Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-14-85 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING CO~ISSION REGULAR HEETING JANUARY 14, 1985 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Counctl Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: White, Well, McCarthy, Puckett, Sharp Applicant: Location: Request: 3. VARIANCE 84-4 Mr. William Brown 153 N. Yorba Authorization to vary from the minimum lot width, front yard setback and maximum lot coverage requirements of the Single Family (R-l) District. Presentatt on: Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner Don Lamm, Director of Community Development, informed the Commission that the applicant requested the item be continued once more due to the applicant's illness. Chairman White opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak he closed the hearing at 7:36. Commissioner Puckett moved, Well second to continue Variance 84-4 to their next meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting December 10, 1984. Commissioner Sharp moved, Well second to approve Item 1. Motion carried 5-0. Item 2 was removed from the Calendar for further discussion. 2. Resolution 2201, Use Permit 84-27, 6th Street Mini Warehouse. Commissioner Well was concerned that the findings of hardship to allow the variance were not complete. Commissioner Puckett moved, Sharp second to approve Resolution 2201 with Exhibit "A". Motion carried 4-1, Well opposed. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 page two PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. DEIR 84-2, GPA 84-1a, ZC 85-1 Applicant: Location: Request: Poston Tanaka on behalf of The Irvine Company Bounded by I-5 freeway, proposed Jamboree Road, proposed Laguna Road and a line 192 feet west of the E1Modena Channel. Actions regarding the East Tustin Planned Community/Tustin Auto Center Certification of Draft Environmental Impact Report 84-2. Amendment of Tustin Area General Plan from Residential-Single Family to Planned Community Commercial, GPA 84-1a. Change of zoning designation from Planned Community-Residential to Planned Community-Commercial, ZC 85-1 Don Lamm presented staff's report as contained in the Report to Planning Commission dated January 14, 1985. Commissioner Sharp questioned how many residents were mailed notices of the hearing. Chairman White opened the public hearings on DEIR 84-2, GPA 84-1a, Zone Change 85-1 and Parcel Map 84-1032 at 7:44 p.m. The following people spoke: Coralee Newman, The Irvine Company, reviewed the original plan for the auto center on Browning and Bryan Streets and the meetings with the East Tustin Homeowners Associations (approximately 10 associations). Per the meetings with the community groups The Company agreed to commit to the following: 1) the center would be smaller in size than originally proposed; 2) the center would be moved to the newly proposed location; 3) that the Company would bring a residential project adjacent to the auto center to serve as a buffer to the existing residents located along Browning between Browning and Jamboree; and, 4) the Company would plan to have an inward oriented auto center with attractive landscaped buffers and walls along the perimeters as well as with the residential proposal. She further summarized that the residential Phase II project will be in front of the Commission hopefully in the spring. Bonnie Holms, The Irvine Company, answered questions. One, what is the value of the project or the significance to the City? The project has the potential to increase the City budget from 1/4 to 1/3. A year ago a market research analysis was commissioned to identify what market opportunities existed in East Tustin and what areas might be brought into this portion to supplement existing retail. The area identified with the greatest lack was automotive servicing, sales and supplies. The State Board of Equalization reports indicated that Tustin in 1983 was achieving less than 3% of the revenues of the surrounding cities. The Irvine Auto Center generated in excess of 1.4 million dollars in lg83 for the City of Irvine. Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 page three Secondly, what has The Company done to rest the community's concerns on the original proposal? 1) The Company has now oriented the project inward to promote the development as a car shopping mall. They are proceeding on this basic principal to bring the shoppers inside the premises to travel past various other business. This will give the dealers a marketing advantage and gives The Company the opportunity to concentrate the customer parking on the interior and prohibit it on the exterior. They can also concentrate the lighting and noise on the interior. In the Planned Community regulations, it specifies that interior lighting can occur only in the interior strip where the sales buildings and parking display areas will be allowed. They are stipulating that a "sharp cut-off" fixture be used. It has the capability of projecting display lighting forward 30 feet while throwing lighting to the rear of the standards only 8 feet. It illuminates the merchandise without imposing significant light onto the sidewalk or interior street. Therefore, no significant quantity of high intensity lighting can reach the perimeter. {Coralee presented the Commission with pictures displaying the lighting.) As an additional safeguard to the lighting concern, The Company is specifying that the service areas and inventory parking areas which are forced to the perimeter of the dealers parcels will have a maximum lighting intensity allowable which basically computes to security level lighting. By orienting inwardly, The Company will be able to