Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC Minutes 09-12-05 7:00 p.m. Given Nielsen absent Staff present None Approved Menard Taken out of order; adopted Resolution Nos. 3997,3998,3999 ITEM #1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager Jason Retterer, Deputy City Attorney Dana Ogdon, Assistant Community Development Director Doug Anderson, Senior Project Manager-Transportation Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer Justina Willkom, Senior Planner Matt West, Associate Planner Ryan Swiontek, Assistant Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 2005, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. It was moved by Floyd, seconded by Lee, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 3-0. Pontious abstained. PUBLIC HEARINGS Stated that Item 6 would be taken out of order, per staff's request. 6. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 02-001, ZONE CHANGE 02-001, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02-003 REQUESTING: 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 02-001 AND ZONE CHANGE 02-001 TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS AS FOLLOWS: 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02-003 TO AUTHORIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW LIBRARY AT THE SUBJECT ADDRESSES. Minutes - Planning Commission 9-12-05 - Page 1 OWNER! APPLICANT: CITY OF TUSTIN LOCATION: ZONING: RECOMMENDATION: 300-304 E. THIRD ST. 325-329 s. PREBLE DR. 335-339 S. PREBLE DR. 325 E. MAIN ST. 315 E. MAIN ST. 305. E. MAIN ST. 280-284 E. THIRD ST. 320-324 S. PREBLE ST. 330-334 S. PREBLE ST. 285-295 E. MAl N ST. PORTION OF S. PREBLE DR. 345 E. MAIN ST. COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2) UNCLASSIFIED PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3997 recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 02-001. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 3998 recommending that the City Council approve zone Change 02-001. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 3999 recommending that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 02-003 7:04 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Willkom Presented the staff report. Added that the Assistant City Manager, Christine Shingleton, and members from the Engineering Department were also available for any questions the Commissioners might have. Director Asked what the City is doing for the participation of seats or input from the residents of Tustin on the Library Committee, whether or not seats are available, and whether residents can apply and provide input. Floyd Minutes - Planning Commission 9-12-05 - Page 2 Shingleton Pontious Shingleton Pontious Andrea Moore, 300 East Third Street Stated that there was a two-pronged process for community involvement in the needs assessment of a library project; it involved community workshops and focus groups at the elementary school and high school levels and also by neighborhood as the project related to impacted communities that are more heavily dependent upon library services, such as the Southwest neighborhood; there was a Technical Library Subcommittee that obtained input from representatives from the Tustin Unified School District (TUSD); based on that input, the City and TUSD have entered into a joint participation agreement that will provide for a number of joint opportunities that would accommodate the needs of the TUSD; the joint ventures include a homework center with volunteers supporting homework activities for children that are at the elementary school stage, a computer center, a literacy center where there will be resources available to assist in second language skills, and a professional development center; the community room has been designed with joint features, making it useable for the community at large, and will be wired so that the TUSD can bring in their teachers and professional staff to provide training in the professional development arena; the TUSD has a shortage of space in all of their facilities; the joint agreement with the district provides for two representatives of the TUSD and the City to work cooperatively in the operation of the joint ventures; the City will continue its outreach as the Library design process progresses. Asked that the City do as much as possible to consider and promote more of an Old Town type of design for the building, which would help draw people into Old Town. Stated that the intent is to create compatibility between the Civic Center and Library but also recognize that the library needs to be an attraction; there are unique programming issues that affect the architecture that may make it somewhat difficult to replicate similar roof treatments on the Civic Center or create historical building elevations; one major issue is light; it is necessary to make use of passive light to decrease electricity bills; the sloping roof element to the north is designed for that purpose; it is a unique architectural challenge to bring natural light into the building and also create an interesting façade; the Sub-committee will work closely with the Community Development Department and the other operating departments, but the direction of the project was the result of the site visits by the City Council Library task force which wanted to see certain design features considered in the project; another item that may affect the roof treatments is the use of solar passive energy. Indicated that matching the Civic Center was not important to her, but she would like to see architecture similar to Old Town anywhere it might be incorporated. Stated that her residence of twelve years will be affected by the library; and, asked when the relocation of the residents will