Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-27-84 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF ltlE PLANNING COI~IISSION OF TIlE CZTf OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA August 27, 1984 The meeting was called to order by Chairman White at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. ROLL CALL Commi ssi oners Present: ronald White, Chairman Kathy Well, Chairman Pro Tem Charles Puckett James Sharp John J. McCarthy Commissioners Absent: Also present: None Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Ed Knight, Associate Planner Alan Warren, Senior Planner Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Suzanne Atkins, Deputy City Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner White and the Invocation was given by Commissioner Puckett. NIMUll[S Moved by Chairman White, second by Puckett, to approve the minutes of the meeting of August 13, 1984 with changes. 5-0 Moved by Puckett, second by McCarthy to approve the Minutes of the A1-E~hol Workshop August 15, lgslF~. 3-0, Well/Sharp abstained. PUBLIC CONCERNS Chairman White took this opportunity to introduce the new Planning Commissioner John McCarthy. COPlNISSION CONCERNS None. CONSENT CALENDAR Resolution No. 2176. The Commission made three changes to the Resolution: Page two, C.3 shall read "wall" not "walk"; Page two C.1 shall read "120 square foot" rather than "100 square foot"; Page two, G shall read "substantial wrought iron". Moved by Wetl, second by Sharp to approve Resolution No. 2176 with the above noted changes. 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. USE PERMIT NO. 84-20 Applicant: Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Location: Southwest corner of Red Hill and Edinger Avenues Request: Authorization to develop an office complex consisting of four buildings each three stories in height on a 20 acre site. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Don Lamm gave staff's presentation as contained in Report to Planning Commission dated August 27, 1984. He explained our normal parking standard is 20~ compact, rebutted their 40[ compact proposal and suggested 30[. He continued to explain alternative land uses for the site from the specific Planntng Commission Minutes August 27, 1984 page ~wo plan. J.L. Webb has suggested three land use alternatives for the Santa Fe/Edinger Specific Plan area. Alternative A is staff's preferred plan and indicates the greatest commercial potential with the full freeway on and off access. He further explained the requested combination of Alternatives A and C; and, the reason Alternative B would not be feasible. Don Lamm responded to Commissioner Well's question that the mitigation measures in a Negative Declaration carry the same weight as an EIR and further pointed out the measures in this project are written into the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Lamm also responded to Commissioner Sharp that the Negative Declaration does not impact any state agencies and was not required to be forwarded to the State Clearinghouse. To date, no one has commented either for or against the project. Mr. Lamm explained to Chairman White that the Negative Declaration is something proposed by staff. The review period ended August 24th. If the Commission does not choose to accept the findings of the Negative Declaration, we can begin the EIR process. Chairman White opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. The following person spoke in favor of Use Permit 84-20: Philip Schwartze, Vice President of Philips, Brandt, Reddick, focused on the parking and commercial potential for the property. The compact car spaces requested are 8 x 18; the normal City Code standard is 9 x 20, sub-compact is 7-1/2 x 16. They are fully convinced there will be no extra parking demands other than what is planned. Pacific Bell cannot support commercial activity on this site because the ability to take ingress and egress would impose a great deal of difficulty in accessing the site. Further, he agreed with Mr. Lamm in looking at Alternative C to move the commercial property to the west. Commissioner Sharp expressed concern with the congested traffic on Red Hill and questioned the working hours of employees of Pacific Bell. Mr. Schwartze responded they could do staggered work hours and have a parking management plan. His client would be agreeable to this as a condition of approval. Mr. Schwartze responded to Commissioner Well that the traffic engineers analyzed the situation and that is the kind of traffic generated from a normal office building. There would not be a substantial amount of vistation to this project. The figure the engineers used is an average building use, not this building in particular. Commissioner Well questioned the reason for a parking lane on Edinger. Mr. Schwartze explained that would be a right-turn only lane. They are totally parked on site. Chairman White asked if the ADT number of 5,500 is for the 1300 employees and if the difference in square footage is the difference between net and gross. Mr. Schwartze responded yes, for the 1300 employees and the footage is net gross. