Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-08-89H]NUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COHHISSION REGULAR HEEI'ING PAY 8, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Counctl Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGZANCE/ZNVOCATZON ROLL CALL: Present: Baker, Ponttous, Le Jeune, Kaspartan Absent: Shaheen PUBLZC 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 April 24, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting Lois Jeffrey noted the following changes to be made in the minutes: 1) Page 17, bottom paragraph, second line, last phrase should read: "is not an expiration statute..." 2) Above paragraph, line 8 should be "request" not "suggest". 3) Page 18, fourth paragraph, line 11, delete "branched" and replace with "granted". Commissioner Ponttous moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the consent calendar as revised. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Kasparian abstained). PUBLIC HEARINGS Withdrawal of Variance 89-04 (El Camino Enterprises) Presentation: Daniel Fox, Associate Planner The Director noted that since staff has resolved the issues involved by creating extra parking spaces, the applicant is withdrawing the variance application. Commissioner Pontlous commended staff for resolving this issue. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Le Jeune seconded to accept the withdrawal of Variance 89-04. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page two Amendment to Use Permit 88-8 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DON CARTER D.D.S. 14711 CHESHIRE PLACE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 COLCO PROSPECT L.P. 17320 RED HILL #190 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 17602 E. SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 105 PLANNED COMMUNITY - COMMERCIAL THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 a (CLASS 1) AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT 88-8 WHICH PROHIBIT MEDICAL OFFICE USES AND LIMIT OFFICE USES IN GENERAL TO A MAXIMUM OF 50% OF THE AREA OF A NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commtsston deny the Amendment to Use Permtt 88-8 by adopttng Resolution No. 2598 as submitted or revtsed. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner The public hearing opened at 7:15 p.m. Jim Coilings, 410 38th Street, Newport Beach, speaking on Dr. Carter's behalf tried to rectify the concerns noted at the time of issuance of the original use permit for the project by stating that there will be a single user of the office building, which is a title insurance company. Dr. Carter, a sole-practitioner who wanted to have an office in Tustin, would rent the office as the exclusive dentist/medical office for the center. He will see only two patients at one ttme. Due to the smallness of the use and the guarantee that no other dentist would be allowed to rent at the same time, Colco decided to request approval. Commissioner Ponttous asked about the applicant's anticipation regarding restaurant use in the center. She also asked if the applicant anticipated asking for parking variances in the future. Commissioner Baker noted that there was some question regarding the usage of retail space as opposed to office space. He asked if there was any other office space available for this tenant. Mr. Collings replied that the owners were looking for users that are compatible with the center, with an emphasis on food users. Whether this variance is approved or not, any future requests they would have for a 3,000-3,500 square foot restaurant would have little effect on the overall package. He noted that the office building was a single-user building, and that there was no other office space available. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page three Dr. Don Carter, applicant, noted that he has resided in Tustln since 1960, and has been practicing in Costa Mesa for five years. His intentions are to employ two people, and to treat one to two individuals per hour. They would be open two to three evenings per week and on Saturday. He realizes that his services are not taxable, but feels that his patients will be using the center, thus bringing taxes to the City. With two employees and two patients per hour, he forsees no more than six parking spaces being used per hour. He noted that there is a real need for a dentist along 17th Street due to the heavy traffic; that there was not one dentist or health provider along the street; and felt that the other buildings in the area for medical use were saturated. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the building lent itself to future expansion in case the Dentist wanted to expand to three or four dentists, thereby creating a need for further parking spaces. Mr. Colltn9s replied that it could not be expanded because it was an in-fill building without additional space on either side. He also noted that they would accept the condition that the space cannot be expanded and that there would be no other dental or medical use within the center. The public hearing closed at 7:23 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he was not in favor of mixing uses within a center. The Commission originally spent a lot of time on the project and he still cannot see enough circumstances to allow 1,000 square feet for medical use. Commissioner Ponttous asked the staff for a clarification of the anticipated restaurant usage and their effect on future parking variances. She noted that she would not like to discourage a resident from practicing in the City, but she felt that this location was unwarranted. Commissioner Kaspartan asked if the City would be