Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-18-80 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular Meeting August 18, 1980 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, August 18, 1980, in the Council Chambers of the Tusfin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, Cali- fornia. The meeting was called to order by Vice-chairman Edgar, in the absence of Chair- man Saltarelli, at 3 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Sharp and the invocation was given by Mr. Hoesferey. ROLL CALL Present: Vice-chairman Edgar; Agency members: Hoesferey, Sharp, and Kennedy Absent: Chairman Saltarelli Also present: Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Director Alan Warren, Senior Planner Midge Mehl, Recording Secretary MI NUTE~ The minutes of the meeting held August 4, 1980 were approved as written,with the waivin9 or readin9 same. INITIAL, pUBLIC HEARINGS Use Permit 80-15 Applicant: Location: Request: Bharat Gala 750 El Camino Real (old 150 Laguna Road) Addition of eight (8) motel rooms to Tustin Motor Lodge. Mr. Brotemarkle said the request was for an additional eight units and the addition would be two stories in height while the existing motel is one-story. He said the applicant has proposed that each additional unit contain a mini- kitchen, although staff is concerned that by adding these mini-kitchens, the specific use of the room has changed from a motel, which is defined as accom- modation of transient automobile travelers, to a multiple dwelling, which is defined as a residence where three or more families live independently of each other, doing their own cooking. Ne said the kitchens could allow the units to be utilized as apartment dwellings instead of motel units. He said although several of the motel units do have kitchen facilities af lhis time, they are allowed as a legal non-conforming use, and staff is not adverse fo having these remain, but would recommend that the proposed kitchen facilities be eliminated from the proposed additional eight units. Vice-chairman Edgar declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished fo speak in favor or opposition fo Use Permit 80-15. There being no one fo speak, Vice-chairman Edgar declared the public hearing closed and asked if there wcre any questions from the Agency. Mrs. Kennedy said that this motel is in the downtown area and the City would be spending a lot of money in that area, in an attempt to upgrade if, and she felt fhaf every prelect that came before the Agency should be carefully scrutinized for ifs desirability and condition fo complement the downtown area and not detract from it. She said she had trouble reading the plans and hoped there would be landscaping fo soften tho look. She said she would approve staff's recommendation if the Agency had final approval of the plans and care- fully scruifinized ?f to make sure if complemented what the City is attempting fo achieve in the downtown area. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Sharp, to approve Use Permit 80-15 in conform- mance with the conditions as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Sharp questioned wording in condition #1 in the report, asking if staff meant that the plans should be reviewed by a building designer or developed by a building designer. He suggested the wording be changed from "reviewed by" to "developed by." Planning Agency Minutes - August 18, 1980 page 2. Mrs. Kennedy said she would accept the changing of the wording in condition #1 as part of the motion. Mr. Sharp said he felt that the standards which had been presented in the build- ing design and landscaping have a check point so that we know we are going fo have a harmonious development as well as something that will fulfill those standards. Vice-chairman Edgar asked for a vote on the motion, as amended. AYES: Hoesferey, Sharp, Kennedy, and Edgar NOES: None ABSENT: Salfarelli Variance 80-14 Applicant: Location: Request: Beyer and Warden Southeasterly corner of South "B" Street and the Santa Ana Freeway off-ramp Development of residential condominium project of 56 units. Mr. Brofemarkle said this particular project had been around the department for quite a period of time due fo the irregularities of the property and the attempt fo come up with just the right plan for the property. If is a uniquely shaped parcel, located in tho county af the in[ersecfion of "B" Street and Nisson. At the LAFCO meering, August 15, 1980, this project was approved for an owner- initiated annexation fo Tusfin. We now have a proposal for a 36-unit condominium with an approximate fetal coverage of 55.