Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-11-88MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING &uly 11, 1988 CALL TO OROER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCA'I:ION ROLL CALL: Present: Puckett, Wetl, Baker, Le Jeune Absent: Pontious PUBLXC 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. Mr. Joseph Crtsterna, 14521 Alder Lane, asked, regarding the possible purchase of right-of-way behind the Peppertree tract, if a property owner did not wish to purchase the land behind his home, would the possibility exist for his neighbors to purchase that land. The Director noted that this subject was scheduled for tonights agenda, however the Irvine Company has asked for more time to further analyze the situation. 1. Reorganization of the Commission Commissioner Wetl opened nominations for the Chairman of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Le Jeune nominated Commissioner Baker, Commissioner Puckett seconded the nomination. Nominations were closed. Commissioner Puckett moved, Le Jeune seconded to elect Commissioner Baker as Chairman. Motion carried 4-0. Chairman Baker opened nominations for Chairman Pro-rem of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Wetl nominated Commissioner Pontious, Commissioner Le Jeune seconded the nomination. Nominations were closed. Commissioner Well moved, Le Jeune seconded to elect Commissioner Pontious as Chairman Pro-rem. Motion carried 4-0. CONSENT CALENOAR: (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.) Planntng Commission Mtnutes July 11, 1988 Page two 2. Minutes of the June 27, 1988 Planning Commission meetln~ 3. Final Parcel Map 88-179 APPLICANT: K.W. LAWLER AND ASSOCIATES 2832 WALNUT AVENUE, SUITE A TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE COLLINGS COMPANY COLCO LTD. 17320 RED HILL AVENUE #190 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 SOUTH SIDE OF SEVENTEENTH STREET, APPROXIMATELY 370 FEET EAST OF ENDERLE CENTER WAY. PC-C PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO SUBDIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS. (CLASS 15) FROM THE Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Final Parcel Map 88-179 to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 2514 as submitted or revised. Resolution No. 2514 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 88-179. Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Senior Planner Commissioner Puckett moved, Weil seconded to approve the consent calendar. 6arried 4-0. Motion PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. General Plan Amendment 88-01, Zone Change 88-01 and Tentative Parcel Map ~7-201 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 FREEWAY ACCESS RESERVATION AREA SOUTH OF TUSTIN AUTO CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL 1) 2) 1) 2) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-01 AND ZONE CHANGE 88-01: AN ADDENDUM TO EIR 84-2 HAS BEEN PREPARED. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 87-201: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 15. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-01: TO RECLASSIFY THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE GENERAL PLAN MAP FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY TO PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROJECT AREA. ZONE CHANGE 88-01: TO REZONE THE PROJECT AREA FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL TO PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL. Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 1988 Page three 3) TENTATIVE MAP: TO RECONFIGURE TWO EXISTING PARCELS TO CREATE TWO POTENTIAL DEALERSHIP DEVELOPMENT SITES. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning approval to the City Council of: Commission recommend Draft addendum to Tusttn Auto Center EIR 84-2 by adoption of Resolution 2510; General Plan Amendment 88-01 by adoption of Resolution 2511; Zone Change 88-01 by adoption of Resolution 2512; and Tentative Parcel Map 87-201 by adoption of Resolution 2513. Resolution No. 2510 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR 84-2 AND ADDENDUM AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. Resolution No. 2511 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE LAND USEMAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR AN AREA BOUNDED BY THE I-5 FREEWAY, TUSTIN RANCH ROAD, THE EXISTING SOUTHERLY BORDER Resolution No. 2512 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING REZONING OF AN AREA BOUNDED BY THE 1-5 FREEWAY, TUSTIN RANCH ROAD, THE EXISTING SOUTHERLY BORDER OF THE AUTO CENTER, AND WEST OF THE EL MODENA CHANNEL, FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY TO PLANNED COMMUNITY/COMMERCIAL AND INCLUDING THE INCORPORATION OF PLANNED COMMUNITY REGULATIONS KNOWN AS THE EAST TUSTIN AUTO CENTER. Resolution No. 2513 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 87-201 LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE I-5 FREEWAY, EAST OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD, SOUTH OF THE EXISTING SOUTHERLY BORDER OF THE AUTO CENTER, AND WEST OF THE EL MODENA CHANNEL. Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Senior Planner Staff added the following condition to Resolution No. 2513, Exhibit A, Page four: "6.6 Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 87-201 shall be conditional upon City Council approval of Zone Change 88-01. Should the City Council fail to approve Zone Change 88-01 Tentative Parcel Map 87-201 approval shall become null and void." Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Tusttn Ranch Road overpass was going to be built. Staff responded that the overpass is currently in the plan check process and the design has been finalized. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if this was a new EIR. Staff responded that the new lot is subject to the same conditions applicable to all Planntng Commission Mtnutes July 11, 1988 Page four Auto Dealership lots in the area. Commissioner Weil commended staff on a good job and a very detailed report. Commissioner Puckett also commended staff and asked if there was a major benefit to a full cloverleaf. The Director noted that the traffic analysis has indicated a different demand then was originally proposed warranting only a partial cloverleaf design on the interchange. Commissioner Baker asked if staff had seen any plans of the bridge configuration and if it is known how far the ramp is going to obstruct. Staff noted that all bridge configurations have been designed to fit around the slope and overpass. Commissioner Baker asked if the walls along the freeway would be replaced. Staff indicated that the new lot will have a new wall with a landscaped buffer on the freeway side. The public hearing was opened at 7:23 p.m. Dan Mispagel, representing the Irvine Co,any, noted that the applicant concurred fully with staff's report and recommendation for Planning Commission approval and would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have. The public hearing was closed at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the plans for the dealership will be brought before the Commission. Staff noted that the dealership is subject to the Design Review process and only the approval of the Director of Community Development. Commissioner Le Jeune asked how banners would be handled. Staff indicated that any banner problems could be pursued through normal code enforcement procedures. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there was a conditional use permit issued for the loudspeakers. Staff noted that the issue of loudspeakers was very carefully considered and that there is joint use of the paging and loudspeaker systems. These systems are inspected and tested for noise levels and staff is working with the applicant. Commissioner Puckett asked if there had been any complaints registered regarding the noise levels. Staff responded that they were not aware of any complaints. Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 1988 Page five Commissioner Puckett moved, Wetl seconded to recommend approval of draft addendum to the Tustin Auto Center EIR 84-2 to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 2510. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Well moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 88-01 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2511. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Puckett moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend approval to the City Counctl of Zone Change 88-01 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2512. Morton carried 4-0. Commissioner Well moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 87-201 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2513 with one minor revision. Motion carried 4-0. Conditional Use Permit for a Master Sign Program for the Tusttn Market Place; and an Amendment to Design Review 87-37, for the Design Review for the project, on the Landscape Concept for the Entertainment Village and for the storefront glazing. APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: DONAHUE SCHRIBER ON BEHALF OF THE IRVINE COMPANY 3200 BRISTOL, SUITE 660 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 SUSSMAN/PREJZA & COMPANY, INC. 1651 18TH STREET SANTA MONICA, CA 90404 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BRYAN AVENUE & JAMBOREE ROAD APPROVAL OF A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE AND A REVISION TO THE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT VILLAGE (FROM CANOPY TO PALM TREES) AND ALSO A MODIFICATION TO THE STOREFRONT GLAZING STANDARD (FROM GREY TO CLEAR GLASS). CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CLASS 3) Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2516, approving a master sign program for the Tustin Market Place and amendments to Design Review 87-37 as it affects the landscape concept for the Entertainment Village and the storefront glazing standard. Resolution No. 2516 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-15 FOR A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE AND AMENDING DESIGN REVIEW 87-37, REVISING THE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT VILLAGE AND THE STOREFRONT GLAZING STANDARDS Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Senior Planner Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 1988 Page six Commissioner Le Jeune asked for more information regarding window signage. Staff noted that the sign program does not allow window signs except for a sign noting store hours which is restricted to 144 square inches. Commissioner Le Jeune asked who approves the signs. Staff responded that signs are approved by the Community Development Department. Commissioner Wetl asked for clarification on the tower signs. Staff responded that the 35' buildings have one tower per building and they are allowed two signs per tower facing different directions with a total of 260 square feet for each sign face. Staff also indicated that there will be no signage on the back side of the tower or on the back of the buildings. One sign would face the parking lot and the other would face Jamboree Road with nothing facing the freeway. Commissioner Baker noting concern with reflections, asked what type of coating would be applied to the aluminum cabinets. Staff indicated that there will be a spray on "stucco texture look" coat on the freeway pylons, monolithes and directional signs that will mimic the stucco texture that is on the walls in a flat color. Commissioner Baker asked for more information regarding the neon signage in the Entertainment Village. Staff indicated that neon can only be within the letters of the sign. It was also noted that the design of the Entertainment Village will be brought back to the Planning Commission at a later date. Commissioner Baker noted concern about the 50 foot monolithe and the 15 foot tall yellow concrete pickets along Jamboree Road. He asked if the colors along Jamboree would be up to the developer. Staff noted that a low three foot screen wall along Jamboree in the same base color as the monolithe was also discussed and that the yellow color was already approved to be appropriate by the Commission. There will also be bougainvillas planted along the base of the 15 foot pickets and along the monolithe. Commissioner Baker asked if the 14 foot directional sign along E1 Camino Real could name tenants. Staff responded that the directional sign would name tenants and point to their direction. The public hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. Glenn Myers, of Donahue Schrtber representing the Irvine Company indicated that he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission had. Planntng Commission Minutes July 11, 1988 Page seven Commissioner Well noted her appreciation to Donahue Schrtber for the change in the perimeter wall color and for the time spent with the Planning Commission on the workshops. Commissioner Puckett noted that he was concerned when the project was first brought to the Commission, however, now that the project is in construction he felt that the colors are lost in the size of the project. The public hearing was closed at 8:07 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that there have been some positive changes since the beginning of the project and that he felt that the project will work out very well. Commissioner Baker asked if number 8 of Resolution No. 2516 was standard wording. Staff indicated that it is standard wording and that signs must be approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Baker reiterated his concern regarding the yellow 15 foot pickets and the 14 foot high tenant identification sign along E1Camino Real. Commissioner Well moved, Puckett seconded to approve the Master Sign Program for the Tustin Market Place, amend Design Review 87-37 as it affects the landscape concept for the Entertainment Village and amend the storefront glazing standards by the adoption of Resolution No. 2516. Motion caried 4-0. OLO BUSINESS 6. Abandoned Right-of-Way Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue their discussion on this matter for 60 days. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Well moved, Puckett seconded to continue the issue of the abandoned right-of-way. Motion carried 4-0. 7. Design Review No. 88-13 APPLICANT: DADDY-O'S RESTAURANT PAUL MARTINO 174 E. MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 OWNER: LOCATION: JOHNSTOWN AMERICAN 23201 LAKE CENTER DRIVE EL TORO, CA 92630 174 E. MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 1988 Page eight ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: C-2 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 1 AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL EXPOSED NEON TUBING RESTAURANT BUILDING LOCATED AT 174 E. MAIN STREET. ON AN EXISTING Recommendation: Deny the request for the use of exposed neon tubing by the adoption of Resolution No. 2517. Resolution No. 2517 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING THE REQUEST FOR THE USE OF EXPOSED NEON TUBING AT 174 E. MAIN STREET Presentation: Christine Shlngleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Well indicated that her concern was with consistency in the signs around the City. She noted two existing neon signs; a dry cleaners and Ruby's. The Director indicated that those signs were either pre-existing or were inside of windows which neither would require a building permit. A sign that was installed on the outside of the building would need a building permit. Commissioner Well asked if these existing signs in the downtown area posed a legal problem and noted concern that there was inconsistency. Clark Ide, representing the City Attorney's office responded that these existing signs can not be legally affected. He stated that as long as the Planning Commission's actions were consistent there were no legal problems. The Director noted that the E1Camino Real Specific Plan states that the signage must be compatible and complementary to the village identification, that signs shall be of uniform size, color and style. Staff does not believe that the use of neon in this particular case, at this particular location given its surroundings is compatible with the statement. Ruby's sign is currently not operational. Commissioner Baker indicated that he liked the sign that is in place currently. Commissioner Wetl moved, Puckett seconded to deny the request for the use of exposed neon tubing by the adoption of' Resolution No. 2517 with the following revision: Item I. B. 2. will read "2. The E1 Camino Real Specific Plan which is currently in place states that signs shall be of uniform size, color and style while being compatible with and complimentary to the village identification. The recently adopted Cultural Resources District also requires a finding of compatibility with surrounding properties. The proposed neon sign is inconsistent with this surrounding environment." Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Well stated that she felt more comfortable finding that the sign is incompatible with the design of the downtown area. Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 1988 Page nl ne 8. Rancho Maderas APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: WESTERN NATIONAL PROPERTIES 630 THE CITY DRIVE SOUTH ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92668 LOT 14, TRACT 12763 MODIFICATION TO DESIGN REVIEW 87-32 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2515 approving exterior architectural revisions to the Rancho Maderas project originally approved by Destgn Review 87-32 as submitted or revised. Resolution No. 2515 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING EXTERIOR BUILDING MODIFICATIONS TO DESIGN REVIEW 87-32 A 266 UNIT PROJECT LOCATED ON LOT 14 OF TRACT 12763 Presentation: Christine Shlngleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Well asked if the colors will remain the same and if the exterior would require more maintenance. Kevtn Pohlson, representing Western National Properties noted that the colors would remat~ the same and the owners and managers of the property want to keep the project maintenance at a minimum. Commissioner Puckett moved, Well seconded to approve exterior architectural revisions to Design Review 87-32 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2515. Motion carried 4-0. STAFF CONCERNS 9. Report on City Council Actions taken at July 5, 1988 meeting Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development No Planning Commission action necessary. COI~ISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Le Jeune noted that all of the palm trees along Main Street had been trimmed except for the ones in front of Steven's Square. Commissioner Wet1 asked if staff had received any feedback from SCAG regarding their 90 day appeal period. The Director noted that there would be a workshop the following week and asked if any of the Commissioners were interested in attending. Commissioner Wet1 Indicated that she would ltke to attend. Commissioner Puckett complimented Commissioner Well on doing a fine job as Chairman. Planntng Commission Minutes July 11, 1988 Page ten Commissioner Baker asked about the status of the house on Red Hill and Garland. Mr. Ide noted that the Issue ts In a legal follow-up and ts obtaining tttle Information. Commissioner Baker also thanked staff for the flne job being done on the F]ood Control channel along Red Ht]] Avenue. The Director noted that there are three single family tracts open in Phase 2, they are Bramalea, Bren-Osgood and J. M. Peters. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what was happening to the piece of property on Irvlne Boulevard between Holt and Newport. The Director noted that staff is expecting to receive a tentative proposal in the near future. Commissioner Le Jeune thanked Commissioner Well for a fine job as Chairman and thanked staff for the copy of the report on the JWA status. ADgOURll4ENT At 8:40 p.m Commissioner Well moved, Puckett seconded to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on July 25, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. Penni Foley Secretary Chairman