Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-17-80 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular and Continued Meetings November 17, 1980 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, November 17, 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 3:06 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Hoesterey and the invocation was given by Mr. Edgar. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Saltarelli; Agency members: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, and Kennedy 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 meeting held November 3, 1980 were approved as written, with the waiving or reading same. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Use Permit 80-21 Applicant: Location: Request: Windsor Partner Limited 1651 Mitchell Avenue Authorization to convert apartments to seventy (70) condominium units. Mr. Brotemarkle presented the staff report on the use permit request to convert a 70-unit one-story apartment complex into condominiums by the utilization of underground parking, with a total of 147 parking spaces which is 2.1 spaces per unit. He stated the proposal meets provisions of Ordinance No. 822 and the open space area is provided. Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition to Use Permit No. 80-21. Ms. Patricia DeWitt said she was one of the tenants, presently living in apartment I-3, and she submitted a petition signed by several other tenants, requesting that the conversion not be approved. She said it was their opinion that there were no other rentals within a three mile area where the tenants could move. She said she was unable to contact everyone due to the short time; there were eighteen tenants she was not able to find at home; three people said they did not want to sign the petition, however, none of the three said they were interested in buying a condominium; one man didn't sign, but said he would be at the hearing. She asked, if they were going to have subterranean parking and the backyards extended out over the garage, who would that prop- erty belong to? Also, if the property floods, who is responsible? Fredrick J. King, Manager and General Partner of Windsor Gardens, said they had met with the tenants of the apartment, outlining to them ex- actly what they intended to do; explained the relocation plan; and the ownership position. He said it was their goal to have all seventy tenants purchase a unit. We would like to make the transition from apartments to condominiums and to ownership as easy and simple as pos- sible. As far as the ownership in the extended backyards, that would be covered in the CC&Rs. At this time the details have not been worked out. The company that we propose to have construct this sub- terranean parking has guaranteed against leakage for a period in the neighborhood of 20-30 years. He said these are one-story structures Planning Agency Minutes - November 17, 1980 page 2. and right now are sixteen separate buildings. There are twelve 4-unit buildings; two 5-unit buildings; and two 6-unit buildings. He said if there were any further questions he would be glad to answer them. Chairman Saltarelli asked what would happen to the existing carports. Mr. King stated the existing carports would be torn out and literally sunken into the ground, becoming a security system carport area. There followed a discussion concerning the subterranean parking area, the open area on top, and ingress and egress. Chairman Saltarelli asked Mr. King if he was fully aware of the relocation ordinance, and could he meet all the requirements. Mr. King said they had already made their suggestions, both in letter form to Mr. Brotemarkle and to the tenants. We feel that we are quite a bit above what the ordinance requires. Chairman Saltarelli asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak and hearing no response he declared the hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. Mrs. Kennedy questioned if the lowered carports with a patio on top are technically counted as open space. Mr. Brotemarkle said staff has always interpreted that if it were placed on a roof above-grade, that the position of the Agency had been that that did not count; if it is at-grade, that would count as part of the open space. Mr. Kennedy asked about any future desire of the owners to enclose the patios. Mr. Brotemarkle said that would be covered in their CC&Rs and limited to a maximum of approximately 120 sq. ft. in order to ensure the 50% open space. Mr. Hoesterey asked the age of the apartment complex. Mr. Brotemarkle said he thought they were about twelve years old. Mr. Hoesterey asked if much remodeling would be required in order to bring the apartments up to code requirement for condominiums. Mr. Brotemarkle said the apartments were presently closer to code requirements for condos than many existing projects because when it was built many features were added that were not, at that time, required by code. He said all provisions that are included in Ordinance No. 822 are automatically required to be complied with by the conversion. Mr. Hoesterey asked about provisions for the handicapped person to exit the subterranean parking area. Mr. Brotemarkle said the provision for the handicapped would have to be met with the drive access toward the front; it could not be done with the stairways, but that is an element of design that we would be working on with the applicant. Mr. Edgar said he thought it would be appropriate to acknowledge the Conversion Ordinance and relocation provisions in the Resolution. Mrs. Kennedy