Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-08-88HXNUTES TUSTIM PLANNING COII~ISSIOM REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 1988 CALL TO ORDER: 7:40 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Puckett, Well, Baker, Le Jeune, 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. Dorothy Patton 315 S. "C" Street, Tustin, spoke in favor of the Senior Center. However, she is in opposition of taking away park property to provide parking spaces for the Center when there are vacant spaces behind the School District. Commissioner Weil asked the Director to provide at a future meeting an update on these concerns. 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 January 25, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded approval of the minutes. Motion carried 5-0. 2. Large Family Day Care Facility at 1952 Jan Marie Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain Alice Huber, 13882 Dall Lane, Santa Ana, owner of property on Browning Avenue bordering the subject address, protested the facility. Lois Jeffrey, clarified that Mrs. Huber's property is within 100 feet of the facility, and noted that her statement does qualify as a protest. She then recommended that this item be continued until the next Planning Commission meeting so her concerns could be evaluated by staff. Mrs. Huber stated that her tenants have complained to her about the noise and disturbance. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1988 Page two Mr. A. R. Bingaman, 13861 Browning, Tustin, whose property is adjacent to the facility he complained about his lack of privacy, the noise issue, his concern about the swimming pool in his yard, the definition of a Day Care facility and his liability regarding his pool. Commissioner Well clarified whether he had a 6 foot fence around his pool. Mr. Wayne F. Huff, 13812 Gimbert, Santa Ana, owns property at 1942 Jan Marie, has had continuous complaints regarding traffic, parking, noise and was concerned whether the size of the facility was adequate to accommodate that number of children. He conducted a survey last week and found no less than 15 automobiles parked in the street at any given time. This makes it dificult for the residents to park. The Director noted that the is City obligated by State law to issue a permit to operate a day care center, provided that no protests are filed. Any protests substantiate the necessity to hold a public hearing on the matter. Commissioner Baker moved, Pontious seconded to continue the matter of the day care center at 1952 Jan Marie until a public hearing can be scheduled. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 87-5 APPLICANT: VINEYARD CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP LOCATION: 330 W. SIXTH STREET TUSTIN FREEWAY COMMERCE CENTER REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CHURCH USES IN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT {PM) ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE FILED FOR THIS PROJECT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Pontious asked if there were complaints on the current parking overflow and when this overflow occurs. The Director noted that the parking overflow takes place on weekdays. Commissioner Puckett inquired where the church headquarters are currently located. The Director referred the question to the applicant. The public hearing was opened at 7:58 p.m. Mr. Josh Stewart, 17851 Bigelow Park, Tustin, Senior Pastor of the Vineyard Christian Fellowship, noted that they are meeting at Guin Foss Elementary School on a month to month basis, however, the School District doesn't have a favorable attitude toward Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1988 Page three churches. He read a written response that had been distributed to the Commission. He summarized that their request was both appropriate and a compatible use for the location. 90% of the time the use would be used only for administrative purposes; no more than 10 parking spaces (the total proposed on-site parking in the complex is 209 spaces) would be utilized by the church during the day and less than half on Sunday. Also he noted that the church would provide parking attendants to direct traffic and parking. He feels that there would never be a parking problem. When the congregation totals 80~ of the number of chairs in the sanctuary, the church would change to two services each Sunday. He noted that the three schools and Jewish Temple adjacent to the site had no meetings on Sundays. He also noted that churches, according to the staff report, were not considered a conflicting land use. He also felt that the church would not create a traffic/parking problem on Sunday and would actually result in less traffic/parking problems on the weekdays. It is his belief that this proposed use would not aggravate the area in question, but would instead be a very positive and reinforcing influence in the area. He asked the Commission to approve the subject project. Commissioner Ponttous asked if there were any night meetings. Mr. Stewart responded that twice a year there will be night meetings at the church site, all others would be in private homes. Commissioner Puckett asked how long the church has been meeting at Guin Foss. Mr. Stewart responded that they had started in June with 8 members and have grown to 300 members. Commissioner Ponttous asked what the timing between services would be if there were two services. Mr. Stewart responded probably a half hour between the 8:00 and 10:00 services. Mr. David Wills, 330 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, representing the Tustin Freeway Commerce Center, noted that only one of the 28 tenants of the center operate during weekends. He noted that the management of the center would not permit any use in the center that would cause any congestions or any other problems. However, he did not feel the church would create any problems. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there were any other vacant buildings in that complex that could be used that would remove the church from the corner of Sixth and "B" Street. Mr. Wills responded that there were three empty spaces but neither would be suitable for this use. Commissioner Le Jeune noted concern regarding the corner unit being used and the logistics of the on-site parking at the rear of the unit, while the people must enter from the front. Commissioner Baker noted his concern regarding the potential of parking and traffic problems. He was curious if people would park in the parking lot and walk 100 feet or if they would park on the street. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1988 Page four Mr. Stewart noted that there is an entrance on Sixth and one on "B" Street. There would also be signs and parking attendants to assure that members park in the designated lot. He also noted that he could space the services so there would not be a cross over parking problem. Commissioner Puckett asked Mr. Wills if there had been any other complaints from any of the other tenants when they learned of the proposed use of this corner facility. Mr. Wills responded that he had discussed it with some of the tenants and that he had received no negative comments. He said that there is very little Sunday usage on the site. Commissioner Weil asked for verification of the parking space count of 209. Mr. Wills noted that the 209 spaces were common parking spaces for the whole center. Commissioner Le Jeune asked staff if there was anywhere else in the City where a church operates in a PM zone. The Director responded that this location is the only PM District in the City. was not aware of any other churches in other industrial zones. She Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there would be a tenant agreement on the parking spaces even though it is a Sunday. The Director stated that it would depend upon the parking requirements for individual tenants in the center. She noted that the project could be required to have a reciprocal parking agreement that could monitored. Commissioner Puckett asked Mr. Stewart what led him to the City of Tustin and was he looking for a long term lease. Mr. Stewart noted that the head church is in Anaheim and a demographic study period led them into Tustin. After searching, the price difference in renting in an industrial area is less expensive and he was looking for a long term lease. Commissioner Well noted that the parking study that Mr. Wills referred to was in response to an outcry from the residents in the area that could not park on the street or exit their driveways. She asked if the school is still located in the center. Mr. Wills noted that the study was done before his firm took charge. He also noted that the study stated that the people parked in the street as a matter of convenience, not that the parking in the center was inadequate. Commissioner Baker asked for statistics on the Jewish Temple down the street. Mr. Stewart responded that he had checked and the Temple has no Sunday activities. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1988 Page five The Director noted that the City does not have detailed information on traffic and parking from the Temple. Mr. Richard Vtnlng, 400 W. Main Street, noted that when a previous parking study on the center was done the biggest problem was the blocked driveways and the painting of the curbs. He felt that if there was a firm commitment from the developer that the church members would not park on the street the neighborhood would not have a problem with the proposed location. Commissioner Puckett asked if Mr. Vtnlng felt that this would be the only hesitation of the neighboring residents. Mr. Vtntng did not think that the church would generate much traffic on the weekdays. He did not feel that the zone change is the problem, it is the possible uses that follow. He noted that the problem is that the neighbors need access to their property. Mr. Charles Anderson, 255 W. Sixth Street, voiced his concerns regarding traffic. He noted that Sunday is no different than any other day. He stated that he has trouble getting out of his driveway. He did not think this busy corner would be a healthy environment to have accessable to children, as most cars don't stop for the stop sign. He was also concerned about the increased noise interrupting the privacy of the residents. Mr. John Mac Arthur, 13592 Falmouth, a member of Vineyard Christian Church, noted that the church provides parking and traffic control. He also asked what complaints have come from the neighborhood from the Jewish temple, if they did not pose a problem, he didn't feel this church would pose one either. Gary Man,on, 165 Pacific, stated that he did not think that the church would create any parking problems, as there is seldom anyone parked in the parking lot on Sunday. Robert Lascelles, 701W. Jonquil, Santa Aha, a member of the proposed church, stated that the church would not have a problem getting volunteers to work traffic and parking control. He also suggested that if there was a parking problem in the residential area, that parking permits could be issued. The Director noted that the issue was whether or not the church use is appropriate in the PM District, not whether the operator can deal with on-site issue. Barbara Cox, "B" Street, asked about the noise disruption to the homes directly across from the proposed location. Mr. Stewart clarified what the services consisted of. The public hearing was closed at 8:40 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1988 Page six Commissioner Baker asked if there was a possibility of