Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-27-89MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETIMG FEBRUARY 27, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 7:05 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATTON ROLL CALL: Well, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontious, 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 13, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Well noted a change to the minutes, on page ten, second to the last line add in quotes "texture and materials". Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Pontious seconded to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Second Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13274 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY 2 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 300 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 TUSTIN MARKET PLACE & RETENTION BASIN PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT; EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN - MIXED USE. A PREVIOUS PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. APPROVAL OF A SECOND AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13274 TOSUBDIVIDE 129 ACRES INTO 22 NUMBERED AND THREE (3) LETTERED LOTS. THE AMENDMENT IS RELATED TO THE CREATION OF THREE (3) LOTS, #21, #22, AND LOT 'C' ADJACENT TO THE TUSTIN AUTO CENTER. Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1989 Page two Recommendatl on - 1. It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the environmental determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2569, as submitted or revised. It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Second Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13274, to the City Council by adopting Resolution No. 2571, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached thereto, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Senior Planner Commissioner Wetl asked if the Company had reviewed the additional wording. Staff replied that he discussed the language with Mr. Larry Williams of the Irvine Company and that he approved the additional wording. Commissioner Wetl noted that the final map is not connected verbally or visually with this tentative tract map. Should there be a reference to connect them? The Director noted that in conjunction with the final map 13834, there would be linkage language in the findings as well as with the supplemental conditions. The public hearing was opened at 7:20 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m. Commissioner Baker asked if the presentation indicates that the negotiations with the Irvine Company regarding the south side of I-5 in E1 Modena Channel are within the City of Tustin only. The Director noted the proposed improvements would be completed in two phases in conjunction with the City of Irvine and the Orange County Flood Control District. Interim storm drain improvements north of the I-5 freeway would provide protection until fully-improved conditions are in place, which may take 3-5 years. Commissioner Baker asked if this would place a hardship on Auto dealers. The Director noted that interim improvements would be removing any potential risk. Pad elevations of future dealerships are being raised above flood level; interim improvements will divert water into the E1Modena Channel. Commissioner Baker asked if raising pad elevations will cause any problems on other side of the channel. Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1989 Page three The Director replied that all dealerships have been evaluated in event of 100 year flood. There may be some pondtng in parking areas, but no pad areas would be impacted. Based upon recommendations of City Engineer, it is felt that the City is assuming minimal risk. Commissioner Pontlous moved, Wetl seconded to recommend to City Council approval of the second Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13274 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2571 with the following revision to Exhibit A, page two: add "1.8 Prior to approval of the Final Map, the subdivider shall execute an agreement with the City specifying the nature and extent of down stream improvements to the E1 Modena Channel as well as responsibility for tntract improvements to be known as the Auto Center Drive Terminus Storm Drain Extention to be con~leted in conjunction with development of the expanded Tustin Auto Center site (retention basin area). The agreement shall clearly establish the limits of responsibility for all improvements for all parties." Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Pontious moved, Well seconded to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by the adoption of Resolution No. 2569. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Well seconded to note that Resolution No. 2569 be adopted p~(or to No. 2571. There was no opposition. 