$%.This is5.3% over what the PD District permits, however, the project is well within the density established for the location--it was pre-zoned R-.5 2000 and the density actually comes out one dwell- in9 unit per 2,662 square feet. He said under the current plan, in order to meet the required open space, if would necessitate essentially the loss of 7 pads or 14 dwelling units and if would appear that if is the extremely odd shape of the property which leads fo this difficulty in complyin9 fo the open space provisions. With the aid of some colored slides, Mr. Brofemarkle showed the Agency what was now on the subject property and explained the location of the proposed project. Mr. Sharp asked if staff computed the open space on net or gross square footage. Mr. Brofemarkle said tho net square footage was used. He further stated he would like fo point out that the applicant has fried fo negotiate with the State of California for a dedication of some portion of the freeway right-of-way and after lengthy work with them and after the City's experience with CALTRANS, he did not feel it appropriate for the City to impose any conditions based upon that right-of-way since if might take many years to develop an agreement be- tween the state and the applicant. Therefore, at this point, we should look at the property the way if exists. Mr. Sharp questioned the type of roofing material proposed fo be used. Mr. Brotemarkle said a specific type of roofing could be one of the conditions of approval, if the Agency so desired. He said at the present time staff is still working with the Fire Department on a number of changes regarding fire- retardanf roofs. If would appear that the wood shingle roof controversy will be one of the most difficult items in the code change and we would expect a legal challenge to this. Af the present time, however, by code we cannot impose that requirement, but since this request is a discretionary action by the use permit procedure, the Agency could impose a condition stipulating the type of roofing to be used. Planning Agency Minutes - August 18~ 1980 page 3. Mrs. Kennedy said the plan showed what appeared to be a carport and she wanted that explained. Mr. Todd Stoutenborough, Prelect Architect, said every unit in this prelect has a garage as well as one open parking space; there would be two parking spaces per unit. Vice-chairman Edgar declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone to speak in favor or opposition fo Variance 80-14. Mr. Todd Stoutenborough displayed some architectural renderings, depicting what the finished project would look like. He pointed out how the use of a water element, trees, and curving walks would create a good environment and create a more open feeling than if the units faced the freeway and drive aisles. There being no one else fo speak in favor or opposition, Vice-chairman Edgar declared the hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. There followed a discussion concerning the recreation building; CALTRANS and a possible agreement at a later date; what percentage of the parking was en- closed garages and whether or not they would be converted fo living quarters at a later time; and if there would be guest parking in addition fo the parking allocated to the units. Mrs. Kennedy asked what percentage of land coverage would i~ave to be reduced fo get within 1% of the open space requiremenf fdding in what CALTRANS might possibly dedicate? Mr. Brotemarkle said it would require the loss of approximately 6 units, even with the CALTRANS property. He said the big problem was not CALTRANS, but the dead corners of the site. He said the applicants attempted fo purchase an additional piece of abutting property, but were unsuccessful. Mrs. Kennedy asked if there was any protection against the garages being con- verted fo living quarters. Mr. Brofemarkle said the CC&Rs would stipulate that the garages be maintained for the specific purpose of parking a vehicle and not be utilized for living quarters or den, or something of fhaf nature. Ho said if would be a zoning enforcement matter and more times than not if is the Association of a condo- minium that brings these matters fo the attention of the staff. Mrs. Kennedy asked if there 72 parking spaces total. Mr. Brofemarkle said that was correct. He said there was no additional park- ing for guests. Mrs. Kennedy said it was a beautiful development and would certainly be better than what is presently on the property, but she just could not go along with a motion for approval, because of the potential density. Mr. Sfoufenborough said guest parking would come out of the fetal allotment of parking spaces because some of the one bedroom units would not have two cars, Mr. Sharp said after viewing the slides he was very impressed with what the developer was proposing. He said it seemed to him that there was an openness created with the winding creeks and the trees and walkways, and he thought if pretty well gave the feeling of living in a very pleasant environment. He said if appeared fo him that the designers had done an exceptional job with what they had fo work with. MOTION by Sharp, SECONDED by Edgar, to approve Variance 80-~4 in conformance with Resolution No. zg12, as amended, fo include fire refardanf roofs on the units. Mr. Hoesferey said in the past he had been very leery about approving projects that had an abundance of coverage requiring a variance, however, after looking at this plan from the standpoint that there is a lot of water and the way if is laid out, if will not seem as congested as some complexes with lust grass and frees. He said taking into consideration the odd shape of the property he would agree that if should be approved. Planning Agency Minutes - August 18, 1980 page 4. Mr. Edgar said he shared Mr. Hoesterey's thoughts. He, too, was impressed by having the two driveways rather than just one and ho thought having the one driveway between the units and the freeway would