Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-24-89MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSIOM REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Wetl, Baker, Le Jeune, Ponttous, Shaheen PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. The Commissioners individually thanked Commissioner Well for her seven years on the Planning Commission and for all of her hard work. 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 10, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting 2. Final Tract Map 13557 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: REQUEST: DONAHUE SCHRIBER 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD SUITE 300, SOUTH TOWER NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA THE IRVINE COMPANY P. O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660-8904 THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE MIXED USE, COMMERCIAL; EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE A 40,949 ACRE SITE, BEING A PORTION OF AMENDED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13274, INTO 7 NUMBERED AND ONE (1) LETTERED LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING PHASE II OF THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE, A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, IN ADDITION TO MAKING CERTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATIONS TO THE CITY Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Final Tract Map 13557 to the City Council by adopting Resolution No. 2597 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Senior Planner Commissioner Pontious moved~ Well seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion ca6ried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1989 Page two PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Use Permit 89-8 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: COLCO PROSPECT L.P. 17320 RED HILL AVENUE; SUITE 190 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 COLCO PROSPECT L.P. 17602 E. SEVENTEENTH STREET; SUITE 8C PLANNED COMMUNITY - COMMERCIAL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT TO INSTALL TENANT IMPROVEMENTS FOR A DRY CLEANING STORE WITHIN A NEW RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) Certify the NegatiVe Declaration for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2596; and 2) approve Use Permit 89-8 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2589, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Pontious suggested that this type of business should not be singled out for non-compliance of sign code, as there are many violations wlthtn the city. She also noted there was an Inconsistency between the first page and the last page of the Negattve Declaration. The ftrst page noted that potentials for significant effect were Identified, but on the last page tt was noted that the project could not have a significant affect. Staff reported the condition related to the signs was added to reinforce the City Sign Ordinance and approved sign program for the center. There are presently several reported sign code violations at other Colco Centers which are currently under investigation. The Director replied that a correction to the Negative Declaration report needed to be made on the last page, changing the check mark from the first box to the second box. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if a dry cleaning business like this one would generate more traffic than normal types of business. He wondered if there would be a problem with "drop-off" traffic. Staff replied that it would have typical retail parking requirements and traffic flow. There is no history of parking problems occuring with these establishments. Commissioner Baker noted that parking problems occur when there is no red zone in front of the business. The public hearing was opened at 7:12 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7:13 p.m. Planntng Commission Mtnutes April 24, 1989 Page three Commissioner Baker asked If there was a problem wtth the signs at the other Colco center, or tf the staff was generalizing because of common ownership. Staff replied that there is a problem with banners and window signs with multiple violations being recorded in other Colco Centers. The Director noted that a misdemeanor citation has been filed against Colco on other properties, and there are still a number of items outstanding. Commissioner Wetl moved, Ponttous seconded to certify the Negative Declaration for the project and adopt Resolution 2596. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Wetl seconded to approve Use Permit 89-8 by adopting Resolution 2589 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Conditional Use Permit 89-11, Variance 89-04 (El Camino Enterprises) APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. ROD ANDERSON EL CAMINO ENTERPRISES P.O. BOX 1247 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92681-1247 705 EL CAMINO WAY C-2: CENTRAL COMMERCIAL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT 1) TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 5,737 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING PROPOSED FOR OVER 50% PROFESSIONAL USE IN THE C-2 DISTRICT. 2) TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED PARKING FROM 26 TO 24 SPACES TO ACCOMMODATE A 1,675 SQUARE FOOT CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE WITHIN THE PROPOSED BUILDING. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) Certify the Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit 89-11 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2595; 2) approve Conditional Use Permit 89-11 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2591, as submitted or revised; and 3) deny Variance 89-04 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2592. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Associate Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the 26 parking spaces were all full-sized spaces. Staff replied that the requirements for a medical facllty were six standard spaces per 1000 sq. feet of office space. Compact spaces are allowed in excess of the minimum code requirements. People tend not to use the compact spaces as they are designed. They disregard the label, particularly in parking garages, as the area is too tight to maneuver. The Director noted that staff is authorized to allow up to 20% of spaces, particu- larly in the P.C. districts. They are currently working on a revision to the parking standards. Planning Commission Minutes Aprtl 24, 1989 Page four Commissioner Wetl noted that 1) even if the spaces were compact, it would only net the applicant one (1) space. She also noted that if this project were in a C-1 district, there would not be a parking problem since the C-1 district requires one space per every 250 sq. ft. of floor space. She also wanted a clarification on the difference between C-1 and C-2. 2) She noted that in her experience, she has noticed that patients at a chiropractor stay for a much shorter time than the sports clinic might require. 