3. Use Permit 89-03 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: Recommendation W & S COMMERCIAL, INC. 2402 MICHELSON DRIVE, #230 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715 1492 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE AT RED HILL AVENUE M-INDUSTRIAL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING PROPOSED FOR OVER 50% PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USE IN THE M-INDUSTRIAL ZONE. - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 89-03 by adoption of Resolution No. 2567 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner Commissioner Well asked what a "detector check" was, as noted on Exhibit A, page two. Staff noted that a "detector check" was a device that measured the amount of water that went into a fire sprinkler system which is typically required on commercial buildings over 10-15,000 square feet for water billing purposes. The public hearing was opened at 7:30 p.m. Andy Shutz, President of W & S Commercial, Inc. noted that he discussed the project with staff member, Laura Kuhn, and felt that everything was acceptable. The public hearing was closed at 7:32 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1989 Page four Commissioner Weil asked staff to explain why driveway aprons should be revised to use standard driveway design, not the radius drive design as shown on plans, as noted on Page three of Site & Building Conditions 3.1b. Staff replied that a radius drive requires that the driveway be along a major arterial highway or be an entryway into a major commercial project. Neither criteria was met. Also, a radius drive requires a monolithic {one-piece) pour. If the city is responsible for the driveway, cost of repair must be considered; due to construction requirements, it could be hazardous to pedestrians; require a separate easement mechanism, and dedication would be required. As it would be less costly to maintain, and applicant seems to have no aversion to it, staff recommends a standard driveway. Commissioner Well questioned the number of trees required. Referring to Exhibit A, page five, 4.2b, the applicant is to provide one (1) 15 gallon tree for every 30 feet of property line. Is that all the way around the property or just the area facing the streets? Staff noted that the property lines are the interior property lines in a parking area and the area along streets where there is parking. Staff will work with the applicant through concept to facilitate a plan to accommodate required number of trees. This is not an unusual it is a standard requirement. Commissioner Well asked if provision 4.2c requiring one (1) 15 gallon tree for every five (5) parking spaces was in addition to the trees required by 4.2b. Based upon her calculations, only 20 trees would be required, not 28. Where will the remaining trees be required to be placed? Staff replied that applicant is allowed to group trees to create a landscape concept. Trees are to be averaged out over entire site and not in one area. Commissioner Wetl asked the applicant if he is aware that he is responsible for that many trees. Mr. Shutz replied that he and landscape architects have not yet counted the number of trees that are required. Commissioner Wetl asked if conditions 4.2b and 4.2c could be deleted from Use Permit 89-03. The Director replied that all of the conditions of 4.2 could be deleted from the text. The conditions are already provided for in 4.1 which indicates that the Landscape Guidelines are to be followed. Commissioner Well requested the deletion of 4.2. Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1989 Page five Commissioner Baker asked if the meandering sidewalks would be affected by any future widening of Red Hill Avenue. Staff replied that the Public Works Department has determined Red Hill Avenue to be a major arterial highway which is anticipated to be widened in the future. However, the planned sidewalks are considered by the Public Works Department to be the ultimate design and would, therefore, most likely not be affected by the widening. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Permit 89-03 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2567 revised as follows: Exhibit A, Page two, item 3.2, line one after "All exterior colors" add "and materials" and line two after "Department" add "subject to general conformity with the original submitted plans date stamped February 27, 198g."; Page five, delete item 4.2. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Use Permit 89-04 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: BOBBY GILBERT (B & J TREE SERVICE) 17300 17TH STREET, SUITE J231 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 FRANARGOFIN ARNEL DEVELOPMENT 950 SOUTH COAST DRIVE #200 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 1062 EL CAMINO REAL (SOUTH SIDE OF EL CAMINO) TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-1) CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CLASS 4) REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD, VEHICLES AND SUPPORT SALES ACTIVITY FOR B & J TREE SERVICE. Recommendation - Approve Resolution No. 2568 which authorizes the continuation of outdoor storage and sales, as revised or as submitted. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Commissioner Wetl asked staff if the chipper that was on the applicant's site was in operation when staff visited the property. Staff replied that it was running at the time of her visit. The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Bobby Gilbert, co-owner of B & J Tree Service, stated that there are several chippers on site. They occasionally run the chippers for a period of a maximum of 5 minutes prior to sending to a job site to determine if the equipment is operable. There is no need to use the equipment on the property, as the purpose of the chipper is to chip brush on the job site when they trim trees. Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1989 Page six Commissioner Le Jeune noted that there appears to be several non-operative vehicles on the site which are unsightly. He asked if these vehichles are to be stored on the site. Mr. Gilbert responded by stating that the vehicles were part of an acquisition of another tree service. Those in disrepair are being repaired, and the excess are being removed. Any unnecessary brush is being removed. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that upon first approval of the site, there was a question of screening the property's activities and vehicles. At that time, the Commission was assured that there would be a wood screen at all times, however, this has not been the case. Mr. Gilbert stated that they recently sold 130 cords of wood unexpectedly and are in the process of replacing the screen which will remain as long as B & J Tree Service is on the site. The Director commented that due to future development of the LA Land site and potentially the subject site within 90-180 days, it would be an unfair burden on the applicant to have to provide fencing which would potentially cost the applicant between $2.80 and $4.00/lineal foot. Commissioner Ponttous asked the applicant if he will be prepared to relocate within the 90-180 day time frame. Mr. Gilbert replied that they are in the process of looking for another site, and that they will be prepared to move on time. The public hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m. Commissioner Wetl moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Permit 89-04 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2568. Commissioner Well moved, Le Jeune seconded to amend Resolution No. 2568, page two, section E to add "Inoperable vehicles shall not be stored on this property." and to move the amendment before the original motion. Motion carried 5-0. 5. Variance 89-02 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DURFEE GARDENS PARTNERSHIP 1700 RAINTREE ROAD FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 SAME 14372 S. YORBA STREET (S/E CORNER OF YORBA AND NORWOOD PARK PLACE) R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3, SECTION 15303(a)) TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED REAR SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF YORBA STREET FROM 65 FEET TO 60 FEET ON LOT 2 OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13822. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance 89-02 by adopting Resolution No. 2565, subject to the conditions contained therein, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Senior Planner Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1989 Page seven Commissioner Le Jeune asked why the required setbacks were not met on the properties #1-12. Staff replied that they were built under county jurisdiction prior to being annexed to the City, therefore this standard was not applicable. Commissioner Baker asked if the total rear yard of the house in question was 10-15 feet. Staff replied that there is approximately a 20 foot setback to the rear property line. The public hearing was opened at 8:04 p.m. John. Jaeger, co-owner of Durfee Gardens Partnership, stated that the first idea was to re-design the house to conform with the 65 foot variance requirement. This would, however, possibly require a variance for some other portion of the house. Based upon many of the other homes in the area that have substantially more encroachment on Yorba Street, and still do not look unattractive, nor do they appear to be inappro- priately close to Yorba Street, they felt it best to request this variance. Commissioner Baker asked how the cul-de-sac differed from the others nearby. Mr. Jaeqer replied that it goes deeper into the lot. They have no objection to this, but because of the differences, the way the lots lay out, the three car garages and the slightly larger size of these homes, this is the best they could come up with. The public hearing was closed at 8:10 p.m. Commissioner Wetl moved, Shaheen seconded to approve Variance 89-2 by adoption of Resoltuion No. 2565 subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner The public hearing was opened at 7:10 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7:11 p.m. Commissioner Wetl moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend approval to the City Council of the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan by the adoption of Resolution No. 2570. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1989 Page eight 7. Widening of I-5_Freewa¥ - East of Red Hill Avenue Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there was a way that the City could keep the citizens better informed as to how the progress of the project is affecting Tustin. The Director replied that the Public Works Department has been authorized to hire an advocate for residents and local business as it relates to the widening program. On a consultant basis, the person would be responsible for tracking on current actions, right-of-way changes, acquisition programs, and the impact on local businesses and residents occurring in relationship to those activities. Commissioner Well, referring to the map, questioned whether the widening of the freeway would affect Al's Woodcraft. Staff replied that, tentatively, Al's Woodcraft would lose a portion of their parking lot in order to accommodate the exit at Red Hill. Received and filed. 