said she agreed. Mr. Brotemarkle said that could be added to the Resolution, if so desired by the Agency. Chairman Saltarelli so ordered, that paragraph "S" be added to Resolution No. 1930, stating that they should comply with Ordinance No. 822. Planning Agency Minutes - November 17, 1980 page 3. Mrs. Kennedy said having talked with others who had been through a re- location, she wanted to state that this company appears to have done a good job informing their people of what is going on. She said in the past, there had been times when tenants had to literally fight for their relocation rights. She asked if staff had reviewed the reloca- tion plan. Mr. Brotemarkle said yes he had, and it met or exceeded all require- ments of the conversion ordinance. MOTION by Saltarelli, SECONDED by Kennedy, to approve Use Permit 80-21 with the inclusion of paragraph "S" relating to the condominium con- version ordinance. AYES: NOES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, Kennedy, and Saltarelli None Mrs. Kennedy said she wanted to state to the tenants that the approval of this request did not mean that the Agency was not concerned with the rental community, but when a project comes before us that meets the City Ordinances, there is no way we can avoid the approval and it is with deep concern with the rental community that we do this. Variance 80-18 Applicant: Location: Request: Margaret Householder 301 West First Street To vary with the front and side yard setback requirements. Mr. Brotemarkle said this request was due to the desire of the owner to convert an existing single-family residence, which is a nonconform- ing use in the CG Zone, to an office use. In this case with a zero side and front yard setback. Staff did not find the defined hardship to support this particular request, however, it does recognize that a conversion of the property would put a conforming use on the property rather than a nonconforming use of a residence. The property is a 40 x 125 foot lot, which makes it narrow; the big problem with the set- backs is the existing single-family residence encroaches to within two feet at the corner radius of the lot and also on the side it has a setback ranging from eight to ten feet and has a front setback of seven feet. He said by attempting to retain the existing house and put up a false wall and redevelop the area by still utilizing that square footage created a problem. Staff, he said, had mixed emotions in that we would like to eliminate the nonconforming use of resi- dential, but we could not find a hardship to justify the creation of a nonconforming structure to the development standards of that district. Chairman Saltarelli asked if they actually met the parking require- ments in terms of the seven spaces. Mr. Brotemarkle said yes. He said he would like to point out that im- mediately adjacent to the subject property is the Van Hove garage, which back in 1974, after the widening of First Street, reconstructed the front of their building, creating a zero front yard setback. Chairman Saltarelli asked what use was proposed for the requested building. Mr. Brotemarkle said it was proposed for an office building. Chairman Saltarelli said he thought there was too much grass shown on the plan; he felt they could do with more parking spaces and less landscaping in this instance. He said there was also a space marked for the handicapped and that seemed unnecessary. Mr. Brotemarkle stated there was adequate space to put in the space for the handicapped and the development guidelines required the lands- cape setback to discourage people from attempting to back out of the parking spaces directly into the street. Planning Agency Minutes - November 17, 1980 page 4. Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition to Vari- ance No. 80-18. Mr. Alan Albright said he would like to speak to some of the points raised by the Agency members. He said the use of the building would be for professional offices for realtors. They're trying to take an existing dwelling that is 40-50 years old and upgrade it to an up-to-date structure, keeping it one-story in height. He said the staff had requested they maintain a ten foot buffer in the rear in- stead of more parking spaces, as suggested by Mr. Saltarelli, in order to buffer the office from the adjoining residential area. He said the building would be approximately 1,900 square feet of useable space. If we cut it back to the required front and side yard setbacks, approxi- mately 700 feet of building is lost and a 1200-1300 square foot build- ing would result, which would be inadequate. The hardship we are try- ing to prove is losing 30-40% of a building on a small lot to comply with an ordinance is a hardship and the building next door to the sub- ject property does not conform with the setback requirement. Further, he said, they felt it would be an improvement to the area in that we would be taking an unoccupied residence which is now open to vandalism and possibly fire, and make it into a nice structure, using the same type of architecture as the building directly across the street. Mr. Hoesterey asked Mr. Albright how he would develop the property, should this request be denied. Mr. Albright said he didn't think they could develop it. It's a prob- lem of when you lose 33% of your buildable area, it almost precludes development. It's a matter of land being very costly nowadays and you have to use it to its highest and best use. It's possible to go to two stories, but there is a poor sense of scale when you go up two stories with a very narrow building. If we had the adjacent property, which we would like to have, but it's sold, then we could have a building eighty feet wide and two stories in height. But this now be- comes a twenty foot wide building, twenty feet high. It becomes a very thin box and doesn't have the right proportions to it. We would like to cut the roof down from two-story height and bring it down to the street scale at the corner. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Sharp, to close the public hearing and deny Variance 80-18 in accordance with staff recommendations. Mr. Hoesterey said he had one problem with this. He said for a busi- ness that caters to the public, such as real estate, there really was no parking for customers. He said three of the spaces are alloted for compact cars and one for the handicapped, and he didn't feel that that left a full seven parking spaces. Chairman Saltarelli said he would favor approval of this request, with the elimination of that parking space for the handicapped and adding a regular parking space. He said he thought this was an architecturally sound request; it's a good use; it's a problem piece of property; and he didn't see how they could get a better development. Chairman Saltarelli asked for a vote on the motion. AYES: NOES: Edgar, Sh~{p, and Kennedy Hoesterey and Saltarelli Use Permit 80-22 Applicant: Location: Request: S.I.R. Developers South side of Bell Avenue Authorization to construct industrial condominiums. Mr. Brotemarkle said this request required action on a use permit since the proposal is an industrial condominium and all condominium projects are required to be processed by use permit. It is a proposal for 83,132 square feet of industrial useage on 5.48 acres with 19 Planning Agency Minutes - November 17, 1980 page 5. condo units and three buildings. It does meet all the development standards for the use, with proposed office useage at 40% and industr- ial useage at 60% of the complex. Staff has recommended, in the con- ditions, that there be restrictions on the uses incorporated into the CC&Rs to firm up that committal to the 40% and 60% since it has been our experience with previous industrial condominiums that more extens- ive office use and some type of retail uses are developed within the complex at some later date by a tenant. Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition to Use Permit 80-22. Mr. Robert Catron, architect for the project, said he was merely here to answer any questions the Agency might have. There being no questions of Mr. Catron by the Agency, 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. MOTION by Edgar, SECONDED by Sharp, to approve Use Permit 80-22 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1931. Mrs. Kennedy asked about the parking. Mr. Brotemarkle said the applicant would be utilizing The Irvine Com- pany's parking standards which would be the ones staff would recom- mend. Mrs. Kennedy asked if any use causing pollution or an odor or a con- cern of the neighborhood would have to come before the Agency as a use permit. Mr. Brotemarkle said that was correct. Mrs. Kennedy asked when a use of this type would be caught. Mr. Brotemarkle said normally at the time some future user of build- ings comes in and contacts staff, then we discover what the use is and very often we work with SCAQMD to review their particular use. In some cases, admittedly, it is after the fact that we discover that someone has taken a building for an occupancy for something for which the building was not designed; then there is a potential legal in- volvement to either correct the deficiencies or terminate the use. Chairman Saltarelli asked for a vote on the motion. AYES: NOES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, Kennedy, and Saltarelli None OLD BUSINESS: Resolutions Nos. 1924 and 1925. Mr. Brotemarkle said these resolutions were for the actions taken by the Agency at the last meeting, denying the Variance and Zone Change requests at Norwood Park Place and Yorba. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Sharp, to approve Resolutions Numbers 1924 and 1925, denying Variance 80-17 and Zone Change 80-3. AYES: NOES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, Kennedy, and Saltarelli None NEW BUSINESS: Tentative Tract No. 10707 Applicant: Location: Request: S.I.R. Developers South side of Bell Avenue Subdivision (one lot) for condominium purposes. Minutes - November 17, 1980 page 6. Chairman Saltarelli said this was the implementing tract map for the use permit just approved. MOTION by Sharp, SECONDED by Hoesterey, to recommend approval of Tent- ative Tract No. 10707 to the City Council by the adoption of Resolu- tion No. 1921. AYES: NOES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, Kennedy, and Saltarelli None PUBLIC CONCERNS: None STAFF CONCERNS: Mr. Brotemarkle said he had only two items of concern. He said the Parking Study is in progress, but has not been completed, but should be available for the next meeting. Also, he said, staff has been in contact with property owners on "C" Street, between First and Main Streets. He said most of their properties are zoned R-3, but are master-planned for C-2 and it seems they are having some trouble marketing their properties, seeking financing for projects, etc. be- cause the property is zoned R-3. Even though office complexes are permitted in R-3 by the use permit process, it would appear appropriate that to be consistent with the General Plan, that we initiate a rezoning on all R-3 lots on "C" Street, between First and Main Streets so they would be in conformance