Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-15-80 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular Meeting December 15, 1980 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, December 1, 1980, in the Council Chambers of the Tustin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Saltarelli at 3:03 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Hoesterey and the invocation was given by Mrs. Kennedy. ROLL CALL Present: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, Kennedy, and Saltarelli Absent: None 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 1, 1980 were approved as written, with the waiving of reading same, and with Mr. Hoesterey abstaining from the vote of approval. PUBLIC HEARINGS Use Permit 80-23 Applicant: Location: Request: Dennis Duarte 535 West Second Street Authorization to construct a guest house of 750 square feet with no kitchen facility. Mr. Brotemarkle stated that the R-! District permits construction of an accessory building used solely for a guest house provided there is no kitchen facility. The primary concern is that such units might be- come a rental or second unit rather than serving its primary purpose of guest facility. The staff, in conformance with the excerpt in- cluded in the staff report, recommends favorable consideration, sub- ject to conditions. Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition to Use Permit 80-23. There being no one to speak, Chairman Saltarelli de- clared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. MOTION by Sharp, SECONDED by Edgar, to approve Use Permit 80-23 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1937 with the conditions as outlined. Mrs. Kennedy said she would like to see the conditions of the Reso- lution included on the deed so that they would follow the ~roperty should it ever be sold. Mr. Saltarelli asked why there should ever be any change to the deed. Mr. Brotemarkle said the conditions would not necessarily surface in a title report unless they were attached to the deed. Mr. Edgar said in that event he would change his motion to include conditions would be established as deed restrictions. The SECOND said he would accept the amendment. Mr. Saltarelli asked if they did it for this one, would they not have to do it for everybody. He did not think it a good precedent to set. Planning Agency Minutes - December 15, 1980 page 2. Mrs. Kennedy said she just thought it would be fair to the new buyer to know that there were restrictions on the property. Chairman Saltarelli asked for the vote on the motion. AYES: NOES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, and Kennedy Saltarelll Variance 80-20 Applicant: Location: Request: Westco Food Services, Inc. (Wuv's Restaurant) 17502 Seventeenth Street (Enderle Center) To vary with the sign code to allow a monument sign. Mr. Brotemarkle said the request was for 31 l/2 square foot area monu- ment sign 6 foot in height from grade at the southeast corner of Seventeenth Street and Enderle. He said there have been three similar variances granted in the immediate area, in the Enderle Center proper. He said the particular location did not seem to suffer the same problems as those facilities, as far as identification and staff was not able to determine a physical hardship on the property. How- ever, if it were to be found favorable by the Agency, staff would recommend two conditions. (1) That the number of monument signs for Enderle Center be reduced accordingly, from four to three; and (2) that the sign be removed upon vacation or discontinuation of the site as a restaurant use. Mrs. Kennedy said when the Agency approved the sign for Salty Sam's she thought that was the last sign that was going to come in. Mr. Brotemarkle said he believed there had been discussion to that ef- fect, but no formal policy or condition. This property is across the street, but still a part of Enderle Center. He said if the Agency felt a committment as made on the signage policy, then that would sup- port the viewpoint that the application should be denied. Mr. Sharp said he recollected that on the Salty Sam's hearing Mr. End- erle stated that that sign would be the last one. Chairman Saltarelli declared the pubilc hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition to Vari- ance 80-20. Mr. Hal Solomon, the operator of Wuv's Restaurant, said they have two reasons for the request. First, the large setback and second, the al- most non-commercial appearance of the wood structure. This makes business identification and visibility difficult with the speed of traffic on Seventeenth Street. Mr. A1Enderle said Mrs. Kennedy's comment was well taken. He had been present when the monument sign was approved and Mr. Saltarelli was correct; it was only about the center section of the shopping cen- ter. He said when he talks about Enderle Center that is the portion inside Vandenberg, Enderle Center Drive, Seventeenth, and Yorba. That excludes what is on the west side of Yorba and the east side of Enderle Center Drive. He said the