepted by the county, could the land be used for future home sites. Mr. Pierce replied that the Board of Supervisors is adopting a document regarding the dedication of this park, however, the dedication is being slowed by technical issues which are currently being taken care of. It is anticipated that it will be a Regional Park. The Director noted that the Regional Park is required by the East Tusttn Specific Plan. Regarding the extension of Lower Lake Drive and Foothill Blvd., the original Environment Impact Report contained more than adequate protections for the residents in the area. Prior to any connection of either roadway, a very comprehensive study would be completed by the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, and the City of Tustin to address whether that need existed. If the need was to exist, a variety of mitigation aspects would be explored. She noted that Lower Lake Drive wa~ currently to be a cul-de-sac. Mr. Williams commented that the grading work currently being performed is obviously for streets, which he wonders whether or not has been approved. Mr. Pierce replied that there is an access road for the retarding basin which has been designed to coincide with Street A. The Director noted that there will be a 25 foot right of way for the regional trail that will also be graded, almost to the westerly boundary of the tract. Commissioner Baker asked what the time frame on approval would be for the Regional Park; and if the Director was aware of any problems associated with the Board of Supervisors. The Director stated that the only problems were the technical ones noted by Mr. Pierce which related to the deed documents. The City is not a party to the actual dedication. Mr. Collins again invited the Commission to view the sites with the neighbors as the tentative grading plans begin on Lots 5, 26, and Racquet Hill. Commissioner Baker replied that that was an excellent suggestion, but it would be coordinated through Staff. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that it was standard procedure for the Commission to vie, the sites in question. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1989 Page eleven Mr. McCla¥ wanted further clarification as to whether construction has started or not on the lots that were being reviewed this evening. He found it hard to believe that the construction was just for the retarding basin; and that it was ironic that the Commission is making decisions on allowing plans that millions of dollars have already been spent on. Brad Olson, Irvtne Conl~any, replied that work is underway for the retention basin and the required major storm drain lines, as permitted as part of the prior major tenta- tive tract map in connection with the remainder of Tusttn Ranch. The work that is being performed is an Assessment District project that the City is managing. All of the immediately adjoining property owners were noticed by the City of the work being performed. Commissioner Baker asked if any work has been done in addition to the retarding basin and storm drain construction. Mr. Greenwood noted that the construction site has cut back into the Camp Myford area, and wondered how this section related to the retarding basin. Mr. Pierce replied that there is no work being done in regards to Tentative Tract Map 13627, which was before the Commission this evening; they have had to construct a storm drain line from the retarding basin to the golf course, running through Tract 12870. The alignment required soil removal, creating new slopes, and removal of trees. The Director replied that all of the work being conducted has been per City approved plans that relate to the Assessment District activity on the retarding basin, Jamboree Road, or the extension of Tustin Ranch Road. All work has been fully approved with permits issued. The public hearing was closed at 9:50 p.m. The public hearing was re-opened at 9:51 p.m. Mr. Pierce voiced his concerns regarding the conditions imposed relating to the neighborhood park. It was important to the Irvine Company to maintain their good working relations with the Staff. Their intent was not to take parkland from the City, it was to keep conditions flexible so that they can perform under the dedication requirements of the Tusttn Specific Plan. The Specific Plan clearly states that the actual parkland dedicated will be based on the actual number of units contructed. With this being the final phase, they need flexibility to dedicate less acreage if they acutally build fewer units than planned. If they do build fewer units, it would be practically impossible to retrieve any parkland that has been dedicated. Commissioner Baker asked if the park in question would be a three (3) acre park, out of 599 acres. Commissioner Shaheen noted that he felt that the City needs more parks in the development; the City of Irvine does a magnificent job on their parks, large and beautiful; he could see no reason for eliminating any parkland in this area, and asked where the closest park was, and how big it was. Plannlng Commission Minutes May 22, 1989 Page twelve The Director replted that there was an 8.9 acre community park approximately i mil south of the neighborhood park tn the locatton of the Redwoods. Mr. 01son commented that they respected Commissioner Shaheen's concerns, but that the Irvlne Company ts proposing to meet the terms of the Speclflc Plan. They do not tntend to shortchange the City of any park dedication, but upon reachlng the fourth phase of the project, they would like to have some flexibility In the amount required to be dedicated. They belteve that there may very posstbly be considerably fewer untts butlt than the 9,000 contemplated. The dedication of this park land may never be a requirement under the Ct ty's Park Ordinance, the Specific Plan, or an entitle- ment of the Ctty under thts development. If the untts are built, the park land deserves to be dedicated. Thts area Is rich tn parkland with the Regtonal Park's 300 acres Immediately adjoining thts sector. The public hearing was closed at 9:58 p.m. The Director made corrections to Exhibit A of Resolution 2603, as moved. The Director