actually take place. Minutes - Planning Commission 9-12-05 - Page 3 Shingleton Pontious Shingleton Miguel Torres, 14711 Carfax Drive Shingleton 7:18 p.m. Floyd Pontious Lee Pontious Menard Answered the City is working on follow-up to the acquisition activities; all the properties have been acquired; the notices on relocation of the remaining properties, which are residential on the east side of Preble and some of the commercial tenants on the west side, will be going out within weeks; within 90-120 days, relocation activities are anticipated to be completed which will set the stage for demolition activities; the bulk of construction is not anticipated until completion of the architectural working drawings, with permits being issued late summer of 2006. Asked for clarification regarding the relocation of the residents. Stated the dates are not set; the attorneys and relocation consultants will begin the follow-up interviews with each of the residents; it is anticipated that the notices will be sent out within the next three to four weeks. Asked how the library intends to attract people in their late teens and early twenties. Pointed out that the floor plan included in the report identifies various areas for separate reading areas and classroom facilities for young adults and high school students to work together as teams; the current collection for young adults will be doubled; cultural outreach and diversity will be provided in the hardback, audio-visual, and media areas; over 100 work stations for computers are planned that will be wired for laptop accessibility. The Public Hearing closed. Indicated it is exciting to see the library project coming forward; encouraged the residents to stay abreast of the ongoing process; and, stated his support of the project. Noted the need for a new library was identified years ago; seeing it come together is exciting; she supports staff's recommendation. Stated his appreciation for all the committees that were involved in making the library expansion happen; the project looks state of the art; the project will benefit Tustin residents; he supports the project. Added the City deserves credit for the work with the TUSD and cooperative programs. Echoed those compliments; thanked the Assistant City Attorney for her hard work on this project; the library is something the City will be very proud of. It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Floyd, to adopt Resolution Nos. 3997,3998, and 3999. Motion carried 4-0. Minutes - Planning Commission 9-12-05 - Page 4 Adopted Resolution Nos. 3995 and 4000 7:27 p.m. West Director Floyd West Pontious West Pontious Menard West 2. CONTINUED LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE 05-019 REQUESTING TO CARE FOR UP TO FOURTEEN (14) CHILDREN IN THE RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 15712 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONING DISTRICT. APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER: MARIA DEL CARMEN HURTADO RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt: 1. Resolution No. 4000 determining as adequate the Final Negative Declaration. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 3995 approving Large Family Day Care 05-019. The Public Hearing opened. Presented the staff report. Added that the Planning Commission is limited regarding large family day care applications; the permits do not come before the Commission unless such a request is made by the applicant or property owner; if the project proponent meets the standards that are set forth in the Tustin City Code, there is no choice but to approve the permit; the staff report indicates this applicant meets those standards; if there are future violations, the permit can be revoked. Asked if this is a new day care facility. Indicated there is a license at the location for a small family day care use. Asked if that license allows for up to seven children. Responded in the affirmative; and, added that small day care facilities are exempt from a large family day care permit. Pointed out the application would allow only seven additional children at the site. . Asked staff is fourteen children would be the maximum allowed. Answered in the affirmative. Minutes - Planning Commission 9-12-05 - Page 5 Lee West Lee West Lee Pontious Director Lee West Lee Menard Pontious Maria Del Carmen Hurtado, applicant Menard Susan Gurrera Oelrich, 14712 Danberry, Tustin Asked what the age range of the children at this facility would be. Responded that the children could be infants to school age. Asked if the State evaluates this license on an annual basis. Indicated the State evaluates these facilities on an as-needed basis, which is also determined by the availability of staff time. Asked if it is common for the noise levels to be evaluated after the school is established in order to determine what the actual decibel levels are. Suggested monitoring the noise levels would be on a complaint basis only. Answered that there are other large family day care facilities throughout the City; generally, staff has not received complaints on those facilities; most large family day care facilities are run well; those that are not were usually not licensed appropriately. Regarding the ages of the children, the State establishes the requirement, especially relating to infants, which is determined by the number of employees who are on-site. Clarified that the only employees for the facility live at the residence. Stated that is correct. Asked how these facilities advertise for additional children. Asked the applicant to come forward to respond to that question. Suggested there are agencies that list these facilities, but much of the business is word of mouth. Stated that she works with an