best way to look at it would be to consider that somebody else owns the property on the east side of Enderle Center Drive. Wuv's is a part of the master plan, but is not a part of Enderle Cen- ter. Wuv's does need a monument sign as their competition across the street (Jack-in-the-Box and Jojo's) have this type of sign and people do go past Wuv's because they do not realize the type of restaurant it is. It is a legitimate hardship and I would ask the Agency to please consider that this is a separate lot and is not a part of Enderle Center. Planning Agency Minutes - December 15, 1980 page 3. Mr. Richard Pieron, architect for Wuv's Restaurant, said initially they had an understanding about signing on this site. We went in with that knowledge; we tried to operate that way; and we have found it a distinct hardship. The building makes a very subtle statement on that corner, but in doing that, it is well disguised. We need com- mercial identification. There being no one else to speak, Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. Mrs. Kennedy said she could not remember the overall sign program on the Enderle properties and for that reason she would Like time to re- view the master sign plan. She said perhaps a temporary sign such as a banner would establish needed identity without becoming permanent. She said she had seen a lot done in Tustin with flower beds. She sug- gested this matter be continued to the first meeting in January, after we have been able to study the Master Plan for the Enderle properties. Mr. Hoesterey said he had a couple of questions before he agreed or disagreed with Mrs. Kennedy's suggestion. He asked if there were four signs approved as monument signs and if staff's condition, reducing it to three, carried into the existing center. Mr. Brotemarkle indicated that was correct. Mr. Saltarelli said he couldn't make too big a deal of this. He said originally master-planned was a bank and a bank is going to have at least a monument sign and illuminated signs on two of the three sides of the building. What we have here is a business that gave us exactly what we wanted in design, taking a 60 foot setback, has a quality pro- duct, and has no relationship to the Enderle Center in his thinking. It's a quality building; it's in a good location; there is a lot of competition and he's not known as a drive-through. I think there is justification for his request as a hardship did exist simply on the basis of his 60 foot setback and the building across the street which has about a 4 foot setback. A discussion was held on the 60 foot setback and its necessity to pro- vide parking, similar monument signs as other restaurants in the area, size of the sign, and the requirements for granting of a variance. MOTION by Hoesterey, SECONDED by Sharp, to approve Variance 80-20. Mr. Edgar said he was disposed to permit a sign, but he questioned if the size sign in comparison to Salty Sam's at 20 square feet. He believed the sign was essential for identification, but would be more comfortable with something less than 32 square feet. Mr. Sharp said before the vote, it seemed to him that the Agency must declare the specific basis of hardship in the motion. Mr. Saltarelli agreed. He said the appropriate findings were that a non-self-imposed hardship does in fact exist due to setback and traf- fic. Futher, that other such signs exist for similar businesses in the area. Mr. Sharp said the findings should then be incorporated in the motion. Chairman Saltarelli asked Mr. Hoesterey if that could be considered as in his motion. Mr. Hoesterey said yes. Planning Agency Minutes - December 15, 1980 page 4. Mr. Hoesterey said to restate the MOTION, that the Agency finds that a hardship does exist from the standpoint of the setback on the property and the fact that he is unable to compete with similar busi- nesses that have the same type of signs as requested in the immediate area. Mr. Sharp asked Mr. Rourke if that was enough. Mr. Rourke said he was not sure it could meet the requirements, but would take it under advisement and report back to the Agency. Mr. Saltarelli pointed out that the setback was not the developer's request, but was necessary to meet City requirements. That's the point. In other words he didn't come in and say this is what I want to do in order to have enough parking. The original request showed the building much nearer to Seventeenth Street, did it not, Mr. Brote- markle? Mr. Brotemarkle said it was closer, but in the layout of their parking they found it more efficient to have the building back farther to pro- vide more parking immediately adjacent to the front of the building. Mr. Sharp questioned if the other finding would be sufficient, that he has been deprived of signing rights available to his competition in the immediate area. Mrs. Kennedy said she would offer a SUBSTITUTE MOTION and ask that staff study this and advise the Agency at the next meeting. The MOTION died for lack of a second. Chairman Saltarelli said there was a motion on the floor and we have to