Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-10-86MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COI~MISSION REGULAR ~ETING NOVEMBER 10, 1986 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Also Present: Puckett, Wetl, Baker, Le Jeune, Ponttous, Rob Balen, Jeff Davis, Suzanne Atkins, Materassi, Donna Orr Patrizta PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of October 27, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Wetl moved, LeJeune second to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. VARIANCE 86-7 (continued from October 27, 1986) Applicant: Location: Request: Pre sen tati on: San Juan Partners 1421 San Juan Street Authorization to vary with the lot width requirement in the R-3 multiple family residential district in order to allow three apartment uni ts. JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE VARIANCE FOR THE LOT WIDTH ONLY. DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION WITH CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT A. Jeff Davis presented the staff report covering two items: the lot width of the property located on the corner of Green Valley and San Juan; and a variance with the minimum rear yard setback requirements of the multi family zoning district. The Commission must make two findings: 1) because of circumstances applicable to the property including surroundings, shape, topography, location and other items as outlined in State Law, the refusal to grant a variance would deprive the property owner privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity; and 2) that any variance granted would be subject to such conditions that would assure adjustment, thereby authorized, shall not constitute a grant of special privilege. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1986 page two Traditionally the zoning code identifies the width of a property as the narrowest portion fronting on a street. The R-3 district requires that a width of 70' be maintained on any property that is developed for multi-family residential use. In this case, the lot is approximately 60' wide at its narrowest point. However, given the fact that it is on a corner and that it does have a much longer street frontage on Green Valley, staff feels that by configuring the units on the site plan as shown, a Variance is appropriate because of the special circumstances and that it is zoned for multi-family units. The second aspect of the project calls for a variance of the rear setback as shown in the exhibit. The R-3 requirement is that the rear yard setback be 10', applicant is proposing that only 5' be utilized. Staff opposes this because 1) it is the side yard of an adjacent property and it is a two story structure. Staff would encourage the maximum setback allowed to provide space between structures should a similar structure be constructed on the adjacent lot. 2) by moving the structures and attaching to the existing home, the structure can be moved forward with no need for a variance. Staff cannot support the finding there is undue hardship on the applicant other than the cost incurred for restoring the existing single family home. All other aspects of the project are consistent with zoning regulations in terms of parking and lot coverage. Additionally, the elevations shown in the exhibit is the flavor of construction supported by staff as an improvement to the area. Staff recommends aproval with request to vary with lot width requirement and deny the request for variance from the rear yard setback. Commissioner Wetl questioned how many units are under discussion. Jeff Davis responded the construction of two units. The remodel aspect is recommended by staff as a condition of approval to upgrade the entire project to give it a cohesive look. Commissioner LeJeune questioned the site plans on exhibit and which was the original drawing. Jeff Davis responded with the types of problems encountered during the review process and that this exhibit is the second submittal. Chairman Puckett questioned if moving the garage and two apartments 12' was discussed with the applicant to avoid the rear setback. Jeff responded the information was presented to the project architect. Chairman Puckett opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. A.J. Coco, on behalf of the applicant, explained attaching the apartments to the existing dwelling is not a viable option to the applicant due to the expense. The submittal before the Commission is a compromise they understood was acceptable to the staff until last Friday when the new option of attaching came up. After referring to several sections in the staff report, Mr. Coco pointed out the applicant has the right to develop the property to the density requested by code; that it would enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood; and, that the plan meets all city standards except to require a rear yard variance. The applicant is not asking for a variance for anything, in fact, staff is requiring two variances. The reason the rear yard/side yard setback was surprising is because the new units are projected to be built replacing the structure at 13711 Green Valley. Mr. Coco handed out pictures of the existing situation. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1986 page three He explained these pictures were made in conjunction with the first proposal which also shows another project on Green Valley with garage doors facing the street. During the application process, they were told garage doors facing the street were not preferred by the City. The middle picture shows the existing structure that is to be removed. The address of the structure is 13711 Green Valley. To the right of the structure the side yard is proposed to be 5'; to the rear of that structure the rear yard is proposed to be 10'. He referred to the Development Review Summary. District requirement and proposed requirement. The front setback requirement is 15', they are proposing 20'. The height of 35' is permitted, they are proposing 24'. The number of stories is two. The lot size of 7,000 required, they have 8,760 square feet. The lot coverage allowed is 65%, they have 35%. The lot width, because of prezoning aspects and access from Green Valley, the 70' to 60' is their right as owners. In no. 2 and 3, they are propsing a side yard setback of 5' and rear yard setback of 10' The requirements of the district are 5' for the side yard and lO'for the rear yard. They are in conformance with the district requirements. Commissioner Well clarified the address is actually on Green Valley rather than San Juan. Mr. Coco responded the application was made for 1421 San Juan and that is why staff misunderstood the situation. It never occurred to the applicant throughout the discussions with staff there would be a rear or side yard problem, so it wasn't necessary to address the address problem. He clarified there are two separate addresses for this project; one of which is Green Valley. Commtssoner Wetl further questioned if the present single family house and the two small buildings in the back are all on one lot with one title. Mr. Coco responded affirmatively. Commissioner Wetl further questioned why there are two different addresses. In essence, the applicant would like this project treated as if it faces on Green Valley to eliminate the problem with the width. Mr. Coco responded it is not so much the width of the lot, because of the prezoning situation the 60' is a moot point. They can build on a 60' lot. The definition of which is the side and rear yard is what he would like the Commission to consider only to the extent the Commission needs to find there are no special privileges involved. This would be strictly an acknowledgement that the side yard is on Green Valley. Commissioner Well further commented the lot would then be 146' wide and 60' deep. This situation is unique because it is a corner lot. She questioned if the applicant had a problem with bringing the existing house into conformance with the colors and textures of the rest of the project. Mr. Coco responded they have no problem with that. Chairman Puckett questioned where the front door faces. Mr. Coco responded it will face Green Valley. The garages would be on Green valley if the city allows it. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1986 page four Jeff Davis clarified it is not where the property is addressed or which way it is oriented. By definition the lot width is the narrowest dimension that fronts on a street. The width of the lot, for which one of the variances is requested, is the San Juan frontage and that is the variance staff supports. Again, by definJ.tion, although we are saying there are circumstances to waive this requirement, that does not make the Green Valley frontage the frontage or the line along Green Valley the property frontage. The property line perpendicular to San Juan adjacent to the garage structures is still the rear property line and that is where the rear yard setback is measured from. In point of fact, the area Mr. Coco says is the rear property line parallels the Green Valley property line. Staff would have a problem with the stairways because they are setback 8' and not 10'. So again, we would have a structural element into a setback area. Through the design recommendations simply moving the structure over and the driveway over does eliminate the need for the variance. Chairman Puckett stated the question here is 5'. We have 12' between the existing structure and garage, couldn't we just move the project 5' and have a 10' setback and still have 7' between the structures. Jeff Davis responded there would then be problems with the zoning code, fire code, and building code. There has to be at least a 10' separation between structures. The way to circumvent that regulation is to attach the building, then that meets the requirements of the building code. Mr. Coco asked that they not require an attachment because it is economically infeasible. The applicant was hopeful it wouldn't be considered a variance because Green Valley has always been there. It never has been a San Juan address. Commissioner Wetl questioned the curb cuts on Green Valley and if that solved the problems. Jeff Davis responded it is not the orientation of the building, or the address or any other configuration. By definition it is the narrowest dimension of a lot that fronts upon a street which is the lot frontage. Commissioner Wetl questioned if chimneys or stairs were allowed in setbacks. Rob Balen responded generally chimneys, eaves and architectural projections are considered an enhancement to a structure and therefore would be allowed up to 18". But, if you take the landing of a building and put a stairway into the stdeyard, that becomes part of the structure and it is not an architectural appurtenance. Mr. Coco stated after review of several alternatives staff recommended attachment of the units which the applicant has never considered viable. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1986 page five Rob Balen informed that staff worked with the configuration several times, met with the architect on all options. There is only one option that conforms to the code and that is to attach the units. The reason attaching is economically infeasible for the applicant is because he would have to bring the front unit up to code. Jim Klncannon, 1461 San Juan, his office property abuts the property on Green Valley. He is concerned with precedents being made that would be detrimental to the neighborhood in the future. Corner lots were made wider in early planning to accommodate double setbacks from both streets. His concern was with building to the absolute rear of the project, living units over the garage, 5' side yard proposed, no visible access from ground level, proper landscaping and maintenance of same, and a 20' cavern along property line with units above garage. He was also concerned with the life of the existing house compared to the life of the new apartments. Commissioner Baker questioned project fencing and expressed concern with maintenance between buildings. Jeff Davis responsed a 6'8" wood fence is the minimum required. Commissioner Ponttous questioned Alternative C and wondered what the problem is with the garage facing the street. Jeff Davis responded staff hasn't seen Alternative C which applicant handed out to the Commission during his testimony. After a brief review of applicant's hand out, Jeff continued that it appears the distance between the apartments and existing structure would require 15' on the second floor. Backing out onto the street requires a variance of the municipal code. There may be a potential for conflicting traffic movements with the two driveways so close to each other. Staff does not recommend backing onto the street. Those are issues that would more appropriately be addressed by the City Engineer. Commission, applicant and staff discussion regarding Alternative C ensued concerning driveway width, length and visibility obstructions. Mr. Coco explained the applicant is now at the point where safety, density, etc., are taken care of. The question left is which is the side and which is the rear yard. Commissioner Wetl commented the project numbers were origtally established for a piece of vacant land. In essence you have taken a granny-flat type situation complicated by an R-3 district. The big problem is the existing single family house. Mr. Coco responded that is essentially true and staff has made it clear they would like to see the house removed. Commissioner Wetl asked if bringing the existing house to code is why the applicant doesn't agree wi th the alternative staff recommends. Mr. Coco responded it is one of the economic aspects. Another one is the space that could be devoted to each family unit is severely restricted by moving 12'. They would not be separate family units anymore, they would be a clump. Refurbishing of the front unit or removal of it makes it totally infeasible. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chairman Puckett closed the hearing at 8:25 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1986 page si x Chairman Puckett begaln the Commission discussion by commenting that if this project has been dragging on for four months, the Commission obviously will not hit upon the solution tonight. He would like to see the lot developed the way it is presented, but he still has to lean toward staff's recommendation. He can't buy the front/si de argument. He has to go along with staff's recommendation. But as he sees it, ,if they approve the lot width and deny the rear setback they either force the applicant to move it and join the structures or start over from square one. But, that appears to be the only way to do it. He supported staff's recommendation. Commissioner Wetl stated housing is needed in the city, but she has a problem with the age of the existing house. They are asking to compound the problem. She felt the hardship they would have to find in order to approve the variance is self inflicted. Commissioner Baker requested explanation of the problem with Alternative C. Rob Balen explained that in multi-family units the code does not allow garages to face the street. The code also prohibits vehicles backing into the street from these types of units. The problem with the closeness of the two driveways compounds the visibility and all the problems related with backing out into the street. Commissioner Ponttous questioned if this is a viable alternative with taking the driveway out. Jeff Davis responded yes, that was an attempt to make the plan work. The only problem is it goes through a guest parking space which is required. Staff could not find another place for the guest parking. Rob Balen commented the front unit constrains the design of the project. Commissioner Baker questioned how close the units can go to the house. Rob Balen responded staff's interpretation of the code is the second story of the two story unit has to be 15' away from the single family. Otherwise, 10' from the single story to the front of the garage and then the second unit would have to be set back 5' on top of the garage. Commissioner Baker requested clarification because what is suggested is 12'. Rob Balen responded the second unit above is set back 5'. That is a concession made to get this project going. Commissioner LeJeune questioned Mr. Coco's photos of houses on Green Valley. They certainly look like multiple residences with immediate access to the street and very wide driveways. Is that what is unacceptable under Alternative C. Rob Balen responded that is not acceptable with multi family units according to the code. Commissioner LeJeune further questioned if the other residences were done through a variance. Rob Balen responded they were built when the area was under the County jurisdiction with different regulations. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1986 page seven Further Commission and staff discussion ensued concerning Alternative C and City driveway requirements. Jeff Davis explained that the configuration given has a guest parking space. Assuming that space is occupied, backing out from that location the visibility would be obstructed. Rob Balen reiterated that from a code, design and code enforcement perspective staff would rather see the units joined together; moving it over 5' and attaching the existing unit with one of the proposed units. It is the most viable alternative, it meets all the codes except for lot width with which staff doesn't have a problem. By moving two units over an additional 5' you remove the reason for the rear yard variance. Chairman Puckett expressed his preference for staff's recommendation as the only alternative. Commissioner LeJeune confirmed that the applicant has been fully apprised of of the 15' requirement above the garage. Commissioner Well expressed concern with the contrasting life spans of the existing unit and new units. Commissioner Well moved, Pontious second to approve Variance 86-7 with the variance for the lot width only and direct staff to prepare a Resolution with conditions as provided in Exhibit A. Motion carried 5-0. 3. USE PERMIT 86-31 Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: Burnett Ehllne Properties and Bental Properties Northwest corner of Newport Avenue Irvtne Boulevard "La Fayette Plaza" To install a pole-type center identification sign to be located at the center of the principal site frontae on Newport Avenue. ROBERT BALEN, Planning Consultant RECOMMENDED ACTION: TO DENY USE PERMIT 86-31 Rob Balen presented the staff report. He explained the Planning Department philosophy in the past has been to discourage pole signs. In fact, they are discouraged on a routine basis at the front counter. When applicant's find out staff will recommend denial on a Use Permit, it discourages a lot of individuals. Apparently, it has been accepted practice to recommend denial on most pole sign~ that do not have freeway visibility and are needed for that visibility. A few problems with the pole sign encountered are the overall design, color scheme, sign style. These things are not consistent with the other on-site signs. The shape of the sign should be oval or ornamental with soft design outlines without the bandings that are presented. It is rectangular in shape and the other signs in the center are more pleasing or oval, or ornamented or have sculptured edges. The proportion of the sign is large and bulky compared to the other signage on the site. It is kind of on a short pole for the scale of the sign. It is not in harmony with the scale of the Planntng Commission Minutes November 10, 1986 page etght project. The sign is overly large and the center will not suffer from poor identification. The architecture is very good, the color scheme is very good, the on-site signs are very good. If we did not have the problems with the design of this pole sign it does meet most of the criteria for approval and staff would normally recommend approval of the sign because it does meet the criteria. It kind of points up an inconsistency with the sign code that may need to be discussed through the sign code revisions because it puts the staff in a position of consistently recommending denial on signs that sometimes may be adequate and some may serve a useful purpose. But, it has been established policy of the department to carry on with that policy. Commissioner LeJeune questioned if this sign would be in place of a monument sign. Rob Balen explained the code allows a monument sign. Initially and with other developments on Newport, we have gotten the applicant's to go along with monument signs. A number of different things have led to other monument signs being put along Newport Ave. on some of the recent large projects. Carver Development for instance. The code allows pole signs with a Conditional Use Permit with these findings that have to be made. Some cities do not allow pole signs any longer without a variance. In Tustin, pole signs are discouraged, we get them on larger projects usually but we are faced with the code here that says you can have one with a conditional use permit. What staff is objecting to is the design. Commissioner Well asked if it would be acceptable if they followed the rounded theme of the other center signs as depicted in the exhibit on the wall. Rob Balen responded from a consistency standpoint staff would like to see all the signage on site match the theme that has been selected. The designers have done a wonderful job. If they were to take any one of those signs with scrolls or the oval shape or any of those and put it on a pole or maybe a double pole with lights shining back down on it, staff would be happy with that. Commissioner Well, confirmed staff objects to the design of the sign rather than the pole. Rob Balen responded there is a departmental philosophy against pole signs, but reading the code you could make most findings required to allow a pole sign. Commissioner Well questioned why staff tries, to restrict pole signs. Rob Balen explained it is because of visibility and safety. From a design standpoint, the modern trend is to go with monument signs and staff has always tried to get monument signs. Commissioner Wetl questioned if there would be lighting in the center that would be consistent with the pole. Rob Balen responded there will be theme lighting as displayed in the exhibit. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1986 page ni ne Commissioner LeJeune clarified that thts stgn ts tn 11eu of a monument sign. Rob Balen responded they would be allowed an additional monument sign at the restaurant site south about 300'. They are proposing another street oriented freestanding sign. Commissioner Baker requested clarification that a sign would be permitted up to 24' and they are proposing 17 1/2'. Rob Balen responded affirmatively. It is limited to keep it in scale with the building. Commissioner Baker questioned lighting of the sign. Rob Balen responded this is not an internally illuminated sign. The sign has a light recessed around the edge of it, a halo type. Chairman Puckett opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Daniel Blsh, consultant to Burnett Ehllne, explained the sign program was designed to meet the requirements of the ordinance. A primary issue is the difference between