commented on the requirements of the neighborhood park site as recom- mended by Staff noting that: there be a dedication of lot 16, which shall be a mini- mum of three {3) acres, with a 2.7 acre site being reserved; the location and size were to be determined with the Park Dedication Ordinance; four (4) neighborhood parks were proposed in the Specific Plan; this would be the fourth park, with no other opportunities to obtain one; three {3) acres is the most efficient and smallest siz necessary for the construction of a neighborhood park, as established by City Counci policy; provisions of the Specific Plan state, "the precise acreage and locations o. private and public neighborhood parks shall be determined as part of the review of the Sector Subdivision Map as identified under the review procedures Subsection 1.5 of the Specific Plan"; the 2.7 acre reservation proposed on Lot 17 supplies the flexibility for the builder if their unit counts fall below estimates; Staff recommends that no less than three {3) acres be dedicated at this time, with full dedication being required in conjunction with this tract. She noted that this was located on page six of Resolution 2603, item B and E. She also commented that this item has also been discussed with the Community Services Department and the City Manager's Office, as well as the City Attorney's office, with unanimous consensus as to what was intended by the Specific Plan. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if once the dedication was finalized, if there was no chance of reversal. Lois Jeffrey affirmed, but that tonight's dedication proposal was only for three {3) acres. The Staff and the City Attorney's office disagree with the Irvine Company's interpretation of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan very clearly requires four {4) parks, with this being the fourth. The Plan also clearly states that the amount of acreage is to be determined by the number of units, so Staff has proposed the min- imum park size of three (3) acres, with 2.7 to be reserved. If the number of units is reduced, the 2.7 acres could return to the Irvine Company for some other use. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the three acres and the 2.7 acres were taken a individual numbers, could they be considered as providing five parks in total; an does the Public works Department actually determine the adequacy and reliability or the water system design, as noted in Exhibit A, page 2, 1.4b. He also asked what "Slope Warranty Program" meant. Planntng Commission Mtnutes May 22, 1989 Page thtrteen The Director replied that the 5.7 acre site will be one site. Until Thursday, there was no problem, and the company had agreed in writing to the three {3) acre dedica- tion. She noted that the Specific Plan identifies a water system concept, requiring full improvement plans that would be submitted and checked by the Public Works Department. Also, that the City's Grading and Excavation Code required that with approval of any tentative tract map in a hillside district area, that the builder or subdivider enter into a Slope Warranty Program. The actual terms and provisions will be reviewed by the Commission for determination of appropriateness in individual circumstances. Lois Jeffrey responded by stating that the water system design will be prepared by the developer, and then evaluated by the Irvine Ranch Water District as to their meeting of the District's standards, for the eventual takeover of the retail water system by the City of Tustin. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what the Specific Plan provisions would be if the County of Orange does not accept the Regional Park area; there would be very little upkeep, considering its acreage. The Director replied that a regional park site was provided for in Sector 1; to modify that use, there would have to be a modification to the Specific Plan; this is a passive site, or nature oriented. The public hearing was re-opened at 10:15 p.m. Mr. Pierce noted that they are in agreement with all of the changes made to the resolutions. Regarding the park issue, though, they requested Staff to inform them as to where it states in the Specific Plan the number of parks required. He requested Staff to provide the Irvtne Company with their information to assist them in this matter. The Director replied that on page 2-4, Public Parks--noted four (4)*, stating that "only the exact number, location, and size of private neighborhood parks will be established with subdivision maps." The materials are available, but it has been reviewed in detail at Staff level, with concurrence on the requirements of the Specific Plan by the City Attorney's office. Mr. Olson noted that he became aware of the total units being provided last Thursday, and would like to review the information. If the requirement is as Ms. Jeffrey states, there is no argument left. The Director noted that there is a fifteen (15) day appeal to the City Council on the decision. The public hearing was closed at 10:20 p.m. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the Environmental Determination for this project by the adoption of Resolution No. 2612 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the Sector Development Plan and Landscaping Concept Plan for Sectors 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2606 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0 Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1989 Page fourteen Commissioner Ponttous moved, Le Oeune seconded to recommend to Ctty Council approva' of Tentative Tract 13627 by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2603 wtth the following revisions: Change tttle to Resolution 2603, page three, to read "Resolution No. 2603" Exhlblt A, Ttem 1.1 E replace "stripping" with "striping" Exhtblt A, Item 1.1 R delete "In the event the materlal used to construct Jamboree Road Is Insufficient to support continued transtt use of the stops, the subdivider w111 be responsible for constructing a concrete pad at the bus stop to support the weight of a bus." Change 2.4 to read as follows: "2.4 A reservlor stte and booster pump statton