Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-13-89MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COI~ISSION REGULAR #EETTNG NARCH 13, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/XNVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Wetl, Baker, Le Jeune, Ponttous, Absent: 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. 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 February 27, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Well seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Use Permit 89-05 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: FERIDOUN REZAI 203 TROJAN STREET ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92804 SAME 15642 PASADENA AVENUE R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY, 11 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON A PARCEL THAT IS ADJACENT TO AN R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) LOT AND WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1989 Page two Recommendation: 1) It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2572, approving the Final Negattve Declaration as adequate for Use Permtt 89-05; and 2) It Is recommended that the Planntng Commission adopt Resolution No. 2575, approving Use Permtt 89-05, subject to the conditions contained in Exhlbtt A, attached thereto, as submitted or revlsed. Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Senior Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there were three (3) guest parking spaces required, and if they were located under one of the apartments. Staff replied that three (3) guest spaces were required with two (2) being located under Building A and one (1) under Building B. Commissioner Le Jeune questioned whether the trash containers would have gates that would hide the containers from view and if residents could access the trash bins so that large gartes did not have to be opened. He cited pedestrian access provided to trash enclosures as the case was in several East Tustin developments. His objection to exposed containers was that they often clash with the decor of the project. Staff replied that the gates would have to be opened to gain access to the containers. The Director continued that, there was an opportunity to push back the trash enclosure closer to the rear of the property to provide more adequate turning radius on one of the guest parking spaces on the north side of the property. With a wall wrapped around, it would also provide pedestrian access to the enclosure so the gates do not have to be opened. Staff would be prepared to provide a revised condition to that effect. Commissioner Baker asked the Director if Staff would be changing some of the wording on the resolutions at this meeting. The Director replied that there were some changes: Condition 1.3 of Exhibit A should read as follows: "Conditional Use Permit approval shall become null and void unless Building Permits are issued within twelve (12) months of the date on this Exhibit. Conditional Use Permit approval is also subject to Redevelopment Agency approval of the design of the project. Failure to obtain such approval will result in the Conditional Use Permit becoming null and void. Page 2, Item 3.1a, related to guest parking shall include the following at the end of the sentence: "and shall be permanently retained as "open" guest parking with no garage door installed." Condition B, related to trash enclosures shall add the following: "Trash Enclosure shall be moved six (6) feet to the east to provide adequate back-up space for the guest parking stall at the east end of Building A and shall be modified to provide pedestrian access for trash disposal so that pedestrians do not have to open the metal gates used by the trash company. Commissioner Baker asked if moving the trash enclosure would still provide access for the trash truck. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1989 Page three The Director replied that it would provide access for the truck as well as pedestrian access. Commissioner Wetl asked if there was a reason that Staff did not require additional parking spaces, since apartments with three (3) bedrooms might have additional vehicles which would then have to be parked in the street. Staff replied that the parking requirement is based upon the Zoning Code of two (2) covered parking spaces for each unit. The Zoning Code does not differentiate, as the East Tustin Specific Plan does, based upon the number of bedrooms in each unit in the R-3 Zone. The public hearing was opened at 7:14 p.m. Mr. Renato Haug, 3821 Long Beach Blvd., #201, representing the applicant as the archtctect for the project, asked the Commissioners if there were any questions that they had regarding the project. Commissioner Well asked for the architect's opinion of the Staff suggestion to change the color of the concrete and the brick pavers from red to gray in Condition 3.2. Mr. Haug replied that there would be no problem with the color change. Commissioner Baker asked if the architect had seen the Resolution and the Exhibits, including the changes that were read at this meeting. Mr. Haug replied that his partner had seen them, and that they would review them. The Director summarized the three recommended changes: a) the condition that the Redevelopment Agency still had to approve the plans; b) there was a modification to the trash enclosure; c) there would be continual maintenance of the guest parking spaces in an open condition with no garage doors. Mr. Haug responded by agreeing to the changes. Commissioner Well asked if the architect approved of the condition requiring the change from 15 gallon trees to 24" box trees. Mr. H~u~ replied that although they are more expensive, they would be fine. The public hearing was closed at 7:17 p.m. Plannlng Commission Minutes March 13, 1989 Page four Commissioner Well moved, Ponttous seconded to approve the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for Use Permit 89-05 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2572 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Wetl moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Permit 89-05 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2575 with the following revisions to Exhibit A: Item 1.3, change "Design Review" to "Conditional Use Permit" and add at the end "CUP approval is also subject to Redevelopment Agency approval of the design of the project. Failure to obtain such approval will result in the Conditional Use Permit approval becoming null and void."; Item 3.1 A. add to the last sentence "and shall be permanently retained as open guest parking with no garage door installed."; and Item 3.1B. add to the last sentence "and shall be modified to provide pedestrian access for trash disposal." Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS 3. Code Enforcement Actlvtt¥ Report Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development Received and filed. Commissioner Pontlous commented that she liked and appreciated the report and felt that it was easy to read. Commissioner Le Jeune commented on the banners and flags that are posted in the Granada Plaza. He stated that the sign is immense and the banner and sign hays been there for four {4) years. Staff replied that there has been no cooperation from the management company and that the City might go to further legal action. The Company has refused to comply at this point. Letters have been issued with a full list of compliance requirements including the size of the sign, its location, whether or not permits have been issued, with full details. They may not agree to comply with everything the City requests, therefore, progress is slow. Commissioner Le Jeune commented that the report is terrific and that he assumes there is a history maintained. The Director responded that this is the first stage of the automation program for this particular function. The next phase will provide further functtonabtlity. Commissioner Well asked if the report was complaint-initiated and not inventoried. The Director replied affirmatively. Commissioner Well asked the Deputy City Attorney what liability the City had due to this report creating inconsistent enforcement. For example, there could be one out-of-code situation on one side of town and an identical situation on the other side of town that was being taken to court. Planntng Commission Minutes March 13, 1989 Page ftve Lois Jeffrey, Deputy City Attorney, responded by stating that there is no liability for that type of situation. The courts understand that the City is doing its best. The Director commented that when doing target enforcements under the Neighborhood Improvement Program a concentrated response is undertaken so that so that the City is not dealing with one individual property owner who claims unfair treatment, particularly when there are numerous neighborhood problems. 4. Sion Code Amendment - Update Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development Received and filed. NEW BUSINESS 5. D~stgn Review 89-02 APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: DAVE WILSON 1400 N. TUSTIN AVENUE ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92667 THE IRVINE COMPANY P. O. BOX I 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8915 ZONING: REQUEST: PC-MIXED USE - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 21,800 SQUARE FOOT AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP ON A 3.2 ACRE LOT, SHOWN AS PARCEL #2 ON FINAL MAP 13834 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) Certify Environmental Impact Report #85-02 as adequate to serve as the program EIR by adoption of Resolution No. 2573 as submitted or revised; 2) Approve Design Review 89-02 by adoption of Resolution No. 2574 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner Commissioner Well asked what a "visual triangle of 10 x 10" is, as noted on Page three, No. 8. Staff replied that a "visual triangle of 10 x 10" means that there should be no structures within 10 feet back from the curb or 10 feet in from any drive, so that cars turning into the street have an unobstructed view. Bill Pope, representing the applicant, commented that he wanted to thank the Staff for moving so quickly on this project. The applicant agreed with any suggestions and all staff conditions and is changing the drawings accordingly. Commissioner Wetl asked if there would be enough security if the rolling gate adjacent to the service area was removed as suggested. Planntng Commission Minutes March 13, 1989 Page stx Mr. Pope replied that there would be adequate security, as there have been no problems at the Auto Center. Commissioner Wetl asked, regarding Page 6, 3.13, if the condition to keep the facing service entry door closed at certain times would create an inconvenience for the dealership. Mr. Pope replied that after long discussion with the applicant, they determined that it would not be inconvenient to keep it closed. It would just be a matter of making sure that it was closed at certain times. It would probably remain closed most of the time. Staff commented that there were additional roll-up doors to the rear of the project for service purposes. Commissioner Wetl welcomed the applicant and wanted to be sure that the Commission was not putting roadblocks in the way of the project. Mr. Pope replied that if anything, most of the roadblocks had been removed. that was the good thing about the entire process. That Commissioner Ponttous felt that it was a lovely design, and would like to commend Staff for their cooperation with the applicant. She was thrilled to have the applicant join the Auto Center. Commissioner Wetl moyed~ Le Jeune seconded to certify Environmental Impact Report 85-02 as adequate to serve as the program EIR by adoption of Resolution No. 2573. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Pontlous moved~ Well seconded to approve Design Review 89-02 by adoption of Resolutio~ No. 2574 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. 6. 1989 Amendments to Housing Elements Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner Staff proposed to provide a draft of the Housing Element at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Wetl asked if the State responded to their "challenge?" Staff replied that the State did make some modifications to the revisions that the City had requested, however, they did not make all of them. There will be more information forthcoming. The Director commented that they would only be amending the current Housing Element as legally mandated. However, as part of this fiscal year, they have had money budgeted for a Request for Proposal to complete a comprehensive revision of the General Plan. These services will be obtained before the end of the fiscal year. Commissioner Wetl asked if there would be a citizen's committee utilized as part of the comprehensive revision. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1989 Page seven The Director replied that it would be a recommendation of the Planning Department to include a citizen's participation component in any professional service contract for General Plan Services. The Commission directed staff to agendtze a workshop on the Housing Element immediately after adjournment of the March 27th meeting. STAFF CONCERNS 7. Report on Actions Taken at the March 6, 1989 Ct t¥ Council Meeting Presentation: Christine Shlngleton, Director of Community Development The Director summarized Council actions of March 6th. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Le Jeune asked what happened to the Southern Counties Planning Commissioner's meetings; asked if there was a City Ordinance requiring that trash enclosures be enclosed; and if sidewalks would be required along Walnut Avenue at Franklin at the site of the new bank. The Director responded that there was a new Director of EMA and that nothing has been scheduled to date. Regarding trash enclosures, there is no Ordinance establishing trash enclosures for older areas where they were not originally required. She also noted that staff did not have the information regarding sidewalks on Walnut but would follow-up. Commissioner Well commented that in the past, they received a very helpful comparison chart of conditional use permits, variances, set-backs, etc., that called out the requirements of the project vs. the proposed project. It would be great if the Commission could continue to receive this chart. Commissioner Baker asked if the Auto Center has requested a new sign. The Director noted that a new sign program is in for preliminary design review. AD,IOURIlIENT At 8:00 p.m. regular scheduled meeting on March Chambers. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Wetl seconded to adjourn to the next 27, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council L. irman ~ ~ Penni Foley Secretary