Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-21-80 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular and Continued meeting April 21, 1980 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, April 21, 1980 in the Council Chambers of the Tusfin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tusfin, California. The meeting was called fo order at 3:04 p.m. by Chairman Salfarelli. 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, and Sharp Absent: Also present: Kennedy Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Director Alan Warren, Senior Planner Dan Blankenship, City Administrator James Rourke, City Attorney Midge Mehl, Recording Secretary M I NUTE S The minutes of the meeting held April 7, 1980 were approved as written, with the waivin9 of readin9 same and with Hoesfereyand Edgar absfainin9 from the vote of approval. INITIAk PUBLIC HEARINGS Amendment to Use Permit 74-9 Applicant: Location: Request: Jim E. Shimozono on behalf of Enderle Center 17th Street, Enderle Way, and Vandenberg Lane Authorization to enlarge office square footage for Enderle Center and fo provide drive-through vehicle lanes for office building No. 3. Mr. Brofemarkle stated this is an amendment from the original use permit approval and concerns office buildings on the northeast and northwest corners of Enderle Way and Vandenberg. He said formerly proposed was a 24,000 and 15,000 square foot office building; the developer is now proposing fo develop a 30,000 square foot and 33,000 square foot building and supplying tho necossary parking by an underground parking facility for 210 spaces. Start has analyzed the overall Enderle facility and with the new offices, as proposed, there ~uld still be 30 parking spacos surplus. Staff has receivod approximately 25 letters in support of this project; approximately 20 of these letters from various merchants in the Confer; one from Park Tustin Condominium Home Owner's Association; and four letters from other business people in the community. Mr. Edgar questioned if the office on the northwest corner was closer to the corner than originally planned. Mr. Brofemarkle said if is now closer fo the street intersection. Mr. Edgar asked if the drive-through would then be in front of the existing merchants. Mr. Brotemarkle said yes. Mr. Saltarelli said he believed there was an incorrect figure on page 2 of the staff report. Mr. Brotemarkle said yes; under item Planning 2, on page 2, the figure 10,470 square feet should have read 104,700 square feet. There was a discussion regarding the parking and the location of l'he drive-through Planning Agency Minutes - April 21, 1980 page 2. area. Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone to speak in favor or opposition to ~he Amendment fo Use Permit 74-9. Mr. Al Endorle displayed the plan and explained the reason for the particular location of the drive-through lane. He said they had surveyed the parking and found the peak hours fo be during the lunch and dinner hours, due to the heavy business at the restaurants. He said the shop owners were being encouraged fo keep their businesses open later in the evening so people could shop after the dinner hours. He said the Center also has a parking control plan under which merchants and employees are fo park in certain prescribed areas, and this is controlled by their guard. Mr. Jim Shimozono, architect representing the Enderle Center, talked about the desirability of the location of building No. 3 for the bank. He said the foot- print for the bank is subsfan[ially less than previously submitted. Mr. Sharp asked if the underground parking was for the exclusive use of the lenants and customers of only that one s[ructure, or is if general parking for the Center. Mr. Shimozono said all parking in Enderle Center is under joint use. There followed a disucssion concerning pedestrian exiting from the underground parking and if an underpass from the structure to the open landscaped area would be feasible. Mr. Shimozono said an underpass would be possible. Mr. Salfarelli asked i¢ there were plans fo widen the main driveway, near Dolaney's. Mr. Shimozono said he would discuss that with Mr. Ledendeckor. There being no one else to speak in favor or opposition Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing closed, and asked the pleasure of the Agency. MOTION by Sharp, SECONDED by Edgar, to approve the Amendment to Use Permit 74-9 in conformance with staff's recommendation and fo include access from the sub- terranean parking via an underpass; Agency review o¢ driveway modification on Enderle Way; and that prior fo issuance of permits [he final si[e plan be re- viewed by the Agency. AYES: Hoesferey, Edgar, Sharp, and Salfarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Kennedy Use Permit 80-4 Applicant: Location: Request: Zolfan Csik 90 Laguna Road For a pole sign of 85 square feet Mr. Brotemarkle said this is almost a repeat of a previous use permit which was approved in April, 1978. He said the difference is fhaf originally if had been for a 75 square foot sign with a 10 foot pricing sign. Mr. Csik is now asking fo increase to 85 square feet the pole sign area. Within 500 feet of the free- way, such signs may exceed the height and area requirements of tho Commercial District, subject fo a use permit approval. Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone fo speak in favor or opposition fo Use Permit 80-4. Planning Agency Minutes - April 21, 1980 page 3. Mr. Csik, the applicant, said he thought there was a misunderstanding because the gas price sign of 10 square feet exists. The 85 square foot sign would not include gas pricing. Mr. Saltarelli asked if there was a misunderstanding between the applicant and staff. Mr. Brofemarkle said no. He said staff would recommend approval of the 85 square foot sign with the retention of the existing gas pricing sign. Chairman Saltarelli asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in favor or opposition fo Use Permit 80-4 and hearing no response he declared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. tC~)TION by Edgar, SECONDED by Hoesterey, to approve Use Permit 80-4 in conformance with staff recommendations. AYES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, and Sal[arelli NOES: None ABSENT: Kennedy Use Permit 80-11 Applicant: Location: Request: COPES, Inc. (Child or Parental Emergency Services Inc.) 660 West Third Street To operate a 24-hour, 7 day a week respite care home for 6 or less children 5 years of age or younger, for short term relief of stressed parents. Mr. Brotemarkle said the Agency had received a description of the proposed center. Even though Senate Bill 2093 waives zoning by defining these particular uses as residential uses, under the Uniform Building Code the 24-hour care of six should be reduced fo five, otherwise if places them in a different occupancy classification under the Code. Six would require more stringent improvements fo the structure. Mr. Salfarelli asked if the applicant was aware of that fact. Mr. Brotemarkle said it was in the staff report, as a Building Division condition and the applicant had received a copy of the staff report. He said staff was also recofrrnending an inspection be made to determine the actual physical facts with regard fo the interior of the structure. If is an older frame house and may be rather expensive fo improve. He said in addition to a letter from a Santa Ana Council member staff had received 16 additional letters in support of this request, including a memo from Agent Jim Hein of the Police Department who had a previous engagement and was unable to attend the hearing. Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone fo speak in favor or opposition to Use Permit Mr. James Persinger, Director of COPES, said he would like to call the Agency's attention fo the California Health and Safety Code which seems fo preempt any local ordinances in this matter. If says that no conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of a residential facility which serves six or fewer persons. He said COPES contends that a use permit is not in order in this mailer. We feel the state has encouraged the development of these types of residential care facilities and that the provisions of the article applies fo all cities and counties in the state. Mr. Saltarelli asked Mr. Persinger if if was his feeling that he was here for no valid reason. Planning Agency Minutes - April 21, 1980 page 4. Mr. Persinger said that was correct. Ms. Barbara Trumbull, 14771 Bridgeport Road, Tustin, said this application is for a service which is long overdue in our county and this would be the first such facility. The residence would be used for children from infancy fo age 5, who have either been abused or are in danger of being abused. Children in this age group benefit the most from this type of respite care. Ms. Emma Wharton, 1760 North Silverwood, Orange, said she was in support of COPES. She said this service is to be a voluntary placement, hopefully by parenls before they have abused or neglected a child and studies by the Child Abuse Regisfery show that we need fo be there 24 hours a day. Ms. Carol Lawrence said she was just one of many to underscore the need of this program in Orange County and she felt if was a credit to the city of Tustin to have this type of program. She said Tusfin Police Department strongly endorses this program. Mr. Charles Noble, 12211 Malta Street, Santa Ana, said he owned the house which COPES was trying fo establish their orgainizafion in and he had some initial concern about what this would do to the community. However, after understanding COPES' program he is now a confirmed believer that this is a much needed service. Ho said he didn't feel there would bo any adverse impact in the neighborhood or within the community. He had read the staff report and concurred with their conditions and agreed to work with them fo achieve tho requirements. Dr. Alice Oksman, Executive Director of COPES, said she felt those who had al- ready spoken had capsulized what COPES intends fo do and she would just like to support the request. She submitted a letter, in support, from the Orange County Health Planning Council. Leon Strahan, 667 West Third, said he lived next door fo the subject property and 28 homeowners in that area had requested that this respite care home not be permitted. Ho submitted a signed petition. He further stated that this neighborhood had been encroached upon many times; first by duplexes which brought a great influx of traffic and there is bumper fo bumper parking now. He submifed two photos fo substantiate his concern about parking. He said COPES would create even moro of a parking problem. He said he was opposed fo this request because he didn't feel this old home was fit for the use proposed by COPES and the use would invade his privacy. Mr. Lee Myer, 13351 Cromwell