compromising its future position by allowing a precedent in this case. Commissioner Baker asked how many extra spaces the applicant requires and how many would be needed for restaurant use. The Director replied that modification of the Conditional Use Permit could be setting a precedent that could impact a future variance request. Despite the offer by the owner to commit to an exclusive use of the site by just one dentist, the property could be sold, and future tenants could request medical offices irrespective of the current owner's commitment. It really all revolves around the adequacy of the parking. The applicant requires one more space than the seven provided over the minimum requirements. The original extra seven spaces designed for the center were felt necessary to accommodate a future restaurant tenant whose seating was as yet undetermined. The owner has represented this evening that they do intend the center to be food oriented. There are proposed at this time two or possibly three restaurants in the center (Ruby's is being discussed as the third restaurant). She noted that the $0~ limit of retail vs. office space is applied city-wide, and that the applicant is requesting a permit to accomodate over 50~ office space. There are office projects throughout the City where there is no Planntng Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page four restriction on medical occupancy. At the present, there is a high vacancy factor In many of these office projects located In the Ctty's professional districts. A more appropriate locatton for Dr. Carter mtght be tn one of these projects, and there are many opportunities vtslble along major arterials. Commissioner Kasparlan asked who mtght rent the space If the doctor was not there, and tf staff envisioned more parking requtred by the dental offtce than the retailer. He Instinctively felt that tn an offtce of one dentist, you are not dealing with a lot of people, and that the parking may not be out of ltne. The Director replied that any variety of retail, service, or food oriented tenants could rent that space. She noted that the retailer required one parking space per 250 square feet of retail space and the medical office required one space per 167 square feet of floor area. Commissioner Baker noted that in this case, they are taking a space away from future retail/ restaurant usage. His concern was, the possible need for the center to return to the Commission with future parking needs for restaurant uses. He also noted that the applicant had seven days in which to appeal to the City Council. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Le Jeune seconded to deny the Amendment to Use Permit 88-8 by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2598 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: Use Permit 89-10 JEAN HAIDER - MORRISON & ASSOCIATES 3333 MICHELSON DRIVE; SUITE 525 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715 MC KELLAR DEVELOPMENT 18500 VON KARMAN AVENUE; SUITE 150 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715 14272 FRANKLIN AVENUE; SUITE 110 PLANNED COMMUNITY - INDUSTRIAL THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301A (CLASS 1) AUTHORIZATION FOR {1) A SANDWICH SHOP IN AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX; (2) SALE OF BEER AND WINE FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT USE (LICENSE TYPE 41); AND {3)AN OUTDOOR SEATING AREA IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permtt 89-10 subject to deletion of outdoor seating by adopting Resolution 2600 subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A", attached thereto, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Baker asked what the distance was between the outdoor area and the sandwich shop. Planning Commission Mtnutes May 8, 1989 Page ftve Commissioner Pontlous asked if customers had to cross a traffic lane to get to the outdoor seating area. Staff replied that it was approximately 40 feet from the sandwich shop to the proposed outdoor seating area, across the sidewalk and along a pedestrian-only walkway. The public hearing opened at 7:40 p.m. Jean Halder, applicant, noted that the reasoning for the outdoor cafe was to attract attention to the shop, as the location had a problem with visibility and stgnage; by using the six outdoor seats with umbrellas, it would be very attractive; for legal purposes they will not be serving alcohol outside, consumption would be allowed inside the shop only; and there will be signs inside noting that there will be no service outside. Commissioner Ponttous asked how the applicant proposed to control the fact that customers would be sitting inside or outside. Commissioner Kaspartan asked who owned the 40 foot section between the shop and the outside location. He asked who will police and clean the outside area. Mr. Hatder replied that there will be signs everywhere stating that they will not be serving outside; if anyone takes advantage of the situation, they will stop them; and that the outside location was approved by the landlord. Staff noted the site was owned by Mc Kellar Development and that the shop owners and employees would police the area. The public hearing closed at 7:43 p.m. Commissioner Ponttous is generally in favor of outdoor seating, but is concerned over the control of the beer and wine; and asked the staff if there was a way to condition the use permit so that alcoholic beverages be delivered by an employee inside the restaurant, and not be available to customers at the counter. She noted that as this area is rather remote, the outdoor seating areas needed to be controlled particularly for minor's use. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if that would mean no sale inside or outside. The Director noted that a condition could be imposed, but that the Conditional Use Permit runs with the property as opposed to the operator; the enforcement problems in terms of the guarantee of this applicant would then rest with the Community Development Department; the options are for the applicant to either withdraw the application for all alcoholic beverage sales, or for the Commission to deny the condition allowing the outdoor seating area. Commissioner Baker felt that it was an excellent idea, however, he was at a loss as to how to control the alcohol portion of the request. Togo's serves inside, with signs posted inside, but he did not know how this request differed. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page six The Director noted that she would have to check on the background of Togo's permit. Regarding the ABC licensing requirements, by type of license, ABC identifies the restaurant use as the total restaurant including outdoor seating. ABC has restric- tions on outdoor seating service that are tied to the license. The City's guidelines closely follow the requirements of the ABC licensing bureau. Staff noted that Togo's is in compliance due to having direct access to a physically defined seating area which is directly adjacent to the restaurant. Lois Jeffrey noted that the guidelines recommended and adopted by the Commission were guidelines developed by the ABC. The ABC has found no good control of the sale of alcoholic beverages when there is seating that is separate from the restaurant. An exception could be made for this applicant, and if they violated the condition, the City could revoke the permit. However, this would be setting a precedent for other restaurants to request outdoor seating arrangements that may require further exceptions to the guidelines. Commissioner Le Jeune asked how the Master Sign Plan would affect the restaurant's possible need to install additional signs for beer, wine and sandwiches in the window; if strict compliance was enforceable; and if window signs were allowed in an industrial complex. With discussion of outdoor seating it was determined that mixed colors of umbrellas might be a problem and that staff would have to approve the colors to be used. He stated that he would approve the sandwich shop with beer and wine, but without outdoor seating. Commissioner Baker asked if the umbrellas were allowed within the sign code. The Director replied that temporary window signs are currently exempted from the City Sign Code. They are allowed up to 25% of any window area as outlined in the Sign Code unless the Master Sign Program adopted in conjunction with the development is more restrictive. They are not allowed to have umbrellas with names on them. Commissioner Baker noted that the applicant could appeal to the City Council within seven days. Commissioner Le Juene moved, Pontlous seconded to approve Use Permit 89-10 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2600. Motion carried 4-0. Use Permit 89-14 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: OMEGA #8 14551 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 MINOS XILIKAKIS 12622 ELIZABETH WAY TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 14551 NEWPORT AVENUE C-1, RETAIL COMMERCIAL Planntng Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page seven ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) TO AUTHORIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVE-UP WINDOW AT AN EXISTING 1,950 SQUARE FOOT, 52 SEAT RESTAURANT. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 89-14 by adopttng Resolution No. 2599 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Kaspartan asked how much time had elapsed between notice of the public hearing and the meeting. Commissioner Baker asked if Hank Lloyd's Tennis School had been noticed. Staff replied that there was a ten day time frame for response, however, no residents or citizens had responded. The owner of the tennis school property was noticed. Commissioner Pontlous asked if the SCAQMD's actions might affect the applicant. She asked why Omega would be adding this drive-up window if the SCAQMD would be requesting prohibition on all drive-ins. For those currently in place, will they be imposing any restrictions. Commissioner Baker asked if the sign requesting drivers to turn off their engines mattered if restaurants will be required to remove their take-out windows. The Director noted that construction would have begun prior to SCAQMD having any provisions prohibiting a drive-up facility. The SCAQMD wants to eliminate all drive-up windows entirely. The only restriction they would be imposing would be based on the idling issue. The decisions of the SCAQMD would not pertain to existing drive-up windows, only to new ones. In essence, it would be grandfathered. Commissioner Kaspartan asked if the parallel parking spaces in the front of the building on the south side of the lot would remain, even though they are potentially in the way of the drive-thru traffic. The Director noted that it was currently a one-way drive; the traffic would not be any faster paced, it was a controlled point with a natural traffic flow; and that it was more important that a bypass lane be provided in the queuing portion of the parking lot. The public hearing opened at 8:07 p.m. The public hearing closed at 8:08 p.m. Commissioner Baker noted that he assumed staff was working with Omega on the design of the sign regarding turning off of engines; that regarding the use of the loudspeaker, "Use will not create a noise nuisance as the proposed loudspeakers shall conform to the Noise Ordinance."; and asked staff how residents would complain if they feel the loudspeakers are too loud. Planning Commission Mtnutes May 8, 1989 Page etght Commissioner Kaspartan asked where the 60 Dba noise limit was measured from. The Director replied that the noise level would be reported to the Police Department, but that the City has a contract with the Orange County Environmental Management Agency to provide the monitoring service. At plan check, the staff will get information on the speaker device to insure direction of the noise. The noise limit is measured at the property line of the complainant. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Permit 89-14 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2599 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Use Permit 89-15 APPLICANT/ OWNER: DURFEE GARDENS P.O. BOX 19608-168 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 LOCATION: 14372 S. YORBA {S/E CORNER OF YORBA AND NORWOOD PARK PLACE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13822) R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303e {CLASS 3) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A COMBINATION RETAINING/FREESTANDING WALL WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED OF 10 FEET, EXCEEDING THE 6'-8" MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 9271i OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 8g-15 by adopting Resolution No. 2601 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Senior Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the refined grading scheme will have a potential of raising height requirements. Staff replied that if the grades went high, then the retaining portion would go higher, but the top of the wall would have to remain the same. The new residents would not have the benefit of a six foot high wall, it would be lower. The existing residents on the adjacent parcels would not have an 11 foot high wall. The public hearing opened at 8:16 p.m. The public hearing closed at 8:17 p.m. Commissioner Baker noted that regarding the Exhibits, it seemed as though the developer was trying to be a good neighbor. He was concerned, though, that having had a very high wall himself, the existing residents may not realize how imposing it might be. Planning Correlsslon Minutes May 8, 1989 Page nine Commissioner Pontious asked If there were any letters from the residents showing agreement. Commissioner Kasparlan asked who gets the park land fee that the developer Is gtvtng ln-lleu of dedication of actual park land. Staff replied that the letter from the applicant in the attachments to the Staff Report was signed by all adjacent property owners. The City would receive that payment for the park land fee. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Permit 89-15 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2601 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Amendment to Use Permit 88-23 APPLICANT/ OWNER: PACIFIC BELL 177 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91105 LOCATION: 14451MYFORD ROAD ZONING: PC-I, PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL: IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED FOR USEPERMIT 88-23, NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED AMENDMENT TO USE PERMIT 88-23 REQUEST: Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Amendment to Use Permit 88-23 by adopting Resolution No. revised. Commission approve an 2602 as submitted or Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Senior Planner Staff, prior to the presentation, made corrections to the first page of the Staff Report and Resolution on Item F, Page 2, Resolution 2602: "That the resolution is categorically exempt pursuant to the provisions of 15301 (e)2 and 15311 (d) of the Environmental Quality Act." The public hearing opened at 8:30 p.m. Patty Hamilton, Pacific Bell, 525 B Street, San Diego, made the following notations: - With movement of training yard, they would like to hook up block wall with a new 8 foot chain link fence which is to replace the six foot fence. - Car wash - maintenance shift works 3:00 p.m. to midnight and would do majority of car washing during those hours, but would like approval to extend the hours of possible operation from 7:00 a.m. to midnight. - Fuel island - refueling is also done primarily at night, but would like to extend hours of operation for fueling from 7:00 a.m. to midnight. Planning Commission Mlnutes May 8, 1989 Page ten The Director noted that there was no tssue wtth modifying either 1rem, but all oper- ations on the stte are subject to the Ctty's notse ordinances. Due to sound echotng, t t ts not unusual for noise to carry significantly to the Tustln Meadows area. Commissioner Kaspartan asked if tt made any difference, as long as they met notse requirements. He asked tf the 70 Dba was not an absolute ftgure that was followed. The Director replied that even with compliance of the 70 Dba level, it could cause a disturbance. 