Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-14-88MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING C0#NISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEPIBER 14, 1988 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., Ctty Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Le Jeune, Baker, Shaheen Absent: We11, Pontlous PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Ltmtted to 3 mtnutes 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 October 26, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to approve consent calendar. carried 3-0. Moti on PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Use Permit No. 88-22 and Sign Permit Application 527 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: JOHN GANTES DIMITRI'S RESTAURANT, INC. P.O. BOX 8127 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 MC COMBS PROPERTIES EIGHT P.O. BOX 16549 IRVINE, CA 92713 13102 NEWPORT AVENUE, AT IRVINE BOULEVARD PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASSES I AND 11 AUTHORIZATION TO SELL GENERAL LIQUOR FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT USE AND TO INSTALL EXPOSED NEON TUBING IN SIGNAGE Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve: 1) Use Permit Planntng Commission Minutes November 14, 1988 Page two 88-22 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2539, and 2) approve the request for authorization to install exterior exposed neon tubing for design embellishment but not for copy in signage for Faraday's Restaurant at 13106 Newport Avenue by Minute Order. Resolution No. 2539 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING USE PERMIT 88-22 FOR ON-SITE SALES OF GENERAL LIQUOR (TYPE 47) IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT USE AT 13102 NEWPORT AVENUE Presentation: Bernard Chase, Planner The Director clarified that this was a conversion of the Bob's Big Boy Restaurant. Staff clarified that the applicant was requesting the allowable signage for the location which is one monument sign and two wall signs. The public hearing was opened. Mr. John D. Gantes, 3190 D Airport Loop, Costa Mesa, representing Faraday's Restaurant, stated that the neon is not very large and is subtle. The sign will help people to recognize the affiliation to Dtmitri's on Beach Boulevard. He clarified that the neon sign would be exposed within a circular can with no cover. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the tubing will run inside a channel or if the tubing is outside. Richard Purcell, representing Create A Sign, clarified that the neon (the green area of the sign) is exposed to the air, installed on a 7 inch deep metal channel that encloses all of the wiring. Faraday's is channel letters that have plastic on the front. The exposed red vertical lines are installed on a metal channel which will light up the bone white colored background. The letters are recessed flush to the inside of a channel. The letters (Dimitri's Old Place Restaurant) are three and one half inches high and dark green neon tubing. Commissioner Shaheen asked what staff's objection was to the neon. Staff responded that the copy that is proposed to be exposed exterior neon {stating Dimitri's Old Place Restaurant) would be the only neon sign in the Packer's Square center or in the vicinity. Commissioner Shaheen asked what type of establishment was planned. Mr. Gantes noted that it would have a traditional type restaurant with a very heavy wood accent, and he wants it to be identifiable as a successful restaurant. The public hearing was closed. The public hearing was reopened. Mr. Gantes referred to page two of Resolution 2539, item 9, asking if this condition could be removed allowing the flexibility to move the bar into the dining room. Planntng CommJsslon Minutes November 14, 1988 Page three Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Gantes to elaborate on the type of bar that would be added. Mr. Gantes noted that it would probably be a 6 or 7 seat bar and they might move it to the front of the restaurant. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if a permit would be needed to move the bar. Mr. Gantes assured the Commission that he would obtain all applicable permits and licenses. The Director noted that staff's concern was that any proposed alterations to the interior floor space be reviewed by the Planning Department to insure parking requirements are met. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there was any cost to that process and asked if the change could be approved at a staff level. The Director stated that there was a minor application fee involved and that this project could be conditioned to that effect. She suggested that Resolution 2539, page two, condition 9 be changed to read: "9. No fixed bar or bar seating is authorized with this approval unless all required parking for bar areas is approved in writing by the Director of Community Development." Mr. Gantes asked what the parking requirement was. The Director confirmed that the parking requirement of the current code is one parking space for every three seats, whether that seating area is bar seating, waiting area or table area. Commissioner Baker asked if Parents Who Care had been notified. Staff responded that they were not. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Shaheen stated that he did not think that neon was necessary or compatible with the existing signage in the center. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that he did not have a problem with the exposed neon being only three inches in height. Commissioner Baker stated that he did not have any problem with the neon signage. Commissioner Shaheen brought up the neon sign at Daddy-O's restaurant. The Director suggested that exposed neon be limited to the design embellishment and the copy identifying the business only and not include any advertisement. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1988 Page four The public hearing was reopened. Commissioner Le Jeune asked Mr. Purcell tfa cover could be put on the neon, something to keep tt clean, noting that he would be more comfortable if the stgn were covered. Mr. Purcell noted that it would accumulate moisture, but that it would be possible. The Director noted that there are a number of signs like that which had to provide an enclosure to provide exposure protection for the electrical connection point as exposed connections are not ULI rated. If the sign is ULI rated, staff has no problems with the neon tubing being uncovered. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to approve Use Permit 88-22 with Resolution 2539 as revised. Motion carried 3-0. Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve, by Minute Order, exposed neon tubing for copy and design embellishments subject to the Exhibit attached to the staff report. Motion carried 3-0. 3. Variance No. 88-10 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: SYCAMORE GARDENS HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 3324 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92651 14802 NEWPORT AVENUE; NEAR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NEWPORT AVENUE AND SYCAMORE AVENUE R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE FILED FOR THIS REQUEST PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. EXEMPTION FROM REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 9224 AND 9274 OF THE TUSTIN MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE CONVERSION OF STOCK COOPERATIVES TO CONDOMINIUMS. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 88-10 by adopting Resolution No. 2543, subject to the conditions as presented or revised. Resolution No. 2543 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 88-10, GRANTING EXEMPTIONS TO SECTIONS 9224 g.1, 9224 g.7, 9274 d.1 AND 9274 d.3 OF THE TUSTIN MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE SYCAMORE GARDENS STOCK COOPERATIVE. Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Senior Planner Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1988 Page ftve Staff suggested the addition of the following to Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2543: "12. The applicant shall prepare for review by the City Attorney and Director of Community Development a document notifying all present and future owners that the existing structures do not and will not meet the sound attenuation requirements of Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code, and of the California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4, Section 1092 as well as the requirements to provide one hour fire rated walls between units, as required by Section 9274d.3 of the Tusttn City Code; as the structures were built prior to the existence of these requirements and the applicant requested and received approval of a variance to these requirements. Upon approval of the above described notification document, said document shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map or Certificate of Compliance and a copy mailed to all ownership interests by certified mail, return receipt requested. Verification of mailing shall be provided to the City." Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the sound attenuation and fire rating problems could be accomplished by one process. Staff responded that it could not and that the requirements for both items would require different steps to accomplish. Commissioner Shaheen asked about the requirements for smoke alarms for these units. Staff noted that all units in this project have smoke detectors. He also noted that all other items of concern on this project have either been satisfied, included as a condition of approval or not applicable. Commissioner Baker confirmed that staff was trying to avoid a hardship by either having to remove or restructure of units to provide the necessary parking requirements. He also questioned the ability of the Commission to pass a resolution to provide a financial bonus for the property owners. Commissioner Shaheen noted that the Co-op is very difficult to finance. The public hearing was opened. Mr. John Stuczynskt, 1833 E. 17th Street, #111, Santa Ana, representing the Sycamore Gardens Homeowner's Association, noted that the purpose for conversion was for ease of refinance, the units are not easy to sell and it is difficult to raise money to make improvements. He addressed Condition #8 of the Conditions of Approval of Resolution 2543, noting a descrepancy in what the Security Ordinance is requiring as opposed to the Fire and Police Departments. He noted that Conditions g and 10 stating that access would have to be gained to 100 units, which would be very difficult. He also noted that any inspection or work would have to be done by individual owners who may or may not be able to afford these repairs. He also noted that termite work was completed two years ago. Commissioner Baker asked how many bedrooms were in these units and what the ratio was. Mr. Stuczynskt noted that there were 2 and 3 bedroom units of which 24 were 3 bedrooms. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1988 Page six Mr. Richard Kvtdt, Box 3324, Tusttn, owner in Sycamore Gardens and President of the Board, stated that this complex had a high foreclosure rate because they could not be sold. As they exist he stated that he felt the units are unmarketable, and therefore, there is a 42% rental status. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for clarification of the expenses for the conversions. Mr. Kvldt stated that until now the expenses have been approximately $15,000 but that the total when completed will be approximately $115,000 (a total of about $1,500 per unit). Commissioner Baker asked staff if the tax base would change if these units were to be converted into condomt ni ums. The Director responded that it would depend on whether a code amendment to exempt stock cooperatives from the subdivision process in which case, the reassessment would occur in the assessor's regular duties. If the conversion occurs at the final map stage, the assessor receives that information. The property would be reassessed at the current market rate. Mr. Kvidt noted that he had a letter from the State Board of Equalization stating that a reassessment will only be done at the time a conversion unit is actually sold. The Director noted that staff would have to clarify that issue. The public hearing was closed. Lois Jeffrey, Deputy City Attorney, commented that there are very strict requirements that sellers of property make disclosure regarding the structural, plumbing, code conditions and a pest control report. She noted that the conditions of items #9 and #10 would have to be addressed by the seller and thought that the owners of the units would want to have this information to protect themselves in event of the sale of a unit. The Director noted that Conditions 8, 9 and 10 relate to specific code requirements in the conversion ordinance which were not included in the variance request. If these items were excluded from the conditions of approval those items would have to be included in the variance and the hearing would have to be renottced. Commissioner Le Jeune clarified that the Commission are not allowed to overrule City Codes and noted that he did not want to vote against an ordinance. The Director suggested if the items were deleted from the cooperatives' owners responsibilities, that the hearing be continued to provide staff time to renotice with the requested code variances. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there was a problem with inspection staff being available. The Director noted that the City would accept a private inspection firms report on these matters, which would most likely be more reasonable than the City. Planntng Commission Minutes November 14, 1988 Page seven Commissioner Shaheen noted that it ts difficult for cooperatives to obtatn money from Individual owners. The Director noted that the applicant may want to decide how they wish to proceed. The public hearing was reopened. Mr. Kvtdt asked under what conditions the Commission would consider approval. Lois Jeffrey noted that the Commission could not tell the applicant how they would vote on a variance in the future. Mr. Kvidt reiterated that these conditions (9 and 10) would be cost prohibitive and logistically difficult. Commissioner Le Jeune asked how many units would have to be inspected. The Director noted, based upon advise from the City Attorney, that it would be satisfactory that a good faith effort to inspect all units be made, provided that justification is provided from the association as to why such units were inaccessable. She clarified that a good faith effort to contact each unit owner would need to be made and proof of that effort be provided. She also suggested for units where access was not obtained, that an owner notification Deed document be recorded against each of those ownership interests removing any responsibility of the City for that disclosure information. Mr Kvtdt stated that the association would be willing to comply with that. The Director noted conditions 9 and 10 should be reworded as follows: "9. The applicant shall provide to the Community Development Department a report on general structural conditions, addressing foundations, framing, interior and exterior wall coverings, roof, plumbing, electrical wiring, utility connections, built-in household appliances, heating and cooling systems and sewer evaluation prepared by an independent state licensed structural engineer, architect or general contractor. Applicant shall obtain access to as many units as possible and shall provide documentation of notification of inspection to each occupant and written justification where access is not obtained and inspection not conducted. Said report shall address condition and expected remaining useful life of each respective item, recommending work required if any, to correct any deficiencies. All necessary work shall be completed prior to completion of the conversion process on those units inspected where deficiencies were noted in said report, or the applicant shall post a bond with the City in an amount to be determined by the Community Development Department to guarantee completion of said work. Applicant shall prepare for review by the City Attorney and Director of Community Development, a document notifying those specific unit owners where access was not provided, that no inspection was undertaken {the general structural condition or deficiencies) in that respective unit and was not reported pursuant to the City's Multiple Family Conversion Standards." Planntng Commission Mtnutes November 14, 1988 Page eight "Upon approval of the above described notification document, sald document shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map or Certificate of Compliance and a copy matled to all affected ownership interests by certified mail, return receipt requested. Verification of matltng shall be provided to the City." "10. The applicant shall submtt a pest Information report (performed wlthtn the last calendar quarter) addressing the present condition of the structures as they may be affected by termites, dry rot, roaches or other tnsects, and recommending work required, If any, to render the structures free of Infestation. Applicant shall obtaln access