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chairman White closed the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Chairman White asked Mr. Lamm to "walk" the Commission through the intended mitigation measures. Mr. Lamm explained that CEQA was amended to permit a project applicant to revise his plan submittal to mitigate the problem areas by Negative Declaration. This project's mitigation measures were proposed to us by Austin Foust & Associates. Mr. Lamm explained the primary mitigation measures deal with how to get greater capacity on Red Hill. The greatest capacity can be accomplished by striping one additional lane from Edinger to Walnut and by making minor changes to median islands. This, as well as installing traffic signals on Industrial Way and Edinger Avenue, would be done at Pacific Bell's expense. Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 1984 page three Mr. Lamm further explained that this property is in the middle of the Santa Fe/Edinger traffic analysis that identifies regional transportation problems needing correction. Regardless of Pacific Bell, we need to find a new location for an on-ramp to the 55 freeway with greater stacking capacity. Staff will be developing a formula for Pacific Bell and any other new buildings in the area will be paying a fee related to the type of use and building square footage as to their traffic demand. Pacific Bell will be contributing towards this; they are not totally the cause so therefore they cannot be charged more than their fair share. The City or Caltrans will be absorbing the balance of the cost at whatever date we build this project. The mitigation measures addressing air quality are nothing more than boiler-plate mitigation measures. This is identical to a focused environmental impact report. The only real difference between this and an EIR is that this takes substantially less time as far as a public review period. Mr. Lamm responded to Chairman White, until the Nisson property is acquired and the street widened there we have a problem. The resolution is unknown at this time. The City cannot, in all fairness, require Pacific Bell to acquire Mr. Nisson's right-of-way to build three lanes. We are only requiring Pacific Bell to put in a third southbound lane. The Northbound will remain the same. Our alternative is to condition this project in phases, maybe give Pacific Bell authorization to build two buildings and at such time the right of way is acquired go to the four building level. The City Engineer advised it would not be fair to put a condition on Pacific Bell. Mr. Lan~n further responded to Chairman White that this is not a matter of an assessment district. The City can take the right-of-way by condemning Mr. Ntsson's house since it is in the ultimate right-of-way line. That decision will have to ultimately be made. Mr. Lamm continued in response to Chairman White that the specific plan analyzes the three alternatives each containing a traffic generation map. Again, this is analyzed on a worst case situation; there is not many uses other than all office that would be a higher traffic generator. Mr. Lan~n explained to Chairman White that the ADT would be lower if this project were built as R+D, not office. That is why we are requiring them to pay for greater regional transportation improvements than a warehouse or manufacturing business. Whether Pacific Bell builds or not we have a problem that needs resolution; Newport Avenue has to be extended through and a new on-ramp has to be built. In response to Commissioner Well's question concerning the affect of Jarvis 4, if successful, on the assessment district, Mr. Lamm explained that if the district is in place and the land owners agree it should be able to be assessed in the future. It is only a one time assessment placed against building permits. Mr. Lamm further addressed the question of whether 100% office would have a greater traffic impact on the streets than an industrial warehouse business with 50% office. If you had a warehouse use with all truck traffic, it could be far more disruptive than passenger vehicles. It also eliminates the possibility of a rail use industry moving into the area. Commissioner Puckett commented that he likes the project and thinks the staff has done an excellent job in preparing the report. He thinks the project would be an attribute to the City. He prefers Alternative C ooncerning Commercial, because Commercial would not be compatible on this corner. A restaurant across from Industrial Drive would be a better use of the area. Commissioner Sharp supports the project. He is concerned with traffic circulation and is unclear about the third lane. Mr. Lamm explained that the third lane addition extends from Edtnger to Walnut on both north and Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 1984 page four southbound. From Walnut northerly to I-5 they would be adding one additional on the southbound leg. They cannot provide it on the north because of the Nisson property. Commissioner Wetl asked if we go ahead and approve the project tonight, does it come back in the form of resolution or go on to the City Council. Mr. Lamm responded that a resolution would be on their next agenda for the Commission's consent. The project could be finalized tonight unless the Council appeals it. We will not