Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-16-80 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular and Continued Meetings June 16, 1980 The Planning Agency held a regular and continued meeting Monday, June 16, 1980, in the Council Chambers of the Tustin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. The meeting was called fo order by Chairman Saltarelli at 3:05 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Edgar and the invocation was given by Mrs. Kennedy. ROLL CA~L Present: Chairman Saltarelli; Agency Members: Edgar, Kennedy Absent: Hoesterey and Sharp Also present: Mike Brotemarkle, Community Dvelopment Director Alan Warren, Senior Planner Dan Blankenship, City Administrator James Rourke, City Attorney Midge Mehl, Recording Secretary MI NUTE$ The minutes of the meeting held June 2, 1980 were approved as written, with the waivin9 of readin9 same. PUBLIC HEARINGS Use Permit 80-12 (continued) Applicant: Location: Request: American Display Inc. 1382 Valencia Avenue Authorization for a heliport to be located in the parking lot. Chairman Salfarelli said it was staff's recorrrnendafion to continue this matter again, as there is approximately a two week period other agencies have in which fo respond to the request for information on the Negative Declaration. Mr. Brotemarkle indicated that staff believed some mixed signals had been re- ceived from other agencies involved. Af the May 15 meeting of the Airport Land Use Commission, the Marine Corp expressed their concern regarding interference with air space reserved for the helicopter station. Mr. Wandrick, Chief of the John Wayne Airport control fewer indicated the site is directly under the flight path and that there is a potential for ma]or aircraft accident. If was moved and seconded, af that meeting, fo continue this item until Thursday, June 19 meeting offhe Airport Land Use Commission. However, the applicant is in receipt of letters from some of the individuals involved which he believes gives a favorable connotation. If is hoped the ALUC meeting on June 19 will clarify the issue as staff would not want fo recommend a project fhaf could possibly involve potential major aircraft accidents. Chairman Saltarelli asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished fo speak on this issue. Mr. Ken Richards, representing American Display, said he had the three letters in question and would like fo submit them fo the Agency af this time. Mr. Brotemarkle said that perhaps American Display and staff could have an ex- change of correspondence, since they do not have a copy of the minutes which staff received this date. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Edgar, fo continue Use Permit 80-12 until the regular meeting to be held July 21. AYES: Edgar, Kennedy, and Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Hoesterey and Sharp Planning Agency Minutes - June 16, 1980 page 2. Vari~nc~ 80-10 Applicant: Location: Request: Mike Zee 640 West First Street Authorization fo vary with the signing requirements, for a professional use. Mr. Brofemarkle said this sign is for the residential structure converted to an office building. It is not a proposed sign, but has been constructed. The primary concern of the applicant is that the property is zoned commercial, however, our sign code specifies that the signing will be based upon the use of the property, which would limit them to 12 square feet identification sign and a 6 square foot wall sign per tenant. This is a 31.5 square foot monument sign located in front of the structure. Staff has no latitude but fo recommend nega- tive consideration on the application due fo the ordinance and the failure fo find a hardship. Mr. Saltarelli asked if it was out of code since additionally there is tenant identification on the sign. Mr. Brofemarkle said if is multi-purpose as if identifies the function, the occupants, and also the address. Mr. Edgar asked iF the supporting brick posts were considered in the measurement of the sign. Mr. Brotemarkle said no. Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition fo Variance 80-10. Mr. Mike Zee showed photos of the overall appearance of the sign. He said the prosonb sign regulations allowed thom a 6 square foot sign for each of the four tenants in the building. We are working with a converted house which has only one entrance and four 6 square foot signs a(oundfhe door would detract from the appearance of the building. He hoped the Agency would find their proposal more functional as well as enhancing. Chairman Salfarelli indicated if was difficult fo find in favor when it's con- structed before the fact. Mr. Norman Schmelfzer, one of the occupants, said Mr. Zee was the sign contractor and it was included in the contract that a permit would be obtained for the sign. It was after the siqn was constructed that he learned that a permit had not been obtained, but was told one would be obtained. He said Mr. Zee had contacted the City and checked commercial sign standards, unaware that there were separate regulations governing a professional sign as compared fo a commercial sign. He said he believed the office is one of the oldest structures in