agency and has parents who recommend her; she is certified and has attended college to learn more about how to properly care for the children; the children are not always outdoors; there are also programs for the children to work indoors; the children do not all arrive at the same time and often two or three children arrive in one car. Invited members of the public to come forward. Stated she was attending on behalf of her parents who were out of town; her parents live directly across the street from this house; she has worked in a home day care center; she knows the traffic and noise in and around this house; there is probably only room in front of the house for two or two Minutes - Planning Commission 9-12-05 - Page 6 Vivian Claypoole, 15642 Pacific Chester Maharaj, 15622 California Street Menard Mr. Maharaj Retterer Mr. Maharaj Retterer Mr. Maharaj Pontious and a half cars; people will be using her parents' driveway to turn around; since the information is that the project is already approved, the residents would like to know what they can do to disagree with the proposal; the City has offered grants to help improve this neighborhood; putting a day care center at this location will bring the neighborhood down, which is not fair to the people who have lived there since the homes were built; it would be important for someone to check to see if there are registered sex offenders in the neighborhood; if so, that would pose a threat to children, especially in the front yard; noise is a concern at day care centers; the traffic study should have been done while school was in session; the traffic along McFadden makes it very difficult to leave the neighborhood. Stated she has lived in her home for 43 years; the traffic at the entrance to this tract is prohibitive in the morning; it is nearly impossible to make a left turn because of the oncoming traffic; there is no way four or five cars can park in front of that house; the neighbors will lose their spaces; the three bedrooms in the house are 10 by 12 feet; putting 14 children in that small area seems inconceivable. Stated he spoke to the Planning Commission on September 8; asked why nothing has been mentioned regarding the petition that was presented at that meeting; and, asked why a hearing is taking place if the Planning Commission can do nothing to prevent this from happening. Indicated the petition was presented in the staff report. Asked again what the point of a hearing was if nothing can be done. Stated a public hearing is part of the process that the State Legislature has outlined; when a notice is sent regarding large family day care, a public hearing must be held if someone requests it; as stated earlier, there are limitations on the Planning Commission's discretion and the types of conditions of approval allowed. Suggested that the Planning Commission actually has no say in the matter. Replied that the State has occupied the field and pre-empted the field when it comes to these types of large family day care facilities; the State still provides a public forum for people to voice their concerns. Restated the fact that, even if the public does come to the forum, nothing can be done. Noted that the Planning Commission has the opportunity to discuss the conditions of approval that staff recommends and determine whether or not the conditions are adequate in addressing the concerns of the Minutes - Planning Commission 9-12-05 - Page 7 Director Menard Director Mr. Maharaj Menard Director Richard Oelrich, 4118 Santa Lucia, Orange residents who are complaining; that is the only leeway offered to the Planning Commission. Added that the applicant also has the right to a public hearing; there is limited discretion if staff does not appropriately apply the law, which is the Tustin City Code; staff has to the greatest extent possible established standards within the Code. Stated that, since noise, traffic, and parking seem to be the most significant concerns, staff has attempted to respond to those concerns as much as possible; if the applicant fulfills the conditions of approval and meets the permit, there is little discretion that the Commission has; if parents do not follow the conditions, staff will provide adequate notice that the permit is not being met and a reasonable opportunity to remedy the i.ssues; if the situation is not remedied, staff can bring the matter back to the Planning Commission; the State has told local government there is a need for these day care facilities and individuals willing to provide the care will be given the benefit of the doubt; if conditions of approval are not followed, the Planning Commission has the ability to revoke the permit. Noted the question not answered was who to contact if infractions occur. Replied that any concerns should be delivered to Code Enforcement within the Community Development Department. Asked if someone will be monitoring the situation. Reiterated that there is monitoring by the State but not on a regular basis. Suggested that the neighbors will probably monitor and report any problems. Stated his parents live across the street from the site, and he is concerned about the property values in the area; cars sometimes have to wait ten or fifteen minutes to get in and out of the neighborhood; the traffic in the area has been bad for years; the cars at the day care facility will impede upon the neighbors; people will use the neighbors' driveways to turn around rather than use the route suggested by staff; the neighbors should not be expected to monitor the problem with video cameras as proof of the situation; he would like to know who he can go to right now to prevent this from happening; the neighbors would like to know how this resident acquired a permit