determine the sufficiency of the circumstances to allow the vari- ance, however, it appeared in his mind that it is certainly justi- fiable. Mr. Sharp said he had not meant to 'cloud' this thing; that perhaps sometimes their findings are not strong enough or clearly stated to support variances. These findings need to be articulated before an action is taken. He said that it should be considered from now on. Chairman Saltarelli said the Agency had to remember that the City Planning staff will always take the most conservative approach of say- ing this is the least permitted. The project was voluntarily under- signed, could be granted a lot more overall under code, and would have more signage automatically if this was not considered part of the Center. Mr. Brotemarkle said if there is to be any flexibility, it is involved in the Planning Agency and the City Council to grant relief, but staff would look at the Code in its strictist application. Mrs. Kennedy said there was value in what Mr. Saltarelli said; the problem to her though was that the Agency is trying to make a decision without back-up information on whether we do indeed want to consider it part of the Enderle Center. I want to go with caution in this mat- ter and study what the ultimate plans are, look at perhaps a temporary sign to help them become identified and solve it so we are not stuck with a sign that perhaps will be detrimental in the long term. Mr. Saltarelli said that Enderle Center qualified for huge center identification signs, freeway pole signs, and reader boards and at the request of the developer and the City had reduced the available sign- ing allowed by a tremendous percentage. Because they started off Planning Agency Minutes - December 15, 1980 page 5. with a much lower base than what they could have had, to penalize in- dividual businesses is foolish. He thought the request was justi- fied.Mrs. Kennedy said if that's the case, we should just throw away the Sign Code. She said long-term economic health of the community depends on its beauty and the restrictions on the signs. Signing is not directly correlated to success and all the new shopping centers are under-signed because it attracts the right kind of business. Al- though our staff has found no hardship and our attorney questions the grounds upon which we are now going to make a decision, which I can probably predict; the Agency still intends to take action. She said she would like that entered into the record. Chairman Saltarelli asked if there were any other conm~ents. Mr. Sharp said his vote would be difficult to understand if he did not explain. He said he was for the sign, he just had a problem with the action being taken. He said the Agency's action earlier, as quoted under 2.D in the staff report, we made a statement and now we are being asked to change it because of very good reasons. The business is not working as it should because it needs additional signing that we, nor the developer, could foresee. If our findings aren't suffici- ent to support our action, then there could be legal action brought against the Agency later by another party who wanted another sign and we refused them. Mr. Hoesterey said he was in favor of the sign, but there had been enough doubt raised that he would like to have it cleared up. Mrs. Kennedy said he should make a substitution motion then, to con- tinue the hearing. Chairman Saltarelli said there was a motion on the floor to approve the sign, as presented, with the finding of hardship as stated. Mr. Edgar said he was looking for consistency. He said he would like very much to feel that we are so wise in our ordinances that we could achieve that consistency by having printed words on pieces of paper. He said we have here an area which, as you compare it to any other area in the cormnunity, under circumstances that are not hindered by past decisions on adjoining properties would justify the sign and so from the standpoint of being consistent, I think that we should permit as much signing as for Arthur's or Jojo's or for any other restaurant that is comparable. Mr. Hoesterey said he would like to have one other point clarified. He asked if it was true that they could, in fact, put a pole sign up with more square footage than what this monument sign would be. Mr. Brotemarkle said Enderle Center could request a pole sign for those uses which are freeway oriented since they are within 200 feet, via a use permit, which would include eating establishments, auto- motive service, etc., such as have been granted in E1Camino Plaza. Further, in its initial approval, the Enderle Center was considered a single center with four street frontages, thus only for monument signs. Had the properties been developed as three separate proper- ties, we would have considered each one having the street frontages. This would have permitted additional monument signs. Chairman Saltarelli said the motion was to approve the request with the finding that a hardship does exist, what was the pleasure of the Agency. AYES: NOES: Hoesterey, Edgar, and