Drive, Tustin, said he was representing Monsignor Sammon who asked that he say a few words on behalf of this prelect. He said there is no opposition to [he work of COPES, but there is a concern among neighbors who have lived in this area a long time about such change. Therefore, he could understand their opposition. However, speaking tot all religious or- ganizations and Christians that the general responsibility of a comr~,unify and individuals to their fellow citizens and especially the most defenseless of all, the children, he would like to assure the neighbors that if they make a sacrifice for their fellow man--or for these children--that certainly God is not going to be outdone with His generosity to them. He said he would recommend the Agency give this request their preferential consideration. Mr. Ben Torres, 695 West Third Street, said he belonged fo the same church that Lee Myer attends and he agreed that care should be afforded these children, but he lived in the area and ho didn't want people going in and out of there 24 hours a day. He thought this service should not go in this area. Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing closed. He then asked staff if there would be an inspection made of the property relative fo the upkeep of the property. Mr. Brotemarkle said the Health Department would inform staff of the licensing progress; there would be an inspection by the Fire Marshal who in turn would then request an inspection by our Building Department to ensure the building was adequate for the purpose proposed. Planning Agency Minutes - April 21, 1980 page 5. Mr. Salfarelli asked the City Attorney if, in the event this request is not approved, could there be a legal challenge fo our ability to deny a use permit. Mr. Rourke said from what he understood of the facts, he thought COPES did qualify as a child care facility and the City is preempted from prohibiting them. He said reasonable conditions such as are set forth in the staff report are properly required. Mr. Salfarelli asked about an annual review or in the event that any new legis- lation which might be pending at this time might change this. How would that affect if? Mr. Rourke said that posed a difficult question. He said if the City wants to put itself info a position of having the greatest possible control it might be well fo make provisions for review. If the law were fo:change, the City might be able to change ifs position in regard fo this, however, he felt it was very questionable that that could be made fo stick. Mr. Sharp asked if this facility would be ]usf for Tusfin residents or for the whole county. Mr. Brotemarkle said the operation would not be restricted geographically. He said a largo number, however, would probably como from the immediate area. Sharp asked the maximum time a child would be at the facility. Mr. Brotemarkle said 72 hours maximum, He said the maximum number of children would be five in a 24-hour period, assuming that the initial five were there only 24 hours. He said staff did not visualize this service as a high traffic operation. Mr. Hoesferey asked if there would be any signing on the facility. Mr. Brotemarkle said no. Mr. Edgar said if was his impression that the only people occupying this facility would be no more than five children and the staff; the parents would not be there. Is that correct. Mr. Brotemarkle said yes. Chairman Salfarelli asked tho pleasure of the Agency. MOTION by Edgar, SECONDED by Sharp, to approve Use Permit 80-11 in conformance with staff's conditions. Mr. Salfarelli suggested two additional conditions: (1) care shall be taken to buffer the operation of COPES from adjoining residences, either by hedges, fencing, draperies, efc., and (2) there is legislation pending fhaf would re- quire local approval and that may pass. In the nature of our approval, it should be a conditional approval such that if the law is changed, designating the local agency as the approving agency, that the permit should be subject to new action by the Agency. That would give us an opportunity fo resolve any problems that have not been resolved af the time the law is changed. Mr. Edgar said he would accept those conditions in his motion and the second agreed. Chairman Saltarelli asked for the vote. AYES: Hoesferey, Edgar, Sharp, and Salfarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Kennedy Planning Agency Minutes - April 21, 1980 page 6. Variance 80-9 Applicant: Location: Request: Sam Hill, Jr. 17541 East 17th Street To vary with Sign Ordinance No. 684 in the Professional Office District. Mr. Brofemarkle said this proposal now consisted of a single monument sign to be used as professional center identification with a total square Footage of 66 square feet. The sign variance, as proposed, would set a precedent for a professional office buildin9 and ~here is no basis to 9rant a variance, there- fore, staff recommends denial of the request due fo lack of a hardship. With the aid of a sketch Mr. Brofemarkle explained the request. He said the monument sign is a 3'x18' sign; primarily the major information carried on that monument sign is tho street address, however, at the bottom of the sign is indicated tho "Hill Professional Center' which would then make this entire sign face contable. Staff has never counted street addresses as part of a sign area. Had that not been on this monument sign we would have been able fo ap- prove tho request by staff approval at the counter. Legally, the applicant could go out the door, if the Agency denied this, and merely take the "Hill Professional Center" sign, capsulate it and mount if on fop of the address sign. We are really dealing with one sign face that by the Sign Code would be defined as a single advertising area, even though the predominant Feature is an address. Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone to speak in favor or opposition. Mr. Hill, the applicant, said they had spent a lot of extra time and money fo make this building look good. After the grading was started it was obvious that their original sign would look terrible, so they eliminated if and went fo the bronze letters. The Fire Department has said fo make the si'reef address as large as possible so they could see it in case of a fire. He said the bronze leflers would look good and it seemed fo him that he has a 'catch 22.~ He said if was his understanding there were no rules governing this matter and that is why the request was brought before the Agency. There followed a discussion about the existing screening wall and the size of the letters. It was the consensus of the Agency fhaf the actual sign area was less than per- miffed For building identification; the remaining areas being an address, The overall size of the sign being dictated by ifs secondary purpose as a parking screen wall, Chairman Salfarelli declared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of tho Agency. MOTION by Sharp, SECONDED by Edgar, to approve Variance 80-9 in conformance with staff recommendations. AYES: Hoesferey, Edgar, Sharp, and Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Kennedy PUBLIC CONCERNS Weed Abatement Agnes Bacon requested that the weeds be abated on North "B" Street. Salfarelli suggested she contact Mr. Gene Snyder about this matter. Planning Agency Minutes - April 21, 1980 page 7. L~ft-turn on Yorba and Irvine An unidentified individual in the audience requested enforcement of ~he 'no left turn' requirement from Irvine fo Yorba between 4 and 6 p.m, She said this sign is ignored. She further stated that traffic backs up to Tustin Avenue because the sign is being ignored. Mr. Saltarelli said he would pass fhaf information on fo the Traffic Division. 01~ Business ResoJufion No, 1886 (Curtain Call Theater) Mr. Brofemarkle said this concerned Use Permit 80-8 previously approved by the Planning Agency. He said he thought there may be some confusion between the applicant and fha Agency. A condition stipulated that prior to permit issuance a written statement by the owner of El Camino Real Plaza would be required fo indicate fhaf no other signs shall be allowed on the entire rear wall. It's the owner's understanding that this would be signs that might require a use permit action or approval, but would not affect signs already permitted by code. There are three in existence af fhaf location. Was that condition meant fo be signs that conform to current zoning where a tenant in a particular I o- cation may be permitted a 24 square foot wall sign, or would if only pertain fo requests for signs over what code would permit? Mr. Salfarelli said he though[ the Agency meant that it would preclude any further signing going on that back wall facing the freeway. He said that was his understanding. Mr. Sharp concurred. Mr. Edgar said since three of the members on the Agency af the time that stipu- lation was made are not present, an alternative could be to reaffirm the Agency's position as of today; as to what the present Agency now believes. Mr. Brofemarkle said the letter from the owner states they would agree fo not request any signs along the rear wall of the shopping center, facing the freeway, except those permitted under the existing code. MOTION by Edgar, SECONDED by Saltarelli, that any further signs on the rear wall facing the freeway shall require a use permit. AYES: Hoesferey, Edgar, Sharp, and Saltarelli NO~S: None ABSENT: Kennedy Mr. Brofemarkle said he would so amend the resolution. MOTION by Salfarelli, SECONDED by Edgar, fo approve Resolution No. 1886, as amended. AYES: Hoesferey, Edgar, Sharp, and Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Kennedy N~W Business ConclQmi nj urn Copversion Report Mr. Saltarelli said the Agency acknowledged receipt of the report and he thought if was an excellent report. Mr. Brofemarkle said this was an informational document and if the Agency had Planning Agency Minutes - April 21, 1980 page 8. any corrrnents or questions ho would be happy to discuss them. Staff Concerns Mr. Brofemarklo said Mrs. Kennedy had previously mentioned gas pricing signs and the county has adopted a new gas pricing ordinance, and he's not sure it's one Tusfin would want to live with. Would if be the direction of tho Planning Agency that staff should prepare a gas pricing ordinance for adoption by the City of Tustin fo require gas pricing signs on service stations, which are visible outside the boundaries of the station? With concurrence of the Agency members, Chairman Saltarelli so ordered fhaf staff prepare a gas pricing sign ordinance. Correspondence Mr. Blankenship said a letter was received from Orange County Health Planning Council, addressed to the Planning Agency, indicating the benficial nature of the residential care homes. He said they were concerned about the position of the City Council in relation fo Senate Bill 2093. They would like the Council fo reconsider ifs recent action, This