for seven day care children after only a month and a half in this house; there was no notice that day care would be taking place; the studies seem faulty; the owners should pay for a traffic study along McFadden Avenue and the cars entering and exiting the tract and how long it sometimes takes to turn. Minutes - Planning Commission 9-12-05 - Page 8 Ms. Claypoole 7:58 p.m. Lee Pontious Floyd Menard Menard Adopted Resolution No. 3992 Returned to the lectern to remind the Commission that she was one of the 31 homeowners who signed the petition stating this facility is unwanted; suggested that double parking will no doubt take place, adding to the traffic congestion; and, added that this facility will turn the neighborhood into something the residents do not want; this is a residential area, not a business area. The Public Hearing closed. Indicated that he initially thought the location was more commercial and the day care facility would be suitable; the State supersedes the Planning Commission's right; while the residents' concerns are understandable, there may be other residents not in attendance who need the day care; Code Enforcement will have to be relied upon to monitor the situation; he supports the application. Stated the day care situation has been dealt with many times; there is a growing need for this service, but no one wants the facilities in their neighborhoods; that is why the State took over and limited local government control; she supports staff's recommendation. Added that the issues are always the same regarding these facilities; adding seven more children does not seem a number that will cause an impact; the City will continue to grow and the need for day care will increase; dropping off and picking up children should not impact the parking since cars will not be there for long periods of time; he fully supports staff's recommendation. Indicated that he agreed with the other Commissioners; however, he believes traffic will be impacted; it will not be possible for four cars to park in front of that house; he could not turn left on McFadden when he drove the neighborhood today; he had to make a right turn to the next intersection where the light allows a proper left turn on McFadden; the day care is already there, but he cannot support adding to the existing problem; perhaps the item could be postponed to allow for a traffic study performed at the expense of the applicant during school hours; if that is not possible, he would entertain a motion. It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Floyd to adopt Resolution Nos. 3995 and 4000. Motion carried 3-1. Thanked the residents for attending the meeting and stating their comments and concerns. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-020 AND USE DETERMINATION 05-003 REQUESTING TO PROVIDE GYM CLASSES WITH UP TO THIRTY (30) CHILDREN AND FOUR (4) EMPLOYEES AT A TIME WITHIN AN EXISTING BUILDING AT Minutes - Planning Commission 9-12-05 - Page 9 3061 EDINGER AVENUE. BIRTHDAY PARTY FACILITATION IN THE BUILDING IS REQUESTED AS AN ACCESSORY USE ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON AND WEEKENDS. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 3061 EDINGER AVENUE IN THE PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL (PC-IND)/JAMBOREE PLAZA PLANNED COMMUNITY. APPLICANT: MY GYM CHILDREN'S FITNESS ATTN: RICK ALTMAN PROPERTY OWNER: ULTIMATE ENTERPRISES ATTN: BILL CAPLIN RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 3992. 8:07 p.m. Ogdon The Public Hearing opened. Presented the staff report. Menard Asked if the Commissioners had questions for staff or the applicant; and, invited the applicant to the lectern. Lee Asked if there are other facilities of this nature in Orange County. Rick Altman, applicant Responded there are many similar facilities in Orange County. Lee Asked what types of equipment are available for the children and whether or not this will be a play area or a more structured environment to focus on specific sports and include weight-lifting. Mr. Altman Stated that the program involves physical education similar to Gymboree or the Little Gym. Floyd Asked how the birthday parties can be accommodated without food facilities. Mr. Altman Indicated that food is brought to the location by the people staging the party. Floyd Mr. Altman Asked if this is a move from one location to another. Answered that he has one in Newport Beach, one in Laguna Niguel, and is adding this new one in Tustin. Minutes - Planning Commission 9-12-05 - Page 10 Floyd 8: 15 p.m. Commissioners Adopted Resolution No. 3996 8:18 p.m. Willkom Richard Snyder, 14522 Greenwood Michael Dowler, 14562 Greenwood Willkom Welcomed Mr. Altman to Tustin. The Public Hearing closed. Stated their support of this project. It was moved by Floyd, seconded by Lee, to adopt Resolution No. 3992. Motion carried 4-0. 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2005-175 REQUESTING TO COMBINE TWO (2) EXISTING PARCELS INTO ONE (1) PARCEL TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW TWO-STORY MEDICAL BUILDING. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 12741 AND 12791 NEWPORT AVENUE IN THE PLANNED COMMUNITY NEWPORT WARREN PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT. APPLICANT: NEWPORT MEDICAL PARTNERS, LLC ATTN: FRED ALAGHBAND PROPERTY OWNER: ACS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. ATTN: FRED ALAGHBAND RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3996. The Public Hearing opened. Presented the staff report. Stated that his property on Greenwood Lane is in the County and backs up to this project; the contractor removed part of his fence which he owns jointly with Cleo Key who previously owned the property; the fence has not been replaced, no courtesy has been shown, no contact has been made; a two-story building looking down on his property that is lower than the elevation of the asphalt above his property is a concern; input needs to be provided in this regard; trees or some other means of blocking that view should be considered. Stated his property is approximately five feet lower than the parcel being considered; putting a two-story building close to the property line will destroy any privacy in his backyard; it is difficult to determine from the drawings where the building will be located on the lot. Indicated on the PowerPoint slide that the proposed building will be in the middle of the property. Minutes - Planning Commission 9-12-05 - Page 11 Steven Hilborn, 18590 Warren Avenue William Young, 12805 Newport Mr. Hilborn Fred Aglaghband, developer of this project Noted about 200 feet of his property backs up to this new construction; when he spoke to the City about this, he was told it would be 23-25 feet to the top of the second floor; it now appears to be 35-40 feet and will eliminate all his privacy; the placement of the dumpster should not be against his property; there appear to be more windows than wall space which will provide too much opportunity for people in the building to look down on his property; the moving of the pump station closer to his property is a concern, because he already hears that noise 24 hours a day. Stated he is the owner on the south side, the triangle at the bottom; while the project may be wonderful for the neighborhood, he has concerns about the safety of his building; when the plans were first approved, there was not a wall included between his property and the proposed project; it was necessary for him to bring that to the attention of the Planning Department; the parking spaces shown will be five feet from his patients; he has been talking with the developer about putting in a wall; there is a four foot wall on his side now because of the grade shift; there is a choice of taking out that wall on the property line that is jointly owned and putting in a ten foot wall adjacent to his property which would not look aesthetically pleasing; there is also the possibility of a six foot wall away from the property line, but the developer has not addressed how that would be finished or who would be responsible for both sides of the wall; a wooden wall would not block the sound from Newport Avenue; the traffic moves down Newport at 50 miles per hour and will be turning right into the parking lot within 15 feet of his building; the noise and safety issues have not been resolved; he has been at this location for seven years with the unsightly building next door; if this project is handled correctly, it will be a great improvement; the projected parking is four spaces for every 1,000 square feet or one for every 250 square feet; these figures underestimate the numbers of people; there is no parking on Newport Avenue; it will be hazardous because there will not be enough parking and people will use his lot; it was his understanding when he moved into his building that the ratio was 6-7 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet; he has 2,200 square feet, 12-13 parking spaces, all of which are used; approval of this project at a ratio of 1 to 4 does not seem feasible. Returned to the lectern to indicate he had no information on the project other than word of mouth; he would like to know when the project is to begin and how long it will take; his preference would be a block wall, not a wooden fence. Indicated he wa.s not aware of any damage to Mr. Snyder's fence; that might be vandalism; part of the developer's fence was also removed; the two remaining tenants will soon be out and the property will be secured from any further vandalism; the project calls for masonry walls between residential properties adjoining this site; screening has been Minutes - Planning Commission 9-12-05 - Page 12 proposed with dense landscaping; he has had meetings with Dr. Young and agreed to address his concerns; an opaque wall has been suggested between the two properties which would address the sound issue and also look good; the dominant noise comes from Newport Avenue; cars entering the parking lot will not impact the existing noise; as a developer of medical office buildings, it has been his experience that parking studies indicate 4.25/1,000 is the number allowed; the building will have substantial square footage of lobby and corridors; the useable space is 17,500 and parking will be 41/2 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Lee Asked if there is a landscape plan. Pontious Indicated the Planning Commission did not receive any of the design review information. Willkom Stated the NewporVWarren Planned Community District requirement between the project site and the residential properties is a 6' 8" block wall separating the two zoning districts; there is also a landscape buffer requirement which is a minimum of eight feet from the property line; the applicant has provided those requirements through the design review; a block wall has been conditioned as part of that process; the NewporVWarren Planned Community District allows structures up to 45 feet; the proposed building is 35 feet in height; there is now a four foot retaining wall and a wooden fence separating the project site and the property to the south; the District regulation does not require a block wall between properties that have the same zoning; the applicant has submitted a plan check that calls for a block wall; the applicant's engineer is also looking into the retaining wall to see if the new block wall would need to be set back if the existing retaining wall cannot handle the load of