to as many untts as posstble and shall provtde documentation of notification of Inspection to each occupant and wrttten justification where access Is not obtatned and Inspection not conducted. All requtred work shall be completed prtor to completion of the conversion, or the applicant shall post a bond wtth the City in an amount to be determined by the Community Development Department to guarantee completion of said work. Applicant shall prepare for review by the City Attorney and Director of Community Development, a document notifying those specific unit owners where access was not provided, that no inspection was undertaken (present condition as related to termites, dry rot, roaches and other insects) in that respective unit and was not reported pursuant to the City's Multiple Family Conversion Standards. Upon approval of the above described notification document, said document shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map or Certificate of Compliance and a copy mailed to all affected ownership interests by certified mail, return receipt requested. Verification of mailing shall be provided to the City." The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Baker noted his difficulty with the lack of parking. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Variance No. 88-10 adopting Resolution No. 2543 with revisions. Motion carried 3-0. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 88-6; Addition of Code Section 9273 (e) Exempting Legal Conforming Properties From Becoming Non-Conforming Due to Public Right-Of-Way Acquisition by the City ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED AND FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2541, recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 88-6,exempting legal conforming properties from becoming non-conforming due to public right-of-way acquisition by the City. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1988 Page nine Resolution No. 2541 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 88-6, EXEMPTING LEGAL CONFORMING PROPERTIES FROM BECOMING NON-CONFORMING DUE TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION BY THE CITY Presentation: Christine A. Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Baker asked if people could rebuild the same structure in case of fire. Lois Jeffrey, yes they could, however the same structure could not be rebuilt if it was a non-conforming use. The Director noted that if the non-conformity was created by the acquisition, then the same non-conforming structure could be built. The public hearing was opened. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment 88-6 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2541 as submitted. Motion carried 3-0. OLD BUSINESS 5. Draft Gradtnq and Excavation Code and Manual Recommendation: It ts recommended that the Planning Commission set a workshop sesston on the subject documents. Presentation: Christine A. Shlngleton, Director of Community Development Workshop scheduled to commence on November 28, 1988 at 5:00 p.m. In the Ctty Counctl Conference Room by Commission concurrence. Jay Pierce, representing the Irvlne Company, urged the Commission to set the study sesston as qutckly as posstble and reminded the Commission that the Irvtne Company ts the one that Is most effected by the ordinance and manual and would appreciate the oportuntty to participate tn the study sesston. The Dtrector asked the Irvtne Company to provide their concerns to staff prior to the study sesston to enable staff to agendtze any policy tssues for that workshop. Mr. Pterce Indicated that there would not be a problem wtth providing the Company's comments prior to the study sesston. 6. Transmittal of Proposed Second Amendment to Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Town Center Redevelopment Pro~ect Recommendation: Receive and ftle; agendtze further action on the Amendment for the Planning Commission's November 14th meeting. Presentation: Christine A. Shingleton, Director of Community Development Planntng Commission Mtnutes November 14, 1988 Page ten Received and flled by Commission concurrence. NEW BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS 7. Report on City Counctl Agenda - November 7, 1988 Presentation: Christine A. Shlngleton, Director of Community Development The Dtrector noted that the Ct ty Counct] requested that an 1rem on Cold Air Balloons be agendtzed for the November 21, 1988 meeting. There have also been some 1rems brought up regarding the redevelopment at Newport Avenue and E1Camtno Rea]. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Le Jeune asked about status of church at 6th and 'B' Street, complained about speed of buses along Matn Street; and asked about the ttmtng of Irvlne Boulevard widening. He also suggested that publlc heartng nottces be sent to occupants as well as property owners. Lois Jeffrey noted that a general rule should be applied throughout the City, which would drive up the cost of the proposal. She suggested that the City might want to add to the posting requirements. The Director noted that the current list is taken from the current assessor's parcel rolls and questioned who would verify the list of occupants and explained that the complexity and logistics would be prohibitive. However, staff would be happy to try to unofficially pass out flyers. Chairman Baker asked about noticing Parents Who Care and complained of banners on the fence at Tustin Market Place. The Director noted that Parents Who Care is on a list and should receive a copy of notices. ADJOURI~IENT At 9:15 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to adjourn to a Workshop session on November 28, 1988 at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Conference Room. Secretary ~xChai rma~