70 Dba is noted in the Noise Ordinance, but there is another clause which refers to a noise being a "reasonable disturbance" and would allow residents to pursue actions even if the noise was within the 70 Dba. Commissioner Baker asked how noisy the car wash would be, and if it was covered. Gill McNay, 177 Colorado, Pasadena, noted that the car wash was not a typical car wash in that there was just a spray nozzle without any brushes or other equipment. It is analagous to spraying a vehicle with a hose. Since it is covered, he did not feel that the noise would travel. Ms. Hamilton noted that relocating the car wash to the rear of the building by the loading dock was not an optimal choice as they have have allocated room for a three- car stacking situation for supplying vehicles at that location. They feel that visibility from Myford would be limited due to the eight foot burm and a block wall that is 18 feet high next to a 20 foot building, which will be painted to match the existing building. She noted that if someone was driving a vehicle south on Myford at 30 mph, past the 36 foot driveway, they would have to turn their head directly at the building to notice the car wash. Staff noted that the loading dock should have a solid concrete wall and that there should not be a dispensing window at that location. Staff found the car wash to be very visible from the street, regardless of any walls being built. Mr. Gill noted that regarding the car wash, an 18 foot clearance is needed inside the car wash for the largest vehicles. The total height of the wall would be approximately 22 feet to allow for the washing structure, lights, etc. Due to the importance of the location, the applicant would be willing to put automatic folding-leaf rising doors on the exit of the structure. It would be architecturally compliant and could be kept closed until the vehicle was leaving the structure. Ron Aday, consulting architect for Pacific Bell noted that the proposed location of the car wash will have a solid 22 foot high wall on the north side, which will completely hide the interior of the car wash. This location allows a two to three-car stack for circulation into the car wash, outside of the main circulation path of the driveway. The loading dock has a four foot high wall, and the plans for that area include a three to four-truck stacking lane, which would be lost. They may also lose two to four parking spaces so that 27 foot trucks with a 20 foot trailer can make the turn out of the car wash. There is concern about the ability of the facility to function. He feels that there is no other location in which to place the car wash. Planntng Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page eleven The Director noted that on a recent stte Inspection of another publtc utlltty factltty In another jurisdiction she nottced a free-standing drive-through wtth the same spout system as suggested tn the application. She noted that the applicant's stte was 50 spaces over on the parktng demand and asked the architect if there would be a possibility of relocating the structure as a free-standing untt so the proposed queuing area would be unobstructed and would not be vlstble from Myford Road. To eliminate the visibility from Myford Road, the use permtt could be revtsed to move the car wash to another location, subject to revtew of the Community Development Department. Since the 19 foot width of the structure represented approximately two parktng space wtdths, she suggests the possibility of relocating It at the rear parktng lot area wtth a drive through atsle. She felt that It was very vlstble from Myford, and for the purposes of expediency, would ltke to work further toward an alternative locatton that would achteve the same objectives. The current proposed location Is not acceptable to the staff. Mr. Ada¥ replted that the numerical statistics note that they need the parktng proposed, whether the Ct ty requtres It or not. He stated that the north wall can be made to look exactly 11ke the north wall of the building. The door would be of flat panels wtth horizontal 11nes 1/Sth tnch thtck. When the door ts up tt 11es flat above the car wash. Htth the door on an automatic control, tt would open as the truck extts, then comes down Immediately. The Dtrector commented that the representation made thts evening was considerably more detailed than what was represented to the staff tn the application; suggested that the use permit not be approved unless It was modlfted or thts matter be continued for further Information whtch mtght alter the recommendation; suggested that the Commission approve everything but the modification of the Development Plan that would locate the car wash on the stte; and commented that the tssue needed to be continued to a certatn ttme or table the matter and renotlce without an additional fee for the applicant. The matter would be continued wtth modifications to Exhtbtt A, as moved. Mr. Gill noted that they want only one leg of the staff-suggested block wall by the training yard, with the west property ltne having a continuous eight foot chain ltnk fence from the south property llne. As it would be measured from the burm, it would make a higher separation than would normally be there. People currently access the faclltty from the west side. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the applicant proposed to attach barbed wire to the top of the chain link fence. Mr. Gill replied that the fence erected now at the northern end of the west property line does have barbed wire. Barbed wire would also be needed along the entire west property line. The Dtrector noted that there has been no problem wtth that treatment along the enttre property 11ne when the whole area was parking. She suggested Installation of chain 11nk along the portion of rear parktng. The portton that ts the tratnlng area needs a block wall around the area where the mock structures and heavy acttvtty are located. She noted, however, that barbed wtre was prohibited on new Installations of walls and fences. Planntng Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page twelve Commissioner Kaspartan asked if the block wall was as good a deterent to keeping out trespassers as chain link would be. He felt that a chain link fence with something on top would be a better deterent than a block wall. Staff stated that the original approval required an eight foot wall