the proposed block wall; the District regulation requires one parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area; the applicant is meeting that requirement; the District setback regulation requires a minimum of 10 feet for a single story, 20 feet for a two-story building; the applicant is providing a 33 foot setback. Director Added that the Commission was provided with a copy of the design review site plan and the architectural plans which were approved; the action before the Commission this evening is somewhat discretionary however; it is also somewhat ministerial; there are two separate lots, but this does not qualify as a parcel merger; therefore, a parcel map is required; parcel mergers are generally encouraged; otherwise, several small, unattractive developments may result; to accommodate the development, the Tentative Parcel Map needs to be approved; staff spent considerable time working with the applicant and the architect because there have been concerns about various developments along the NewporVWarren district relating to residential neighborhoods to the west; staff had concerns regarding the balconies and the height of the Minutes - Planning Commission 9-12-05 - Page 13 Mr. Snyder 8:41 p.m. Pontious Floyd Lee Menard Adopted Resolution No. 3993 structure and worked closely with the architects to develop what is before the Planning Commission this evening. Returned to the lectern to state that there was no possibility that the removal of the fence was vandalism; it was done by the sub-contractor that did an exploratory check on the footing of a retaining wall; the developer knew the sub-contractor was there and did not follow up to see if any damage had been done; Mr. Snyder was out of town when this happened; when he returned and asked questions, it took him more than a week to find out who did it, how it happened, and no one has come out to check; the fence was down for a month; if the residents have to work with people like that, the City Council will hear from us. The Public Hearing closed. Indicated that based on the scope of what the Planning Commission is looking at, many of the issues stated by the people here this evening were addressed; while she understands those concerns, the applicant has exceeded the requirements; given the ministerial nature of the item, she supports staff's recommendation. Stated his support of the merger. Added his support of the parcel map. Asked that someone check on the fence and rectify that situation; he . sees no reason not to support staff's recommendation; the project will. help the area and will be a nice-looking medical building. It was moved by Floyd, seconded by Pontious, to adopt Resolution No. 3996. Motion carried 4-0. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-030 REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A PAWNBROKER BUSINESS IN AN EXISTING JEWELRY SALES ESTABLISHMENT LOCATED AT 12932 NEWPORT AVENUE, SUITE 3. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE C-1 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) ZONING DISTRICT. APPLICANT: RAJA PARSON, PARSON JEWELERS PROPERTY OWNER: DIANA LESTER, FISHER & LESTER CO. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3993. Minutes - Planning Commission 9-12-05 - Page 14 8:38 p.m. Swiontek Menard Raja Parson, applicant 8:48 p.m. None Director reported Floyd Pontious The Public Hearing opened. Presented the staff report. Asked if the applicant wished to make comments. Indicated that he did not. The Public Hearing closed. It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Lee, to adopt Resolution No. 3993. Motion carried 4-0. REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS 7. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE SEPTEMBER 6,2005, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. The City Council held the first reading on the Code Amendment related to the Cultural Resources Advisory Committee. The City Council approved Final Parcel Map No. 2004-256 for 14001 and 14011 Newport Avenue and 770 EI Camino Real, the Makena retail development; permits may now been issued. COMMISSION CONCERNS Thanked staff for their reports this evening and the residents who attended; day care facilities are always difficult, but the need for such facilities is growing as Tustin grows; the Planning Commission is limited by State regulations. Congratulated everyone involved with Broadway in the Park, which was a huge success, and to Commissioner Menard whose tables raised over $6,000. Welcomed Ryan Swiontek to the Planning staff. Echoed the welcome to Ryan. Stated that the Tustin Senior Advisory Board is in serious need of expansion; if staff hears of any available property, the Board would appreciate being informed. Minutes - Planning Commission 9-12-05 - Page 15 Lee Asked what businesses, besides Starbucks, will be moving into the Makena site. Director Indicated that staff will provide a list of the tenants when one becomes available. Lee Noted that he attended "Fiddler on the Roof" and was pleasantly surprised; and, suggested that the best way to see the play would be to bring a blanket rather than a chair due to the fact that chairs are placed behind any blankets, which are therefore closer to the stage. Added his welcome to Ryan. Menard Welcomed Ryan. Thanked staff for all their hard work. Shared details of his visit to Louisiana to visit his family; he, his wife, and their son volunteered at one of the relief shelters in his hometown; the displaced people were amazing, especially the children, in their resilience and fortitude. 9:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Monday, September 26, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes - Planning Commission 9-12-05 - Page 16