Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-09-84 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ~ETIMG OF TIlE PLANNING COI~IISSION OF TIlE CITY OF llISTIN, CALIFORNIA July 9, 1984 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Sharp at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Ainslie and the Invocation was given by Commissioner Puckett. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Also present: James Sharp, Chairman Ronald White, Chairman Pro Tem {arrived at 7:37 p.m.) Mark Ainslie Charles Puckett Kathy Wetl None Donald D. Lamm, Dtrector of Community Development Ed Knight, Associate Planner Jeff Davts, Assistant Planner Alan Warren, Senior Planner Suzanne Atktns, Deputy City Attorney MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Well, second by Puckett, to approve the minutes of the meeting of June 25, 1984. Motion carried 4-0, White absent. PUBLIC CONCERNS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Final Tract Map No. 11649 1162 Sycamore - Barnett-Nowling, Partnership Moved by Puckett, seconded by Wetl, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried, 4-0, White absent. Commissioner White arrived, 7:37 p.m. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-3b - OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN. A combined and revised Open Space and Conservation Element that addresses the conservation, development and utilization of the natural resources for the City of Tustin. Programs and plans are proposed that will conservate, maintain and assure the continued availability of land for the production of food and fiber, for the enjoyment of scenic beauty, for recreation and for the use of natural resources. An environmental assessment of the Open Space and Conservation Element is included and referenced within the document. Donald D. Lamm presented staff's report and recommendation to continue as contained in the Report to the Planning Commission dated July 9, 1984. Chairman Sharp opened the hearing at 7:36 p.m.. Seeing no one wishing to speak, it was moved by Well, seconded by Puckett, to continue the hearing to the next regular meeting on July 23, 1984. Motion carried, 4-0 Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1984 page two 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-3c - RECREATION ELEMENT Shows a comprehensive system of areas and public sites for recreation. Programs are proposed that address the community-wide needs and requirements for recreational areas. An environmental assessment of the Recreation Element is included and referenced within the document. Donald D. Lamm presented staff's report and recommendation to continue as contained in the Report to the Planning Commission dated July 9, 1984. Chairman Sharp opened the hearing at 7:38 p.m.. Seeing no one wishing to speak, it was moved by Well, second by Puckett, to continue the hearing to the next regular meeting on July 23, 1984. Motion carried, 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 84-2 - SATELLITE RECEIVING DISH/ANTENNA An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to include development standards for the location and installation of Satellite Receiving Dish/Antenna. Donald D. Lamm presented staff's report and recommendation specifically to regulate or establish standards for the installation of satellite dish type antenna receiving facilities as contained in staff's report to the Planning Commission dated July 9, 1984. Mr. Lamm responded to Commissioner Ainslie's question that the dish antenna had to have a clear line of sight to a southwesterly direction and cannot be blocked in any way by vegetation, buildings, etc. Commissioner Ainslie expressed concern that restricting residentials to ground level in backyards would rule out a lot of people in town. Mr. Lamm responded that two story homes with small backyards or trees would not get the line of sight necessary. Commissioner Weil expressed concern for the neighbors of the backyards containing a dish antenna. Mr. Lamm explained the difficulty in this issue is that a large majority of homes in Tustin are two story and they would have clear view of a neighboring yard. Commissioner Weil continued with concern over the height of the dish not exceeding the height of the fence. Mr. Lamm pointed out that the diameter of the dish will more than likely be higher than the fence. If we require that they have to be obscured from the view of adjoining properties, we would eliminate about 95% in residential areas. Chairman Sharp opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. The following person expressed his interest in the aesthetics and skyline in Tustin: Thomas Shoemaker, 453 E. Camino Real, pointed out that we should consider requests on an individual basis due to the varying sizes of roof space on buildings. The screening on a small building being equivalent to a second story could be less attractive than the antenna alone. Don Lamm responded we would have individual control on requests. Since the Tustin Code does not address these antenna specifically, staff has determined that these antennas are roof top mechanical devices which our code requires be co~letely screened from public view. In many cases, the screening could be as large as the ground floor of the building. The proposal before the Commission is a little more lenient. It states the antenna must be obscured, which could include a variety of screenings. It leaves the options wide open for the Commission consideration of the criteria applicable to each building's architecture. We are recommending stricter requirements for residential zones. We can require a Use Permit for the entire City and you can judge each request on its own merit. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1984 page three Chairman Sharp seeing no one else wishing to speak closed the public hearing at 7:53 and asked for discussion among the Commissioners. Commissioner White questioned if anyone wanting ~o erect a similar antenna would be subject to design review by the Commission or the staff. Don Lamm responded that they would be subject to staff design review which have minimal standards that can be imposed. Under the proposed new code it would be reviewed under a Use Permit by the Commission. Commissioner Ainslie expressed his concern that by imposing too many conditions and restrictions on installation of dish antennas, we would eliminate about 95% of the people who would like an option to Communicom; thus creating a monopoly by Communicom. He agrees we need a building permit to insure proper anchoring, does not agree we need a Conditional Use Permit for antenna, does not see the need for them to be on ground level in residential zones as long as they are obscured from public right of way. He felt it should remain at staff level with guidelines for screening and if an appeal was necessary they could appeal to the Commission for a variance. Commissioner Weil felt we should maintain control over the installation until the industry stabilizes. She was concerned with the visual in~act upon the surrounding neighbors. Commissioner Ainslte pointed out that if there was a protest we would hold a hearing; without a protest there is no hearing. Weil felt people did not understand the system enough to know they could come to City Hall to protest. Chairman Sharp summarized it as a classic problem of protecting the individual rights or the rights of the group. Ainslie felt the additional $250 charge for a public hearing would impose a greater hardship on citizens. After two unsuccessful motions, Commissioner White moved, Weil seconded that Zoning Ordinance Amendment 84-2 be recommended for adoption and that Item 5, underground wiring, be deleted with the provision that the wiring of the antenna simply be screened from view and that reference to satellite receiving dish antennas amended to "any dish antenna exceeding 4 feet in diameter." 4-1 vote (Ainslie opposed) 2. ZONE CHANGE 84-3 Applicant: Location: Request: Barry Watkins on behalf of Tustin Properties northeasterly corner of Seventeenth Street and Carroll Way authorization to change the zone from C-1 Retail Commercial to Commercial General (CG-PUD) Jeff Davis presented staff's report and recommendations as contained in the Report to the Planning Commission dated July 9, 1984. Chairman Sharp opened the public hearing at 8:36 p.m. The following person spoke in favor of the zone change: D. Barrett Watktns, managing partner of Tusttn Properties, explained that they would like to re-do the center, upgrade it substantially, add additional building areas, provide for outside seating and outside display areas similar to a Conroy's Florist. Their hope is to maximize the available retail sales from the property and to build a very quality product. Don Lamm explained that Mr. Watkins will be back at a future Planning Commission meeting with his Use Permit application and full presentation of the project. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1984 page four The following person spoke in favor of Zone Change 84-3: Robert Ebert, 13832 Fairmont Way, explained that his property is behind the proposed shopping center. He directed a question to Don Lamm: He wondered if now or the next hearing would be the appropriate time to comment on certain changes regarding the physical attributes of the project. Don Lamm responded that tonight the Commission should be considering whether or not to change the zoning of the property. Mr. Ebert continued his comment in regard to the zone change. He explained that his interest is the 165 feet of the back line of his property. He feels it would impact him, his family and his property value. He favors what Mr. Watkins has proposed and thinks it would be a good change for the center with specific changes in regard to the building. Commissioner Sharp seeing no one else wishing to speak closed the public hearing at 8:58 p.m. and opened the meeting up for Commission discussion. Moved by Well and second by White to approve the adoption of Zone Change 84-3. Motion carried 5-0. 2. USE PERMIT 84-12 Appl i cant: Locati on: Request: Garrison Management, Inc., on behalf of P.P.F. (a general partnership) 1122-1192 Laguna Road authorization to develop a 10,000 square foot automotive service center with a freeway identification sign. Alan Warren presented staff's report and recommendations as contained in the Report to the Planning Commission dated July 9, 1984. Chairman Sharp asked if we received any response to the advertised public hearing. Mr. Warren replied we did not. Chairman Sharp opened the public hearing at 9:08. The following person spoke in favor of Use Permit 84-12: Steve Garrison, the applicant, expressed his appreciation to staff for their sensitivity to the parking impact upon the neighbors. He explained their analysis of reducing the square footage: the cost would be reduced but also the income of the property would be reduced. If they had to go two spaces per bay, the project would not be economically feasible. He suggested that the Commission look at