8. Color and Materials Board for the Golf Course Clubhouse Review 88-53 Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Senior Planner Roger Seltz, representing the Irvine Company, addressed the issues as presented by the staff report. a) Glass color and reflectivity: Intent of using indicated glass is to have a warm-colored glass in building. Vision glass above seven-foot level will intensify the green of grass and will not have muted gray tone in the sky. Reflective glass at the Pro Shop meets the energy requirements of the building. The reflective surface is never on the outside, always on second, third or fourth surface of laminated glass. It does not look mirrored, it is warm-toned, and gives the project some life. b) Inappropriateness of Kalwall: Architects suggest that Kalwall be used in certain areas of the clear story of the building, not in any vision glass. The clear story is the top story of building. The purpose of the Kalwall is to provide patterns on the inside wall, giving interest to the wall. c) Pattern of stone veneer: At this stage, there has been no conversation with the architect, however, if required, the Company would commit to the normal application of a horizontal layout. d) Use of stone at base in starters area: It is not currently in the plan, at this stage, but would be an upgrade to the building. If there are concerns, he noted the Company would like to work out a pattern that would be acceptable to the Commission. e) Crystal White paint on assigned windows: This issue has been resolved. window colors will conform to the rest of the project. The Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 198g Page nine Commissioner Le Jeune asked where the Kalwall is located on the building. Mr. Settz referred to the photograph of the model to indicate that it was the opaque pieces placed between the panels of the row of windows on the upper story. Commissioner Shaheen expressed concern that the paint color indicated on the model was not Navajo White, as stipulated. Mr. Seitz referred to the color board to verify that the paint color that will actually be applied is, in fact, a Navajo White. Jay Pierce of the Irvine Company presented clarifications to issues posed by the Staff Report and resolution adopted by the Commiston at their meeting on February 13th. a) Page two, item 12: iron-type fence. Black tubular fencing is actually a very dark green fought b) Page two, item 4.6: Sign program. The intent of the paragraph was to clarify that the entry sign was to coordinate with the building in color only. c) He asked if corrections would be made at plan check in modifying building plans. The Dtretor noted that there was no need to clarify the issues above at this time since action had already occurred and she believed these issues had been mutually agreed upon between staff and the Irvine Copmpany. Commissioner Wetl commented that the rose-colored windows would intensify the green of the golf course and that the rose color is more compatible to the color scheme and wood trim of the project. Mr. Settz noted that the glass in question would be installed above the 7-foot level only. Commissioner Shaheen questioned staff on why they preferred the gray windows over the rose. Staff responded that they did not consider gray better than the rose, they just questioned the rose combined with Kalwall on the upper story. Commissioner Baker took a vote on whether the color should be rose or gray: Rose carried 5-0. Commissioner Baker asked if the reflective glass was located only at the Pro Shop. Mr. Seitz commented that it faces the staging area and the first tee from the Pro Shop. Also, that it was impossible to reflect the sunlight upon the surrounding houses due to the refraction of the glass and the surrounding trees. Commissioner Baker commented that the understanding of the Commission was that the Kalwall was not easily visible from the ground. Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1989 Page ten Commissioner Le Jeune asked the staff if they were concerned about the look of the Kalwall from the inside or outside of the building, or both. Staff responded that it was primarily the view from the outside that they are concerned with. Commissioner Baker asked if the Kalwall was likely to change color. Mr. Settz responded that they are able to keep it a translucent white without being affected by the ultraviolet light. Commissioner Baker asked if the Kalwall would be next to the rose-colored glass, and if it would provide confusion to the eye due to bright spots? Mr. Seltz replied that the current design has it alternating with the rose-colored glass on the clear wall to provide an interesting design pattern of light on the wall. He also asked if there was a criteria the Planning Commission would be using in regards to the stone veneer. His presumption was that it would be compatible with the use of the stone on the major pillars inside the building. Presumably it would be used in I 1/4" thicknesses, in square or rectangular design, with very thin joints. To avoid disputes later on, he would inform the architect of the requirements. The Director replied that, based upon the history of the project, there would be no problem leaving the issue open subject to staff review and approval until plan check plans were submitted. Commission Baker noted that the Commission would concur with Staff. Staff noted that the applicant agreed to wood window treatment as requested. Commissioner Well moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the color and materials board as submitted for the project, by minute order, with the following conditions: 1. Reflective glass to be placed with the reflective surface on the inside; said glass to be used only in the Pro Shop windows. 