issuing a CUP in this case. The Director suggested that if the Commission approved a request for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, that it not be an amendment to permit churches as an outright use but as a Conditional Use Permit and that a specific application filing be submitted for the CUP so that site specific conditions could be imposed on a project. An alternative would be to adopt a resolution approving the request for the amendment to permit churches in the PM District. The Commission could ask that the resolution be brought back at the next meeting and direct staff to concurrently provide the Commission with the application materials from the applicant for the Conditional Use Permit. At that time the Commission could act concurrently on the CUP, transferring the recommendation on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and condition the CUP to be only effective if the Zoning Ordinance Amendment was acted on positively by the City Council. Commissioner Baker clarified that the enforcement responsibility of the CUP would be up to the Commission and stated that his concern was the effect the church would have on its neighbors. The Director recommended that the Commission decide if the use is appropriate. Commissioner Wetl noted her concern regarding circulation and parking. Commissioner Le Jeune noted his concern was with the parking in the rear. Commissioner Puckett noted that his main concern was that the parking be adequately addressed, which it seemed to be. Commissioner Pontious agreed with the Use Permit idea. Commissioner Le Jeune also noted concern over the hours of operation. He also asked if through the Zoning Ordinance Amendment the Commission could restrict the PM District to one church only. The Director responded that distance parameters could be set, but they could be construed as discriminatory in the PM District because of its size. The Director read revised Resolution 2468 recommending approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Commissioner Baker moved, Ponttous seconded to adopt revised Resolution No. 2468 approving a request for Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-5 to permit churches in a PM District as a conditional use. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Well asked if staff could notice the people that spoke at the hearing and the people that live on Sixth Street about future Commission discussions on this matter. The Director noted that all landowners within 300 feet will automatically be noticed. Commissioner Well asked that Item 5 be heard next. Planntng Commission Minutes February 8, 1988 Page seven 5. Use Permtt No. 87-29 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: STEELCASE 1123 WARNER AVENUE PC M (PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL) AN APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN FILED FOR THIS PROJECT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT INSTALLATION OF TWO ABOVE GROUND STORAGE TANKS TO HANDLE MATERIALS FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Well noted that Steelcase had requested a continuance of their hearing. The Director noted that she would answer any questions. The public hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 8:56 p.m. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to continue Use Permit 87-24 to the March 28, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Cultural Resource District Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development The followtqg corrections to the draft ordinance were made by the Director: Page 2, C1, eliminate "and who shall serve without compensation" Page 3, 5c, line i after standards add "after approved by the City Council" Page 11, J1, line 2 after resolution add "after approved by the City Council" Commissioner Well noted concern that the proposed Advisory Committee should not be asked to serve without compensation. Commissioner Puckett noted that he felt that people that would be interested in serving whether or not nominal compensation Is given. The Director noted that compensation should be a policy issue that the City Council decides. The public hearing was opened at 9:15 p.m. Mr. A. J. Coco, 13751 Red Hill Avenue, President of the Tustin Historical Society, made the following statement on behalf of the Society, "The Tustin Area Historical Society supports the desirability of preserving the historical environment of Old Tusttn, but prefers that private property rights be maintained, and that preservation efforts be voluntary and encouraged, not mandated by any compulsory Commission or governmental entity." Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1988 Page eight Mr. Richard Vtnln~, 400 W. Main Street, did not agree with Mr. Coco. He recognized that there was a lot of time and effort put into this report. He felt that there was an adequate survey completed and that the majority of the neighborhood feels the same way in that this is a way to preserve the neighborhood. Mr. William Letnber~er, 445 W. Main Street, felt that this effort is about 25 years too late, that Main Street is destroyed. He is against another layer of bureaucracy. Mr. Irwin Gross, 125 N. "B" Street, spoke in opposition of government interference. Commissioner Wetl asked that all residents receive a copy of the Ordinance. The Director noted that upon adoption, the Ordinance will be mailed. summary of the Ordinance sent along with the public hearing notice. There was a Commissioner Well asked that all poroperty owners receive a copy of the Ordinance dated 1-29-88. Commissioners Pontious, Baker and Le Jeune agreed. Mr. John Sauers, 515 S. Pacific, spoke in favor of the Ordinance and community pride, noting past problems with the City regarding the Old Town area. He thanked the Director and the Planning