along the southern property line adjacent to the originally proposed training yard. With property relocation, they would not be required to install the fence where the old training yard was, but would be required to install a fence where the new training yard is, both on the south and west property lines. Applicant only wants it on the south side with chain link fencing with redwood battings, which is eight feet high versus existing six feet. Chain link with barbed wire would be more effective. Commissioner Baker commented that he was concerned with the night lighting until midnight. He wanted to know if the lighting would be controlled so that there would be a limited amount of reflection into the area, and asked if the training made a great deal of noise. Mr. Gill replied that the lighting would be utilized for night training with two to three candlepower per square foot. The training is not noisy as it is limited to pole climbing, man-hole entry, and crawling under the mock houses. The public hearing closed at 9:12 p.m. Commissioner Kaspartan noted that he felt it was an excellent report. He was empathettc with the concern for the high building. He asked if all building permits were issued at the same time; if the applicant starts work but does not complete it within the 18 months, does he comply or is he in violation; suggested revisions be made to Exhibit A, page 1, 1.3 line 1 stating "unless all building permits are issued within 18 months of the date of this Exhibit."; and inquired as to whether or not the applicant had existing fuel tanks on the property or would they need to be installed. Staff replied that each structure would have separate permits issued close to each other; if the applicant delays an aspect of the project and does not obtain their permit within 18 months, the approval would expire, unless they obtained an extension; that the fuel tanks are listed under Condition 3.1(d); and permits are also required by AQMD. Commissioner Baker noted that he was sympathetic to the request for a chain link fence at the rear of the property, but apparently the code requires a concrete block wall. The Director noted that outdoor storage areas require a solid wall. Staff needs to check the provisions of the Irvine Industrial Bustnes Park, which are not included in the City's Standard Zoning District. The block wall may not be required in the Industrial district, but the Irvine Industrial Business Park sometimes has more restrictive standards. Planntng Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page thtrteen The Dtrector noted that the Commission could amend Condition 2.1 (e) of Exhtbtt A to Resolution 2544 as follows: A solid etght foot tall concrete block wall should be Installed along the southerly property line, as originally proposed by Conditional Use Permtt 88-23. In addition, should the Irvtne Industrial Bustness Standards requtre a block wall around outdoor storage yards, to tnclude the tratning yard, that concrete block wall shall be extended along that portton of the southerly and west property ltnes that would enclose the proposed tratnlng wall. Should such wall not be requtred by provisions of the Irvtne Industrial Bustness Park Standards, an eight foot htgh screened chatn ltnk fence shall be Installed. Any wall Installation shall be decorative tn design to match the building. Mr. Gtll qualified the amendment to note that on the portion of the south property 11ne adjacent to the tratntng yard they would be required to tnstall the block wall, wtth the west portion being chatn link unless the Ordinance stipulates that a block wall ts required. Commissioner Le Oeune moved, Ponttous seconded to approve an Amendment to Use Permlt 88-23 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2602 with the following revisions to Exhtbtt "A": Page 1, Item I. A. delete "install a car wash," from line 6. Page 2, Item I. F. change to read: "That the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the provisions of Sections 15301 (e.2) and 15311 (b) of the California Environmental Quality Act." Exhibit A, page 1, 1.1 line 3 after "Department," insert "with the elimination of the car wash". Exhibit A~ page 1~ 1.3 line 1, insert "all" after "unless". Exhibit A,.page 1, 1.5 change to read: "Hours of operation of the fuel dispensing island shall be 7:00 a.m. to midnight." Delete Exhibit A, 1.6. Renumber items 1.7 and 1.8. Exhibit A~ page 1, 2.1 (a) delete "and the car wash". Exhibit A, page 2~ 2.1 (b) should be changed to read: "Condition No. 2.1 (e) of Exhibit "A" to Resolution No. 2544 is amended as follows: "A solid eight (8) foot tall concrete block wall shall be installed along the southerly property line adjacent to the training yard as originally required by Use Permit 88-23. In addition, should the Irvine Industrial Complex regulations require a block wall around outdoor storage areas (to include the training yard) said concrete block wall shall be extended along that portion of the westerly property line adjacent to the training yard. Should such wall not be required by the Irvtne Industrial Complex regulations, an eight (8) foot tall, screened chain link fence shall be installed in that location. Any wall installation shall be decorative in design to match the building. Delete Exhibit A, page 2, 2.1 (c). Delete Exhibit A, page 2, 2.5 A continuance was made for the issues relating to the car wash until the Planning Commission meeting of June 12, at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. The Commission took a five minute break at 9:31 and resumed at 9:36 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page fourteen OLD BUSZ#ESS Be Continuation of Destgn Revtew 88-45 (Tract 