issue building permits until the specific plan is in place due to the moratorium on development. We can change the preferred alternative to show the Pacific Bell project and move the commercial around to accurately reflect the Commission's views. Commissioner Well has a problem approving the project since none of the homeowners associations affected by the project are present. Mr. Lamm responded that none of the homeowners associations are within the 300 feet required for notification. Commissioner Wetl moved to continue to September 24th to obtain more public input and to enable staff to answer her two pages of questions. Commissioner Sharp seconded the motion for the sake of discussion and to hear input from the large residential area on Red Hill near the project. Commissioner McCarthy wondered what will happen with that input and why delay a project because the City has delayed getting an alternative for the north/south route of Red Hill. He thinks we are delaying the project because of the traffic environment that we recognize has been there all along. Maybe this is a good case of the cart-before-the-horse and we will get something done. Commissioner Well's major concern is the problem in the past that people hear about a project after the public hearing and they become very upset because they didn't have a chance to speak on the issue. She feels we should make a concerted effort to get the word out. She further elaborated on her many questions and the fact that just to the northeast is a very large tract of homes and to the direct north is an elementary and intermediate school complex. There are some rather large holes in the report and rather than go through it quickly she would like to take a harder look at it. We do not have an environmental impact report and if anyone challenges the project, we can't certify it is adequate. Commissioner Sharp would like to have staff's recommendation on staggering the work hours of the employees included in the Resolution. Commissioner Puckett wondered what impact a 30 day delay would have on the project. Mr. Schwartze responded that due to the actions of the court, Pacific Bell has been required to give notice on leased spaces they have. They have offered that during the construction activity they will go ahead with final architecture so that when the specific plan is approved, they will be ready to go immediately. They are attempting to time the construction around the wet season so that the two main buildings in the front can go up instantly and the other would be shortly thereafter. Mr.'Lamm reviewed the Planning Commission calendar and explained their next regularly scheduled meeting on September loth is a joint meeting with the City Council to review the Elements. He suggested they call a special meeting of the Commission. Chairman White commented he would like to retain the concept of the specifc plan. One of the concerns he has is the affect of traffic of this project and the specific plan and the densities being proposed. He feels the Negative Declaration is inappropriate in this case. He wondered that if in the interim they could discuss some alternatives. There would be 5,000 ADT on a street that already is carrying 29,000 ADT; that is a significant impact. The reason we want a specific plan is to control the uses on this piece of property or at least come up with mitigation measures that would be effective to enable building at higher densities. Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 1984 page fi ve Commissioner Sharp commented that the school district and the neighboring homeowners association should be provided an opportunity to speak. He would like to hear as much public input before the matter is considered by the City Council. 3-2, McCarthy, Puckett opposed. Further discussion ensued and Mr. Lamm requested more direction from the Commission concerning the alternatives they would like investigated. He explained the time frame involved in requiring an EIR. Chairman White would like more information on the time involved in traveling through the traffic area. Mr. Lamm explained that if the Commission feels uncomfortable with the proposal they should continue or deny it and wait for the specific plan. At the level the staff can analyze it, this is the best we can do. Mr. Lamm further explained that the zone permits by right, (no use permit, no public hearing and no environmental review) 100% industrial and up to 50% office. No corrections would have to be made to the Red Hill Avenue circulation system. The minute they hit the 51% office it triggered the use permit and we required the mitigation measures. Commissioner Wetl wants a comparison of the ADT between the originally proposed R+D and Pacific Bell. Mr. Lamm clarified her concern: theoretically taking a business with up to 50% office, 50% R+D, taking that ADT versus this and showing you how much worse this is. Chairman White reopened the public hearing and continued it to September 11, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. 