3) In this location there seemed to be a lot of street parking which might relieve the situation. Staff replied that based upon the draft proposal, the spaces would still be nine feet wide. They would not gain any additional parking spaces, but the aisle would be wider. He noted that the requirements would be the same for this project whether it was in a C-1 or C-2 district. The code provides for a differentiation between the medical clinic and medical office. The Director noted that there are separate standards in those districts. She agreed that there were inconsistencies in the standard, but that they were unable to deviate from the standards. Commissioner Shaheen noted that he did not feel there was significant street parking, but that there may be some across the street in the shopping center. He did not feel that the same parking requirements should be imposed on a chiropractor. Commissioner Ponttous asked if they could get around the parking issue by condition- ing this variance so that if the chiropractic offices vacated, that no other medical uses could be permitted in that space. She agreed that chiropractic offices did have a different type of parking demand. The Director replied that the staff would be prepared to respond in whatever direc- tion the Commission requested. The public hearing opened at 7:30 p.m. John Caffert¥, D.C., applicant, 730 E1Camino Real, Tustin noted that: - He has been a resident of Tustin for 10 years, and a tenant of the building in question for 4 years. He is now an owner of the building with Mr. Anderson. In January 1990, his son will be joining the practice and he, therefore, needs the additional space. - He included notes, a letter, and a few pages from his appointment book in the original proposal for explanation. - Presently occupying 1744 sq. ft. building with one other doctor. There are 10 regular parking spaces, three that are considered sub-standard, and currently aproximately 12 spaces on the south side of E1 Camino. The Cal Trans freeway widening project will turn the end of the street into a cul-de-sac, which will cut down on the traffic coming into the street. - Patient scheduling is the real issue. New patients are scheduled on a separate day from regular patients. The new patients require an hour to an hour and a half each for preliminary examination when he is unable to see other patients. Regular patients require 7-10 minutes, therefore, his appointment book shows patients scheduled every 10 minutes. At this rate, with two doctors, there are at most 16 patients per hour. With this schedule, there are never more than 6-7 cars in the parking lot, including 3 staff cars. Planntng Commission Mtnutes Apr11 24, 1989 Page ftve Commissioner Wetl asked what the total number of doctors would be. Mr. Cafferty replied that there would be his son and himself, and no other health practitioners. Mr. Joel Btshow, architect, presented some drawings to the commissioners and the staff to note some ideas for changes in the parking/square footage so that they can meet the requirements. He felt that the aesthetics of the building were a key issue; pedestrian access was an additional concern. The parking is enclosed so that the cars are not visible; the building is quite secure. The Director suggested a continuance to try to resolve the parking issue, and pos- sibly create new spaces. She felt that the architect had not contacted the staff for follow-up on the proposal. Mr. Btshow noted that upon notification of possible denial of the variance, he tried to reach staff. He feels that due to the layout of this lot, this is the best solution, and would like to suggest some architectural changes to create less square footage, rather than more parking spaces. The Director noted that on the staff's possible recommendation of denial, that that position had been communicated to the applicant through negotiations. They were hopeful that they could still resolve the issue with the applicant. Commissioner Baker noted that the Commission was there to discuss problems wi th applicants. However, the drawings presented this evening should have been discussed at staff level prior to meeting with the Commission. The Commission feels that it is a terrific building, and that they are willing to give it every consideration. Mr. Blshow asked if they could proceed with the Conditional Use Permit and the Negative Declaration, and set-aside the variance. The Director noted that conditions 4.1 and 4.2 lock the applicant into the square footage requirements for a medical office building. If it cannot be worked out, the applicant should be able to return to the Commission. She felt that proceeding with the Conditional Use Permit would be appropriate. Commissioner Wetl noted that the Commission would vote on the Use Permit with condi- tions, and also leave the applicant with the flexibility of options to rework the package so that he does not have to return for a variance. The public hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m. The Director recommended that on Conditions 4.1 and 4.2 of Exhibit A, language be added that unless otherwise approved by Planning Commission by approval of the parking variance. She felt that some of the suggestions presented this evening were workable. If the issue cannot be resolved, the variance issue could be continued in two weeks. Commissioner Baker asked if the trash facility was inside the building, and if it had good access for the trash trucks. Staff replied that it was to the right of the entrance to the parking area. P lanntng Commission Minutes April 24, 1989 Page slx Commissioner Wetl moved, Le Jeune seconded the Negative Declaration for the project by adopting Resolution 2595. Moti6n carried 5-0. Commissioner Wetl moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit 89-11 by adopting Resoultion 2591 subject to revision to Exhibit A as follows: In Exhibit A, Item 4.1 and 4.2, each item is modified to add the following language at the end of each document "Unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission by a Parking Variance." Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Wetl moved, Le Jeune seconded to continue the Public Hearing on Variance 89-04 in an attempt to explore design alternatives which may not require a variance. Motion carried 5-0. 5. Conditional Use Permit 89-12 (Physician's Office Services) APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: PHYSICIAN'S OFFICE SERVICES C/O MR. RICHARD WRIGHT 14662 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 14692/14702/14772 NEWPORT AVENUE C-1 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT TO ALLOW OVER 50% OFFICE USE IN A C-1 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT TO ACCOMMODATE A 10,500~ SQUARE FOOT SPORTS MEDICINE CENTER. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: Certify the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for Conditional Use Permit 89-12 by 1) adoption of Resolution No. 2594; and 2) Approve Conditional Use Permit 89-12 by adoption of Resolution No. 2588 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Associate Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if it was known how the Health Care Medical Center {HCMC) planned to develop the land adjacent to the applicant's property. He also wanted to know what kind of effect, if any, there might be on traffic flow at the corner of Sycamore and Newport, and if Sycamore would have to be widened at some point in time. Staff replied that the HCMC is generating a master plan that will include improvement of the adjacent land. At that time, staff would be concerned about the effect of traffic on the area. The proposed project is designed to stand on its own and have no impact on future facilities. He also noted that in the Conditions of Approval, Public Works Department is asking for an irrevocable offer of an additional ten (10) feet of right-of-way per the City's master plan of highways. It is anticipated that, in the future, Sycamore will have to be widened. Commissioner Shaheen asked about the parking requirements of this facility. Staff replied that the architect noted that they are able to provide full nine foot wide parking spaces and still exceed the minimum parking requirements. The public hearing was opened at 8:02 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1989 Page seven Mr. Richard Wright, 537 San Leon, Irvtne, project manager was available to answer questions of the Commission. Commissioner Baker asked if this facility was a part of the Medical Center. He asked if the applicant understood the dedication of the ten {10) foot right-of-way. Mr. Wright replied that Health Care Physicians Services is an affiliated con, any, but does have its own concerns. It is related to Health Care International. He noted that they understood the right-of-way conditions. The public hearing was closed at 8:04 p.m. Commissioner Well noted that the Staff Report by Dan Fox was well done. She was glad that the driveway was being removed from Sycamore Street. Regarding Resolution 2588, Page 3, Item 3-10, she inquired if the sign plan includes the addresses to be displayed on the building or the sign. She felt that some applicants have been confused by the requirements. Staff replied that they have not received a specific sign plan, but if the Commission felt that it would be appropriate to have the addresses displayed one way or another, staff is able to give that direction. The Director noted that address signs are exempt from the Sign Code because they are mandatory under the Security Ordinance. They are presently attempting to clarify the Sign Code. Commissioner Shaheen noted that there is too much commercial business in town, now. This project will help eliminate a bad corner. Commissioner Well moved, Pontious seconded approval of Resolution 2594, certifying the Negative'Decl~atton. Motion carried 5-0. Commlstoner Ponttous moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Permit 89-12 by adoption of Resolution 2588. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Tentative Tract Map 13701 and Design Review 88-45 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: AKINS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY i CIVIC PLAZA, STE. 175 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LYON COMMUNITIES/AKINS ASSOCIATES LOTS 1, 2, A, B, AND C OF TRACT 12870 PLANNED COMMUNITY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN PLAN SPECIFIC THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. 1) AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 34.5 ACRES INTO 161 NUMBERED AND 25 LETTERED LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT; AND 2) APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1989 Page eight Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1) Approve Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2593 as submitted or revised; 2) approve Design Review 88-44 by adoption of Resolution No. 2583, as submitted or revised; and 3) recommend City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 13701 by adoption of Resolution No. 2584, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Well asked if there was any consideration for a traffic light to be installed at the location where "A" Street enters Tustin Ranch Road, and if access to the school lot is proposed. She felt that 161 homes with three car garages plus the traffic from the school would require a signal. Staff replied that there would be access to the school, but that the Public Works Department has not commented on a traffic signal. The Director noted that the Public Works Department added a generic condition to the Resolution regarding traffic control devices, but because the traffic warrants do not dictate the absolute necessity, it is not something that would be assigned the total responsibility of this project. It would be a benefit assigned to all four intersec- tions and all four property owners. If the Public Works Department feels it appro- priate, it will be asking for a bond for this item. Commissioner Baker questioned whether or not the City was still in compliance with the Specific Plan for the number of guest spaces with the cuts of driveways. He also wanted a clarification regarding the rear wall that would be shared by the existing neighbors. He wanted to know if the applicant would be moving the wall onto the property of the development, and if there would be a two foot jog in the wall for the property owners that do not want the wall on their property. Staff replied that the Plan requirements for a single-family home with a two-car garage would have a 20 foot driveway minimum. The applicant is providing three-car garages for every unit and street parking. Staff noted that the desired effect would be to center the wall on the property line with some footing on either side of the wall. For the three property owners still outstanding, there will be an allowance of about 2-3 feet. The applicant will have to bring the footing outside of the property lines of the existing residences. The Director noted that this was not the optimal choice. The issues should be resolved before the wall is constructed. The applicant is still moving ahead with negotiations with the owners who have not yet agreed to the program. The conditions will be much improved. The public hearing was opened at 8:25 p.m. Conrad Sick, Aktns Development Company, noted that the letter he sent to the Commissioners and staff was to be used as a tool for the issues that would be presented at this meeting. The issues he felt needed to be discussed were: the separated garage concept; reduced Plan 6 Lot 2 driveway dimensions; front yard setbacks/column encroachment; and "A" street width. Planntng Commission Minutes Apr11 24, 1989 Page nine Gte9 Buctlla, project architect, spoke about the details of the development: the homes were all Spanish Colonial with historic significance being of the utmost importance; porticos and trellises were added for detraction from the garages; embel- lished entries; Lots are 40-45 feet wide; Plans 1, 2 and 3 have three car garages attached; Plan 4/detached garages, accentuates front door/opens to the interior courtyard, curb appeal; Plan 5 totally detached garage, ambiance, semi-custom look; Plan 6 has three car attached; Lot 2 varies from three car attached to two attached plus one detached; additional embellishment of driveways/paving and courtyards; single-story garage allows for varying depth and height. Mr. Sick spoke about the history of the projct noting that they have now returned with a site plan with safer egress and ingress details. They have presented their plan of the minimum driveway requirements of 30 feet for Plans 4 and 5 to the staff; Garages of Plan 6 are consistent with Plans 1 through 3 with a distance reduced to a minimum of 25 feet. Leah Carter, project civil engineer, noted that based on extensive studies of drive- way widths, there is potential for significant damage to the driveways and landscap- ing. It is impossible for a car to get in with one movement. She thinks 25 feet is better solution. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the drawing represented a difference between a 20 foot and 25 foot driveway. Mr. Sick replied that the drawing provided at this meeting was created at the request of staff to develop a more engineer-quality drawing that would plot the turning move- merits more clearly. The still recommend Plan 6 garage to be a minimum of 25 feet. The Director noted that she would like to hear all of the positions on each of these points and then provide a full presentation before the Commission. Mr. Sick noted that the front yard setbacks required the applicant to move the houses back approximately 2 feet. The applicant feels that the rear yard setback is more critical, and they are working with the staff to support rear yard setbacks. Regarding the landscaping: the applicant feels that the tree at the entry of the gate-guarded community is a very important focal point; he would like to see the conditions rewritten to incorporate all safety standards set by the staff. There will be a landscaping buffer with a great deal of detail between the new and existing homes. Commissioner Wetl referring to the booklet of details presented by the applicant, thought she was looking at the entrance with a wall. She wondered if the applicant had thought about reconfigurtng the entrance to incorporate the tree as part of a median strip, similar to the tree-lined entry into Tusttn Meadows. Mr. Sick replied that she was looking at a 4 inch curb. He felt that since it was a rather bleak entry, that using the tree at the entrance was important. It is their intent not to impede traffic. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1989 Page ten Commissioner Shaheen commented regarding staff's concern that there may be inadequate street parking. Ms. Carter noted that the tentative map provides 51 on-street parking spaces. Site Plan 2 with the narrower driveways could not gain any extra on-street parking because it only gained 5 feet of parking space. They did not lose any, though. Mr. Sick stated that the driveways on the Almera project were 27 feet. Patricia Kimes, 2112 La Colina Drive, Santa Ana, noted that her property was at the east end of La Colina, and was adjacent to the new development. She is concerned that a two-story home will be looking down into her yard which will result in a loss of privacy. She needed to be assured that the buffer of trees will be effective, since 30 feet of distance between the new home and her yard is not much. She feels that her property values will drop without the privacy. Mr. Sick noted that the buffer will be con~)rtsed of large box trees up to the second story. He assured Mrs. Ktmes and the Commission that this is a well thought out program. Shetla Prior, 1282 Ranchwood Road noted that she also backs-up to the development. The sun rises in her backyard and ~ets at her front door, allowing her yard to be in full sun throughout the day. She is an avid gardener and feels that if her mass plantings are in shade much of the day, it will diminish the growing period. She wanted to know the widths of the 23 lots running parallel to the western boundary, and noted that there would be two two-story homes along the back of her property. Regarding the height of the block wall, she wondered if both parties would have to agree on the height. Mr. Sick replied that the applicant would facilitate each concern. He noted that the property widths Were 55 feet. The height of the wall would be a maximum of 6 feet 8 inches. Commissioner Baker noted that the Specific Plan does allow two-story homes to be built next to existing one-story homes, and the developer is building within the requirements of the Plan. It is legal for the developer to erect a 6 foot 8 inch wall on the property without agreement with the adjacent homeowners. Art Code¥, resident with property adjacent to the development, referred to Resolution 2583, Section C regarding the findings that the Commission makes. The existing tract has 12 residences. In the new development, the same amount of space would have 21 residences. All homes south of A Street are single-story, new homes are two-story. Under Resolution 2583 he wondered how the Commission finds the developer to be agree- able. The Board may have overlooked the density. Now there will be two homes to one that are twice as high. This means there will be no more view and limited sunshine. He felt that the density of the existing surrounding neighborhoods should be considered when the plans are made for new developments. Commissioner Wetl asked if the backyard setback was 25 feet to the property line. She noted that the new lots are big in comparison to the developments that have been approved in the last year and one-half. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1989 Page eleven Commissioner Pontious noted that Aktns is actually providing less units than would be allowed by the Specific Plan. The public hearing was closed at 9:10 p.m. The Director reviewed the issues presented by Akins: - The driveway width seemed to be providing confusion regarding the rigidity of 20 to 30 foot requirements. It was the staff's goal to see a maximum driveway of 25 feet, previously 20 feet; the City is recognizing the fact that larger car garages require a greater width driveway; there is nothing absolute about 20 feet to 30 feet. Would like to try to stay as close as possible to average of 25 feet. Would like to review the engineering solutions with Akins. - Goals of streetscape: Public Works approves of a reduction of curb-to-curb distance. Widening curb-to-curb reduces safe conditions and pedestrian safety. - Since there was no opportunity to review the items presented by Akins this evening, recommend the matter be continued until it can be resolved. - The planting islands at B Street and the local collector streets have been identified as potential shortcuts and create irregular pattern and liability concerns. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, noted that Akins is willing to redesign to facilitate the City's safety conerns. The current law seems to be favorable to Tustin. Just because the City approves of a project, that does not make the City liable. Even without changes, there is a safety concern. The developer needs to indemnify and hold City harmless from any liability that might develop. The Director noted that regarding the architectural projections, the current pro- vision of the Specific Plan allows eaves, cornices, chimney and balcony projections to occur up to four feet into a required front or side yard. There is a standing policy of what is included. The plans that the Commission has reflect the 20 foot setback requirement from the property line to the exterior building wall. There has been precedent for the interpretation. Aktns has been informed of the ability to request a 10~ administrative adjustment on the exterior walls. She does not believe that the manner in which this was brought before the Commission was appropriate. Recommend continuance for two weeks until driveway issue can be resolved. Commissioner Baker asked if the applicant would be agreeable to hold the City harm- less, but it was decided that the applicant would have to confer with its own counsel before any decisions could be made. Commissioner Wetl asked if the traffic was required to go around the tree, and how wide the roadway on either side of the tree was. Mr. Sick noted that each side of the street was 27 feet wide, with a 16-foot radius for the tree in the middle of the street. The Director noted that the street was like a T-intersection that is obstructed. Even though this is a private street, it is being designed to public street stan- dards to avoid potential concerns that may occur later. The public hearing was reopened at 9:28 p.m. Planntng Commission Minutes Aprtl 24, 1989 Page twelve Mr. Sick responded favorably to the Director's concerns. They would like to see the application approved with the specific conditions. He moved that they approve the project with the conditions as stated and move forward. The Director, regarding Resolution 2583, Condition 3.1, Item A, recommended that con- ditions be modified; driveway widths on Lot 2, 12870, should be designed as close as possible to meet an average 25 foot driveway width throughout tract 13701. Mr. Sick replied that he would like the opportunity to come back to the Public ~lf the goals do not work out. He felt that the presentation represented their minimum standard from an engineering criteria, setting up safety precedents for the driveways. They felt that they were making more compromises. Commissioner Baker noted that he felt that the Commission was having to compromise with the applicant, as well, and that it was unfair to bring in drawings and informa- tion that were not reviewed at staff level. The Director noted that they either needed to agree now, or return the issue to the staff level. She agreed that the staff needs to review the material, and that they are trying to be flexible. Commissioner Wetl asked if the condition could be worded to state that on Lot 2, the driveway widths would be as close as possible to 25 feet, including driveways wit~ 30 foot requirements. She wanted to know if the Commission can ask for a compromise of 25 - 30 feet. She noted that after breaking up the front yards, Akins made good compromises with pockets of landscape opportunities. Commissioner Ponttous felt that the Commission should encourage Aktns to work with the staff to try to alleviate this problem. Commissioner Shaheen asked if there were two curb cuts with the plans with garages that are separated. He noted that the three-car garages in Peppertree had 30 foot driveways. The Director felt that further review will not result in delays of issuance of building permits. She would feel more comfortable with a decision to continue this matter. She noted that the Public Works Director communicated that the maximum that was previously approved was 25 feet. She made it clear that nothing is absoulte: the staff is prepared to work it out. Mr. Bucllla noted that if Lot 6 is 20 feet, they are creating an undue strain on the homeowner because parking two cars in a 20 foot lot means that the homeowner cannot park a car in the third spot and, therefore, has to park on the street. 25 feet equals a good absolute minimum. Steve St. Clair, Akins Development Company, noted that they would work it out with the staff. They did not wish to be tied to an average that may not work. They would like good, safe planning. Commissioner Baker felt that they should go ahead with the Tentative Tract Map and hold off for two weeks on the Design Review. Planntng Commission Minutes April 24, 1989 Page thirteen Commissioner Shaheen asked the potential prtce of the homes. Mr. St. Clair noted that the homes might range from approximately $350,000 to $450,000. Commissioner Wetl noted that the applicant has provided enhanced driveways with paving, which adds so much to the front, making it patio-like. She would personally feel comfortable with changing 3.1, Item 2, to read "lots be improved with floor plan 6 having a maximum driveway width of 25 feet." With the enhanced concrete, it will not look like the others that have plain concrete, and the added five feet will not make a significant difference. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the staff has not had a chance to review the latest proposals. He wanted to know what prevents homeowners from changing front land- scaping. He asked if Aktns will be providing the initial landscaping. Commissioner Pontlous asked if the driveway treatments would be built as represented or is it an option that is left up to the buyer, with or without the planting area. Commissioner Baker asked if the single-car garage could be converted to a family room. Mr. St. Clair noted that the planting units would be planted as shown, and that the homeowners were limited only by the building code at this point. They were not yet involved with landscaping requirements. He also noted that the intent of the single garage was not for use as a room, but that the developer has not determined any guidelines, as yet. He suggested that street tree program was above and beyond the requirements of the Tustin Ranch project. They are providing 50 inch to 70 inch box trees which will set the character of the development and will be protected by the CC&R's of the homeowners association. The public hearing closed at 9:50 p.m. Commissioner Baker commented that since the Commission is subject to review, in two weeks there Jill be at least one new commissioner. Lois Jeffrey felt that it is important to fully and completely brief new Commissioner(s) prior to the next Planning Commission meeting, including providing the Staff Report, and minutes of this meeting. Extra time, if needed, should be taken at the Public Hearing to be sure that the new Commissioner(s) have been briefed. The Director reinforced, for the record, that the two issues are the driveway width, and median in terms of the hold harmless on the intersection at each entryway at B Street. Commissioner Well noted that when the briefing occurs, the applicant should also be present. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Wetl seconded to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution 2593. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes Aprtl 24, 1989 Page fourteen Commissioner Pontlous moved, Wet1 seconded to recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Tract 13701 by adoption of Resolution 2584, revtsed as follows: In Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2584, item 1.5 A. (1) the right-of-way for "A" Street shall be described as "56-60 feet per City Standard" instead of just the "60" feet noted. Item 4.1 (7) - the first two sentences shall be modified as follows: "Note on plans that a qualified paleontologist/archeologist as appropriate shall be present at a pre-grading contractors' conference to provide information to the grading contractor about what to look for during rough grading operations that might indicate the presence of a paleontological or archeological resource. If resources are found, work shall stop in the affected area, the paleontologist/archeologist shall be notified and all resources shall be excavated and preserved as deemed appropriate or as recommended by the paleontologist/archeologist subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works and Community Development." The remaining portion of the condition would be unchanged. With the Commissioner's unanimous concurrence, the public hearing on Design Review 88-44 for the project was continued to permit staff review of driveway widths and to determine whether Aktns would support a hold harmless statement if the City approved the center circular median at the "T" intersection of either side of "B" Street. 7. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 13796 and Design Review 88-51 APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THE BREN COMPANY LOT 27 AND LOTS RR AND SS OF TRACT 12870, RANCH ROAD/GALLERY WAY 1) AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 12.268 ACRES AND 4 LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 108 UNITS. 2) APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SUBJECT PROPERTY. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL: EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN SE CORNER OF TUSTIN INTO 5 NUMBERED LOTS CONDOMINIUM DWELLING FOR THE THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1) Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2585; and approve Design Review 88-51 by adoption of Resolution No. 2586 as submitted or revised; and Recommend to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Map 13796 by adoption of Resolution No. 2587 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Associate Planner The public hearing was opened at 10:10 p.m. Planning Commission Mtnutes Aprtl 24, 1989 Page ftfteen Dale Meredith, Bren Company, 5 Civic Plaza, Newport Beach, commented that he felt that the staff had made a thorough review of this project. Bren Company is prepared to agree to conditions set forth by the staff with some revisions. Commissioner Pontlous noted that she particularly liked the backyards being provided in a condominium project. Commissioner Shaheen noted that although he did not like the term "motor court," he felt it was a beautiful project. The public hearing was closed at 10:12 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune thought it was a terrific project and that it would be a significant improvement over what was previously presented by the Bren Company. He commented that is was also nice for the Planning Commission to receive excellent graphics to review, and that the private yards are worthwhile. Commissioner Baker asked if there would be any additional grading that might require paleontologists or archeologists on the project. He also wanted to know if when the City indicates that the subdivider will notify all potential homebuyers of the assessment districts affecting the property, if it requires an estimate of costs or expenses. The Director noted that there would not be significant grading required, as was needed on Lots I and 2, and would therefore not require paleontologists at the site. The estimates of assessment costs is part of the disclosure information presented to the homebuyers. She also noted that Page 3, Item 3.5 of Resolution 2586 reads: "Note 2 on the Technical Site Plan shall be eliminated and substituted with a note that trash pickup shall be by bin service." Added to that sentence should be: "unless otherwise approved by the Finance Director under his responsibilities defined in this City's franchise agreement." The franchise agreement currently stipulates that on multi-family projects of more than four units, bin service in a trash enclosure shall be provided by Great Western Reclamation. The Finance Director recommends that this issue be handled by bin service and trash enclosures. Commissioner Well asked if the City felt that the pickup of trash in a multi-family project required too many pick-ups in a small area. The Director noted that as this is not part of the Planning Commission's responsi- bility, it is therefore not germatn to discussion. Motion by Commissioner Wetl~ seconded by Le Jeune to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution 2585. Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Commissioner Wetl, seconded by Le Jeune to approve Design Review 88-51 by adoption of Resolution 2586 with the following revision: Exhibit A, page 3, 3.5 at the end of the first sentence add "unless otherwise approved by the Finance Director pursuant to his responsibility as defined in the City's Franchise Agreement. Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Commissioner Wetl, seconded by Le Jeune to recommend to City Council approval of Vesting Tract Map 13796 by adoption of Resolution No. 2587. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1989 Page sixteen 8. Use Permit 87-6 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: EXXON CORPORATION C/O MC CLINTOCK, KIRWAN, BENSHOFF, ROCHEFORT & WESTON 444 SOUTH FLOWER STREET, FIFTH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 EXXON CORPORATION P.O. BOX 4415 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77210-4415 14082 RED HILL C-1: RETAIL COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1 1) DETERMINATION ON EXPIRATION OF USE PERMIT 87-6; and 2) REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT 87-6 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission either: 1) Determine by minute motion that Use Permit 87-6 expired on July 1, 1988; or 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2590 recommending that the City Council revoke Use Permit 87-5. Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development The Director noted that the above Recommendation has a typographical error that should read: "...expired on June 1, 1988;" not July 1, 1988. Lois Jeffrey noted that the issue for the Planning Commission to decide is if the Use Permit expired on June 1, 1988. If not, then it is still valid. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the applicant has a right to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission. Lois Jeffrey replied affirmatively. The public hearing was opened at 10:28 p.m. John M. Rochefort, attorney for Exxon, 444 S. Flower Street, 5th floor, Los Angeles noted that: - When Exxon was notified by letter on July 18, 1988 that the Conditional Use Permit expired, that was their first notification of the City's position. - Issue was decided before by California courts by simply asking what does the term "Use" mean when it is used in an expiration type statute. Term means that the holder of Conditional Use Permit (in this case Exxon) undertake a good faith effort by demonstrating an intent to proceed with use of the property. - Expiration statutes, such as Section 9293, have been hailed to mean that if the holder of Conditional Use Permit demonstrates that it is undertaking in good faith to "Use" then that satisfies the expiration statute. - It is Exxon's opinion that Exxon and its dealer, who went forward with dispatch, demonstrated good faith intent to put Conditional Use Permit to use. - ABC board will only consider applications for licenses which comply with zoning. Once the City notified the ABC that the Conditional Use Permit was invalid, then the ABC informed the dealer that unless the matter is cleared up, the application for a license will be denied for lack of proper zoning. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1989 Page seventeen - Dealer was then compelled to re-argue that the exprtratton statute of Conditional Use Permit did not expire automatically. - In rebuttal to staff report: Regarding the suggestion that since dealer has withdrawn application with ABC, that dealer does not intend to proceed to continue the application for alcoholic beverage license. The withdrawal of the application was a tactical procedure by dealer not to prolong proceedings of ABC. Dealer does intend to pursue the application. - Exxon sent letter dated September 24, 1987 to City Attorney outlining Exxon's position and demonstration of good faith to proceed (at that time with building), that the expiration statute did not apply. Exxon complied with the terms required at that time. - Regarding the suggestion that Exxon's presentation comes too late and that they should have presented it before June 1, 1988: 1) case authority states that expiration statutes such as this are in the nature of revocation of valid permits. As such, it is the City's obligation to give prior notice and the right to be heard before they declare an expiration of an otherwise valid conditional use permit {Mendocino vs. Ft. Bragg case). Exxon received no notification from the City until July 18 when it was too late to do anything. 2) The Superior Court Judge who denied the writ petition indicated that Exxon had a right to have this public hearing. 3) Regarding that the proceedings were too late, the City argues that at no time did Exxon advise them that it was undertaking this application process. In particular, the letter of July 18, 1988 from the staff to the ABC states that the staff requests the ABC to cease all of its current processing of the current application by the dealer. It is obvious that the City knew that Exxon was proceeding with dispatch. - Dealer only wants to complete the proceedings before the ABC, and wants the right to proceed as statutes of California permit. Lois Jeffrey, to avoid confusion, noted that the statute in question, which is Tustln Clty Code, ts not an expiration statute which has been Interpreted by the courts. There has been no rultng on Tusttn Ctty Code tn question. Mr. Rochefort ts extrapolating on other cases that are not Identical to Tustln's case. The judge did not rule on how the Tusttn Ctty Ordinance should be Interpreted. Judge did not order the Ct ty to hold a publtc heartng. He Indicated to the applicant that a publlc hearing was something applicant should do before gotng to court. Judge suggested Exxon needed to request a heartng before the Planning Commission whtch staff has calendared. She also disagrees strongly that Ft. Bragg case Imposes any obligation on the Ct ty. It ts not an argument Exxon made tn their court papers, although they used the Mendoclno/Ft. Bragg case to argue other points. It ts the Ctty's posttton that Mendoclno case and all of the other cases that Exxon has relted upon, are distinguishable from this situation In that the applicants tn those Instances went before the Ct ty to dtscuss the status of thetr efforts to use thetr use permtts before thelr permtts exptred wtthtn the one year period. It ts Important to distinguish the differences In the cases, and that there ts no state law that says the City has to Interpret thts ordinance in a particular way. She also commented on the Implication that the staff knew what was occurtng at the ABC by reason of the letter of July 18, 1988. The letter requests that the ABC cease all current processing. It does not lndtcate any knowledge of what that processing ts. All that the Planntng Department knew was that an application for an ABC ltcense had been ftled. Ftnally, she commented on Mr. Rochefort's statement that the letter from the Planntng Commission was recetved In mid-stream tn thetr process. In actuality, It came near the end of thetr process. In January/February, ABC reconmended denial of Exxon's application. In order to keep the application altve, the applicant had to request a public heartng, whtch he dtd. Planntng Commission Mtnutes April 24, Z989 Page etghteen Commissioner Le Jeune asked If permtt 87-6 was exclusively regarding beer and wtne, wtth no other sales of food tn that use permtt. The Director replied affirmatively. Mr. Rochefort noted that: 1) Exxon Corp. is not the applicant for the license before the ABC. Since Exxon owns the property, they applied for and obtained the Conditional Use Permit, then turned it over to the dealer to allow him to proceed with the application for ABC license; 2) He questioned if the policy used by staff to interpret application of the use or the expiration statute was written or verbal. If the policy handed to counsel is the policy regarded, he would like it to be added to the record. Lois Jeffrey noted that it was the written policy they used, and that she had no objection to adding it to the record. Admitted policies were: 1) "Filing an Application for Public Hearing" which is used when needing public hearing for Use Permit, Variance, or Zone Change. At the bottom of page 1 it reads: "Any use permit or variance granted under the provisions of the zoning ordinance shall be null and void if not used within one year from the date of the approval thereof or within any longer period of time so designated by the Planning Commission or City Council. Applications for the extension of the one-year time limit shall be filed prior to the expiration date." 2) "Use Permit Application for Alcoholic Beverage Sales Establishments." On the bottom of the first page it reads: Time Limits of Use Permits: Any use permit granted under the provisions of the zoning ordinance shall be null and void if not used within one year from the date of the approval thereof or within any longer period of time so designated by the