13701) APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: AKINS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 1 CIVIC PLAZA; SUITE 175 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 LYON COMMUNITIES/AKINS ASSOCIATES LOTS 1, 2, A, B AND C OF TRACT 12870 PLANNED COMMUNITY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 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. APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF A SUBDIVISION OF 34.5 ACRES INTO 161 NUMBERED AND 25 LETTERED LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Design Revtew 88-45, by adopttng Resolution No. 2583 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development The Director suggested that of the 161 units, the driveway widths of 26 units be reduced to 24 feet. The Director read into the record some basic issues of a letter presented by the adjacent property owners, regarding other items identified that were not pertinent to this meeting: the 27-28 foot height of the proposed units were double the height of the existing homes to the west; the bulk of the existing homes occupy 17% of the lot, whereas the proposed homes would occupy 40% or more; 25 foot setback is acceptable; the houses proposed will form a 28 foot high wall blocking their use of sun and air; object to radio and television antennas over 15 feet in height; would like a higher buffer to hide the 28 foot houses along the property line; they represented that with original agreement with the City stated that new housing should match the old housing in story-height/density; they feel that this will over-burden existing streets; recommend that the Commission remove two-story homes adjacent to the fence from Irvtne Blvd. to La Colina; reduce overall size of houses; eliminate three car garages; 161 units should be reduced to 110 units; construction of non-barrier fence. A letter from Ms. Pryor was also received objecting to the height and setbacks along the rear property lines, as well as landscaping. In conversations with the Irvtne Company, it was determined that Akins is working with all of the property owners, and issues remain that can be addressed at the development construction planning stages. The current proposal complies with all East Tusttn Specific Plan requirements. A lot of attention has been paid to details of setback, density, and restrictions such as building height and boundary. The public hearing opened at 9:44 p.m. Planntng Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page ftfteen Conrad Stck~ representing Aktns Development, presented some dtsplays to the Commission. Commissioner Baker asked if staff had seen the displays. The Director commented that the applicant just distributed materials to the Commission on variations to front yard setback requirements in the East Tusttn Specific Plan; that the front yard set-backs were not at issue this evening, only the driveway issue. There has been a written determination regarding the eaveprojecttons that has been applied to every project to date. The applicant, if he so chooses to extend into the minimum front yard set-back requirement, has the opportunity of requesting an administrative adjustment of approximately 10~ from staff. Representatives of Akins Development were informed that staff would favorably support this matter through the proper channels. Commissioner Baker stated that the Commission and staff were only prepared to consider the recommendations that were on the agenda this evening. The Director clarified for the Commission that there is a provision in the Specific Plan on page 356 for Administrative Adjustments that states, "The purpose of this exception to the section is to grant authority to the Director to take action on requests for minor modifications or adjustments"..."admintstrative adjustments are intended for specific circumstances of hardships and are not applicable to entire subdivision site development standards." As presented to the applicant, any other representation they would like to make would come through a variance procedure and would have to return to the Planning Commission as a public hearing. There were no representations made by the applicant to her that the applicant would discuss this issue further with the Commission at this meeting. If it is an item that Aktns requests a variance on, it will be brought before the Commission as a variance, unless the Irvine Co,any, in conjunction with this developer chooses to modify the Specific Plan. Commissioner Baker asked if Aktns has discussed this issue with the Irvine Co,any. Mr. Sick, Aktns Development, replied affirmatively. He commented that, as the Director had noted the adjustment cannot be applied wholesalely through the tract, he only wanted to present the benefits of the homes he intended to apply it to, which would be approximately 46%. Commissioner Baker replied that 46[ of the tract was a considerable amount. requested that Mr. Sick eliminate the issue from his presentation and continue. He Mr. Sick stated that the 25 foot driveways would achieve a lower level of inconvenience for the homeowners. It is hard to cut a 28 foot three-car garage down to 24 feet in the limited distance of the driveway. They want to establish consistency in the tract: three product types have 25 foot garages; two types have 30 foot garages; and one has a 24 foot garage. With the lessening of the dimension of the front yard setback, it is more difficult to achieve a transitional distance. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page sixteen They would like to stay consistent with the current City Standards of 25 feet. A radical transition hampers the design consistency. He noted that Akins is providing: enriched paving surfaces for 30 foot driveways; increased planting areas to break up the amount of driveway; architectural design program of separated garages; and the specimen tree planting program for the residential streets. Commissioner Baker asked if staff was suggesting cutting down 26 of the proposed driveways from 25 feet to 24 feet. He also asked if this complied with the East Tusttn Specific Plan. The Director stated that staff is suggesting a reduction in driveway width for 26 lots by one foot; that there was no dtscernable difference between 24 and 25 feet. The City's engineering analysis indicates no problems with this approach. However, h pp ach offers 40 lineal feet of additional sidewalk space which will be usable f p . She also noted that the reduction was not comparable to other projects as far as the applicant's agreement of consistency due to the fact that the City would be granting this developer a significant concession by allowing 40 of the units to have driveways of 30 feet. She replied Street Standards were not a part of the Specific Plan. Commissioner.Kasparian asked if staff was still suggesting that the development have an average driveway width throughout the tract; if the staff was concerned about setting a precedent by allowing an average to be set; and if staff laid out a template for the units with the separated garages. The Director replied that the applicant would be allowed to have 25 foot driveways on the lots with three car garages south of A Street; the average driveway widths north of A Street would be 27 feet. She recognized that in all decisions like this there may be compromises; staff believe that the 24 feet would be reasonable since the units with the separated garages need a 30 foot driveway. The public hearing closed at 10:01 p.m. Commissioner Ponttous noted that the total impact was hard to visualize. She would rather err on the conservative side and agree with staff's findings on 24 foot driveways for 26 units. Commissioner Le Juene commented that he would also support staff's findings of 24 foot driveways for 26 units. Commissioner Baker asked if an engineer was utilized; if the staff determined the turning radius to be safe; and if the applicant had reviewed this. The Director noted that the engineering consultant drafted safe turning radius templates which were laid out in both directions upon each lot. She replied that the display that was provided by the applicant this evening was only for 1 lot and it was the only one provided by the applicant for the staff to work with. Staff therefore, undertook their own independent analysis. Staff communicated to the applicant over a week ago that their lack of displays made it difficult to support the 25 foot request without having more detailed backup information. No such engineering analysis was submitted in support of their request. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page seventeen The Director clarified the modifications to the conditions presented. 3.1 of Exhibit A, Design Review, Item 1) Lots 1-91 shall have maximum driveway widths of 25 feet: add "south of A Street"; Item 2) Lots 94 .... 112: "anda" shall be replaced by "and"; Item 3) Lot 141 shall have a "minimum": replace with "maximum". Commissioner Pontlous moved~ Le Jeune seconded to approve Design Review 88-45 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2583 with the following revisions to Exhibit A, page.two, item 3.1 A: 1) add "south of A Street" to end of sentence; item 2.)"anda" should be "and"; and item 3) "minimum" should be replaced with "maximum". Motion carried 4-0. NEW BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS Action Agenda of May 1, 1989 City Council meeting Presentation' Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Le Jeune asked what the terms of the Commissioners were; some general questions regarding the red rocks and landscaping at the Market Place and noted that at the north end of Jamboree (at the dead end) he had noticed some recreational vehicles using the property and was concerned with the City's liability. Staff noted that the terms of the Commissioners were for two years; that there probably would not be any more red rock installed in the Market Place, that there would be bougainvillea planted along the pickets; and staff will inform the Public Works Director of the trespassing at the end of Jamboree. Commissioner Kasparian noted that the stop sign was gone at Anglln and Mellna. Staff noted that they would notify Public Works. Commissioner Baker noted that he preferred that developers not provide the Commission with handouts at the meeting that staff has not had prior knowledge of. Lois Jeffr~[ noted that in a public hearing items could be brought to the Commission, however, she felt that the Commission could remind professionals of the opportunity to present their information to staff prior to the meeting. She also noted that hand out items need not be read into the record but the title of the document and a short description should be noted. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page eighteen Commissioner Le Jeune asked why the applicant (Mr. Tutt) did not make the application for the appeal of the Planning Commission decision regarding his billboards. The Director noted that the item will be on the May 15, 1989 City Council agenda and that the appeal fee is waived if a Councilperson appeals the decision. AI)JOURI~IENT At 10:20 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved~ Kasparian seconded to adjourn to the next regular meeting on May 22, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. A. L. 1)~t~-l'~--C~irman Penni Foley, Secrectar~