Saltarelli Sharp and Kennedy Planning Agency Minutes - December 15, 1980 page 6. Pre-Zone 80-2 Applicant: Location: Request: Arnold Hamala Easterly side of Holt Avenue, northerly of the city limits to a point 292 feet southerly of Warren Avenue. Pre-zone area to Tustin Planned Development District (PD-3,000). Mr. Brotemarkle said this pre-zoning action is in conformance with the General Plan amendement proposed which will be considered by the City Council for medium density residential. The property is located im- mediately north of property within the city which is zoned R-3 3,000. It is an isolated piece of property which is abutted by Holt Avenue on the west; by the Irvine-E1Modena Flood Control Channel on the south and the east. The property consists of a net overall acreage of 2.3 acres and consists currently of five parcels. The staff has made two slight changes from the previous staff report. The previous consider- ation was for R-3 3,000, however, with a condition that it comply with PD standards. The staff, when readvertising the item, advertised it as PD 3,000 to eliminate the necessity of that sub-condition. Also, staff has pointed out that the property is inappropriate for single family development as it abuts an arterial highway. An additional consideration is that these lots are not developed individually, but rather integrated to reduce curb cuts and traffic congestion. tie said a condition to that effect has been recommended. Staff had a phone conversation with Mr. Steven Johnson, new chairman of the Santi- ago Municipal Advisory Committee, concerning the specific proposal. He did not have a specific concern on this item, but he may be here this afternoon to discuss with the Agency the more far reaching con- siderations of what we are going to do with the remainder of the resi- dential areas and other future considerations. We informed Mr. Johnson that staff looked at this as an isolated parcel with some very specific concerns and we did not feel that this action was precedent-setting in nature as it affected other properties in the area, but only as it affected an isolated piece surrounded by the flood control channels and an arterial highway. Mrs. Kennedy asked how many notices had been mailed to property owners. Mr. Brotemarkle said he was not sure of the exact number. Letters were mailed to all property owners within 300 foot radius of the sub- ject properties on December 4. Not more than 150 notices at a maxi- mum. Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition to Pre-zone 80-2. Mr. Arnie Hamala said he was representing himself as well as the Apts and the Standard family, co-applicants. He presented some slides showing the existing properties abutting Holt Avenue and explained what their proposal would be. He said Holt Avenue forms a barrier be- tween these properties and the parcel to the west. The R-1 property to the west is not oriented towards this property. The E1Modena Channel is a barrier that isolates this property from the R-! proper- ties to the east. The subject property is not part of any existing neighborhood; it's an isolated piece of under-developed property. Mrs. Kennedy asked what the density per acre would be. Mr. Hamala said they were looking at approximately 20 dwelling units on his property. Planning Agency Minutes - December 15, 1980 page 7. Mr. Hoesterey asked if the fifth property should be included, how would that alter their proposal. Mr. Hamala said if the fifth property wanted to be included, we would certainly want to discuss it. There is an existing dwelling and structures on the property. We do not show any access or commonality with the fifth property. Mr. Brotemarkle said it was staff's understanding that the fifth prop- erty initially neither wanted to support or reject the proposal and would not support, but did request, that her property be included in both the annexation and any pre-zone change request. Mr. Hamala said her point of v~ew had changed a nL~mber of times and he was not sure what her opinion was at this time. Mrs. Pat Hamala introduced the other applicants in this request. said if it wasn't for the encouragement of these people and other neighbors they would not be here today with this proposal. She Mr. Steven Johnson, president of the Santiago Municipal Advisory Coun- cil, said Mr. Brotemarkle had accurately represented the position of SMAC at this time; there is little feeling with regard to this partic- ular project, but rather the context in which the matter is arising and in plea at this time for some intensive planning on a more general scale in this overall area. He said the parcels on the east side of Holt are similar to these parcels so we could have a lot of areas of development that are going to be coming up fairly rapidly. He said he thought what we needed to do was to take a look at the entire neigh- borhood to see where we're going as the area is under constant devel- opment pressure. The area he meant was the triangle formed by New- port, Holt, and Warren Avenue. On Newport itself