with the General Plan. Some members of the Agency were under the impression that this rezon- lng had already been accomplished quite some time ago. There followed a discussion regarding this matter. MOTION by Edgar, SECONDED by Sharp, that the Planning staff prepare a report, indicating those properties which should be rezoned C-2 in conformance with the General Plan, for those properties on "C" Street between First and Main Streets. AYES: NOES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, Kennedy, and Saltarelli None AGENCY CONCERNS: Mr. Sharp asked if the Nardulli family had approached staff with an alternate plan. Mr. Brotemarkle said they had indicated they were going to pursue an alternate approach and we have been contacted by their architect who was attempting to lay out a subdivision, but retain the old house and he thought they were finding that to be unfeasible. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Agency at this time, Chairman Saltarelli declared the meeting adjourned at 3:53 p.m., to meet again for a continued meeting at 7:30 p.m. this date. CONTINUED MEETING: Chairman Saltarelli called the continued meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and stated that all Planning Agency members were present. PUBLIC HEARINGS: General Plan Amendment 80-2(A) Applicant: Location: Request: Initiated by City Council South side of Main Street between "B" and "C" Streets (Stevens' property). Amend General Plan from Multi-family to Professional. Planning Agency Minutes - November 17, 1980 page 7. Mr. Brotemarkle said this request was basically a "housekeeping" item; the project has already been approved. The General Plan calls out as multi-family, however, zoning requires a use permit for the develop- ment of the office in an R-3 zoning. Since the property will be de- veloped for offices, it is appropriate to so designate it on the Gen- eral Plan as Professional rather than medium density or multi-family residential. Mr. Sharp asked the developer's time table on this project. Mr. Brotemarkle said at this point in time it appears they will not be under construction until after the rainy season. He had met with the architect and they are finalizing details on such items as balconies, window projections, etc. Chairman Saltarelli declared the pubic hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition to General Plan Amendment 80-2(A). There being no one to speak, Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. MOTION by Edgar, SECONDED by Sharp, to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 80-2(A) to the City Council by the adoption of Reso- lution No. 1928. AYES: NOES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, Kennedy, and Saltarelli None General Plan Amendment 80-2(B) Applicant: Location: Request: Initiated by City Council Easterly side of Holt Avenue, northerly of city limits Amend General Plan from Single-family to Multi-family. Mr. Brotemarkle presented the staff report. Mr. Arnie Hamala said he was the applicant and would like to speak to both General Plan Amendment 80-2(B) and Pre-zone 80-2 at this time. Chairman Saltarelli asked Mr. Rourke, the city attorney, if this was possible. Mr. Rourke said he saw no problem with Mr. Halmala speaking on both issues at the same time. Mr. Hamala said their co-applicants, Ed and June Apt, who own the property immediately south of that which they had purchased, and Ray and Margaret Standard who own the property southerly of the Apt's property were also present. Our objective in this application is to collect a number of parcels that have homes on them that have largely exceeded their useful life and recycle that land in an appropriate way. We have developed a plan that encompasses five parcels of prop- erty and we have proposed a concept wherein those parcels could be in- tegrated into one development which would have the advantages of larg- er scale site planning. We hope to develop one plan, using at least four of the lots; it would be possible for the other property owners to work in tandem and achieve most of the results intended. He said the existing land use, as indicated by Mr. Brotemarkle, is bounded by public reservations on three sides and Holt Avenue is on the other side. He said i~mnediately to the north of us is an E-4 parcel, cur- rently being used as a parrot farm. We feel we have natural bound- aries for a transitional type land use for what we are proposing. We hope to have a planned development concept. Mr. Hamala further stated they had spent the weekend, talking to their neighbors and they had a fine reaction from the people on Theodora and Lucero and he felt this would be a good addition to the community. He said they were requesting approval of the use at this step; they knew they would be back before the Agency in the future, proving all the things we are saying tonight, and we expect your staf to hold us ac- countable and we are pleased to be held accountable. Plamning Agency Minutes - November 17, 1980 page 8. Mr. Hoesterey asked if, for some reason, the other parties involved in this decided they didn't want to develop, would you, then, develop just your two parcels? Mr. Hamala said yes, they would. Mr. Hoesterey asked if this did not get approved and rezoned, would you consider single family residences that would give you the return you desire? Mr. Hamala said he didn't think that was in the cards. If you were to build a custom house, you would not choose to build such a house on Holt Avenue. It's through a townhouse project, with landscaping, that he could achieve a sense