Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-25-88MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COI~MISSION REGULAR lqEETING APRIL 25, 1988 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Puckett, Well, Baker, Le Jeune Absent: Ponttous (excused) 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 April 11, 1988 Planning) Commission meeting) 2. Time Extension for Tentative Tract Map 12719 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE BREN COMPANY EAST OF BROWNING BETWEEN I-5 FREEWAY AND BRYAN AVENUE - LOT 8 OF TRACT 12345, PHASE I RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN PHASE I RESIDENTIAL THE PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (84-3) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN PHASE I RESIDENTIAL. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 12719 TO AUGUST 4, 1989. Recommendatt on: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve a time extension for Tentative Tract 12719, by adoption of Resolution No. 2491, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1988 Page two 3. Final Map 12870 (Sector Map for Sectors 7, 8 and 9) APPLICANT: LOCATION: THE IRVINE COMPANY ROUGHLY BOUNDED BY JAMBOREE ROAD TO THE EAST, IRVINE BOULEVARD TO THE SOUTH, EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST, AND PORTOLA PARKWAY AND SECTOR 6 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE NORTH ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MINISTERIAL PROJECT SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFIC LAND SPECIFIC PLAN 634.14 ACRES OF LAND PROVIDING FOR USES PURSUANT TO THE EAST TUSTIN Re comme nda ti on: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Counctl approval of Final Map 12870 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2492 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Puckett seconded to approve consent calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-4 - Cultural Resources District Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review proposed modifications to Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-4 and adopt Resolution No. 2481 recommending the proposed changes to the City Council. Presentation: Christine Shlngleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Weil asked for a definition of "natural feature". The Director noted that criteria set out by the Ordinance must be met in order to designate a feature as "natural" The public hearing was opened at 7:41 p.m. Richard Vtnin~, 400 W. Main Street, noted that the staff reports are always complete and comprehensive. He indicated that previous comments have been addressed. He stated that the Ordinance makes it possible for the historic sites to meet State guidelines and would help finance bringing these sites up to State codes. He noted that it is the practical aspects that are really important; the trees are important, but not an overriding issue. He also indicated that the purposes of the Ordinance and the by-laws of the Historical Society were the same, they both want to enhance the area. He felt that the Cultural Resource District is a practical way for people to reinvest and enhance downtown Tustin. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1988 Page three John Sauers, 515 S. Pacific, indicated that the Ordinance dealt with community pride and recognition. He noted that the downtown historical area is known throughout Southern California. Sally Vlnin9, 400 W. Main Street, noted that the Federal government has been committed to historical preservation since 1968, that the Supreme Court upheld a local government's right to designate historic landmarks; that design review guidelines that are adopted are permissible and not considered a taking of property. She indicated that she wanted the City Council to appoint a seven member Advisory Committee. She also noted that the State Historical Building Codes would be in effect if a District was designated along with a 20% investment tax credit. Margaret Greinke, 230 S. "A" Street, noted that she thought it is a good idea to establish boundaries, but other rules and regulations are not needed. She also questioned page 15, item K of the Ordinance, stating that it should be up to the property owner to determine what is "good repair". The public hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked staff if any comments had been received from the residents north of First Street, if there was any available assistance for the people on Pasadena that have to relocate and wanted clarification that there were no fees involved in the historic designation process. The Director responded that there had been no response from the property owners north of First Street since the public hearing was sent; that if any assistance was made available to the residents of Pasadena for future relocation it would be up to Caltrans; and there are no fees for the Cultural Resource District's processing including appeals. Commissioner Puckett asked how the City could enforce "in good repair" and if there were many code enforcement complaints from the area. The Director noted that the City Code has a nuisance ordinance that is written as a general standard. She stated that enforcement under the Ordinance would be the same as anywhere else in the City, due to the existing nuisance ordinance. The City has not had an overabundance of complaints in the old town area, only an occassional yard clean-up. Commissioner Baker clarified with the Director that the Ordinance wouldn't really effect anyone unless they are subdividing their lots. Commissioner Well asked for clarification regarding the Ordinance on page 8, item 5; page 11, item 3, and if the Historical Structural Code was different from the Uniform Building Code. The Director noted page 10, section I,l,a indicates that a Certificate of Appropriateness will not be issued unless "The structure/site is a hazard to public health or safety and repairs or stabilization are not physically possible. Also, the state code requires that by 1990 all unreinforced masonry structures must be reinforced. She also noted that Community Development Block Grant funds will be made available to financially aid these upgrades. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1988 Page four Commissioner Wetl asked if City Council had done a historical resource inventory. The Director noted that City Council has hired 30th Street Architects to do a summary of historic sites and to review the criteria for a designated site. She also noted that in order to obtain any government funding the District must be in place and the local inventory must be completed to obtain Federal designation. Commissioner Baker asked how a member of the advisory committee could be removed. The Director responded that the appointments to the Advisory Committee were at the pleasure of the City Council and could be easily removed. Commissioner Well noted that if the Committee was increased from five to seven it would be more complicated. The other Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Baker asked if the Advisory Committee would be receiving their legal advice from the City Attorney's office. The Director noted that staffing was not yet clearly defined. She added that the Advisory Committee would fall under the restrictions of the Brown Act. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Commission could be advised of any actions on developments taken by the Director since they would not be issuing the Certificates of Appropriateness. The Director noted that the Commission would be receiving copies of the certificates. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Puckett seconded to recommend to City Council the proposed changes to Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 87-4 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2481. Motion carried 4-0 5. Use Permit 88-6 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CAMELOT RESTAURANTS, INC. 601 PROMOTORY DRIVE EAST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CHELSEA'S CAFE 3355 VIA LIDO, SUITE 205 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 1481 EDINGER STREET, AT RED HILL AVENUE M - INDUSTRIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1 AUTHORIZATION TO SELL GENERAL LIQUOR CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT USE FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION IN Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 88-6 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2489. Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Acting Senior Planner Planning Commission Minutes Apr11 25, 1988 Page five The publtc hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m. George Rtstlch owner of Che]sea's Cafe asked that the opening time be changed to 6:00 a.m. Staff confirmed that the resolution did not specify hours of operation. The public hearing was closed at 8:21 p.m. Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to approve Use Permit 88-6 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2489. Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS o Design Review 87-37 - Clarification on Miscellaneous Site and Building Design Issues for Phase I of the Tustin Market Place APPLICANTS: LOCATION: DONAHUE SCHRIBER ON BEHALF OF THE IRVINE CO. 3200 BRISTOL, SUITE 660 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 LEASON POMEROY ASSOCIATES 44 PLAZA SQUARE ORANGE, CA 92666 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BRYAN AVENUE AND JAMBOREE ROAD REQUEST: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: RESOLUTION OF ISSUES RELATING TO PROPOSED COLORS AND/OR MATERIALS FOR VARIOUS SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN FEATURES. N/A Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the identified issues and provide input and direction to staff by Minute Order. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner Commissioner Baker asked if there were minutes of the meetings where these things were discussed. Staff responded that these discussions had taken place either at the architects office or in an informal workshop that were not recorded. Tom Schrtber, representing Donahue Schrtber, spoke noting dismay at the differences of opt6ton as to what had been agreed to. He indicated that the developer wanted to make the light towers, entry doors and sign bands off white along with the window framing. He added that the amount of accent color is within 2% of what was approved. Leason Pomero¥, architect for the project, agreed with Mr. Schriber, noting the family of white aluminum bollards, light towers, sign bands and door frames. The Commissioners questioned the following items: the materials used on the light towers, size, color, construction material, whether materials would be durable and 1 ow mai ntenance. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1988 Page six Mr. Pomero¥ noted that the light towers would be 20 square feet at the base, the bottom 10 feet would be solid concrete, the remainder would be made up of 5 1/2 feet by 3 1/2 foot wide aluminum panels in an off-white in color that would be maintained simply by washing. Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to approve the concept of 90 foot high light towers to be sheathed in aluminum and painted off-white. Motion carried 4-0. The Commissioners questioned the following regarding the light bollards: construction materials, accessibility to vandalism, maintenance, and warping. size, Mr. Pomeroy noted that the bollard lights were lower than the light towers and square. They would be 10 feet tall and 30 inches square, the bottom 3 feet would be concrete, the remainder would be aluminum with a lid over the light, vented on the sides, not prone to vandalism. Commissioner Well noted that the Irvtne Company is responsible for the maintenance of their sites and has a high maintenance standard. Commissioner Baker noted concern that the lights located in the oasis in front of the l~rger buildings, creating a wall, should not cause the public to walk in the street to avoid the lights. The Director noted what Commissioner Baker was referring to on the plans were actually pots and that the applicant has agreed to work with staff to create a more compatible pedestrian circulation pattern. Commissioners Puckett, Baker and Le Jeune noted concern about the color of the bases of the tower. The Commission unanimously moved to approve, by minute order, the concept of metal bollard lights painted off-white and oasis lights to be concrete near the base and off-white metal above the base. The Commissioners discussed the color of the sign bands. Tom Schrtber indicated that he hoped to return within two weeks with the sign program for the project. The Commission unanimously moved to approve, by minute order, the concept of off-white aluminum sign bands for mini-tenant store fronts above windows only, delaying any approval of sign bands proposed between columns for mini-major stores until review and approval of a master sign program. Leason Pomeroy noted that the only metal on the store fronts is the 6 inch square tube door frames and the bulk heads. The proposed color for the metal areas is off-white. Commissioners Baker and Le Jeune agreed that the bulkhead should be darker. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1988 Page seven Tom Schrlber indicated that the bulk head could be natural concrete. Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded, by minute order, to disapprove bulk head at base of tenant shops being painted off-white, requested that the bulk head be either a natural concrete, similar to adjacent sidewalk area or in a base or accent color. Motion carried 4-0. The Commission unanimously moved to approve, by minute order, the use of off-white entry doors on storefronts. At 9:30 p.m. the Commission called a 15 minute break to examine the model more thoroughly. The meeting was reconvened at 9:45 p.m. The Commissioners noted concerns regarding: the number of colors to be used; the intensity of those colors; that they felt that these colors do not coordinate with the Tustin Ranch concept; the color of the exterior walls; and the use of red on the columns. Commissioner Well asked what alternative the City has if the colors are not acceptable once they are applied. The Director indicated that there was no recourse except the developer's goodwill. Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to approve, b) minute order, the proposed amount of accent colors to be used on building front elevations and reinforced approval of previous accent colors. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to, by minute order, deny the proposed use of a new introduced color (red) for application on columns for Home Express. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Well noted her strong feeling that the walls along I-5 and Jamboree and the pickets along Jamboree should be a base color. Commissioner Baker agreed including that the monolithe sign should also be a base color. Commissioner Puckett asked why a pink wall is being proposed. Mr. Pomero¥ stated that he wanted to indicate to travelers that this is a major regional center, not just a brown project. He agrued strongly for the pink wall and the purple monolithe sign. Mr. Schriber noted that the entry statement of the project is critical. Mr. Pomero¥ asked that the Commission wait for the graphics package due to be released in two weeks, before making any color decisions. He did not want the project to look like an industrial park. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1988 Page eight Commissioner Weil asked if a split rail fence could be used following the Tustin Ranch theme. The Director noted that the Specific Plan requires a masonry wall along the freeway. Commissioner Baker noted that he would like an off-white wall with a brick cap. Mr. Pomero¥ responded that the brick wall would not fit into this center. He reiterated that the Commission needed to look at the walls and colors along with the graphics package. Mr. Meyers indicated that waiting would be suitable only if it would not stand in the way of their obtaining building permits. The Director indicated that it would not be a problem. The Commission unanimously moved to, by minute order, delay decision on any color approvals for perimeter walls including picket fences, columns and entry treatments until master sign plan decision. NEW BUSINESS STAFF CONCER#S 7. Report on Actions taken by City Council at their April 18, 1988 meeting Presentation: Christine Shlngleton, Director of Community Development No Commission action necessary. C0MMISSIOM CONCERNS Commissioner Puckett asked whether the insurance issue on the Kart Racing proposal had been resolved. Commissioner Baker inquired whether a better program for approval or design of paseo's had come along. Commissioner Le Jeune commented that in dealing with requirements for outdoor dining, staff should look at outside umbrellas in patio areas (colors, advertising, etc.). Commissioner Le Jeune inquired about the status of Steelcase's request for above ground tanks. ADJOURI~ENT At 10:25 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Puckett seconded to adjourn to a scheduled Training Session on May 9, 1988 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers Conference Room prior to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. ley Secretary Chairma~i