2. Rose colored glass may be used in windows above seven (7) feet in height. 3. Kalwall material may be used in vertical elements, specifically on the clear story behind the curved wall in conjunction with the rose colored glass. 4. Adoquin stone may be used as veneer on wall surfaces near the entry walk {porte-cochere) and the Pro Shop. Plans for the application of said veneer at plan check shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department prior to installation. 5. Wood window frames shall be painted to match the stucco or be treated with the transparent stain as used in the trellises and porte-cochere. Motion carried 5-0. Planntng Commission Minutes February 27, 198g Page eleven 9. Final Tract Map 13834 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY 550-C NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 TERMINUS OF AUTO CENTER DRIVE CUL-DE-SAC BETWEEN THE TUSTIN AUTO CENTER AND THE EL MODENA FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL PC-MIXED USE, EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 15) TO SUBDIVIDE THREE (3) NUMBERED LOTS AND ONE (1) LETTERED LOT ON A 7.274 ACRE AREA ORIGINALLY SHOWN AS LOTS #21, #22, AND 'C' THE OF SECOND AMENDMENT TO TRACT 13274. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Final Tract Map 13834 to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2566 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner Commission Baker asked staff if the contingency put the City at risk. The Director replied that the Commission is recommending approval subject to the staff validating that conditions have been met prior to the Council's action. Commissioner Well moved, Pontlous seconded to recommend approval to the City Council approval of Final Tract Map 13834 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2566 with the following revisions: Add "I.C. The Final Map reflects only a portion of the original land area shown on Tract Map 13274. The Subdivision Map Act permits filing of phase Final Maps on lots which conform with the original Tentative Tract Map." and renumber findings. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS 10. Report on Actions Taken at the February 21, 1989 City Council Meeting Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he was sorry that the reporter from the Tustin News had left as he wanted to note that the newspaper had quoted the Commission as spending 30 minutes discussing whether to name the golf course a "golf course" or a "golf club". Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the Commission spent approximately ten minutes discussing that item. He also asked about guidance from the City Council regarding sidewalks. Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1989 Page twelve Staff responded that they had previously thought this issue resolved but would be happy to provide the policy guidelines again to the Commission. Commissioner Le Jeune also noted concern on the screening of the Water Works site along Main Street; noted that a complaint had been made to him about the house on Pacific and Second where people are unloading large items after hours; and noted that there are several signs that blink that are not in comformance with the sign code, and that he would call staff with a list. The Director noted that staff would look into these items and respond to the Commission. She also noted that staff will not be able to remove illegal non-conforming signs until the Sign Code is adopted and a thorough survey is completed. She indicated that staff will provide a revised schedule for the Sign Code. Commissioner Shaheen asked what was happening with the abandoned property on the west side of the Peppertree subdivision and asked for a letter for him to give concerned homeowners. The Director noted that storm drain improvements are required for the area. She also noted that the Director of Public Works is working closely with a representative from the Peppertree Homeowner's Association and that she will obtain a copy of the letter that was provided to the Homeowner's representative. Commissioner Ponttous noted that there are sign problems in the windows along Newport Avenue across from Tustin Plaza. Staff responded that enforcement action is being taken. Commissioner Wetl asked the status of reappolntment of Planning Commissioners and also noted that she had some changes to be made on Fence Guidelines provided at the last meeting. The Director noted that the Commission serves at will until removed by the City Council. ADJOURNMENT At 9:20 Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Well seconded to adjourn to the next regular meeting on March 13, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. A ~VL/~ek~r Chairman