of a community and justify the market pro- file. He could not go with prices that were inconsistent with the neighborhood; he had to be at least 20,000-30,000 dollars above the neighborhood in order to make it happen. Mrs. Pat Hamala said she thought it very exciting that the owners have banded together to try to develop their properties to a higher and better use. Tonight, in the audience, are owners of the four contig- uous parcels who have been working together for a couple of months. Although Sheila Patterson, owner of the parcel on the southerly end, did not sign our zone petition, she said she did not want her property to be excluded. If there is any great opposition to our proposal, we do not know about it. She said most everyone they had talked to over the weekend favored their ideas. They had favorable responses from Pete Bender, 18232 Lucero, Mr. Agoll, 18231Lucero, and neighbors at 18222 Theodora and 18251Lucero. Mr. David Apt said he was an attorney, representing his parents who were in the audience, and he wanted to concur with everything that had been said. He said he and his parents felt there was a great need for this type of housing in Tustin and they were in favor of the request. Mr. Ray Standard, 14582 Holt, said he would concur with the previous testimoney and he, too, was in favor of the request. Mr. Hamala said they would prefer to have the PD designation rather than the R-3, if that would be possible. As we have testified, we are not going to have apartments, and having the PD would better suit their plans. He said he realized that his had been advertised as R-3, but they would like to request the PD designation. Mr. Brotemarkle said that R-3 3,000 was the designation of the prop- erty southerly of the subject property; he would defer this question to the city attorney, but it would seem to him that it could be changed to PD since that is a more restrictive classification than the R-3. Mr. Rourke said without looking at the two provisions, he was not sure there wouldn't be a problem. He asked if Mr. Brotemarkle was sure the PD was more restrictive. Mr. Brotemarkle said the PD zoning is definitely more restrictive than the R-3 as far as the review and the standards. Mr. Rourke said if the PD is more restrictive in every regard, it could be acted upon. If Mr. Brotemarkle is correct in that regard, then there is no problem. Mr. Edgar said he felt there could be a motion to accommodate both. Mr. Blankenship said their first action should be on the General Plan Amendment and that doesn't require a designation of a particular zon- ing, does it? Mr. Brotemarkle said that was correct; the General Plan Amendment is merely a designation of multi-family; that would be the first action for Resolution No. 1929. Planning Agency Minutes - November 17, 1980 page 9. Chairman Saltarelli said we're just talking about a pre-zone anyway; it could be changed to anything because this property is not even in the city at the present time; it has to go through LAFCO and all the other procedures, so we could go ahead and take action on the General Plan Amendment, then if any changes are necessary later it could be brought back to the Agency. Mr. Brotemarkle said in the R-3 3,000, Resolution No. 1932, we could merely indicate under item "E" where we say "design plans for the pro- posed development shall be reviewed and approved by staff in accord- ance with the criteria.."; that condition could be modified to indi- cate that a use permit application shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Agency, in accordance with the development guidelines of the PD District. Chairman Saltarelll declared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. MOTION by Edgar, SECONDED by Sharp, to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 80-2(B) by the adoption of Resolution No. 1929. Mrs. Kennedy asked if surrounding property owners had been notified of this public hearing. Mr. Brotemarkle said no, this was not a requirement on a pre-zone or a General Plan amendment; only a variance or use permit. Mrs. Kennedy said this was a very drastic move. She said density may become an issue and this area is surrounded on three sides by R-l, even older R-1 and she didn't feel this was an appropriate move. She felt the Agency could even be accused of "spot zoning." She said it was her opinion that R-1 zoning would be the most appropriate for this property. Mr. Hoesterey said he felt there was a natural boundary there, and it was probably zoned E-4 when Holt was a two-lane road, but it is a very busy street now and he didn't think it would be conducive to R-1 on those lots. He said he did have one suggestion; that when a proposed project is brought before the Agency, that the developer show on the plot plan exactly what he proposes. In other words, don't show single story homes, then decide to actually build two-story homes on the property. It distorts what the Agency looks at. Chairman Saltarelli asked for a vote on the motion. AYES: NOES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, and Saltarelli Kennedy MOTION by Sharp, SECONDED by Edgar, to recommend approval of Pre-zone 80-2 with the modifications as suggested by the staff, by the adoption of Resolution No. 1932. AYES: NOES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, and Saltarelli Kennedy ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Agency, Chairman Saltarelli adjourned the meeting at 8:02 p.m., to meet again for a regular meeting to be held December 1, 1980 at 3 p.m. Donald J.z~,]~t a~ 11 i Chairman/ M.I. Mehl Recording Secretary