give some protection from freeway noise to the tenants. He asked about undergrounding the utilities; was if an oversight that if was not spelled out in the conditions of the Reso- lution? Mr. Brotemarkle said undergrounding of utilities in new projects is auto- matically required by code. Mrs. Kennedy asked if it was a normal condition in the CC&Rs fhaf the garages would not be converted fo living quarters. Mr. Brotemarkle said yes, it was a normal condition of fha CC&Rs. Mrs. Kennedy said the Agency had steadily been moving away from tho open space requirement for condominiums and she thought that rather than give variances, if would be more orderly and more fair to everyone fo change [he City standards instead of abusing, in her opinion, the open space requirements. She said she agreed the shape of fha lot was unique, but she could not agree that there was a hardship since it was that shape when they purchased if. Density is a big issue and she considered this project a dense development. Mr. Hoesferoy said he felt that the 50% open space requirement is out of line because there are a number of projects where it is appropriate to have that much, however, he felt it incumbent upon fha Agency fo analyze these proposals for cond~ninium conversion to ascertain whether fha 50% open space requirement was necessary. He thought this proposal was unique because et the way if was laid out and felt the 50% was not necessary. Vice-chairman Edgar asked for fha vote on the motion. AYES: Hoesferey, Sharp, Edgar NOES: Kennedy ABSENT: Salfarelli PUBLIC CONCERNS None OLD BUSINESS Resolution No. 1909. Approving Variance 80--13 Applicant: Location: Request: Joseph Mason on behalf of Tustin Village Mobile Home Park 15352 Williams Street A variance from approved density provisions of Zonin9 Ordi- nance No. 157. Mr. Brofemar'kle said Variance 80-13 had been granted approval by the Agency at their August 4, 1980 meeting and this was the Resolution for that variance. MOTION by Sharp, SECONDED by Hoesterey, to approve Resolution No. 1909. AYES: Hoesterey, Sharp, and Edgar NOES: Kennedy ABSENT: Salfarelli Planning Agency Minutes - August 18, 1980 page 5. NEW BUSINE$~ Tentative Tract No. 11050 Applicant: Location: Request: Beyer and Warden Southeasterly corner of South "B" Street and the Santa Ana Freeway off-ramp, Subdivision map for condominium purposes Mr. Brotemarkle stated that this is the implementing tentative tract for Variance 80-14 which was just approved by the Agency. MOTION by Edgar, SECONDED by Sharp, to recommend approval of Tentative Tract No. 11050 fo the City Council, by the adoption of Resolution No. 1911. AYES: Hoesterey, Sharp, and Edgar NOES: Kennedy ABSENT: Saltarelli Mrs. Kennedy requested fhaf the minutes show she opposed both Resolution 1912 and this tract map on the basis of density. STAFF CONCERNS Review of PI~o~ fQF 422 West First Street Mr. Brotemarkle said this project had been "in the mill" for about four years and has been known as the Jansvu project, but had recently been sold and will now be known as Tustin Corrrnons. In review of some o{ the Final plans there have been some modifications. Some of these changes were substantially in conformance with the original use permit approved, however, due to the change in the second floor location and the building height, staff felt that the Agency should review these plans. The Fire Department has stated fhaf the open drive- way info the site would negate the need For an emergency access easement From Second Street and the developer would like the easement requirement removed, if this plan is approved. He said originally the request was For 32 units, but the present developer is requesting 26 units, however, a concern arose over setbacks and visibility {rom the R-1 properties on Second Street and the rear of the new proposed units. Under the old approval the units had been proposed at 29 feet in height with a setback to the {irsf story fo 27 feet and a setback From the R-1 fo any second story window o{ approximately 40 Feet. All second story windows, however, would be Iouvered with outside architectural screening so you could not see into adjacent R-1 properties. A plot plan was submitted, proposing fo reduce the setback fo 35 Feet {or the second story level and the installation of an 11'8" wall along the rear property line fo prohibit visibility. Although the 11'8" wall would not be all masonry, the fop portion being wood, if was still in excess of the code requirement. We have received, From an adjacent property owner who happens to be the Former developer, Hockenberry, a letter o{ protest fo the 11'8I' wall; he still supports the pro- ject, but Felt fhaf the wall would bo quite drastic. The project architect has now submitted a plan which actually is, in the sta{F's opinion, probably better than the original plan. This plan puts the building height af approximately 34' fo 35'. The setback fo the structure, however, would be 45' rather than the previously approved 27' and if would be 47 1/2' rather than 40' back to any second story window. This would appear fo eliminate the need for an extensive wall height and would allow the wall fo be the normal 6'8" in height. He said this was brought before the Agency fo ascertain whether it would require a new hearing in view of the few