Tusfin and everything done was with the intent of keeping the overall quality and aesthetic appearance of the building and he thought permitted sign standards would detract from the appearance of this unique building. Mrs. Kennedy said she felt the house had been beautifully restored. Chairman Saltarolli asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak and hearing no response he declared the public hearing clcsed and asked the pleasure of tho Agency. There followed a disucssion regarding sign dimensions, the limits on commercial and professional signs, zoning of the property and permitted uses, and the fact that this structure was a converted house. Mr. Brotemarkle said staff did consider the fact that this was a conver'~=ion of a very old residential structure, however, no hardship, in the classical sense of a variance, was discovered. Planning Agency Minutes - June 16, 1980 page 3. MOTION by Saltarelli, SECONDED by Edgar, to approve Variance 80-10 on the basis that a hardship exists to the extent that this is an historical preservation of an old building and if is not unlike similar signs in the area, therefore, the variance be granted on the basis that a hardship exists. Chairman Saltarelli said the sign is legal under zoning for commercial and if they sell or lease the building fo someone for retail the same sign would be permitted. If they put four more signs on the building, in my opinion, that would degrade the aesthetics of the area and the building. Mr. Edgar asked if he could add to the motion that this action would have as a condition that there be "no signage on the building itself." Chairman Saltarelli agreed fo the amendment by the second fo the motion. He then asked staff if the applicant would have ~o pay a double permit fee for having constructed this sign without first obtaining a permit. Mr. Brotemarkle said yes. Mrs. Kennedy said she would like to be flexible, but since we have a lot of professional uses located in commercial zones, and under the current City ordinance protected from over-signing, she would speak against the motion. She said the house was lovely, but thought the reader board was out of place with the style of the house and uncomplimentary fo the building. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Edgar and Salfarelli Kennedy Hoesterey and Sharp Use Permit 80-14 Applicant: Location: Request: William Zappas Southwesterly corner of El Camino Real and Sixth Street Authorization to expand El Camino Plaza Shopping Cenler Mr. Brotemarkle said this request is part of the El Camino Plaza Shopping Center and will be the seventh use permit application we have had on the Center since ifs rejuvenation, Since this will be the last major permit that would be re- quired staff looked af the Center as a whole. With the aid of a sketch he ex- plained the exact location of the proposed building and explained the parking, A discussion was held concerning building height, parking and various uses in the Center. Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished fo speak in favor or opposition. Mr. Mike Zappas, represenfin9 El Camino Plaza, said he would be glad to answer any questions the Agency might have. Upon a question by Mr. Saltarelli, Mr. Zappas said future landscaping would conform fo existing open pattern when they re-do the landscaping within the Center. Mr. Paul Davis, architect, questioned the location of the trash enclosures. Mr. Brofemarkle said staff could work out alternatives with the applicant as opifons are available as fo location. Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. Planning Agency Minutes - June 16, 1980 page 4. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Edgar, to approve Use Permit 80-14 in conformance with the conditions outlined by the staff, and that the trash enclosures be intelligently accommodated as approved by the Community Development Director. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Edgar, Kennedy, and Sal[arolli None Hoesferey and Sharp Variance 80-11 App I i canf: Locat i on: Request: Acacia Equities 15851 Pasadena Avenue Authority fo vary with the code requirements for condominium conversion for the Tusfin Arms II Apartments. Chairman Salfarelli said this public hearing had been advertised for the 7:30 p.m. meeting, however, if there was anyone present who wished to speak, the Agency would hear them at this time. Hearing no response Chairman Saltarelli asked the pleasure of the Agency. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Edgar, to continue tho public hearing for Variance 80-11 fo the 7:50 p.m. meeting to be held this date. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Edgar, Kennedy, And Saltarelli None Hoesfery and Sharp OLD BUSINESS Enderle Center Site Plan Mr. Brofemarkle said there had been concern of the Agency regarding driveway ingress/egress near th~: liquor store on the westerly side of Enderlo Center Drive. He said tho plot plan has not changed from what was originally pro-- posed, except if has now been modified to reflect an adjustment of that drive- way and of the median in Enderle Way, in accordance with the recommendation of tho Public Works Department. There followed a discussion concerning the widening of the driveway and the purpose of the proposed median in resfricfin9 furnin9 movements. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Edgar, fo approve the Enderle Center Site Plan as submitted. Salfarelli requested staff fo talk fo Mr. Ledendecker about the purpose of the median for a report back fo the Agency. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Edgar, Kennedy, and Salfarelli None Hoesterey and Sharp Mr. Brofemarkle said there was one other item under Old Business, which did not gel on the Agenda, regarding a resolution for Tune-Up Masters. Resolution No. 1901 (Tqne-UD Masters) Mr. Brofemarkle said this was the resolution of approval for the sign approved previously by the Agency. MOTION by Edgar, SECONDED by Saltarelli, fo approve Resolution No. 1901. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Edgar, Kennedy, and Salfarelli None Hoesterey and Sharp Planning Agency Minutes - June 16, 1980 page 5. NEW BUS I NESS Underground Waiver_Rea~esf (Ordinance No. 791) Chairman Saltarelli said this concerned a waiver for Six Star Cable TV fo permit overhead service in areas where presently wiring is overhead, subject fo the requirement thai if will be undergrounded af no cost fo the City when other utility wiring is undergrounded. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Edgar, to approve the Underground Waiver Request (Ordinance No. 791). AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Edgar, Kennedy, and Saltarelli None Hoesteroy and Sharp ~TAFF qONCERN~ Mr. Brofemarkle said today's mail brought a City of Irvine staff report on GPA7 concerning the annexation and annexation exchange between Irvine and Tustin. In this staff report, a fiscal, analytic model was used for the areas 1) north of the freeway, 2) the industrial area, and 2) the Marine Base. The recom- mendations fo the Planning Corrrnission of Irvine are area #1 be approved for annexation by the City of Tusfin, however, such approval not be implemented until a firm cornmifmenf is made by the City of Tusfin on the alignment of the roadway north of the freeway. He said he had not discussed this with their staff, but it seems fo be difficult fo make a firm cornmifment for a road align- ment on property over which the City does not have jurisdiction. Further, the report excluded a fiscal analysis of the cost of that future roadway fo Tusfin, and if is a very ma]or cost. On area ¢2, the industrial area, if is recommended for denial of being detached from the city of Irvine and added fo the city of Tustin. On Area #3, the Marine Base housing, they have recommended the city of Tusfin detach that fo the city of Irvine. I informed Irvine staff that our primary concern is the road alignment. The Irvine Planning Commission meets this Thursday and he felt Tusfin should present ifs position in this regard. The area north of the Route 5 Freeway could move as soon as possible since the City of Tusfin's EIR has been certified and if LAFCO approves the sphere of influence,annexation may be accomplished in short order. Getting all parties fo agree on a precise alignment might be counter productive fo getting the an- nexation accomplished. Tusfin staff had been functioning under the concept fhaf a consensus between the two cities had already been achieved concerning the logic of the concept to further the advent of the roadway and provide for logical future planning decisions. On a strictly fiscal basis as used in the Irvine staff report, the City of Tusfin would have little fo gain and even negative incentives to the proposed program. However, Mr. Brotemarkle believed fhaf Tusfin had committed fo the proposal as in the best interest of the public and the two communities. A discussion was held as fo the City's pcsifion. MOTION by Edgar, SECONDED by Kennedy, fo reaffirm past policy, that we expect the future alignment of the arterial highway to serve as the logical boundary between Irvine and Tusfin and annexations or annexation exchanges that achieve that purpose are lust ancillary steps towards the goal of having the road as the boundar7. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Edgar, Kennedy, and Saltarelli None Hoesferey and Sharp A~ENC¥ CONCERNS Mr. Edgar said he was not sure whether this matter was appropriate for the Planning Agency, or whether if should be brought up under Council business, hov~ ever, he thought there was merit in encouraging the City of Irvine, as well as the City of Tusfin, fo actively petition the Board of Supervisors fo put the arterial highway onto the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. He said Mr. Leden- decker had indicated that NEOCCS would be considered in the fail, but it would Planning Agency Minutes - June 16, 1980 page 6. happen at the County Board of Supervisor's as a general plan amendment. He thought it would be valuable for both cities to be on record, urging that this arterial highway be incorporated before they commence their decision making. He thought both cities should be outspoken in writing and urge the adoption a precise plan and alignment for Myford extension. Mr. Brofemarkle said he thought the Agency might want