Laserfiche WebLink
F. SITE PLAN APPROVAL/ARCHITECTi7RE FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 99-110 for Burke <br />F. SITE PLAN APPROVAL/ARCHITECTi7RE FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 99-110 for Burke <br />Development located at 616 North Santiago and 618 East Wellington. <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />Approve architecture and fagade improvements as shown in DP No. 99-07. <br />**** END OF CONSENT **** <br />Motion to approve Consent Calendar items. <br />MOTION: Nalle SECONDED: Mondo <br />APES: Verino, Nalle, Mondo, and Cribb <br />OPPOSED: None <br />ABSENT: Doughty, Solorio, and Richazdson <br />ABSTAINED: None <br />G. Discussion of the conditional use aermit and variance cases compliance with the Santa Ana Municipal <br />Code. <br />Mr. Jeffry Rice, Principal Planner discussed with the Commission issues related to development sites not <br />meeting current code standards and staffs concerns related to requiring the development site to be brought up <br />to code standards before Commission review a request for a discretionary action. <br />Commissioner Mondo expressed that he would like the Commission to be apprised of all code violations when <br />discretionary actions were brought before the Commission far action and would prefer that projects comply <br />with current code standards prior to approval. <br />Commissioner Nalle expressed concern regarding citizens not being awaze of property not being in compliance <br />and encouraged staff to provide simple documentation, such as pamphlets, to communicate current code <br />standards to the public. <br />Ms. Uptegraff informed the Commission that staff had several upcoming cases that would be brought before <br />the Commission. She further stated that staff could begin enforcement action before items were reviewed by <br />the Commission and staff would begin providing information regarding all site violations to the Commission <br />when reviewing discretionary actions. <br />The Commission unanimously requested staff to apprise them of any code violations for proposed projects and <br />provide additional information to the public informing them of current code standards. <br />H. Comments from the Executive Director. <br />Ms. Uptegraff informed the Commission that the Veteran's Charities project was set for public hearing by the <br />City Council. She expressed her appreciation for the Commission members participation in the committee <br />meetings regarding the front yard fences; and informed the Commission that OCTA will invest additional time <br />into the environmental studies for the Center Line Project. <br />I. Comments from the Planning Manager and staff. <br />Mr. Kenneth Adams was absent. <br />J. Comments from the Planning Commission. <br />Commissioner Richardson informed staff that there was new signage at the Taco Bell site on Segerstrom and <br />Bristol on the northwest comer and requested staff verify code compliance; and asked for the status of the <br />Burke development projects. Mr. Jeffry Rice apprised the Commission that Burke was in the plan check <br />process and would be able to acquire permits in approximately four to six weeks. Commissioner Richazdson <br />' requested staff to provide efforts to assist the applicant in processing the proposal in a timely manner. <br />Commissioner Cribb: 1) requested that a study be conducted on the off-ramp of the 5 freeway at Main Street <br />and expressed his concems related to traffic circulation safety at the intersection. Ms. Joyce Amerson <br />informed the Commission that staff prepared written correspondence to CalTrans concerning the operation of <br />the traffic signal; and 2) requested the status on code enforcement activity on the O'Neil and the Tuff Shed <br />sites along the 55 freeway. Ms. Uptegraff informed the Commission that the site was under prosecution <br />proceedings, citations had been issued as well as fines imposed. However, the applicant had chosen to pay the <br />fines and continue to leave the illegal signage in place. Staff was investigating other measures to address the <br />problems through the litigation process. She further informed the Commission that the Tuff Shed company <br />had received a notice of violation. In addition, the Tuff Shed company was in site plan review requesting to <br />construct an enclosure as a patio, however staff was going to provide direction to construct a show room. <br />