Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-11-88MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSIOM REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11, 1988 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Puckett, Wetl, Baker, Le Jeune, Ponttous 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 March 28, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting 2. Final Vesting Map No. 13094 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: REQUEST: BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, INC. LOTS 1,2,D,F,G & H OF TRACT 12763 EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 20.47 ACRE SITE INTO 103 NUMBERED AND FOUR (4) LETTERED LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Final Vesting Map 13094 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2486, as submitted or revised. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Pontlous seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING e Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-4 Cultural Resources District Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on this matter until April 25, 1988. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1988 Page two The public hearing was opened at 7:37 p.m. Mr. Frank Greinke, 230 S. "A" Street, noted his concerns with the language of the March 28th draft of the Ordinance. He stated that he was more in favor of an Overlay Center run by the neighborhood rather than a District which would bring the City government into the picture. He noted the following areas of the Ordinance that he felt contained potential problems: E-l, E-5, E-7, I-1.4, K and Section 3. Commissioner Baker asked what the difference was between a District and a Center. Mr. Grelnke noted that a center indicated that the neighbors could do their own thing and a District indicated governmental authority . Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to continue the public hearing on this matter to the April 25, 1988 Planning C6mmission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Use Permit 88-3 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: RANDY WOLFE/RICHARD MAIDEN ON BEHALF OF SOUTH COAST CHRISTIAN CENTER, INC. JUNE PERFIT 193 EAST MAIN STREET CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-2); EL CAMINO REAL SPECIFIC PLAN NEGATIVE DECLARATION AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A CHURCH USE Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Use Permit 88-3 by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2476. Presentation: Christine Shlngleton, Director of Community Development The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Randy Wolf, 17891 Norwood Park, stated that they had not been meeting in the building since they promissed the Planning Commission they would not. He indicated that he had called the Police Department and was told that there was no need for a permit to meet in the parking lot. Mr. Phillip Cox, indicated that he owns a parking lot within 300 feet of the proposed church located at 405 and 415 E1Camino Real and 120, 130, 140 and 150 Main Street. He stated that he welcomes the use of the parking lot by the church and has given his permission for that use. Mr. Larry Pierce, 8 Amberwood, Irvine, indicated that he was working on obtaining a long term lease of 28 parking spaces at the corner of E1 Camino Real and Second Street and another 35 parking spaces at another location. He indicated that he had very positive responses. Commissioner Wetl asked Mr. Pierce to contact the City when those leases were firm. Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1988 Page three Mike Ralston, 14721 Livingston Road, indicated that the application was for offices, retail and training center, not a church use. He noted that the bookstore would enhance the Old Town area and to comply with the E1 Camino Real Specific Plan. He indicated that the the Sunday morning (10 to 12) assembly was for purposes of organized worship and training sessions, that it was not a church. He agrued that the Christian training was a B-2 occupancy use and not an A.3 use which a church would fall into, as the Building Official stated. Mr. Milford Hack, stated that he was a Christian lawyer, retained by South Coast Christian Center, concerned about the classification definitions, and indicated he felt there was discrimination involved. He had concerns that the Building Official reflected inaccurate definitions. Commissioner Well asked him to read the document that had these definitions (the Building Official's memo dated April 5, lg88 to Christine Shingleton) Mr. Hack read the pages one and two of the memo (attached). Mr. Ralston, noted that all of the statements are true if the occupancy use is A-3. They intend to be a B-2 use. Mr. Hack, stated that the assupmtion is based on a zone change from B-2 to A-3, and that they are 1/3 office, 1/3 bookstore and 1/3 worship training. He stated that they did not need an A-3 occupancy. Commissioner Well asked Lloyd Dick, Building Official to respond. Lloyd Dick gave a brief presentation noting that the plans were reviewed with the Fire Department and that the main concern is life safety. The definitions are those of the Uniform Building Code or Webster's Dictionary. The Building Code determines that the occupancy load is determined by the square footage of the building not the use of the building. Commissioner Puckett asked if the issue was that the building is just not safe. Mr. Dick noted that the masonry is an issue for anyone using that building. The Director noted that there is no argument against retail or office use. However, an intended assembly use is different. She also noted that at the last meeting the applicant predicted at least 100 persons assembling at this location for worship services. Upon a resubmission of plans with the inclusion of general notes applicant had revised plans to show less people so that they could argue that building improvements would not have to be made. Mr. Dick noted that the building did not have adequate exiting for an assembly usage. Commissioner Wetl asked what the Fire Department's opinion was regarding the requirement of sprinkler systems. Mr. Dick noted that the Fire Department interpretation of the use was the same as the Uniform Building Code; A-4 that an A-3 occupancy usage would require a sprinkler system. Planntng Commission Minutes Apr11 11, 1988 Page four The Director interjected that the information that the Commission has been provided with by staff indicates an A-3 occupancy determination. The Building Code does not have a variance procedure. The Building Official and the Fire Department do not feel comfortable allowing an assembly usage in a B-2 occupancy. It is up to the Building Official to determine the occupancy classification of a building, not the applicant. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Commission has the authority to change a decision based upon the building code. Lois Jeffrey, Deputy City Attorney, noted that the City has adopted the Uniform Building Code as a part of the City Code. The Building Official determines the codes and discretionary authority is vested in him. Mr. Ralston, noted that the Building Official is allowed to determine if the occupancy use has changed. He suggested that they could occupy the building and as soon as they exceeded the limits of the UBC the Building Official could require that the necessary structural changes be made and the sprinkler system be installed. But as of now, he felt that they were meeting the B-2 requirements. Commissioner Well questioned if Mr. Ralston was an attorney. Mr. Ralston said that he was not an attorney, that he was in the development business. He conceded that there would be 50 people attending the services, which will require the installation of sprinkler systems. He suggested that they could occupy the building as a B-2 usage until there were more than 50 people, then possibly move the meetings to another location. He stated that they will operate in accordance with a B-2 occupancy and they will be in accordance with the Old Town Theme. The public hearing was closed at 8:40 p.m. Lois Jeffrey, Deputy City Attorney, responded to the Commission that it is not the number of people but the square footage that would allow more than 50 people. The potential for one person per every 7 square feet (that area is in excess of 1900 square feet) would actually allow in excess of 270 people to occupy that building. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the first application was to hold services for 100 people. He thought that if a pastor was running it, it was a church. He was not willing to overrule the building department on classification designations. Commissioner Baker agreed, noting that in general comments the applicant indicated that they had 17 existing parking spaces. They were also entering into agreements for an additional 43 parking spaces which would provide parking for approximately 180 people. He wondered what the difference between church services and organized worship training was. Commissioner Ponttuos noted that she had no problem with the retail or general office at that location, however, she did have problems with the assembly use. Commissioner Puckett noted that this was a difficult matter, he would like to see the establishmnent and success of the church but it was in an inq)roper location. Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1988 Page five Commissioner Baker noted that a retail occupancy would be great at this location, but he wished that the building were in better shape. Commissioner Wetl agreed with all of the Commlstoners noting that the Commission has great respect for and must rely on their own experts such as the Building Official and the Fire Department. She indicated that she thought the applicant felt prejudiced. She assured South Coast Christian Center that there was absolutely no prejudice as far as the City is concerned. The issue is public safety. Pastor Wolf noted that he is a teacher of Algebra and Bible, that his students call him Pastor when he teaches Bible and chapel. Commlssoner Le Jeune moved, Pontlous seconded to deny Use Permit 88-3 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2476. Motion carried 5-0. Environmental Impact Report 88-01, Conditional Use Permit 88-01 apd. Design ~view 88-10 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DESIGN REVIEW 88-10 APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: CONTINENTAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS P.O. BOX 715 MECHANICSBERG, PA 17055 LOCATION: ZONING: 88-01, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-01 165 N. MYRTLE AVENUE AND 14581YORBA STREET ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (P & I) AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE - YORBA STREET SPECIFIC PLAN REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION: 1. e AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR USE PERMIT 88-01 AND DESIGN REVIEW 88-10. AUTHORIZATION TO PERMIT: 1. CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED HOSPITAL BUILDING OF 56,000 SQUARE FEET WITH A TWO (2) STORY UNDERGROUND PARKING STRUCTURE TO INCLUDE 40 NEW BEDS AND APPROXIMATELY 9,750 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE; AND 2. REMODELING OF AN EXISTING 17,180 SQUARE FOOT 57 BED HOSPITAL FACILITY TO MATCH THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURE OF THE 56,000 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL BUILDING. It is recommended that the Planning Commission: Certify Final Environmental Impact Report 88-01 by the adoption of Resolution 2485 as submitted or revised. Approve Use Permit 88-01 by the adoption of Resolution 2484 as submitted or revised. Approve Design Review 88-10 by the adoption of Resolution 2483 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Acting Senior Planner Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1988 Page six Commissioner Baker noted that his main concern was traffic. Commissioner Weil asked why the oxygen tank was enclosed. Staff noted that the tank was not a volatile type. The tank must be stored on a concrete base, to protect the tank from being bumped by cars and trucks and for aesthetics the enclosure was built around it. The public hearing was opened at 9:03 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 9:04 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune said it was a terrific project. Commissioner Well asked that on Resolution No. 2484, Exhibit A, Page three, 3.1 be worded to read: "Should any complaints of noise exceeding the requirements of the Tustin Noise Ordinance be received, the developer shall be required to install muffling equipment which reduces construction related noise to levels in conformance with the Tustin Noise Ordinance." The Director also noted that Resolution No. 2485, Exhibit A, Page 2, Paragraph 5 be changed to reflect that same wording. Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to certify Final Environmental Impact Report 88-01 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2485 as revised. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Ponttous seconded to approve Use Permit 88-01 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2484 as revised. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Baker seconded to approve Design Review 88-10 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2483 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Use Permit 88-9 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92660-9959 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JAMBOREE ROAD AND IRVINE BOULEVARD PORTION OF LOT 13, TRACT 12763 EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN FILED FOR THIS PROJECT ACCORDING TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT TO INSTALL A HOME FINDING CENTER ON LOT 13 OF TRACT 12763 OF EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT Re comme nda tt on: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 88-9 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2487. Presentation: Christine Shlngleton, Director of Community Development Planning Commission Minutes Aprtl 11, 1988 Page seven The Director revised Resolution No. 2487, page 2 to add "C. Final landscaping plans for the perimeter of Lot 13 adjacent to Jamboree Road and Irvine Boulevard shall be subject to approval of the Community Development Director." Items C through 0 should be relettered to D through P. Commissioner Wetl asked why a use permit is being used. The Director responded that this is not a permanent structure. The public hearing was opened at 9:15 p.m. Steve Lefever, representing the Irvine Company, indicated that he was there to answer any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Puckett noted that it was a perfect site and was needed for the East Tusti n area. Commissioner Pontlous added that it will be a positive addition. Commissioner Pontlous moved, Baker seconded to approve Use Permit 88-9 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2487 as revised. Motion carried 5-0. 7. Use Permit 88-7 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: INNOVATIVE GRAPHICS, INC. 833 N. ELM STREET ORANGE, CA 92668 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY 4833 FOUNTAIN AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CA 90029 14511RVINE BOULEVARD AT THE INTERSECTION OF RED HILL AVENUE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PR) CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 11 TO PERMIT MODIFICATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AUTHORIZING PLACEMENT OF A TENANT IDENTIFICATION MONUMENT AND WALL SIGN Recommenda tt on: That the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 88-7 by adoption of Resolution 2479 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Joel Slavtt, Assistant Planner Commissioner Wetl asked if the sign was in the perimeters of the City's Sign Code. Staff responded that there is no specific designation for signs in the P&I area, that it is all done by use permit. Commissioner Wetl asked why the old Conditional Use Permit was not amended. Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1988 Page eight The Director noted that this sign was brought to the Planning Commission as a provision of the past use permits, that any modification of the use or stgnage must be brought before the Planning Commission. The public hearing was opened at 9:22 p.m. Mr. William Earl, 12962 Keith Place, representing approximately 15 homeowners from Keith Pl. and Kenneth Pl. attending the meeting, spoke in opposition of the sign. He recited that the larger sign would attract more people to an already conjested area. He further complained that there were disruptions to the neighborhood regarding parking, noise, usage of the complex 24 hours a day - seven days a week, auto repairs in the parking lot and signage. There was a general discussion between the Commissioners, staff and Mr. Earl regarding the circumstances of the use at this location. Mr. Richard Vining, noted that there were different sign requirements for different usage. He also asked that a standard review period be set up for all use permits to ensure that any neighborhood complaints would be addressed. Dane Cardone, representing Innovative Graphics, Inc., offered to answer any questions regarding the sign. Mr. Earl asked how tall the letters were and what they were made of. Mr. Cardone clarified that the letters "Scientology" were yellow plexiglass and the "L. Ron Hubbard Plaza" were 6" tall satin finished brass. The public hearing was closed at 9:45 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to continue the public hearing on Use Permit 88-7 to the May 23, 1988 meeting. Motion carried 5-0. NEW BUSIMESS 8. Design Review 88-14 APPLICANT: THE IRVINE COMPANY LOCATION: TRACT 12763 OF EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THE PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. REQUEST: APPROVAL OF DESIGN CHANGES FOR PERIMETER BLOCK WALL, TRACT 12763. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Design Review 88-14 by adoption of Resolution No. 2488. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Jay Pierce, representing the Irvine Company offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1988 Page nine Commissioner Ponttous asked what the difference in upkeep of the two walls was. Mr. Pierce noted that there was not a significant change difference. Commissioner Baker asked who would ultimately be responsible for the maintenance. Mr. Pierce stated the Homeowner's Association would be responsible. Commissioner Le Jeune clarified with Mr. Pierce that the main goal was a design change. Commissioner Puckett moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Design Review 88-14 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2488. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS 9. Report on City Council Actions taken at April 4, 1988 meeting Presentation: Christine Shlngleton, Director of Community Development C(]IHISSZON CONCERNS Commissioners Baker and Wetl noted concern regarding the parking situation in the City Hall parking lot. Commissioner Puckett noted concern regarding a vacant house located at Red Hill Avenue and Garland. Commissioner Ponttous noted that she would not be able to attend the April 25, 1988 meeting. AIX)OURI~qENT At 10:05 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Ponttous seconded to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on April 25, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. Morion carried 5-0. Ka th~ Chairman