Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-05-81 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular Meeting January 5, 198l The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, January 5, 1981, in the Council Chambers of the Tustin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. The meeting was called to order by Vice-chairman Edgar, in the absence of Chairman Saltarelli, at 3 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Sharp and the invocation was given by Mrs. Kennedy. ROLL CALL Present: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, and Kennedy Absent: Saltarelli Also present: Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Director Dan Blankenship, City Administrator James Rourke, City Attorney Midge Mehl, Recording Secretary MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting held December 15, 1980 were ap- proved as written, with the waiving of reading same. PUBLIC HEARINGS Use Permit 81-I Applica,t: Location: Request: E1Camino Real Properties, Ltd., 150-160 El Camino Real Construct and operate a professional office building. Mr. Brotemarkle explained the office proposal and presented the staff report, tie outlined the architectural theme and parking plan for the project, with visual aids. Vice-chairman Edgar declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition to Use Permit 8l-1. Ken Letterman, with Peter Lendrum Associates, architects for this pro- ject, said after the meeting with the Redevelopment Agency, they re- designed the building. The change is in the exterior materials, but the basic concept of the building remains the same, with entrances from "C" Street and El Camino Real. He said there were two items he would like to discuss. He said in regard to Resolution No. 1938, paragraph II.A., in conversation with the fire marshal it was indi- cated a sprinkler system would not be required as their floor area was not over 12,000 square feet per floor. Secondly, there is a mandated 15 foot wide sewer easement to "C" Street. The owner is negotiating with the adjacent owner to gain a permanent easement through that property. We have not concluded those negotiations at this time, b~t it {s our intention to obtain an easement and we would request that that 15 foot easement requirement on our property be deleted. Vice-chairman Edgar asked Mr. Brotemarkle to respond to that comment. Mr. Brotemarkle said the RDA has a project to install a line from the alley on Second Street over to "C" Street, then up from "C" Street to the approximate location of the subject property. He said this par- ticular item had been discussed and the resolution of the sewer ease- ment really should be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, ac- cording to the condition, prior to bL~ilding permit iss~ance. Planning Agency Minutes - January 5, 1981 page 2. Whether this easement be on the property immediately north or on the subject property is immaterial, as long as it provides sufficient ac- cess for purposes of maintaining and caring for this line. He said this is something that could be concluded at the staff level if the applicants are successfully able to negotiate an easement on the prop- erty to the north. He furtber stated that the installation of the "fire sprinkling system" condition could be modified to read a "fire protection system" thus covering that concern. Mr. Sharp asked if his recommendation, then, was whatever the County Fire Marshal recommended, should be acceptable. Mr. Brotemarkle said that was correct. Vice-chairman Edgar asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak and hearing no response he declared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. Mrs. Kennedy asked how the surrounding property owners were notified, and had any comments been received. Mr. Brotemarkle said all property owners within a 300 foot radius had been advised by mail and no communications in this regard were re- ceived by staff. Mr. Edgar said he was in receipt of a letter from Mrs. Jenny Flaherty and she commented, in part, that she was concerned about cars parking on E1Camino Real and cluttering the street. Mrs. Kennedy asked about the underground parking being under the con- trol of a security gate. She asked if this meant it would not be used by the general public. Mr. Brotemarkle said parking was under the direct control of the building management. It may be open to the general public during working hours, but that would be under their direct control. Mrs. Kennedy said she did not see this as a condition of approval in the resolution and she wondered if it should be. Mr. Brotemarkle said it has been policy that underground parking structures, since they are not as accessible to the general public, have been deemed to be more secure than in general. It has never been a condition that they be totally secured. Mrs. Kennedy said she was always concerned about what would happen five years later when somebody else owns the building. She asked if he felt it was adequate the way it is. Mr. Brotemakle said yes, staff felt it was adequate with the one-way circulation system and the herringbone parking. He said wider aisle widths were not necessary and this parking is basically very similar to the previous development plan only the aisle widths have been widened. Mrs. Kennedy asked about the four parking spaces they were short. She said in studies done by the Agency we have found that our parking re- quirements are such that that may not be a problem, however, she was hesitant to approve something that is "under-parked." Mr. Brotemarkle said staff's opinion was that had not this property had a history of having had a previous action on it, waiving 8 spaces, we would have pressed very hard to achieve the required number of parking spaces for the project. However, the