Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-14-88MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 14, 1988 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Puckett, Le Jeune, Ponttous Absent: Wetl, Baker 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 February 22, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting 2. Final Tract Map 13053 Request: TO SUBDIVIDE 24.359 ACRES INTO 118 NUMBERED AND THREE (3) LETTERED LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Recommenda tt on: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the approval of Final Tract Map 13053 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2478 as submitted or revised. 3. Final Tract Map 13080 Request: AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 14.65 ACRES INTO 100 NUMBERED AND EIGHT (8) LETTERED LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend aproval of Final Tract Map No. 13080 to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2477 as submitted or revised. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Pontious seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 3-0. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1988 Page two PUBLIC HEARING 4. APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: REQUEST: Presentation: Permit to Operate a Large Family Day Care Home BARBARA C. MARMOL 1952 JAN MARIE PLACE TUSTIN, CA 92680 HERMAN ACEVEDO 637 1/2 W. KELSO INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA 90301 1952 JAN MARIE PLACE TUSTIN, CA 92680 R-4: MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner The public hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. Mr. A. R. Bin~an~n, 13861 Browning Avenue spoke against the home. the facility interfered with his peace and tranquility. He noted He indicated that concern regarding the additional noise created by the facility and asked if the property owner had been notified. He then asked if there was a notarized statement from the property owner releasing permission to operate on this property. Commissioner Puckett asked what hours Mr. Bingaman worked and if he had ever had an occasion to complain in the past. Mr. Btn~aman noted that he works from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. and that he had once complained to Orange County before the area was annexed into the City of Tustin, however, recently the facility had been relatively quiet. The public hearing was closed at 7:42 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the government mandates that if no negative impacts are found this type of permit cannot be denied. Commissioner Puckett agreed. Commissioner Puckett moved, Pontlous seconded to approve, by Minute Order, a permit to operate a Large Family Day Care Home at 1952 Jan Marie Place. Motion carried 3-0. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1988 Page three Vartance No. 88-02 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: INTEGRATED SIGN ASSOCIATES 10845-D WHEATLANDS AVENUE, STE. D SANTEE, CA 92071 HOME FEDERAL 625 BROADWAY SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 18231 IRVINE BOULEVARD AT THE INTERSECTION OF HOLT AVENUE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PR) CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 11 TO PERMIT A TENANT IDENTIFICATION MONUMENT SIGN. Resolution No. 2472 Recommendation: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. 88-2 FOR HOME FEDERAL SAVINGS AT IRVINE BOULEVARD AND HOLT AVENUE. That the Planning Commission deny Variance No. 88-2 by adoption of Resolution No. 2472. Presentation: Joel Slavit, Assistant Planner The public hearing wsa opened at 7:47 p.m. Mr. Kurt Bauer, representing Integrated Sign Associates, noted it was his feeling that the design will have positive impacts. He noted that there was a building mix of both commercial and office tenants. He also stated that the sign is designed to give a professional look to the building and described the components. He felt that the impact of this sign would be small. He also noted that the Craddock and Courtyard are different types of buildings. He indicated that the landlord had agreed to rename the building the Home Federal Building due to the recognition involved. He stated that in the suroundtng environment there are nine Savings & Loans and banks, seven of those have pole signs or monument signs larger than this proposal. He felt the sign was consistent with the design, size and materials that would benefit the tenants due to name recognition. He noted that the existing building sign does not have adequate visibility to the east bound traffic. Commissioner Puckett clarified the direction of the improper identification. Mr. Bauer indicated that the visibility was inadequate for westbound Irvine Boulevard traffic. Staff clarified that slgnage is normally provided on the side of the building that that tenant occupies. There was an exception granted in 1986 that was in addition to what the code already allowed. A tenant identification monument must be a single tenant with an occupancy of 5000 square feet or more. The Director noted that other slgnage referred to by the applicant are not in the same district as the proposed sign. The subject property designation is PR. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1988 Page four Mr. Bauer noted that the strict application of the code under professional only allowed six square feet to identify a building, major commercial users require more t denti fi cati on. Mr. Tom Hunter, representing Home Federal, summarized that they feel that they need additional signage at the west bound front entrance in the parking lot. They want to identify the westbound traveler on Holt. He indicated that the property owner would like to rename the building the Home Federal Building and use the monument sign as an identification sign that actually belongs to the building owner. Commissioner Puckett clarified that Home Federal does not occupy 50% of the building. Mr. Hunter confirmed that they occupy less than 5,000 square feet and noted that the sign would be used as a building identification sign that would be four feet high, three feet wide and be placed behind the setback. Staff clarified that if a tenant occupied less than 50% of the building space they were only allowed signage on the side of the building that is occupied by that tenant. Commissioner Pontious what if the property owner asked for identification of Home Federal. The Director noted that there was a clear difference between tenant and center identification, a center identification sign cannot include a tenant name unless that tenant occupies more than 50% of the space. She also noted that the property owner could submit a large address sign. Mr. Bauer noted that the building is already referred to as "the Home Federal Building". Staff noted that they understand the problem of the applicant however, the City needs to follow the intent of the code. The public hearing was closed at 8:08 p.m. Commissioner Pontious noted that she appreciated the position of the applicant however, she was concerned with the establishment of a precedent. Commissioner Puckett remembered a meeting in July, 1986 granting a larger sign. He indicated that the building is known as the Home Federal building with or without a monument sign and would prefer to adhere to the Sign Code. He also did not feel that this request meets the conditions for granting an variance. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Le Jeune seconded to deny Variance No. 88-02 by the adoption of ~esolution No. 2472. Motion carried 3-0. Commissioner Baker arrived at 8:10 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1988 Page five Use Permit 87-28 APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: WESTERN NEURO CARE CENTER 165 N. MYRTLE TUSTIN, CA. 92680 CONTINENTAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. O. BOX 715 MECHANICSBERG, PA. 165 N. MYRTLE P & I PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1 TO INSTALL A TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER IN THE REAR PARKING AREA OF AN EXISTING HOSPITAL FACILITY Resolution No. 2473 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PERMIT 87-28 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 504 SQUARE FOOT TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER AT 165 N. MYRTLE AVENUE, TUSTIN Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 87-38 by the adoption of Resolution 2473 as drafted or revised. Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Associate Planner The public hearing was opened at 8:14 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 8:15 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the permit would be for 24 months and asked if there was any indication that the permitted time frame would be exceeded. Staff responded only if construction took longer than anticipated. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Puckett seconded to approve Use Permit 87-28 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2473. Motion carried 4-0. Use Permit No. 88-5 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: VINEYARD CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP 330 W. FIRST STREET TUSTIN FREEWAY COMMERCE CENTER PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PM) AN APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO LOCATE A CHURCH IN THE PLANNED DISTRICT (PM) FILED IN INDUSTRIAL Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1988 Page six Resolution No. 2474 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA APPROVING USE PERMIT 88-5 TO ALLOW A CHURCH USE IN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PM) AT 330 W. SIXTH STREET Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 88-5 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2474 and Negative Declaration hereby attached. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development The Director noted that following changes in Resolution 2474: 1. To Part II, add a condition "Final City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 88-3". 2. To Part II, Item F, add words to read "..weekends and 75 spaces on evenings and Saturdays only subject to review..." 3. To Part II, Item G, 1., add "and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m." 4. To Part II, Item G, 2 and 3., change maximum number of persons to 225. The public hearing was opened at 8:27 p.m. Mr. Josh Stewart, 17851Bigelow Park, the Senior Pastor of Vineyard Christian Church, noted that the church can live with everything on the Conditional Use Permit. He felt he was sure that they could enforce the mitigation measures regarding parking and traffic control. He noted his appreciation. Commissioner Le Jeune, noted that he was not previously aware of Sunday night services. Mr. Stewart, noted that Sunday night is their leader training time. The Director noted that February 19th was when the City was first made aware of the Sunday night meetings. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the building could hold more than the number of people specified in the use permit. He asked how the number was calculated. The Director noted that the building code does provide for a higher number of occupants than the application shows, however these figures were arrived at by using the numbers provided by the applicant, 359 in the sanctuary and 149 in the classroom. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if those numbers were enforceable. The Director noted that they were if there were con~laints. Commissioner Le Jeune expressed concern regarding the sensitive parking issue. The Director noted that the maximun number of seats are tied to parking requirements, if the number of seats are increased, then there must be an increase in parking. Mr. Stewart noted that the 149 are children that do not drive. Commissioner Puckett asked if the 4-8 p.m. hours in the evening are acceptable. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1988 Page seven Mr. Stewart slated that those hours are acceptable. Commissioner Ponttous noted that the church had a five year lease, what if the growth exceeds the accommodations. Mr. Stewart noted that they would either have to obtain more space in the building or build a new church. Richard yintng, 400 w. Main Street, noted that the area has had previous encounters with traffic problems and co~latnts. He indicated that it was i~ortant to the neighborhood that controls are established and maintained. Mr. Charles Anderson, 255 W. Sixth Street, referred to an article in the Tusttn News stating that the parking lot is deserted on Sunday mornings. He stated that there are businesses operating seven days a week and 24 hours a day. He also noted a concern with the ability to evacuate the building of 150 to 200 people from one door. He also noted that there is a large number of children skateboarding on Sixth Street on the weekends. The public hearing was closed at 8:49 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked staff if a condition could be incorporated into the resolution to release the church from their lease should the congregation outgrow the facility before the lease is expired. The Director noted that the City could not get involved in a lease agreement. She also nol~ed that if the congregation increases beyond that of the restrictions of the resolution, the church must return for modification of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Le Jeune added that he would like to see provisions for no parking along the resi~lential area along "B" and Sixth Streets. The Director noted that an additional condition should be added to Resolution No. 2474 to state "Those attending any church related activities on the site shall be prohibited from parking on Sixth Street or "B" Street. The church shall design an enforcement program to insure co~liance with this condition." Commissioner Puckett questioned if the no parking on Sixth and "B" Streets could be acco~lished with signage. The Director noted that the church should be responsible for enforcing the no parking requirement. She also pointed out that the structure has been reviewed by the Building Official and the Fire Department. There are requirements that must be met which include additional fire walls and expanded exiting requirements. These must be taken care of prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner Baker wanted to be certain that there would be some type of usher ~nforcing the parking. Commissioner Puckett stated that he wanted the church be successful and wants to see the congregation be good neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1988 Page eight Commissioner Baker asked what type of stgnage the church intended to use. Mr. Stewart indicated that he would use sandwich type signs at the driveways on Sundays and that the permanent signage would be a sign on the front similar to the one already existing. The Director noted that the applicant hasn't made a formal sign plan submittal and it would be subject to the City's Design Review procedures. Commissioner Baker noted that he is not against churches, but he wanted to assure that there will be no noise problems or problems with the members soliciting the neighborhood. Commissioner Pontlous moved, Puckett seconded to approve the Negative Declaration for the proposed Use Permit 88-5 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2474 with conditions as revised. Motion carried 4-0. 8. Use Permit 88-3 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: RANDY WOLFE/RICHARD MAIDEN ON BEHALF OF SOUTH COAST CHRISTIAN CENTER JUNE PERFIT 193 EAST MAIN STREET CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-2); EL CAMINO REAL SPECIFIC PLAN NEGATIVE DECLARATION AUTHORIZATION TO COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. CONDUCT CHURCH SERVICES IN THE CENTRAL Resolution No. 2476 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING AN APPLICATION OF RICHARD MAIDEN OF SOUTH COAST COMMUNITY CENTER, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FOR ESTABLISHING A CHURCH AT 193 EAST MAIN STREET Commissioner Pontious asked when the widening of Prospect Avenue would take place. The Director responded that there was no specific time frame, that it is a part of the City's capital improvement program but is not currently budgeted. Commissioner Le Jeune commented that there is a very small walkway between the parking and the rear of the complex that is unsafe and should be boarded up. He also asked how long the applicant has been having