Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-12-88MINUTES TUSTIM PLANNING COMMISSIOM REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/TNVOCATXON ROLL CALL: Present: Wetl, 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 ~he August 22, 1988 .PlanQing .Commission Meeting 2. Minutes of the August 29, 1988 Special Planning Commission Meeting 3. Final Tract Map No. 13556 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DONAHUE SCHRIBER ON BEHALF OF THE THE IRVINE COMPANY THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE MIXED USE, COMMERCIAL; EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THE PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2), WITH ADDENDUM, FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE A 49.967 ACRE SITE, BEING A PORTION OF AMENDED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13274, INTO 11 NUMBERED LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING PHASE I OF THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE, A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, IN ADDITION TO MAKING CERTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATIONS TO THE CITY AND THE STATE. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Final Tract Map 13556 to the City Council by adopting Resolution No. 2531 as submitted or revised. Resolution No. 2531 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAP 13556 Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Senior Planner Planntng Commission Minutes September 12, 1988 Page two Commissioner Well moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the consent calendar. carried 5-0. Motion 4. Use Permit 88-14 APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: UNITED ORANGE COUNTY NEON SIGNS INC. 13801 WEST STREET GARDEN GROVE, CA 92643 MARIE CALLENDERS 721 WEST FIRST STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 721 WEST FIRST STREET COMMERCIAL GENERAL - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN - COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT {CLASS 11) AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL A 25 FOOT HIGH, 78 SQUARE FOOT, LETTERED FREEWAY IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN. CHANNEL Recommendation: Pleasure of the Planning Commission. Resolution No. 2524 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A 25 FOOT HIGH, 78 SQUARE FOOT FREEWAY IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN AT 721 WEST FIRST STREET Resolution No. 2524 (d) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN DENYING A 25 FOOT HIGH, 78 SQUARE FOOT FREEWAY IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN AT 721 WEST FIRST STREET. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Acting Assistant Planner Commissioner Le Jeune clarified with staff that the total height of the sign is 25 feet and asked the height of the light standard that is next to the proposed sign location. Staff responded that it was approximately 20 feet. The public hearing was opened at 7:07 p.m. Mr. John Acierno, manager of Marie Callender's restaurant, stated that he wanted to make the sign as aesthetically pleasing to the community as possible. A sign board, provided by staff including elevations and pictures, was passed around by the Commissioners. The public hearing was closed at 7:10 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1988 Page three Commissioner Well asked staff if there had been any response to the public hearing notice. Staff responded one call was received, from the residential complex to the east, expressing some concern regarding the sign. Commissioner Baker asked if Western Neurocare was noticed. Staff responded that they received a notice and staff had not received any response from them. The Director noted the proposed location of the sign is immediately next to the parking lot of Western Neurocare and that the closest structure is across Mrytle Avenue. Staff responded that the proposed Neurocare building that will be next to the sign will be two stories below ground and two stories above ground. She also noted that the sign is wtthin ten feet of the Western Neurocare property. Commissioner Le Jeune questioned the accuracy of the pictures on the sign board. Commissioner Wetl asked if there was any other alternative. The public hearing was reopened at 7:16 p.m. Mr. Acterno stated that it was hard to get a perspective as to the size of the sign from the pictures that were taken from the northbound 1-55 freeway. Commissioner Baker noted that there was a sign on the property near the Western Neurocare site and asked if it would block the proposed sign. Commissioner Wet1 noted that the picture was misleading and asked if the grassy knoll could be used for the sign. Mr. Acterno noted that the sign locatton is on the grassy knoll. Mr. Masse¥, respresenttng Orange County Neon Sign, indicated that there is no projection of the sign over the property line and the knoll would work out fine as the location of the sign. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the ltne of trees would obscure the sign from the northbound 1-55 freeway. Mr. Acterno agreed that the sign would be blocked just from the right lane, that trees and buildings block the sign from the First Street corridor and the sign wtll be parallel to the Western Neurocare building. The public hearing was closed at 7:23 p.m. Planntng Commission Minutes September 12, 1988 Page four Commissioner Well proposed an alternative. She stated that in reviewing the location of the restaurant the sign was of no use to the southbound 1-55 traffic. She proposed that the sign be left at the 25 foot height and 78 square feet but make it a single faced sign and parallel to the freeway for exposure to the northbound traffic. She stated that this alternative should mitigate the concern of the people using the Abigail Abbott building and still provide good freeway exposure. She indicated that the sign could possibly be angled. Commissioner Shaheen stated that having the sign parallel to the freeway would not work and felt it could be a traffic hazard. Commissioner Ponttous noted that the intent of signs is to build up identification and that possibly the single face sign installed at an angle would be more easily seen by traffic. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he had a problem with the effect the sign might have on the freeway and noted that freeway exposure would be minimal. He stated that the Planning Commission was extremely generous with signage on the front of the building. He also noted that once a pole sign is erected it will remain up, citing the pole sign at Fat Freddies. Commissioner Baker noted that a business must advertise. He also noted that the surrounding property owners were given a chance to respond and have not responded. Commissioner Well stated that she was considering the hospital patients that would be impacted by the sign and not necessarily the owners of the property. She indicated that she felt that signs are for identification purposes and not advertisement. She agreed with Commissioner Le Jeune that the First Street Specific Plan was very generous with the signage allowed in that area. There was some discussion between staff and the Commission regarding neon signs. The Director clarified that Marie Callenders has exposed neon signs. Commissioner Shaheen noted that this business is paying taxes and looking for more exposure. He did not understand what the Commission was objecting to and stated that this request was a minor one. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Ponttous seconded to deny Use Permit 88-14 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2524(d). Motion failed 4-1 Noes: Pontious, Well, Baker and Shaheen. Commissioner Well moved to approve use Permit 88-14 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2524 with the following amendments: Delete Item I.C. 4. Change Item II. to read "The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 88-14 to authorize a 25 foot high, 78 square foot single faced freeway pole sign at 721 West First Street subject to the following conditions: Item II. A, eliminate "pursuant to the submitted plans, or". Planntng Commission Mtnutes September 12, 1988 Page five Commissioner Baker noted that to get better freeway identification a business needs better visibility than the sign according to the proposed motion. Commissioner Wetl asked if the sign lighting was from one source and stated that she did not like the double faced sign. Commissioner Shaheen stated that he did not understand the slant of the sign and felt that the applicant should be allowed to take advantage of the double faced sign along the freeway. Commissioner Well restated the above motion, Pontlous seconded. Motion failed 3-2 Noes: Commissoners Shaheen, Baker and Le Jeune. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Pontlous seconded to approve Use Permit 88-14 authorizing installation of a 25 foot high, 78 square foot, channel lettered freeway identification pole sign by the adoption of Resolution No. 2524 with the deletion of Item I.C.4. Motion carried 3-2 Noes: Well and Le Jeune. Commissioner Baker introduced and welcomed Edmund Shaheen, the newly appointed Planning Commissioner to the Commission and noted that he felt Mr. Shaheen will add a lot of spirit to the Planning Commission. 5. Use Permit 88-20 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: WINSTON TIRE COMPANY 900 W. ALAMEDA BURBANK, CA 91506 WINSTON TIRE COMPANY 900 W. ALAMEDA BURBANK, CA 91506 621 WEST FIRST STREET AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FIRST STREET AND YORBA STREET. COMMERCIAL GENERAL-PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CG-PUD) - FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT TO PERMIT THE REMODELING OF AN EXISTING BUILDING TO BE USED FOR TIRE SALES AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE. Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1988 Page six Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planntng Commission etther approve Use Permtt 88-20 by adopting Resolution No. 2529 or deny Use Permtt 88-20 by adopting Resolution No. 2529(d). Resolution No. 2529 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO REMODEL AN EXISTING BUILDING TO BE USED FOR TIRE SALES AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FIRST STREET AND YORBA STREET, 621 WEST FIRST STREET. Resolution No. 2529 (d) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN CALIFORNIA, DENYING A USE PERMIT TO REMODEL AN EXISTING BUILDING TO BE USED FOR TIRE SALES AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FIRST STREET AND YORBA STREET, 621 WEST FIRST STREET. Presentation: Ron Reese, Acting Associate Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked what the intended hours of operation were. Staff indicated that the hours of operation were not indicated by the applicant but the Commission could direct the question to the applicant. Commissioner Wetl noted that the Commission had received two letters in opposition and asked staff if any others had been received. The Director indicated that there were none. The public hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m. Dr. N. Victor Eastman III, M.D., owner of 661 W. First Street spoke in opposition of the project due to the impending noise and the inappropriate mix of commercial use. He noted that the staff report was excellent and objective. He also stated that the proposed use would impose an unreasonale impact on his building. He surveyed his neighbors and turned in letters from 46 people comprising of property owners, business owners, tenants, employees and apartment managers that were in opposition of the proposed use. Donna D. Pate, employee of Abigail Abbott, noted her opposition and stated that she felt the use was inappropriate. Robert Campbell, 135 Yorba, spoke in opposition. He noted that he was pleased to see the change around First Street and Yorba and he felt that a tire store was not in keeping with that change, nor was it a positive impact for the Western Neurocare facility. He also noted concern regarding traffic increase, criminal activity and the aesthetics of having a unique entrance to the City along First Street. P]anntng Commission Mtnutes September 12, 1988 Page seven Jacques Hunter, officer of Wtnston Tire Company, addressed the Commission noting that the hours would be 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, closing at 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and remaining open one ntght durtng the week unttl 8:00 p.m. He stated that the store would be closed on Sundays, the repair work would be done tnslde a concrete block building. The type of work that would be done at thts locatton would be tire changes, front end alignment, brakes and shocks. He Indicated that parktng ts a problem and that four months ago, staff had responded that Ftrst Street would be an appropriate location. He stated that Nlnston Tire Store was a clean operation. He asked that the Commission consfder the application. Commissioner Le Jeune asked tf he was made aware of the need to apply for a Conditional Use Permlt at the ttme he ftrst spoke wlth staff. The Director noted that staff was not recommending approval or denial, that the decision is at the discretion of the Commission. Mr. Hunter stated that he felt the report was still negative. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the overhead doors would be closed during the day. Mr. Hunter noted that there would be six to eight bays with doors that would remain open during business hours. Commissioner Well asked Mr. Hunter if staff explained the confines of the First Street Specific Plan to him. Mr. Hunter responded affirmatively. The Director noted that the applicant was told that the application was subject to a CUP. He was also told to modify elevations to eliminate wood trim proposed but retain a mansard roof. Tom Davis, architect for Winston Tire, noted that the first elevation was actually submitted because the original drawings indicated a mansard roof. The applicant is willing to install a mansard. He stated that there was no indication from staff that the recommendation would be negative. The Director again noted that the staff does the evaluation and identifies the issues, however, the Commission has the final discretion. The public hearing was closed at 8:11 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen noted that staff does an objective and good job, the report was unprejudiced. He stated that the building would be excellent for another use but was unsuitable for use as a tire store; office or retail would be more appropriate on that site. Commissioner Wetl noted that she served on the First Street Specific Plan Committee. The Committee's goal was to create an ambiance along First Street and she agreed that Winston Tire would not fit that criteria. Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1988 Page etght Commissioner Le Jeune agreed that the use was Inappropriate. Commissioner Ponttous concurred. Commissioner Baker noted that the idea of the First Street Spectftc Plan was to make an appealing entrance window for Ctty of Tusttn. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Well seconded to deny Use Permtt 88-20 by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2529 (d). Morton carried 5-0. The Dtrector Indicated that there ts a seven day appeal period for a CUP and the applicant will receive a letter explaining the process Including a copy of Resolution No. 2429(d). OLD BUSZNESS Proposed Vacation of a Portton of San Juan Street between Orange Street and Charloma Ortve Recommendation: It ts recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2526 ftndtng that the proposed vacatton of a portton of San Juan Street between Orange Street and Charloma Drive ts tn conformance with the adopted General Plan. Resolution No. 2526: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF SAN JUAN STREET BETWEEN ORANGE STREET AND CHARLOMA DRIVE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development and Ronald E. Wolford, Engineering Services Manager Commissioner Baker asked whether the property would revert back to the City should TUSD sell the school site. Staff indicated that those details were not finalized to date. Lois Jeffrey, Deputy City Attorney, explained that what the Planning Commission was now facing is whether the vacation of San Juan is in conformance with the General Plan. Other issues would be researched by the City Council. The Director indicated that the Planning Commission role under the government code is limited to considering whether the vacation, of a public right of way, is consistent with the General Plan. The City Council will consider all other concerns and evaluate all alternatives and potential impacts after a full public hearing process. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he wanted to see the expansion of E1 Camtno Real, one lane added in each direction, completed prior to the street closure of San Juan and that parking be permitted on San Juan. Commissioner Ponttous noted that she appreciated the summary of the trafic study. Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1988 Page ni ne Commissioner Ponttous moved, Well seconded to find that the proposed vacation of a portion of San Juan Street between Orange Street and Charloma Drive is in conformance with the adopted General Plan by the adoption of Resolution No. 2526. Commissioner Baker asked for clarification of a "thru trip". Terry Austin, Austin Foust and Associates, explained that a "thru trip" is a trip made by someone that goes thru the area but doesn't live in an adjacent neighborhood. "Thru trips" are candidates for diverting, as well as where the trips go and how the trips will effect the surrounding area. Commissioner Baker questioned the study regarding Bryan Avenue between Red Hill and Newport as already being four lanes. Mr. Austin noted that the area of Bryan Avenue in question is located in a residential area but is considered a four lane secondary arterial. Commissioner Baker questioned the timing of the traffic study citing that Bryan was closed in the East Tustin area and thru traffic had already found alternative routes. He felt that now that Bryan is opened and completed, the closing of San Juan will place an undue traffic burden on the Bryan Avenue area. He also suggested that E1 Camino Real be completed as a four lane roadway and be placed in use prior to the vacation of San Juan Street. Motion carried 5-0. NEW BUSINESS 7. Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (OCHWMP) Recommendation: Receive and file. Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Senior Planner The Director praised Laura Pickup for her leadership in this role and David Marcum for tnitiatially involving the City. No Planning Commission necessary. 8. Review of Conditions Placed on Use Permits and Variances Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare the necessary back-up information and resolutions for the preferred action alternative(s). Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Senior Planner The Director noted that in accordance with procedures, the case planner will check the discretionary approval and finalize the project prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1988 Page ten After some discussion between the Commissioners and staff clarifying compliance measures the Commission directed staff to recognize when a sensitive issue is likely to occur and write the standard condition language for that use and if the Commission feels there are more conditions necessary, they should add them at their discretion. STAFF CONCERNS 9. Report on Actions Taken at the September 6, 1988 City Council Meeting Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development No Commission action necessary COMMISSION COMCER#S Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a date for a Sign Code Workshop. Commissioner Ponttous asked if there was anything that the City could do regarding directional lighting at the corner of Red Hill and Nisson. Commissioner Shaheen noted that he felt that being on the Commission would be very interesting. ADdOURI~ENT At 9:50 Commissioner Pontlous moved, Le Jeune seconded to adjourn the meeting to a special meeting time to be announced. Motion carried 5-0. Penni Foley Secretary Chairman