is passed on for information only. Agency Concern? None Chairman Salfarelli declared the meeting adjourned at 4:5J p.m. fo meet again for a continued meeting af 7:50 p.m. this date. Chairman Salfarelli reconvened the Agency meeting at 7:30 p.m. All members were present except Mrs. Kennedy. CONTINUED H~ARIN~ Use Permit 80-~0 (Tusfin Arms II) Applicant: Local i on: Request: Acacia Equities, Inc. 15851 Pasadena Avenue Authorization fo convert an existing Cparfment complex fo condominiums pursuant fo the Planned Development District standards. Mr. Brotemarkle said at the April 7, 1980 Agency meeting this request was con- tinued fo this date and time For two reasons: (1) request for the applicant fo expand on the relocation and fenanf discount proposal and (2) to develop the basis for a parkin9 allocation plan. He said portions of the applicant's letter which the Agency had copies of indicted the specifics of the relocation dis- count plan. All tenants, on the date of final use permit approval, would be given an opportunity fo buy the unit they occupy on such date at a $10 per square foot discount from the price which similar units would be offered fo the general public, provided they purchase the unit on an "as is" basis. Mr. Fredricks has given a price schedule which has a 5~ Fluctuation in if, accord- ing fo the written document. The base price, without a discount, for a one bedroom unit of 8JO square feet would be $58,000; a two bedroom unit of 1,067 square Foot $69,000; 2 bedroom unit with 1,101 saute feet $7~,000; and the 5 bedroom unit with 1,516 square feet would be $91,000. Discounts between $8,500 and $15,160 on an "as is" basis would be offered. There followed a discussion concerning the parking structure, open space, possible removal of units, and distance from unit fo parking space. Chairman Salfarelli declared the continued hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition. Speaking in favor: Henry Fredricks who i~dicafed fhaf the letter represented their effort fo comply with the direction of the Agency. He believed fhaf the tenant purchase Planning Agency Minutes - April 21, 1980 page 9. plan offered an excellent opportunity to establish an immediate equity allowing tenants to participate in the success of the proJect and establish an edge against inflation. Speaking in opposition: Elizabeth Straub Leslie C. Walters James Cook Robert MacConnell Marianne Rapp Bonnie Baldwin Carol A. Dailey Objections voiced by the opposition concerned displacement from their rental units and their inability fo afford the purchase price of a unit or find another unit. Tenants questioned the means of security protection which might be installed for the proJect, especially the parking structure. Regardless of the purchase price, financing package or discounts, some tenants believed that the conversion would shut them out. The cash amount of the relocation benefits was questioned by tenants as fo adequacy. The closeness and height of the parking structure was also a concern of the tenants. Mr. Fredricks said originally they had a system devised for parking on three sides, with landscaping across the front, but it was 2% short on the required open space. No one had fo walk foe far to any parking space or a fresh con- tainer. We were advised that the Planning Agency's posture was that we could not open any avenue of variance, no matter how small. We have a plan far superior fo the one presented here tonight, but we are short 2% of the required open space. Mr. Saltarelli asked if the plan caused loss of units. Mr. Fredricks said no. MOTION by Edgar, SECONDED by Hoesterey, to close the public hearing. AYES: Hoesferey, Edgar, Sharp, and Salfarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Kennedy Chairman Salfarelli commented that the complexion of the Agency has changed since this proJect was previously considered under alternative concepts for a variance. The applicant has now brought forth a plan which conforms fo the letter of the conversion standards; however, there appears fo be problems with the parking structure, access, walking distances, and other design features. If would appear that a better plan can be conceived, but we still keep coming up against a need for a variance or exception of some minor nature. Mr. Hoesferey concrred fhaf he would like fo see an alternative as he is con- cerned with the single access fo the parking structure. Mr. Saltarelli felt the applicant should work with staff. Perhaps an alternative is available which involves only a minor or even no exception. Mr. Brofemarkle suggested that if the Agency desired the applicant fo work with staff on alternative designs the matter could be continued for a period of 30 days. If a bettor alternative were developed,' more'favorably received by the Agency, but needing a variance, the applicant could withdraw the use permit request and the matter readverfised as a variance for a new hearing. MOTION by Sharp, SECONDED by Edgar, to continue Use Permit 80-10 to the regular meeting of May 19, 1980. AYES: Hoesterey, Edgar, Sharp, and Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Kennedy Planning Agency AAinufes - April 21, 1980 page 10. ADJOURNAAENT There being no further business fo come before the Agency, Chairman Saltarelli declared the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m., fo meet again for a regular meet- ing fo be held May 5, 1980. D6~ald J. Chairman AA.I. AAehl Recording Secretary