Department for all of their time and work. Mr. Robert Edgell, 345 W. Main Street, representing TRUST, spoke in favor of the Ordinance. He thanked staff for the way they served the public. He explained that TRUST was Tusttn Residents United to Save Tustin and that the organization was interested in the preservation of Old Town. The people in TRUST have a choice, they do not want their rights taken from them, rather they are looking for a mechanism to protect and defend buildings in Old Town, to begin a process to heighten awareness of Old Town Tustin. Nancy Edgell, 345 W. Main Street, noted that they had moved into the neighborhood because she wanted the feeling and friendship of the neighborhood and they wanted to live the rest of their lives in Tustin. She has seen a great change and is very proud about the giant step that she feels the City has taken in the right direction. The public hearing was closed at 9:45 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune clarified that the Committee would be notified of any alterations approved by the Community Development Department. He also clarified that the changes would be inspected and fall under normal enforcement. Commissioner Puckett clarified the manner in which improper upkeep would be enforced. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1988 Page nine Commissioner Baker noted concern that there might be too much bureaucracy, however from the show of support at the meeting apparently that ts not the case. He asked who ultimately decides what "good repatr" actually ts. The Director noted that the responsibilities of enforcement would be on the Community Development Department. Commissioner Le Jeune asked If the Advisory Committee members would be subject to the rules of the Brown Act. The Dtrector responded yes. Lots Jeffrey noted that the members of the committee would also most likely be subject to the confltct of lnterest laws. Commissioner Well lnqutred If the Committee would have use of the staff and fact 1 tttes. The Dtrector replled yes. Commissioner Puckett moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-4 to Ctty Counctl by the adoption of Resolution No. ;?466 as revised. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Wet1 asked if a copy of the Ordinance can be sent along wlth the Ctty Council publlc heart ng notice to each owner tn the affected area. OLO BUSZ#ESS 6. CC & R Provisions Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Dtrector of Community Development The Dtrector noted a correction on page 1, Item E,1 to delete the second sentence. Also on page 2 Item G capitalize "NO" and add "should only be Included where such conditions exist. Commissioner Nell noted that Mr. Wet1 felt the following changes would be extremely Important: Item C, last sentence should be made [rem D and "satd" should be replaced with "any Homeowner' s". Item E 1, add at the end "and structures. Item G eliminate "for hardshtp purposes" Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the CC & R conditions. Motion carrted 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Ponttous seconded to transmtt a request for clarification to the City Council on the role the City should play in enforcement of CC&R's. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1988 Page ten NEW BUSINESS 7. Report on Orange County Council of Government Study Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner Commissioner Ponttous noted a need to increase cooperation and communication within cities and counties and asked that the City of Tustin support the organization of an evaluation committee. Commissioner Well noted that the City of Tustin has volunteered to host the next meeting in April. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Commissioner Well seconded to agendize this item for discussion on the February 22, 1988 meeting. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS 8. Report on actions taken in February 1, 1988 City Council Meeting Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Le Jeune asked if It were possible for the Commission to start their meetings at 7:00 instead of 7:30. Commissioners Pontlous, Baker and Puckett agreed. The Director noted that the Commission would need to request a code amendment from the City Council. Commissioner Well asked that the item be agendized for the February 22, 1988 meeting. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that he was pleased with the outcome of the Cultural Resource Ordinance. Commissioner Baker noted that he was glad to have the guidance from the staff. He also noted satisfaction in seeing the pipeline proceed and noted his concern that the area be returned to its original condition. Commmlssioner Ponttous was pleased to see the turnout of people. about a weed abatement problem behind the block where Taco Bell Mitchell and Newport. She also asked is located at Commissioner Baker noted a need for weed abatement at the car wash at Newport and Main. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1988 Page eleven Commissioner Le Jeune asked the status of the house on Red Hill with a six foot cyclone fence. The Director noted that the property is fenced for public safety reasons. Commissioner Le Jeune noted weeds on the property behind the Library are out of control. Commissioner Puckett noted congratulations to Mayor Hoesterey and thanked Mr. Edgar for a fine job during his term as Mayor. The rest of the Commissioners concurred. The Director clarified the reason for the scoping meeting on February 11th regarding the Town Center Redevelopment Plan Amendment. ADJOURI~IENT At 10:24 p.m. Commissioner Baker moved, Ponttous seconded to adjourn to the next regular meeting on February 22, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. Penni Foley Secretary Kathy Wei 1 j7 Chairman