achieve significant sound attenuation. The project will contain the noise within its boundaries principally by the creation of a perimeter of sound attenuation walls that also serve to aesthetically enhance the project by blocking the service areas from view. The walls will vary from 8-10 feet in height and occassionally will rise to 14 feet. They will have landscape and rolling berms to create a pleasant street scape. As indicated in the picture displayed in the Chambers, the wall changes both in height and in its horizontal line. Setbacks are being encouraged to break up the visual impact so as not to create tunnel vision down Jamboree Road. Third, what traffic impacts will the project have? The beneficial aspects are: The Company plans to extend existing Laguna Road from Browning Avenue ultimately tying into Myford. They anticipate that most of the traffic coming to the project will travel along Laguna from the Myford or Redhill interchange. The traffic engineer indicates that no significant traffic will travel down Browning to reach the project. She pointed out that Myford Road, Myford interchange at I-5 freeway is committed and on Caltrans schedule for 1988 completion, and the implementation of an interchange at Jamboree and 1-5 is currently under consideration by the City Council. Fourth, what impact will this project have on the existing flood problem? This is a major problem. The Company proposes to construct an additional berm starting at the berm adjacent to Bryan Avenue running roughly parallel with Bryan Avenue along the northern edge of the auto center and over to E1Modena Channel. This will serve to direct any flood waters coming to that area, delivering them into the channel. Additionally, they will extend a berm along the eastern side of the center and return it along the southern side separating it from the freeway. The bottom line is they can't represent they are improving the flood situation on Browning because they have no direct impacts on it. They can say they are having no negative impacts. The whole flooding issue on this specific project site is separated from Browning Avenue residents. The Company will address further improvements to deal with the Browning Avenue residents at the hearing for the proposed residential site. Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 page four Finally, what will an auto center look like? The display areas will be on the interior of the internal street. They are not stipulating a specific architectural style, it may limit them. The dealers will probably have a better idea of what look might best convey the type of business they are trying to establish in Tustin. However, the Company does not want a hodge-podge of buildings. They are suggesting a range of materials and colors and are encouraging the use of color and liteness to offset the structures and pavement. They will require the dealers to submit their plans at least three different times for the architectural review process. The interior street will contain a common landscape theme tree to tie into the theme trees along the perimeter. Hubert Clark, 1942 San Juan, representing the San Juan Meadows Homeowners directly across the street from the proposed auto center, commented about the cooperation they have had from The Company and City. He expressed their concern over loud speakers and requested beepers be used. The flood situation is still a problem. Also, is concerned what the project would look like from Jamboree to the west until it reaches Browning. In the proposal there seems to be some conflicts, Page 24 item 3.1.2, first paragraph, "... if the homes are approved". He understood that the center and homes would be done concurrently. Page 82, Section 4.0, paragraph 3 says, "the residential project which, if approved..." He again understood it would be done at the same time. He thanked Don Lamm for his careful planning in notifying the residents because within 300 feet of the center there are no residents, yet staff was careful to notify many people who are concerned with the project. Chairman White asked Mr. Clark to clarify his concern with the improvements between Browning and Jamboree. Mr. Clark said that there has not been any clue what the residents might expect to be done in the area west of the Laguna area and east of Browning. That is within the home section, but he did think it was going to be in conjunction with the auto center plans. Chairman White asked for clariftcatin on the flooding issue. Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer, explained that the outline in the environmental document on the drainage as relates to Browning Avenue indicates it would not impact the area any worse than what exists today. As part of the project, there will be two constrictions removed within the channel that runs adjacent to Bryan Avenue that will permit more water to enter the channel at the intersection of Bryan and Browning. It should take water currently diverted down Browning Avenue and take it easterly along Bryan Avenue in the E1Modena/Irvine Channel. Commissioner McCarthy questioned if the two bridges restricting the E1Modena Channel on Bryan will be removed simultaneously with the project and if the culvert under Bryan will be built simultaneously. Mr. Ledendecker said yes, the railroad bridge has already been removed. The second restriction, the temporary wooden bridge into the residential unit on the north site of Bryan, will be removed. Thirdly, an enlargement of the culvert that crosses under Bryan Avenue on the E1Modena Irvine Channel alignment. These three measures will allow additional flow through the channel at Bryan and Browning. Eventually, as the channel is improved to its ultimate as development occurs upstream in the watershed additional enlargement of the channel will have to take place. Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 page fi ve Commissioner Sharp asked how the berm works near Browning where it crosses Jamboree Road. Bob responded that the sheet flow is generally to the south and east. The roadway will be constructed at an elevation as high as the berm to hold the water back. The water will be passed through some type of a drainage device under Jamboree Road and along the berm. Commissioner McCarthy asked if Caltrans had committed in writing to the interchange at I-5 and Jamboree. Bob said they have met with them on a preliminary basis and have initiated the environmental document for the interchange. Staff has not received a formal indication from them. We have to go through a design project report which is being done concurrently with the environmental document for the interchange. All initial indications have indicated there would be no problem. The major problem is funding, and we have committed to a locally funded project rather than wait for Caltrans funding. Chairman White questioned if the city's review of the hydrology report would ensure this project would not add any further water to the residents west of Browning. Bob responded that we would in addition have to adhere to the Federal Insurance Act of which we are a party as a City. We would have to protect the development to a 100 year storm. In addition, we cannot impose any of the 100 year storm into an area that currently does not have any impact from it. Mr. Clark further addressed the issue of the channel, Exhibit 5 in the EIR. The berm proposed would come down the existing channel along Bryan to Browning with a break at proposed Jamboree. He recalled the rain storm last year that caused flooding in the school, down Browning and San Juan and was curb to curb and going over. It completely flooded the field with about 3 feet of water in the proposed section for the new housing. This was caused by the construction of the new drainage under the road at Browning and Bryan which caused the area to the southwest quandrant to be lower than the northeast quandrant. When the site and housing are completed, the channel will be widened, deepened, probably cemented and will probably carry a lot more water than presently. However, with the berm as indicated in the EIR, if it is carried to that point, he is concerned it would seem to channel more water into the school, down south on Browning onto San Juan and into the homes. Bob Kallenbaugh, civil engineer and consultant to The Irvine Company, concurred with Bob Ledendecker that there is no adverse impact on the existing residences due to the construction of the auto center project. The berm to be constructed along Bryan Avenue will direct the flows away from the auto center site but the removal of the actual constrictions in the channel due to the 90° turn under Bryan Avenue and one of the existing wooden bridges will have a beneficial effect as far as passing additional water through the Bryan/Browning intersection. Commissioner McCarthy questioned if these improvements would be prior to the development of the housing area. Mr. Kallenbough said these improvements are planned to be constructed as part of the Phase II residential project which would occur prior to the next rainy season. Commissioner McCarthy was then further concerned because Mr. Ledendecker said the improvements would be done simultaneously with the auto center. Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 page si x Bonnie Holms clarified that they put forward proposals for both projects at the same time in the EIR to give the total picture. However, the improvements necessary for this project would not include improving the channel by removing the constrictions because of the fact that the existing flood water coming down Browning cannot get to the auto center and visa versa; water coming to the auto center cannot get back to Browning. In essence there is already created a berm that separates the two projects. For that reason, they determined it would be advantageous to go ahead with the proposed berming procedure. They are committing to the improvement in the channel, removal of the constriction of the bridge and also the improvement of the channel passing under Bryan Avenue. They view these projects as coming through the residential project because the residential project will directly impact Browning Avenue. They have stated in the proposal and the consultant concurred, the improvements through this project will actually improve the flooding condition on Browning Avenue by doing as Bob Ledendecker mentioned; allowing mere water to pass down the channel, proportionately less water to overtop the channel and flood Browning Avenue. However, they felt for the purposes of this conversation they should confine their remarks to this project alone. The schedule for the residential project should fall very closely behind this project. They anticipate this project will come before the Commission within the next several months. The start of construction is anticipated mid-late summer. This would be one of the elements of construction that would start at the beginning of the project. Bonnie continued by responding to Mr. Clark's concern about the loud speaker system. The Company has not stipulated in the community regulations that beepers only be allowed because that concern is being addressed in another manner. The Company is working with an amplification system company to determine what muffling devices and muffling level would be reasonable to impose on the loud speaker system