2. VARIANCE 84-1 Applicant: Location: Request: James R. Ltndsey 653 "B" Street Authorization to vary from Section 9495 of the Tustin City Code; specifically to permit one (1) sign in excess of the maximum area allowed, and to permit one (1) sign not otherwise allowed by Section 9495. Presentation: Alan Warren, Senior Planner Don Lamm explained that a request has been received by the applicant to continue this item to the September 24, 1984 meeting. Chairman White opened the public hering at 8:45 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Commissioner Sharp moved, Puckett second to continue this public hearing to September 24, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. 5-0. 3. USE PERMIT NO. 84-21 Applicant: Location: Request: Jenkins Sign Co. Northeast corner of Tustin Avenue and First Street. Authorization to install a pole sign and a request to vary with Section 9494 of the Tusttn City Code including a canopy sign and graphics. Oral Presentation: Alan Warren, Senior Planner Alan Warren gave staff's presentation as contained in the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 24, 1984. Chairman White opened the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. The following person spoke in favor of Use Permit No. 84-21: Doris Bennet, Jenkins Sign Co., 7054 Laurel Canyon, North Hollywood, presented corrections to the staff report: the actual square footage of the sign is 86 square feet; height is 18'8"; two {2) 2 x 7 canopy signs; item "d" has been deleted from the program. Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 1984 page si x On page two, item a, since it actually conforms to the code, she wondered if a permit should be required and requested more research; Arco will be painting the building white, there will be no contrast between the building and the canopy; all other signs staff is concerned about are scheduled to be removed. Arco's image improvement program should accomplish the removal of all of the clutter and miscellaneous signs stations put up. Mr. Warren reviewed his conversations with Mrs. Bennet concerning the modification of the station colors. The final concept should come after a determination by the Commission as to what they are willing to consider. Staff asks that a complete appearance be brought to the Commission for consideration. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chairman White closed the public hearing at 8:56 p.m. Commissioner Weil wondered where the pricing of the gasoline would be placed if we disallowed the pole sign of 86 feet. Mr. Warren responded the monument sign has price and name identification. Based on the applicant's proposal to remove all non-conforming signs, Commissioner Sharp moved, Puckett second to approve the canopy facia and a supplemental wall sign in concept as detailed in the "Findings and Conclusions" in Report to Planning Commission dated August 27, 1984. The applicant will bring a revised sign plan back to the Commission for final review and approval at the September 24, 1984 meeting. 5-0 4. THIRD REVISED TRACT NO. 11370 AND FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW Applicant: Location: Request: Robert P. Warmington Co. Southerly terminus of Newport Avenue Authorization for the subdivision of 6.4 gross acres into three lots with 156 condominium units. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain Mary Ann Chamberlain explained the applicant requested we not consider his final site plan tonight because they have again revised the site plan and are deleting three more units. They are requesting it be heard when they bring in their architectural treatments of the building exteriors and their final landscape plan. She further explained the reason this is a third revised tract number is because there have been that many use permits on this project and each use permit has had its own individual tentative tract. This tentative tract is no different than some of the others except it is three separate lots which could be three separate phases. Ms. Chamberlain further explained the additional condition to be added to Resolution No. 2175. Lot three has a remnant parcel on the southwesterly end of the lot. This remnant parcel has never been annexed into the City and needs to be formally annexed. This should be done prior to the recordation of the final map. Chairman White clarified that the recommendation is to approve the tentative map but not the site plan and add an additional condition to annex prior to recordation. He questioned the timing of the annexation process. Ms. Chamberlain explained that by the time the map is ready it should be completed. Chairman White opened the public hearing at g:03 p.m. The following person spoke in favor of Tentative Tract No. 11370. Mac O'Donnel, R.P. Warmington Co., stated that they concur with staff's recommendation requiring LAFCO approval. They have started the annexation process. The reason they requested the site plan be continued is to submit the site plan, architectural treatments and final color scheme and landscape plan as one complete package instead of piecemeal. Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 1984 page seven Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chairman White closed the public hearing at 9:09. Moved by Sharp to recommend to City Council approval of the Tentative Tract Map No. 11370 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2175; Wetl second with amendment to Resolution to annex lot three prior to recordation of the map. 5-0 ABflINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. Old Business 1. Resolution for Zoning Ordinance Amendment #84-2; Dish Antenna Regulations. Don Lamm explained that staff made the changes previously recommended by the Commission to Resolution No. 2169; deleting reference to satellite and incorporated 3 foot diameter as the definition of a dish antenna. Staff is still concerned about the criteria related to obscuring the view of an antenna located in a backyard. Staff assumes this includes the parking lot of commercial or industrial property. Staff will proceed with the resolution based on these changes. If a problem arises, staff will submit the resolution for Commission consideration in six months. Chairman White requested a change to Item 3 on page two, "screening shall match the existing exterior building materials". He recommends it be changed to, "screening shall harmonize with the exterior building material s". Commissioner Well requested staff obtain a book entitled "The Statellite Earth Station Zoning", published by a company called Space. She would like to continue further consideration of this Resolution until the Commission has had an opportunity to review the book. Well moved, Sharp second to continue to September 24, 1984. McCarthy opposed. 3-2, White, Mr. Lamm drew the Commission's attention to a recently installed dish antenna which includes screening. It is located in E1 Camino Plaza on top of a lounge called "McGuires". 2. Report Concerning Use Permit Fees. Don Lamm presented staff's recommendation as contained in the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 27, 1984. He requested the Commission withhold making a recommendation to the Council on actual cost until you have a chance to review staff's survey. 3. Summary Report from Workshop on Land Use Regulations Concerning Alcoholic Beverages. Don Lamm anticipated having the report ready for the Commission at the September 24th meeting. B. New Business 1. Site Plan Review: 2701 Dow Avenue - Speculative Industrial Building. Don Lamm continued consideration of this item to September 24th because the parking issue still needs to be resolved. McCarthy moved, Puckett second to receive and file. 5-0 Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 1984 page eight STAFF CONCERNS 1. Report on Amendment to Use Permit No. 83-8 Don Lamm explained that this application is essentially a request for administrative modification of the previously approved project. A condition of approval at the time said that all additions to the existing structure had to be painted the same and it was roughly a Mission Beige color. About a month ago staff noticed they were painting the building a cantaloupe color and informed they could not paint it any color than what had been approved by the Commission. They complied, painted the building Mission Beige, and have now come to you for your approval. Staff recommends the Commission not approve their request. James Adams, James Adams & Associate, was hired by Callender to provide a concept to remodel and upgrade the project spoke in favor of the newly proposed color. They felt the new color provided a much warmer dining experience and was less offensive than the stark white or Mission Beige, especially in the outside dining area. He explained the shock of seeing the new color was stronger because the other trim colors, awnings and all the landscaping was not in place; the total concept is a softer concept than blatantly painting the building a melon color. If the color is Mission Beige, it would destroy the theme throughout the whole project. He further explained that he was not brought into the project at the beginning of the remodel and the orginal Mission Beige color was proposed by the architects. Discussion ensued concerning the existing plants and replacement conditions, the difference between the original proposal and the newly proposed theme and the impact on the surrounding area. John Lewis, the project architect, explained Mr. Callender has the project and community at heart. He feels there is a difference between conformity and compatibility. They are addressing compatibility. He offered to propose a partial change in color for the Commission review. Commissioner Sharp moved, Wetl second to modify the use permit to allow a change to a Dunn and Edwards Apricot Melon. 5-0 2. Report on Council Actions - August 13, lg84 Don Lamm reviewed the Council actions of the meeting August 13, 1984 3. Terms of Planning Commission Don Lamm reviewed staff's report dated August 27, 1984. discussion ensued concerning the mechanics of staggering office. Commission the terms of Chairman White directed staff to recommend to the City Council they consider the Planning Commission terms of office be staggered in the same fashion as the City Council. COIIXIISSION CONCERNS Commission discussion ensued concerning the State APA Conference in September. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned to a joint meeting with the City Council on September 10, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. to consider the Open Space and Recreation Elements. ) m RON WHITE, CHAIRMAN