we have office buildings which are now approved and it was a project similar in scope to this request in the sense that it called for four land owners to join together and create a planned development program for offices. He Liked Mr. Hamala's idea of collecting up these small parcels. The other houses to the north towards Warren would fall into this same category. He said the Agency should examine whether or not this is fitting into a general development idea for the area rather than pick- ing properties off piece by piece. He said when it came to zone changes the SMAC did have some concern on the matter and he would like to express that concern at this time, but not in specific reference to Mr. Hamala's project. He said that that area was basically low dens- ity residential and the people are very determined to keep it that way. Mr. Sharp asked if Mr. Johnson was here representing SMAC or just him- self. Mr. Johnson said he was representing SMAC, however, his point is that they want to cooperate with the Planning Agency with the planning of this area, but they are not taking a position on this particular re- quest. Mr. Saltarelli asked Mr. Johnson if SMACs concern was mainly that when these smaller parcels are put together for one development, that you want to be sure that what is planned is built. Mr. Johnson said yes, that was their main concern. He would ask that whatever the Planning Agency decides, that it be clear that the plan stays consistent even though some different ideas may occur. Mrs. Kennedy stated one of her concerns was that it was moving from an E-4 classification, which is at the most four homes per acres, to a development that is going to produce at least 14.5 units per acre. 15 units per acre is not going to be low density any more. She said Planning Agency Min~tes - December 15, 1980 page 8. there was also the problem of parcels that didn't want to partici- pate. There are lots of concerns about this development. She asked Mr. Johnson if SMAC bad received any phone calls regarding this pro- ject. Mr. Johnson said no; that any calls would probably have gone to the Land Use Committee and not to him. The project, quite frankly, has not caused a great deal of discussion. He said he really couldn't say whether there was any opposition to this. Ms. Helen Bender said she lived on the street behind this property, on the other side of the channel and her main concern was that as soon as Tustin gets any property it is immediately developed and she was con- cerned how this whole area was going to go. She thought the whole area needed some kind of planning. Adequate parking and future traf- fic need to be considered. Ms. Mary Jane Wojtkiewicz said she was a resident on Theodora and she was opposed to this request. She said it would take away from the area and she thought it was bad. Mr. Ray Standard said he lived on the southern parcel and he would like to make just a couple of comments. He said Holt Avenue has be- come a very busy street and not suitable for single family residence and Mr. Hamala has a very good idea to make this into a project with more privacy. He said his own home was in such a condition that re- pairs would be beyond the worth of the house, so he was very much in favor of this proposal. Mr. Otto Hahn said he had lived at Warren and Holt 28 years. He said he was one of the instigators of the E-4 zoning because of what hap- pened directly behind his home, when many small homes went in and we had no control over the size of the house, so we controlled the size of the lots, attempting to get better homes built. He said now since they have made Holt Avenue into a small freeway, it really has lost its country attitude that we originally had. He said he had to rassle with his conscience on this and at first he was opposed to it, but since he had seen the slides and the various pictures of the proposed development, he was now in favor of the project. Mrs. Margaret Standard said she supported the development. She said no home should have to face Holt Avenue. Mr. Sharp asked Mrs. Standard if this action were in their collective favor and the development did get built, would she and her husband live in one of the un{ts? Mrs. Standard said probably not. She said they had animals and they would wish to live someplace off the Vanderlip and Warren area which is a more residential type. Mr. Bryan Wojtkiewicz said he lived on Theodora Drive and he was for their idea, but he wanted to be sure they kept to the plan they now have. He said he just wanted to be sure that the area where he re- sides was going to stay the same. Mr. Brotemarkle explained condition II.F; that as part of the use per- mit process it would be a determination by the Planning Agency, if the project was showing integrated reciprocity between these properties. Staff would not feel that this meant it must be developed as a single entity; it could perhaps be developed in phases and maybe involve two different projects to a degree, but it would not be, in staff's opinion, a showing if we had