and the cost advantages to the dealers. They're stipulating maximum loud speaker height and they will review the locations to ensure there is some sort of screening for the noise. Further, they are stipulating the speakers should be directed toward the interior of the project. Chairman White asked for further clarification on the drainage problem on Browning and the improvements proposed. Mr. Ledendecker responded that the drainage projects within the channel on Bryan Avenue could be delayed with the residential project, but at the same time we have to have a date certain when these facilities would be completed. The construction of the new culvert under Bryan Avenue is more time consuming. We would have to have the work completed by October 15th of any upcoming wet year. Our staff would recommend we have a date certain tied to when this facility would be constructed. We could tie it to the completion of being out of the culvert under Bryan by October 15th. It would fall into the category of working within a regional flood control facility. The County does not desire work to be performed between October 15th and April 15th. Chairman White wondered if it is possible to complete this type of construction in 10 months. Bob responded yes. Clarence Dalen, 1921 Burnt Mill Rd., echoed Mr. Clark's concerns. He feels there is nothing positive about the auto center except tax revenue. The traffic, flooding and noise are all negative factors. He recalled a flooding incident in his neighborhood which included one loss of life and didn't see how the auto center or improvements at the intersection at Browning and Bryan could do anything but back up the water into his neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 page seven Alice Huber, owns property from 13881 thru 13995 Browning and lives at 13891Dall Lane, expressed her deep concern and opposition to the project. She voiced her concern with flooding by rain and also the periodic release of water by the water department down their street. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chariman White closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. He introduced a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Nemick directed to the Commission. Commission discussion ensued concerning the traffic impact and measures to alleviate the problems. McCarthy suggested widening Myford to four lanes from the I-5 to Bryan and also widening Bryan from Myford to Browning. Terry Austin reviewed the EIR graphs and drawings denoting cumulative and background volumes of traffic circulation. The residential project between Browning and Jamboree does not put any traffic on the neighboring section of Redhill. The report addresses Redhill, Myford and Bryan and shows the diversion to Jamboree not actual volumes on Jamboree. If we assume we have the Jamboree interchange and the section to the north, before you put the project in, there could be something like about 5,000 vehicles per day. As you extend Jamboree to the south to meet with Walnut, it increases even more. As Jamboree is completed, it will divert more and more traffic from Redhill. In further discussion concerning the parking requirements inside the center, Don Lamm explained that the requirements were proposed by The Irvine Company based on other auto centers throughout Orange County. As outlined in the site plan, Lot 5 is proposed to be a common parking area for all employees of the auto center. Bonnie Holms elaborated that per acre an existing business might require 9 - 10 employee parking spaces. We have stipulated that at least 11 spaces per acre per business must be reserved for employee parking which can be achieved on their site or in the common parking lot. In addition, we are requiring they provide employee parking on their site for any demonstrator cars which their salesmen will drive. The customer parking will be available at curb side on the interior street. They will have on-site parking stalls for at least six customers plus handicap stalls. Commissioner Well further questioned loading and unloading. Bonnie said they are encouraging the dealers to provide facilities on their premises but are leaving as an option that in the middle lane of the interior street, the truck drivers could off-load there. Commissioner Wetl expressed concern with the landscape maintenance section in the Merchant's Association CC&R's. She would like to include replacement of dead plants. Don Lamm said this could be included into the document that goes to City Council. Don responded to Mr. White's concern over definition. We can require The Irvine Company to submit specific wording and definition of each of these. In particular, we have referred to the master landscape plan being returned tothe Commission for future review. We can require that the master landscape, sign and design criteria package be returned for Commission review as an agreed to condition of the zoning. Mr. White is in favor of this and would like to include walls and exterior speakers. He would also like to have an opportunity to review the hydrology report. Sharp would be in favor of including these conditions in the parcel map especially the hydrology report. McCarthy would like something in writing from Caltrans regarding the Jamboree interchange. P]anntng Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 page eight Mr. Lamm pointed out that Resolution 2204 with the mitigation measures would be adequate to cover their concerns raised. The other conditions would be for you to review design criteria, landscape, signage, walls and performance standards concerning such things as outside loud speakers. These conditions can be incorporated into the