applicant in this case came in where a use permit had been approved for eight less spaces than required by code and reduced his overall square footage and upped the amount of parking available, thereby bettering the situation than what we would have had if it had been developed under the previous plan. Planning Agency Minutes - January 5, 1981 page 3. MOTION by Sharp, SECONDED by Kennedy to approve Use Permit 81-1 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1938, as amended. AYES: Hoestery, Sharp, Kennedy, and Edgar NOES: None ABSENT: Saltarelli Variance 81-1 Applicant: Location: Request: Design 2 Signmakers for Western Temporary Services 13132 Newport Avenue, Suite 113 Authorization to vary with the sign ordinance. Mr. Brotemarkle said this is a request for a sign variance for build- ing D in the Packers Square complex previously considered for an over- sized sign for a real estate office. Real estate offices and chart- ered financial institutions in an office building have been deemed to be appropriate for somewhat larger signage than the six square feet permitted for professional uses in general. The dilemma that we come up with is that the building was originally designed with parking accommodations provided based on a professional office building and our first request for a real estate commercial sign for 14.6 square feet in lieu of 6 sq~lare feet and now a request for a 13.3 square foot commercial sign for an office use. To remain consistent, staff would recommend denial of the application. Vice-chairman Edgar declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition to Vari- ance 81-1. Mr. Norman Coon Design 2 Signmakers, said this is the same problem they had with another tenant in building D. He said building D is the only building in the complex that is a professional building and Orange Tree Realty was granted a variance for their sign. We have ap- proximately the same problem with this tenant. The applicant was given use of the said sign on developer's word, never realizing the unforseen complications. The sign conforms to commercial specifi- cations of the center and placement, and is exactly uniform with the other. Mr. Sharp asked the exact location of the sign. Mr. Brotemarkle, with the aid of a projected plan, pointed out the building upon which the applicant wanted the requested sign. Mr. Edgar asked the location of Orange Tree Realty in relation to the subject location. Mr. Brotemarkle said it was on the other portion of the building fac- ing Newport. Vice-chairman Edgar asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak and hearing no response he declared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Hoesterey, to deny Variance 81-1 be- cause there is no justification to grant a variance. Any hard~hip due to the office location is self-imposed by the applicant. Mrs. Kennedy stated that places that choose to locate in a profes- sional unit, with professional parking standards which are different than commercial standards, and then come in to request commercial signing creates some problem with what the Agency is attempting to do. There were other places where this business could have and should have located. Planning Agency Minutes - January 5, 1981 page 4. Vice-chairman Edgar asked for a vote on the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hoesterey, Sharp, Kennedy, and Edgar None Saltarelli Mr. Sharp said he brought up the point, at the last meeting when we were considering Wuv's Restaurant request, that the applicant should supply the Agency specific evidence to justify a hardship, since no hardship was proven in this instance he had to vote against the re- quest. Use Permit 81-2 Applicant: Location: Request: Quality Ambulance Service 135 South Prospect Avenue Authorization to operate a 24-hour ambulance service and construct a 50-foot radio antenna. Mr. Brotemarkle presented the staff report on the request to operate a 24-hour ambulance service and to construct a 50-foot radio antenna. He said it might be somewhat misleading to say they want to "construct" a 50-foot radio antenna; the antenna would actually be on top of the roof for a total height of 50 feet, approximately 100 feet south of First Street, 50 feet from Prospect Avenue. He said staff did not see any substantial detriment to the surrounding properties by permitting the ambulance service or antenna at this location, subject to the conditions recommended in Resolution No. 1939. Discussion was held regarding ingress/egress, use of sirens, and the antenna type. Vice-chairman Edgar declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition to Use Permit 81-2. Mike Botula of Quality Ambulance Service said they had chosen Tustin because of its geographic location and its convenience to the areas we would like to serve. This particular location had been previously oc- cupied by another ambulance service for a period of five years and they could find no complaints lodged against the former service. He said they would basically use the driveway on Prospect, approaching the signal to the north and had no intentions of using the driveway onto First Street. He said the antenna was primarily a back-up sys- tem, to be utilized only at such time as there was a failure in the main system. Mr. Hoesterey asked if the antenna would look like an oil derrick- type. Mr. Botula said no, it would be very similar to a regular TV an- tenna. It would be no more distracting to the passerby than would a color TV antenna. Vice-chairman Edgar asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak and hearing no response he declared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. Mrs. Kennedy asked if the property owners within 300 feet of the sub- ject property had been notified of this request. Mr. Brotemarkle said yes, they had been notified. Planning Agency Minutes - January 5, 198! page 5. Mrs. Kennedy said a few years ago she had been involved in a law suit because a radio antenna interferred with the operation of television, radio and electric appliances within 500-600 feet of the antenna. They found that FCC really does not have a firm grip on it. She said because this use is vital, but also is sharing a multi-use area, she wondered if the Agency would consider to review the operation after a six months period of time. Mr. Botula said there had been no complaints or problems with the former ambulance service at that location and they had been there five years so they would not object to a review. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Hoesterey, to approve Use Permit 81-2 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1939 with the stipulation that staff review the operation after a six months period of operation to ascertain there were no problems with adjoining properties. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hoesterey, Sharp, Kennedy, and Edgar None Saltarelli OLD BUSINESS Variance 80-2 Applicant: Location: Action: Wesco Food Service (Wuv's Restaurant) 17502 Seventeenth Street Approve Resolution No. 1940 Mr. Brotemarkle stated that this was the implementing resolution for Variance 80-2 which had been approved at the last Agency meeting. He said he could not remember the actual vote on the approval of Variance 80-2, however, since Chairman Saltarelli was not present for this meeting, perhaps the Agency would like to continue the matter. Vice-chairman Edgar said he thought they should bring it to a vote and if it passes, fine; and if by chance it were to be a tie vote, we could continue the matter until the evening meeting. MOTION by Hoesterey, SECONDED by Edgar, to adopt Resolution No. 1940, approving Variance 80-2. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hoesterey and Edgar Sharp and Kennedy Saltarelli Vice-chairman Edgar said this matter would be continued until the meeting to be held this evening when Mr. Saltarelli is expected to be present. NEW BUSINESS None PUBLIC CONCERNS Mrs. Mary Kelly, 330 E1Camino Real, stated she was speaking on behalf of the merchants on E1Camino Real and they wanted to know if there was a plan of action on the drawing board, any kind of immediate help for El Camino Real. Also, are the dates and progress reports from staff to Council available. She said Ordinance No. 510 is about ten years old and we have seen little accomplished in the area. We have come before you many times, waiting and hoping, but we would like to ask any kind thing that could be done to help that old town area. It's charming; it has lots of potential, but there needs to be more enthusiasm. She said she didn't know what the answer was, but she thought Tustin could come alive and there could be tax revenue derived Planning Agency Minutes - January 5, 1981 page 6. from businesses in the area to help the city. Mr. Sharp asked if she could be more specific as to what it is she is waiting and hoping for. Mrs. Kelly said for instance the entrance identity at First Street and they are looking for a leisurely environment. She said some kind of a welcoming, perhaps relatin~ to leniency on advertising signs. She said they had to pay $25 for one month to have an "open" sign in front of their store, then we received a letter telling us to take it down. She said you can go to Corona del Mar, Laguna, Balboa, Ports of Call; all beaotiful, welcoming, with imaginative signing. She said they needed something to make the people want to see old town Tustin. Mr. Edgar said he thought the City had achieved a fantastic amount of improvement, however, much has been underground. He said such things had to be done first. With these things essentially completed, by the next meeting of the Council, we'll be going out to bid for the utility undergrounding district. We become concerned about taking over some of the more derelict properties as is clearly voiced in our budget so they can be renovated in some healthy way, perhaps with parking. That represents an investment that might be another half-million dollars. He said after these things are completed, then it's clearly identified in next year's budget that we are going to repave E1Camino Real. That project includes landscaping, lighting and other items to beautify the area. He said he welcomed suggestions from the merchants and every suggestion would have the attention of the Council. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Brotemarkle said that new state legislation had come into effect as of January 1, mandating gas pricing signs at service stations. This legislation would appear pre-emptive of local regulation. Therefore, staff would be reviewing such signs for conformance to all local regulations except area since most stations already are at maximum signage. This is currently an information item so Council will be aware of the situation if they see new signs being installed at stations not having gas price signs. Once the details of the State regulations have been worked out (many are still quite nebulous) this may potentially necessitate minor revisions to the City Sign Ordinance. AGENCY CONCERNS None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Agency, Vice-chairman Edgar declared the meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m. to meet again at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Saltare[li was not present at the 7:30 meeting, therefore, Vice-chairman Edgar did not convene the Planning Agency to act upon the continued matter of Resolution No. 1940. The Planning Agency will meet again for a regular meeting to be held~/anu~y 19/ 1 8 . Richard B. Edg~r ~ Vice-chairman M. I .Mehl Recording Secretary