site shall be noted and reserved tn *** concept on Ftnal Map 13627 for future acquisition subject to approval of general locatton by the City Engineer. The location of the reservoir site shall be on etther lot 13 or 24 at an elevation of between 320-350 feet and the locatton of the booster pump statton shall be on lot 26. All locations wtll be finalized with subsequent butlder level maps. Additional easements for transmission pipelines wtll be requtred tf publlc streets are not available." Exhlbtt, A Item 4.3 last ltne delete "and" Exhtbtt A, Item 5.1 C-5, at the end of the ftrst sentence add "of Tustln Community Services Department" Exhtbtt A, Item 5.1 C-6 change first sentence to read: ""Permanent fenctng shall be Installed by the developer of adjacent bordering properties that abut each park stte tf required by the Ctty of Tusttn Community Servtces Department prior to release of certificates of occupancy for development of satd properties. Exhtblt A, Item 7.1 B-lflrst sentence delete: "to prevent drainage on streets" Exhtbtt A, Item 7.1 D-2 11ne 9 "In to" change to "tnto" Exhtbtt A, Item 7.1 D-7e 11ne one add "precise" before grading and delete sentence 2 beginning with "Costs for such .... " Exhibit A, Item 12.3 D 11ne 1, delete "not" Exhtbtt A, Item 12.5, ltne 5 should read" exceed the number of untts permitted by the cumulative total of square... Motion carrted 5-0. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Hillside Review 89-01 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2608 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS NL~ BUSINESS 8. APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: Recommendation: Use Determination 89-01 (Culltvan) MR. BRUCE E. CRANE NORRIS, BEGGS AND SIMPSON 18400 VON KARMEN AVENUE, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715 275 CENTENNIAL WAY C-2 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL)/FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN (OFFICE) THIS ITEM IS NOT CONSIDERED A PROJECT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRON. MENTAL QUALITY ACT AND IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. A DETERMINATION OF USE TO CONSIDER WHETHER A DENTAL LAB SHOULD BL PERMITTED IN THE C-2 DISTRICT. Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Associate Planner Planntng Commission Minutes May 22, 1989 Page ftfteen Commissioner Kaspartan noted that the Commission needed to know the answers to the issues to be discussed prior to making a determination for the project, regardless of what a "C2" district is. Staff replied that the C2 district is a retail/commercial district allowing for a wide range of retail activity, service/commercial uses, and general office uses. The building that the applicant is requesting the use for is an office building. The Director noted that despite the representations of this user at this location, if a determination is made, it would be made without standards and would be allowed on all C2 zoned lots. Commissioner Shaheen asked how many people would be employed on the premises. The public hearing was opened at 8:06 p.m. Mr. Bruce Crane, real estate agent representing the tenant, reviewed some of the issues: - There are presently two employees, and with the possibility of an adttional two persons they would still fall within the parking requirements; - Counter-top equipment used (no intended additions): burn-out oven, casting machine, ultrasonic cleaners, polishing lathe, dust collectors, and porcelain furnace; Other inventory: porcelain, plasters, gold, wax, tools; - Facility used for crowns and bridges; - Presently has ten (10) accounts, intends to increase to 15-20, while maintain- ing a Tusttn address. Commissioner Shaheen commented that some dentists do the same work in their own dental offices, and that this did not constitute heavy industry. Commissioner Ponttous asked where this lab was currently located; and inquired into the feasibility of the heat venting system as mentioned in the letter of May 9 from Mr. Crane to the Community Development Department. Commissioner Baker asked if there was a strong odor from the wax that would require venting; and if there would be any problems with parking or delivery vehicles. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the current facility required any special venting for fumes; and if there would be venting of toxic fumes in the pedestrian area outside the building; if the ovens were gas or electric; if Mr. Crane had any idea of the power demand at any given time; and is Larwtn Square on a central power grid that might be impacted by this tenant; he was unsatisfied by the equipment usage. Mr. Crane replied that the lab required more room and the applicant wanted the move to be in conjunction with a dentist that he is currently working with who was also moving; as per the equipment supplier for the dentist's office, with drilling a hole to the outside of the building for venting, the lab should not have a problem dissi- pating the heat from the ovens. He could operate as such without a venting system, but would require extra air conditioning to maintain a comfortable temperature in the room; and commented that he had heard no complaints at the current location. This location has sufficient parking, and deliveries are done by the applicant via his own car. The venting system at his current location was coordinated with his present Planntng Commission Mtnutes May 22, 1989 Page stxteen landlord; and that this building is part of Larwtn Square, but that the venting would be at the back of the building where there is no foot traffic. Based on the current location, there seems to be adequate power. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the Fire Department was involved in inspecting the site and equipment to determine if there was a fire hazard. The Director replied that the Fire Department does not look at power demands of individual pieces of equipment, only exiting, the use of flammable materials, etc. The Uniform Plumbing Code and Mechanical Code regulates the voltage and heating demand of plumbing and electrical fixtures through submittal of technical plans to the Building Department. She was not prepared, at this meeting, to provide the information regarding the gas lines and mechanical servicing for the building. Commissioner Baker asked if the four (4) issues presented involve power sources, or venting. The Director noted that the issues offer alternatives for the Commission. If it is determined that the use is permitted there would then be no ability to impose condi- tions on that particular use of a C2 zone. Items would be handled through the submittal of tentative improvement plans, with any uniform building, plumbing, or electrical code requirements being handled, as usual. The other issues may be more appropriate to address, because this type of use could recur. The current location is in another district; each district has its own list of permitted uses; and if this case it would then be permitted in a C2 district and a CG zone. Commissioner Pontlous felt that there was not enough information presented. She had no problem with the use of this facility other than the questions raised about equip- ment and odors, but would rather have a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Shaheen felt that since this was a legitimate business in operation, with similar uses in office buildings elsewhere, it was a waste of time to require this individual to return to the Commission for approval of a Conditional Use Permit. He also inquired as to when it would be scheduled. The Director commented that requiring of a Conditional Use Permit would identify to the applicant that this is a use in a particular business that the Commission would be receptive to. However, the issue, as presented by Commissioner Pontious, is that allowing a dental lab to be permitted in a C2 zone would then allow it to be located anywhere in the retail district, including service strips, commercial districts, the CG zone, and any other C2 zones where there are shopping centers. The matter could be agenized to the next meeting in three (3) weeks, and at the risk of the tenant, processing of tentative improvement plans could begin. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he agreed with the position that if there is a code, then the Commission should review the code for the particular area. If there is a precedent, then there is still the option of proceeding with the idea of granting the permit. He asked if items 2 and 4 could be combined. The Director replied that although the applicant would like direction this evening, the Staff is implying that they do not believe that the operation is inconsistent Planning Commission Mtnutes May 22, 1989 Page seventeen with a Commercial District. However, there could be issues on certain operations that may or may not make that use consistent with the commercial character of the district. In such a case, the Commission may review each application individually and decide whether it is an appropriate use for that district, the ability of which is provided by the Conditional Use Permit process. Commissioner Baker noted that if the Commission is giving a blanket authority to an applicant, there can be a dental lab in a retail location. In regards to the dental office in a retail center which was denied two weeks ago, he felt that this was the same type of location, and wondered if they should exert that type of control. Commissioner Shaheen dlssagreed with the relationship to the last issue of dental office in a retail center. He felt that the Commission makes life difficult for people investing in professions. Commissioner Ponttous clarified that even though the center in question was a retail center, it still fell under the C2 district and would have allowed a dentist office. If the Commission approved this item, it would allow a dental lab in any C2 district, including retail. The Director noted that applicant of two weeks ago was under a Community Commercial District, which was regulated by a different set of development guidelines, and was not related to this issue. Mike McCla¥, a dentist in the audience, commented that the wax was put in the oven until it vaporized; the pieces were approximately 1/10 ounce; the ovens are usually electric; a bunson burner may be required for creating wax patterns; there is an odor which requires venting, but is not very abusive to the surrounding neighbors. The public hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen felt that this should be an allowable use within the C2 zone. Commissioner Le Jeune had no problem with the lab, since all work is done on a small custom basis. However, he did not agree that this was the best way to get into use. Commissioner Kasparian felt that he should be inherently cautious and proceed slowly; it was incumbant upon the Commission to determine if the use was permitted within the zone, whether or not it is a legitimate business. Commissioner Ponttous changed her opinion and noted that, with the clarifications of the issues and information received during the public hearing, she would not be opposed to allowing the dental lab in a C2 district. Commissioner Pontlous moved, Le Jeune seconded to determine, by Minute Order, that a dental laboratory is similar to the permitted uses within the C-2 district and should be permitted. Motion carried 4-1 (Kasparian). Planntng Commission Minutes May 22, 1989 Page eighteen STAFF CONCERNS 9. Presentation: Actton Agenda of May 15, 1989 City Counctl Meettng. Chr{sttne Shingleton, Director of Community Development CQMiqlSSION CONCERNS Commissioner Ponttous noted concerns wtth: 1) Market Place window stgns; 2) the Sign Code status; and 3) the deterioration of the Fashton Club stgn tn Tusttn Plaza. Commissioner Le Jeune asked tf the City's new Stgn Ordinance w111 requtre that ext~ttng stgns be brought tnto conformance. Commissioner Baker asked If cold att balloons were allowed tn the Ct ty and the status of the property on Garland and Red Ht11. AOJOURmqENT At 10:30 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to adjourn to the next meettng of the Planning Commission on June 12, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. In the Ctty Counctl Chambers. Motion carrted S-O. P e-~t Foley Secretary