planned community zone regulations. White wondered if we could require another plan be processed that the planned community would require processing of a landscape and wall master plan. Lamm continued that the other remaining conditions concerning the hydrology and Caltrans review would be preferred to be incorporated into the parcel map conditions. Puckett moved, Wetl second Resolution 2206 with amendments requiring prior to approval of building permits a master landscape and wall plan be submitted to the Commission for approval consistent with the elevation drawings. Also the sign plan wording in the zone change be clarified. And, that design criteria also be processed through the Commission. These should be drafted and written into the planned community zone regulations. Exterior public address systems shall be prohibited unless a plan containing mitigation mesures is processed through the Commission and can demonstrate it will not be a problem to the adjacent residents. No vote was taken at this time. Commissioner Puckett moved, Wetl second to adopt Resolution No. 2204 to certify the draft environmental impact report and forward to City Council for final adoption of the final environmental impact report. Motion carried 4-1, McCarthy opposed. Commissioner Sharp moved, Well second to adopt Resolution No. 2205 to change the general plan designation for the auto center area from single family residential to planned community commercial. Motion carried 4-1, McCarthy opposed. Commissioner Puckett moved, Wetl second to adopt Resolution No. 2206 to change the zone from the planned community residential to planned community commercial as amended above. Motion carried 4-1, McCarthy opposed. 5. PARCEL MAP NO. 84-1032 Applicant: Location: Request: Poston Tanaka on behalf of The Irvine Company Bounded by I-5 freeway, proposed Jamboree Road, proposed Laguna Road and a line 192 feet east of the E1Modena Channel. To subdivide the property for the East Tustin Planned Community/Tustin Auto Center. Presentation: Donald Lamm, Director of Community Development Don Lamm presented minor changes to the conditions imposed. Commissioner Sharp moved, Puckett second to approve Resolution No. 2207 to include the revised conditions as presented by Don Lamm. Motion carried 4-1, McCarthy opposed. RECESS Chairman White recessed the meeting at 9:20 p.m. to allow people attending the auto center public hearing time to leave. Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 page nine RECOMVE#E Chairman White reconvened the meeting at 9:34 p.m. PUBLIC HEAR~#GS (continued) 6. USE PERMIT NO. 85-1 Appl i cant: Leonard Constructi on Location: Walnut Plaza Center, Walnut and Newport Avenues Request: To install a pole sign of (50) fifty feet. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner Jeff Davis presented staff's report as contained in Report to Planning Commission dated January 14, 1985. Chairman White opened the public hearing at g:38 p.m. The following person spoke: Michael LePore, Leonard Construction, agreed with the staff report but felt a pole sign would be more readable than a monument sign. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chairman White closed the hearing at 9:45 p.m. Commission discussion ensued concerning the benefits of a pole sign versus a monument sign and the number of existing pole signs on Newport. Commissioner Puckett moved, Sharp second to approve Use Permit 85-1. Motion failed 3-2, McCarthy, Well, White opposed. Commissioner Well moved, McCarthy second staff recommendation to deny Use Permit 85-1, and to approve a monument sign subject to review of the elevations at the next meeting. Motion carried 3-2, Puckett, Sharp opposed. AI)#I MISll~ATIVE #AI'~ERS Old Business 7. Continued consideration of Tentative Parcel Map 84-1033, Dow Avenue. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Commissioner Sharp moved, White second to approve Resolution No. 2202 and recommended staff send a letter to the applicant indicating that if they want to deviate they should address the City Council. Motion carried 5-0. New Business 8. Report Concernin0 the Appropriate zoning for Yorba Street from First Street to Irvine Boulevard. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Commissioner Well moved, Sharp second to direct staff to thoroughly research the subject and report back with the necessary information and demographics to formulate a recommendation to City Council. Motion caried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 page ten STAFF CONCERNS 9. Report on Council Actions January 7, 1985. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development COMMISSIOM CONCERNS Commissioner Wetl questioned when the Specific Plan would be available and if the Planning Commmission could get a thorough progress report for the Santa Fe and East Tustin time frame. Commissioner Puckett suggested a letter be sent to Ed Knight congratulating him on his promotion. Commissioner Puckett questioned if the City is now allowing the sale and rental of adult video movies. Chairman White publicly commended Hal Krizan, Director of Orange County EMA Regulations, for his chairmanship of the County Subdivision Committee. Chairman White attended a meeting and was impressed with Mr. Krtzan's concern for the applicant, his knowledge of the process, and the manner in which he conducted the affairs of the Committee. He stands as an example how public meetings can be run in a non-adversary manner which makes it enjoyable rather than difficult. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to January 28, 1985. Adjourned at 10:10 p.m. to their next regularly scheduled meeting. Recording Secretary RONALD H. WHITE, Chairman