Planning Commission or City Council. Applications for extension of the one-year time limit shall be filed at least two months prior to the expiration date. Commissioner Shaheen asked for an interpretation of the policies. Ms. Jeffrey replied that the applicant must request an extension of their permit if the permit has not been used within the one-year period. Commissioner Baker asked if, in the opinion of counsel, that supercedes any action on the part of the applicant. Prior to 60 days, does the applicant have to apply for an extension whether or not they are continuing with constructive efforts on the outside. Ms. Jeffrey affirmed. It is the opinion of City Attorney and staff that applicant must make the City aware by coming before the Planning Commission to show good faith intent to commence upon the use. Exxon did so with building delays, but they did not do the same with ABC Use Permit. Mr. Rick Blake, attorney, 2700 N. Main Street, Santa Aha, representing the Yegenians noted that they have been operating at that location for nine years without incident or trouble. In August 1987 they applied for the license after receiving Use Permit approval. Their hearing was scheduled for July 28, lg88. On July 18, ABC was notified by the City that the zoning was not in order. An agreement with ABC was reached that ABC would continue one time. If they did not obtain the zoning by the time the matter came up for its next regularly scheduled hearing, they would with- draw. That was the basis for the continuance. ABC does not like to maintain appli- cations in a state of limbo, they have to deal with the application. Planntng Commission Minutes Aprtl 24, 1989 Page ntneteen Commissioner Baker asked if the term "zoning" was used concurrent with conditional use permtt. Mr. Blake replied that a premise must be properly zoned for the sale of alcoholic beverages before a license may be issued. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the sale of alcoholic beverages which the ABC interprets as meaning proper zoning. With the notice that City considered the Use Permit no longer valid, ABC could not continue. It was decided that it would be in the best interest of the Yegenian's to withdraw the application, straighten out the zoning issue, then re-apply. Noting the withdrawal form attached, it indicated withdrawal due to being unable to obtain Conditional Use Permit. Any inferences as to the applicants lack of interest or the ABC's predisposition, or an ultimate outcome is inappropriate. ABC frequently bends to political pressure for denial. Yegeneians did everything they could within period of time that the application was being processed. It was legally and factually impossible for them to do that within that period of time, based on the statutory requirements to obtain a license. At this point, to impose a technicality with regard to an extension being applied for by Exxon, is imposing an unreasonable hard- ship on the applicant. Ethe. 1 .Reynolds, Chairman of Parents Who Care, noted the sequence of events that have occurred: In March, ABC notified their recommendation to deny the application; June 1, 1988, the Conditional Use Permit expired; In January, 1989, the application was withdrawn; then there was a request stating that the Conditional Use Permit should still be in effect; in this incident, for the past two and one-half years, Exxon has been out of sync with the processes of the City; they are putting the responsibility onto the City to keep Exxon's business straight--our City need not be burdened with this; Mr. Blake's letter to the City acknowledges that these processes take time; he should have realized that it might extend beyond their expiration date, and should have taken measures to extend the application; the point that the ABC will bend to political pressure is not entirely correct--the letters made this issue go from the regional office to Sacramento; the reason that ABC/Sacramento recommended denial is due to the proximity of residences within 100 feet of the location; the applicant should have had to apply for an extension on the application. The public hearing closed at 11:10 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen was not in favor of denial. Since already granted the Use Permit once, and due to the close proximity of other liquor stores, he felt it was an unfair denial of a means of earning a living. Commissioner Wetl agreed with Commissioner Shaheen that for the Commission to come up with a discussion would be inadvisable. Just based on non-legalistic facts, it has been proven that City was not requested to extend the Use Permit. The applicant was aware that they are required to request an extension. She could not understand why it has taken almost a year for them to ask for the Use Permit to remain in effect. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that when this issue originally came before the Commission, he felt that it was approved "just under the wire" of the new code regarding liquor sales. At that time he voted for the Use Permit only on the basis that the application fell within the new rules. He feels that Exxon failed to apply the rule, and that the permit has expired. He asked staff if this is the first time a Use Permit has expired in the two and one-half years he has been on the Commission, as it is the first one he can recall. He also noted that the applicant had a one week time limit to appeal. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1989 Page twenty The Director noted that others have expired for which no determination was requested. The matters have either been brought back as a new Conditional Use Permit or the matter was dead due to the applicant pursuing another avenue. Commissioner Pontlous agreed with legal counsel in that it was an acceptable request to require them to return in a timely fashion. She also felt that the City does not know that the applicant is pursuing an application with the ABC. Commissioner Baker noted that there is a new law governing the City of Tustin, in regards to distances from other locations selling liquor, residences, schools, etc. Without discussing further, it appears that they are attempting to grandfather the prior conditions of the Conditional Use Permit prior to the issuance of the new law. Commissioner Well moved, Pontlous seconded to determine by minute motion that Use Permit 87-6 expired on June 1, 1988. Motion carried 4-0-1 (abstension by Shaheen). OLD BUSINESS 9. C. ode Enforcement Activity Recommendation: Receive and file. Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development Commission by concurrence, received and filed. NEll BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS 10. Action Agenda of April 17, 1989 City Council Meeting Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Shaheen asked for information on the status of the abandoned railroad right-of-way adjacent to Peppertree. ADJOURIINENT At 11:20 p.m. Commission by concurrence adjourned to their next regular meeting of on May 8, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Cham~s~ lcL~r, Ch~t rman