to defer this fo another future meeting so a resolution could be prepar(,¢: and Mr. Ledondecker would be present. There being no further business fo come before the Planning Agency at this time, Chairman Salfarelli declared the meeting adjourned at 4:04 p.m. fo meet again For a continued meeting af 7:30 p.m. this dale. Chairman Salfarelli called the continued meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. All members were present except Mr. Sharp. Variance 80-11 (continued) Applicant: Location: Request: Acacia Equities 15851 Pasadena Avenue Authority fo vary with the code requirements for condominium conversion for the Tustin Arms II Apartments. Mr. Brotemarkle stated that staff had viewed the most recent plans submitted by Acacia Equities and would indicate that by removal of fen units the project could meet the 50% open space requirement. That would include the two build- ings with four units each and two of the large end units with associated parking. Chairman Salfarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone to speak in favor or opposition fo Variance 80-11. Mr. Henry Fredricks explained how many times they had been before the Agency, with various plans and he thought the one before the Agency at the present time was the best possible solution. He said there would be a parking structure on three sides of the complex. He said he could not agree fo the removal of fen units, but the removal of the four units on either side of the pool area might be accomplished. This, however, would affect the indicated purchase price of the condominiums due fo the demolition and loss of eight units. He said the Fire Department was also requesting roofing retrofit and that, foe, v~uld cause an additional increase in the purchase price. He said they had been back and Forth with various options for the Agency fo consider and this was the last one that they coL:Id come up with, and he felt it was tho best plan. Chairman Salfarelli asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak and hearing no response he asked the pleasure of the Agency. MOTION by Hoesferey, SECONDED by Edgar, fo close the public hearing. AYES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Kennedy, and Salfarolli NOES: None ABSENT: Sharp Thoro followed a discussion concerning the type of roofing which should be required; cost factor of new fire refardanf roofs; demolition of eight units as opposed fo fen units; the percentage of open space which would remain with the removal of the eight units; and the installation of smoke defectors in each unit. MOTION by Hoesferey, SECONDED by Salfarelli, fo approve Variance 80-11 subject Planning Agency Minutes - June 16, 1980 page 7. fo the removal of eight units and fo not require new fire refardant roofs. Mr. Salfarelli said he did not feel if was Fair fo the applicant, since it was nof'a required standard at this time, fo require fire refardant roofs. Mr. Edgar said he would like fo amend the motion fo include the Fire-proof roofing. Mrs. Kennedy said she would second the amendment fo the motion. Mr. Edgar said he wished to go on record as being in favor oF fire-proofing the roofs. He said he recognized that the code, af the present time, does not require fire refardanf roofs, however, he believed it appropriate. Mrs. Kennedy asked the city attorney if such a condition could be required. Mr. Rourke answered in the affirmative. Mr. Saltarelli mentioned the additional cost to the developer fo fire proof the roofs and the additional cost which would have to be added to the purchase price of the condominiums. He said there would also be the problem of removing the existing roofs, while tenants were still in occupancy, in order to replace it with fire retardant roofing. Chairman Salfarelli then asked for a vote on the amendment fo the original motion, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Edgar and Kennedy Hoesterey and Salfarelli Sharp The motion fo amend failed. Chairman Saltarelli then requested the staff fo work with the developer fo see if something could be sprayed upon the roofs fo make them Fire proof. Chairman Saltarelli asked Mr. Brotemarkle about the relocation and purchase plan. Mr. Brotemarkle said the relocation plan and letter to prospective purchasers would need to be amended since the purchase price would be different than that originally submitted, due to the demolition of the eight units. Chairman Saltarelli asked for a vote on the original motion fo approve. AYES: Hoesferey, Edgar, Saltarelli NOES: Kennedy ABSENT: Sharp Mr. Edgar said he wanted the record fo show fhaf he wanted a monthly progress report fo be submitted on the project, once they started converting. He said due fo some problems which had arisen in the past with a condo conversion, he thought this was the one way fo keep on fop of progress. Mrs. Kennedy said she wanted the record fo show fhaf her "no" vote was based on the fact that demolition of units is not in keeping with the objectives of the Housing Element of the 6eneral Plan and there is no hardship .justifying waiver of open space in compliance with conversion regulations. Donald J. Salfarel Ii Chairman ~ M.I. Mehl Recording Secret cry