the ordinance and the planning department philosophy. The philosophy should be in writing. The applicant is not applying on a hardship basis. A monumemt sign would have a negative impact on the ingress and egress of traffic in the center. In all discussions with the staff, the shape of the sign was never a problem. He was surprised that the shape was presented as a problem during this hearing. The oval shape would present a problem because of the copy that needs to be housed. Any other other shapes are presented only in the context of establishing "no two of a kind" signs throughout the center. Those shapes are recommended shapes, guidelines and directions for individual tenants to pursue something within that character for their own individual identity. Secondly, the second monument which was referred to is not a center monument sign, it is a separate issue, it is a sign which by code is allowed for a freestanding structure of so many square feet. That requirement is met by that structure. That should not be a consideration with respect to this. It is not a project monument sign. Commissioner Well questioned if the color rendering on the sign is the same scheme throughout the center. Mr. Bish responded it is compatible. Each of the tenant signs will be reviewed on an individual basis based on pre-established criteria. It is noted in the report, they did not supply specific color chips. The sign will be painted to reflect the colors. They are prohibiting any backlit plexiglass signage even though it is allowed by the city. That is not in keeping with the character of the development. The lighting on this sign will all be behind reveal neon halo, no visible neon. These will be silhouetted forms with refract color off the face of the sign from the concealed neon. The color schematics that have been supplied the city on the other sign are very much in keeping with the color suggested for this sign. Commissioner Wetl asked if the center sign plan utilizes pastels. Mr. Btsh responded the color scheme on the building utilizes pastels, there are brighter colors, but they are not dominant. Planntng Commission Minutes November 10, 1986 page ten Commissioner Baker clarified the exhibit presented is a replica of the actual sign. Mr. Bish, responded with the exception of the back lighting halo affect. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chairman Puckett closed the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. Commissioner LeJeune questioned the square footage and if it is more or less than the monument sign. Rob Balen responded it would be less. Jeff Davis clarified they are entitled to a 75 sq.ft, monument sign, this is 49.4 sq. feet. Chairman Puckett agreed with staff's recommendation as to why the sign is not necessary because the center will be very visible. However, he liked the sign and the colors. The center is unique and the sign goes with it. Commissioner Baker thought the sign is tasetfully done and reflects the appearance of the center. Commissioner Well appreciated the exhibit presented because the coloring is so subtle it brings the whole thing to life. It is very well done. She recommended approval. Commissioner Wetl moved, Baker second to approve Use Permit 86-31. Motion carried 5-0. Rob Balen further commented that during the sign code revision process, this is the type of problem that should be addressed. Commissioner Wetl also further commented, staff indicated they would prefer consistency with the oval signs that have been recommended for the shops, but at this point they are just recommendations. This approval is a firm commitment as far as the design is concerned, so it is quite possible the shop signs may fall in line with the center sign. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1986 page eleven STAFF CONCERNS 4. Report on Counctl Actions of November 3, 1986. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Acting Senior Planner The Council suggested the planning staff initiate a dialogue with the downtown residents generally in the area between Irvine Blvd. and Sixth Street, the freeway and E1Camino Real to, in a very nubulous fashion, take a look at the existing situations and potentials for existing development for redevelopment in the downtown area that would be consistent with their needs. There wasn't any specific direction, for example a specific plan be drawn, just to be in contact with the downtown residents. He anticipated they would not initiate any such action until the new Director has a chance to review the situation. It will probably come back to the Commission sometime next year. Secondly, the Council minutes are incorrect where they reflect Ruby's Restaurant has been demolished. They have actually requested to demolish the building and to come back with an alternative plan. It will be presented to the Redevelopment Agency within a few weeks. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commtssoner LeJeune questioned if they have started to demolish Ruby's Restaurant. Jeff Darts responded the dectston hasn't been finalized. Rob Balen explained the City commissioned an economic analyst to look at the fiscal impacts of annexing a rather large area in north Tustin. There is between $400,000 to $600,000 shortfall on an annual basis for the city if they annex this area; basically, because the cost of providing city services. He handed out the report prepared by Stan Hoffman. Chairman Puckett expressed the Commission's appreciation to Rob Balen for the excellent job he's done in managing the Community Development Department during the Director hiring process. AD,)OURI~qENT ~Recordtng Secreta y Commissioner Wetl moved, Baker second to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. to the next reguyl~rly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on November 24, 1986 at : . . Chairman