services in an unapproved facility. The Director verified for at least 60 days that the applicant continued to operate in violation of the code even after being notified. Staff has been trying to get a complete CUP application for the last 60 days. The public hearing was opened at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Randy Wolf, the pastor noted that the church was handed over to him by Pastor Richard Maiden about 30 daysago. He noted that the church was previously located at 826 W. Katella. He stated that he has a letter from the owner that states that the church will be responsible for all the provisions and improvements. He has secured a parking agreement with the current owner of La Spada's Restaurant. He is now working Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1988 Page nine with the new owner of the restaurant to obtain an agreement. The congregation is now 60 members but he feels sure that that number will grow to 100. Commissioner Le Jeune asked how the church can operate without a business license or a permit. Mr. Wolfe noted that the City would not give the church a business license or a permit until a Conditional Use Permit was approved. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the church was knowingly operating without a business license even though there were violations of fire and building codes. Mr. Wolf noted that there was a letter sent to the building that was not picked up for about a month. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there was a service this past weekend. Mr. Wolf responded yes. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that it appeared to him that the church will just continue to operate whether there is a permit or not. Mr. Wolf stated that they have no other place to meet. They have been meeting as a small group on Wednesday nights in a house. He noted that for approximately three months prior to finding this building they were operating at Foothill High before the high schools disallowed their meeting at that location. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what the churches intentions were for the following week. Mr. Wolf stated that his intentions were to get this situation resolved so that they can operate legally. He would like to use this location as a bookstore and offices. They would like to meet there for a year so they can have the resources to run the facility as a non-profit organization. Commissioner Le Jeune asked staff how long and how much money they felt it would take to bring this location up to fire code. The Director noted that the major concern is the exiting on the Prospect side of the building and she wasn't sure what the costs involved would be. From a structural standpoint the building would need to be looked at by a structural engineer because it is an unretnforced masonry building. If the frame is to be altered the reinforcement and integrity of the building must be looked at. In a letter from the Building Official dated January 20, 1988, two pages of code violations were listed that would need to be remedied before occupancy could be taken. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Planning Commission could approve anything with fire code and building violations. Lois Jeffrey, Deputy City Attorney, noted that if the commission were to approve this permit, a condition of approval that would have to be met before operation could begin would be that the building would have to be brought up to code. Planntng Commission Minutes March 14, 1988 Page ten Mr. Wolf noted that the congregation has removed approximately 1000 cubic feet of trash from the outside area of the property. He also noted that since the trees were cut down the vagrancy rate in the area has diminished. He also indicated that the churches intent is to repair the building and the grounds around it. Lois Jeffrey, asked if the applicant is willing to commit to stop church services until such time as the property can be brought up to code. Commissioner Puckett agreed and noted that he did not feel that the Comtsston could give approval before the property is brought up to code. Commissioner Le Jeune and Pontlous agreed and asked to see more detailed plans for the project. Mike Rahlston, 14721 Livingston, an engineer that is a parishioner, referred to the January 20 letter from the Building Official which listed building code refractions. He estimated that these problems could be corrected in two weeks. He noted that Mr. Wolf had obtained parking statements for approximately 20 parking spaces. Commissioner Puckett noted that having a church on that location was not a problem. The problem was that the Commission could not approve the use of the property if it does not comply to the building and fire codes. He suggested that the Commission continue this item until the building is repaired. The Director noted that the item could be continued. She stated that the concerns in the letter were not adequately addressed. She indicated that she would not suggest continuing the item until such time as plan check and structural details are submitted. Commissioner Pontlous asked where the next Sunday meeting was going to be held. Mr. Wolf indicated that they would meet either in a private home or at the Holiday Inn. Commissioner Ponttous asked if there was a crosswalk to the restaurant across Main Street. Mr. Rahlston noted that there was a brick crosswalk. The Director noted that parking was very questionable. parking agreement that will run with the land. There must be a permanent Commissioner Puckett noted that he didn't see how all of these problems could be solved in two weeks. Mr. Rahlston noted that the church did not want to spend $1,000 for panic hardware for a door without the knowledge that the Use Permit would be approved. Commissioner Baker asked for clarification on who the applicant actually was. Mr. Rahlston stated that it was Mr. Wolf on behalf of South Coast Christian Center, that Mr. Maiden is in an outside missionary capacity. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1988 Page eleven Commissioner Baker asked when the building was built and if there had been any stuctural tnprovements since that time. Mr. Rahlston indicated that it was around 1907. He indicated that some of the windows had been blocked out, and a door in back that had been cinder blocked over. Commissioner Baker asked if anyone has checked to verify if there is any re-bar in the structure. Mr. Rahlston stated not to his knowledge. He also noted that there is a loading bay on Prospect that could be left opened until the panic hardware is installed. Commissioner Baker noted that the report stated that the building owner didn't permit total building access to the building. The Director noted that a number of complaints have been received and the department has requested access to the building to the immediate west and to the storage buildings to the north, as the fire department has received complaints that there are fire hazards on the grounds. The City has not been provided with field inspection opportunities. Commissioner Le Jeune noted his concern and asked how that affects this building. The Director noted that they are all a part of the same complex and any fire hazard in the other buildings poses a potential hazard to the subject building. Mr. Rahlston noted his contacts with Mrs. Perfit, the property owner, and stated that he had intentions of cleaning up the area and making it a more profitable commercial use for her property. He also noted that he would like her to remove the metal storage shed and in general, clean up the property. Commissioner Puckett noted that the Commission is not opposed to the operation of the church, they are opposed to operating a church in a sub-standard facility. He asked that the Commission continue this to provide some time for the applicant to work in earnest with staff and at the next meeting, come back with a proposal that all concerns have been met. He would have to vote against the facility at this point. Mr. Rahlston stated that the church would not be meeting at this location as an assembly for approximately a year or more. Their ultimate plans are to improve this storefront into a better commercial area within the next two or three years. He spoke on behalf of Pastor Wolf guaranteeing that the church will stop meeting in the building. He also assured that the applicant will appear at the next Commission meeting. In the interim they will be meeting with the Building Official to ensure that the outstanding concerns are dealt with adequately and possibly provide the Commission with price and time quotes for the work to be done. Arnold Surfas, owner of the property at 365 E1 Camino Real, opened his store approximately 18 months ago. He went to great expense to upgrade the electrical in his building. He is also concerned with the lack of parking in the area. The public hearing was closed at 9:55 p.m. Planning Commission Mt nutes March Z4, 1988 Page twelve Commissioner Le Jeune noted that there was no optton but to deny the application as subml tted. Commissioner Baker noted that the character of the people involved in a situation is what makes the law work. The building is unsafe and it continues to be used. He would lean toward denying the use permit. Commissioner Ponttous agreed. Commissioner Baker asked staff the difference between denial and continuance. The Director noted that if the application was denied, the applicant could not return again for a period of one year, a continuance could be no longer than 90 days for specific things requested. The parking requests have to be addressed or a variance would need to be applied for. The building alterations need to be submitted for plan check. A plan to make improvements should be made before the application is brought back to the Commission. Occupancy is the most important issue. Since January staff has made contact requesting that there be no occupancy of the building, yet there has been occupancy. We need to look at what liability the City has in continuing the matter when we know that there have been at least 90 days of violation. Lois Jeffrey noted that Mr. Rahlston is not the applicant, it would be important to hear this commitment from Mr. Wolf. Mr. Wolf stated that he would be willing to comply with that and he has concerns about sinking money in the building without any guarantee of the ultimate use of the building. They would find alternate places to meet as long as they would obtain the cooperation of the City. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for the record if he was stating that there will not be any services held in the building prior to obtaining approval? Mr. Wolf, stated that he was. He noted that they only met on Sunday mornings and that any other meetings were to clean the property up. Commissioner Puckett suggested that the commission allow a continuance for 90 days. Commissioner Baker asked how long it would take to comply with City requirements? Mr. Rahlston indicated that it would take approximately one month to submit plans and quotes from contractors including time frames. Lois Jeffrey brought up the commitment from property owners that are willing to commit to a long term lease for parking spaces. Mr. Rahlston noted that their lease with the property owner is monthly. He intends to obtain signed releases from the property owners guaranteing that the required spaces are available for the duration of their lease. The Director pointed out that a conditional use permit runs with the land. Considering that they might have a month to month lease, any tenant can occupy that building under the terms of the conditional use permit. A reciprocal parking agreement or a long term lease for parking for the life of the use is needed. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1988 Page thirteen Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Commission could continue the matter for 90 days. The Director stated the alternatives and suggested that the matter be brought up at the next meeting for a status report if the progress is not acceptable the item could be continued again. Commissioner Puckett asked that the applicant work closely with staff. Commissioner Baker moved, Puckett seconded to continue Use Permit 88-3 to the April 11, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Puckett called a five minute break at 10:05 p.m. At 10:10 the meeting was called back to order. Use Permit 88-4 APPLICANT: ON BEHALF OF: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: PROGRESSIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. 1031S. 158TH STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON P.H.P. HEALTHCARE CORPORATION 4900 SEMINARY ROAD ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22311 TUSTIN CORPORATE PARK LIMITED 3300 IRVINE AVENUE; #100 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 2492 WALNUT AVENUE ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: PC-C: PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS I) AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL A MEDICAL CLINIC AND LABORATORY EXISTING 44,014 GROSS SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AT 2492 WALNUT AVENUE IN AN Resolution No. 2475 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF A MEDICAL CLINIC AND LABORATORY AT 2492 WALNUT AVENUE Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit No. 88-4 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2475. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner The public hearing was opened at 10:15 p.m. Mr. Derek Dean, representing Grubb and Ellis, offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Baker clarified that the storage area for the two banks is for five year terms. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1988 Page fourteen The public hearing was closed at 10:17 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune clarified that the sidewalks were installed. Commissioner Baker asked if there will be a need for any special signing. Staff noted that they would be no stgnage requested that is not allowed by the master Sign Plan. The Director pointed out that there was a previous conditional use permit approved for a medical facility at this location about a year ago. That tenant found another location, there are just some square footage modifications. This permit is for about one fourth of the area of the previous permit. Commissioner Baker moved, Pontious seconded to approve Use Permit 88-4 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2475. Motion carried 4-0. 10. Sign Code Amendment - Update Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Received and filed. 11. Planning Commission Training Session Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development The Director noted that there will be a training session about every third meeting. Received and filed. Session date changed to May 9, 1988. NEW BUSINESS 12. LOCATION: ZONING: Presentation: Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 88-01 165 MYRTLE AVENUE AND 14851YORBA STREET PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PR) Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Received and filed. 13. Outdoor Dining Areas Recommendation: Planning Commission action as deemed appropriate. The Outdoor Dining areas report was continued until the March 28, 1988 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1988 Page fifteen STAFF CONCERNS 14. Report on City Council Actions at March 7, 1988 Meeting. Recommendation: Receive and file. Presentation: Christine Shlngleton, Director of Community Development The Director noted that the following items were discussed at the meeting: Annexations 142, 144 and 145 Cultural Resources Ordinance The first reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-4 churches District Facilities fees Fire, Civic Center and Irvine Blvd. improvement Meeting times for Planning Commission change to 7:00 p.m. CC&R's will be discussed on March 21st. in the PM COHHISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Le Jeune noted the March 31st meeting of the South Orange County Planning Commissioner's meeting. He volunteered to attend. Commissioner Puckett said he would go. Commissioner Baker thanked staff for all the work on this agenda. ADdOURIINENT At 10:30 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Pontious seconded to adjourned to the next regularly scheduled meeting on March 28, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. Wei 1~(~' Chairman -Penni Foley Secretary