five separate residential projects at- tempting to be developed. Mr. Saltarelli said the only problem he saw was that the fifth prop- erty may want to stay in the present state for the next 50 years and he cot~ld see Mr. Hamala's concern. He said if the properties covered by the zone change must be developed in an integrated manner, that might not be possible if the fifth property owner does not wish to develop. Planning Agency Minutes - December 15, 1980 page 9. Mr. Brotemarkle said he would think the fifth property, being the largest, could be suitably developed into eight units by itself and could amost be considered as a single project, whereas the lot inm~edi- ately north of that should be combined with the other properties. As an alternative, Mr. Hamala suggested a condition that would say that any use application permit shall incorporate at least 25,000 square feet of land area. He said no individual lot has that much land area so that would mean that at least two lots would have to be combined in order to do anything. He said the only person not here today, the owner of parcel 5, could do their own development on their owen. Mr. Saltarelli said he thought they needed wording to assure that whatever is done is done with reciprocity of the development, but he didn't think it should be stated to prevent development from occur- ring. Mr. Brotemarkle said he tried to work it so it did not mandate any minimum size or specific requirement, but if it was determined, under the use permit process, that there was a proper showing of reciprocity between the properties, that would be a sufficient showing for action. Mr. David Apt said he was here with his parents, one of the appli- cants, and he wanted to speak on his own behalf. He said he lived on Warren and one of the reasons he bought there was because it was quiet, with a country-type atmosphere, but on the road to his house there was an empty lot and he wished someone would do something with that lot. He said it needed improvement. He said this request of Mr. Hamala's is not to really change the neighborhood, but to improve it. Chairman Saltarelli 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. Mr. Sharp said the Agency should act so that a property of significant size could be planned for and constructed in such a way that a little P.D. community would work. From the presentations heard today, it seemed to him that this is the case with the exception of one parcel, and in Resolution No. 1932 he saw that item II.F, as it had been dis- cussed, satisfied his concerns. He said he shared the concern of some of the people who spoke, but he was satisfied with Resolution No. 1932 as it is stated, and he would make a MOTION to recommend approval of Pre-zone 80-2 to the City Council, by the adoption of Resolution No. 1932. SECONDED by Edgar. Mrs. Kennedy asked Mr, Brotemarkle if this resolution was approved, and set the density as a PD-3,000, could he give her the range of density they were talking about. Mr. Brotemarkle said up to a maximum of 14.5 per acre. It may come in at less, depending on the site plan review, access review, and all the items the Agency may want to look at. Mr. Saltarelli said we could, then, approve a density less than 14.5. Mr. Brotemarkle said yes, just through design impositions on the pro- ject, for example, could inhibit the achievement of the full 14.5. Mrs. Kennedy said it is possible then that Mr. Hamala could come in for something less and not the maximum of 14.5. Mr. Brotemarkle said that was correct. Planning Agency Minutes - December 15, 1980 page 10. Mr. Hoestery said the only concern he had about this entire project was that if there wasn't some tying of reciprocity to it, that we could defeat the whole purpose of the development as it is and if we tied it to two lots, if we restrict it to only two owners being able to develop we have again lost the neighborhood concept that is trying to be put forth here. We have also lost the minimization of the ac- cess. He said he didn't know what the legal stand would be, but he would like to see it tied to perhaps the four parcels as opposed to just two. Mr. Saltarelli said that was also his concern. He said he thought it was a decent size neighbohood and he was concerned about changes of ownership if we have the top two properties developed, then someone changes their mind, especially with the Apt property, and he was going to be very hard to sell on approving a site plan for less than a mini- mum four parcels. Chairman Saltarelli asked for a vote on the motion. AYES: NOES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, Kennedy, and Saltarelli None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS: None PUBLIC CONCERNS None STAFF CONCERNS None ADJOURNMENT M.I. Mehl Recording Secretary There being no further business to come before the Agency, Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing closed at 4:50 p.m., to meet again for a regular meeting to be held January 5, 198[. Donald J. Saltarelli // Chairman Richard B. Edgar Vice-cha[rman