the project's ability to enhance the street, the lack of automotive repair in Tustin, and there would be significant sales tax revenue. He also stated that in their initial analysis they looked at five spaces per 1,000 as a proper ratio for the office areas and two spaces per 1,000 for the warehouse/industrial segments of the building; on that basis 24 parking spaces would be adequate. They are providing 29 spaces. He also explained that perhaps the employees could tandem park. If they tandem park they could probably park another four to five cars. On that basis they would have 3.7 cars per 1,000. Relating to the signs, he considers the monument sign in front to be an identification sign and would be willing to compromise to retain the pylon sign which he feels has important commercial value. Chairman Sharp questioned if the project would be viable if the City decided to restrict the parking on the south side of Laguna Road. Mr. Garrison explained that he understands it is already posted no parking. He has met with the Principal and Assistant Principal of Tustin High and they did not express any opposition to the project. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1984 page five The following person spoke in favor of Use Permit 84-12: Charles Noble, of Lee & Associates, will be handling the marketing of the project. He added that in talking with managers of similar projects you cannot have an employee per bay. A mechanic may be working on a car in one bay, and at the same time called to another project. They do not have actual leases at this time, but do have letters of commitment on the westerly building. The following person spoke in favor of Use Permit 84-12: Barry Watkins, friend of Steve Garrison, shared his experience with Dorman and Kragen Automotive. The other cities allowed the bays to counted for parking since the car parks outside for a short time until it can be worked on inside the bay. The following person spoke in favor of Use Permit 84-12: Dan Pettay, owner of the property, explained that he has attempted to develop the property numerous times but has been turned down for uses that were approved under the zone. It has gotten to the point where it is almost inverse condemnation of the property. He is concerned that if they have to cut down on the size of the project, the project would not be feasible. It has gotten to the point where either we need to develop the property now or condemn it. The following person commented on Use Permit 84-12: Gil Kveen, Jr., son of property owner at 1111 Laguna Road. He was involved in auto repair for six years and explained that he felt parking would be a real problem. He experiences parking problems everytime there is a football game or other school activity. There are nine repair centers within a three block radius of this proposed location plus one truck repair facility. He also felt traffic would be a problem. Car repair shops will need to take the cars out and test drive them. He felt it was not only dangerous from a traffic standpoint, but also from the kids crossing the street from school. He questioned if this project would eliminate the pre-school and veterinary office. Mr. Warren responded the pre-school would be eliminated but the veterinary hospital would remain. Chairman Sharp, seeing no one else wishing to speak, closed the public hearing at 9:30 p.m. and asked for discussion from Commission. Mr. Lamm commented that staff is particularly favorable of this project. However, based on his experience with a Cypress project, he feels the parking would be inadequate. Mr. Lamm also commented that the city is not trying to inversely condemn this property. Chairman Sharp felt the developer would have more to lose than the city if the parking were not adequate. He also would be interested in incorporating the CC&R's as a part of the Use Permit. After further Commission discussion Commissioner White moved, second by Ainslie to continue to next regular meeting on July 23rd and directing project applicant to meet with Staff to resolve parking problem, 5-0 vote. AI)NI#ISll~ATIVE NkTTERS A. Old Business None Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1984 page si x B. New Business 1. Large Family Day Care Home Permit 14692 Cheshire Place Jeff Davis presented staff's report and recommendation as contained in the staff report dated July 9, 1984. Commission requested public input in favor or opposing their day care permit for which there was neither. Staff indicated only one anonymous phone call in opposition but refused to formerly protest. Following discussion by the Commission, Well moved and White seconded to grant the permit, 5-0 vote. 2. Relief from Compliance with Condition I. of Variance 83-1. Don Lamm presented staff's report and recommendation as contained in the Report to the Planning Commission dated July 9, 1984. A general discussion followed regarding the viability of using Suite 183 as retail and the overall appearance of the project. It was moved by Commissioner White and second by Puckett to waive the condition of original approval for retail space as recommended by staff, 5-0 vote. STAFF CONCERNS 1. Report on Council Actions - July 2, 1984 Don Lamm summarized the past City Council agenda. COII4ISSION CONCERNS None. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned to 6:30 p.m. on July 23, 1984 for a public meeting to discuss possible changes to the zoning ordinance concerning alcoholic beverage licensing. Prepared by Donna Orr, Recording Secretary JAMES B. SHARP, Chairman