minor changes. If would be staff's opinion, he said, at this point in time, that the project has changed, but not substantially and the minor changes have made if a better project. Mrs. Kennedy said staff had just related information that was not included in the report she received and since this abuts R-1 and those residents were very vocal af the original hearing, she would like fo get some input from those property owners. She said this project is going fo impact them, so if a public Planning Agency Minutes - August 18, 1980 page 6. hearing is the proper way fo go she was in favor of that; if the Agency felt we could simply poll them, each and every one by registered letter, or some other manner, she would agree to that. She felt the Agency should have some input from those people. Mr. Brotemarkle said he believed there were only five or six residents who would be affected by the change and one is in the audience. Mr. Raymond Pert, 505 West Second Street, said he was one of fha five and ho had no objection fo the changes. Mrs. Kennedy said she would go with whatever fha Agency decided. Mr. Sharp said he was not adverse to acting on this now, if he fully under- stood what they were acting on. He said he remembered the problems they had with Mr. Hockenberry's plans, but now staff says he has sold the property to someone who may be able to get the development underway, but there are some changes. Mr. Brofemarkle said it is substantially fha same, except fha setbacks have shifted and the height has increased. He said after staff reviewed ~he in- creased wall and the decreased setback, the developer had second thoughts and has essentially taken a third set of plans which would actually physically re- locate [he road right-of-way and the units all 45' farther from fha property line, but it would raise fha height of fha structures. Mr. Hoesferoy said he would have fo concur with Mrs. Kennedy; that the project is being changed substantially and he thought the Agency should find out what the impact on the R-1 property would be before going ahead with this. Mr. Edgar asked how many elements of variance did they have in farms of the original authorization that the Agency gave. In what areas were deviations per- miffed? Mr. Brotemarklo said this was a use permit and if was in the question of a 50~ setback from the R-l, however, as part of the uso permit process as long as those windows were permanently architecturally screened if would bo considered to be an "in lieu" of fha 50~ setback. Mr. Edgar said he thought these elements were clearly understood and accepted by our Director, Mr. Brofemarkle, and he felt that fha original use permit is valid and he concurred with Mrs. Kennedy that the Agency should have written comments from the neighbors so we can integrate whatever they have to say into our decision, but he thought it would be unfair fo establish the whole public hearing process with months of time to merely repeat what 1he developer has said. He said he personally felt that the Agency should authorize Mr. Brofe- markle to negotiate with the developer and fo make the personal contact with tho neighbors fo get their concerns, pointing out fo them what is presently proposed as fo what had been prcposed. Mr. Sharp said he thought this matter should be continued for two weeks in order fo permit Mr. Brotomarkle fo contact the neighbors. Edgar asked if that would be an inconvenience to the staff. Mr. Brotemarkle said as ho understood it, fha Agency was saying fhaf staff should contact each of the directly adjacent R-1 property owners and solicit their comments and feelings with regard to the two specific changes--the setback and the height, recognizing all other factors still remain the same, then assuming there are no adverse cofnmenfs, the staff would inform the Agency of that fact and it would be construed that this plan substantially conforms with the original concept and therefore fha developer could go ahead and seek permits for construction. Mrs. Kennedy said she would be willing to take an action today, hinged upon no problems from adjacent R-1 property owners. Mr. Brofomarkle asked if it was the decision of the Agency, then, that if staff received no adverse comments from these property owners, after their bein9 con- facfed, that he could inform the Agency of this fact and then the processin9 Planning Agency Minutes - August 18, 1980 page 7. of plans could continue. If was the consensus of the Agency that fhaf was their desire. Mrs. Kennedy said she would like to have these comments in written form. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Sharp, to approve the plans for condominium pro- ]ect fo be located at 422 West First Street on condition that all abutting home owners be contacted regarding the changes of setbacks and height and that a report be brought back fo ~he Agency af their next meeting, to be held September 2, 1980, AYES: Hoesterey, Sharp, Kennedy, and Edgar NOES: None ABSENT: Saltarelli AGgNC¥ CONCERNS None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Agency, Vice-chairman Edgar declared the meeting adjourned af 4:03 p.m., to meet again for a regular meet- ing fo be held September 2, 1980 instead of September 1, due to the holiday. R~chard B Edgar Vi ce-chai rman M.I. Mehl Recording Secretary