Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-07-80 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular and Continued Meeting April 7, 1980 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, April 7, 1980 in the Council Chambers of the Tusfin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tusfin, California. The meeting was called fo order at 3 p.m. by Chairman Schuster. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Saltarelli and the invocation was given by Mr. Welsh. ROLL CALL Present: Saltarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster Absent: Sharp Also present: Dan Blankenship, City Administrator Mike Brofemarkle, Community Development Director James Rourke, City Attorney Alan Warren, Senior Planner Mary Wynn, Recording Secretary Other staff members: 3 General audience: 11 MINUTES The minutes of tho meeting held March 17, 1980 were approved as written, with the waiving of reading same. INITIAL PUBLIC HEARINGS V~q Permit 80-10 Applicant: Location: Request: Acacia Equities, Inc. 15851 Pasadena Avenue Authorization to convert an existing apartment complex fo condo- miniums pursuant fo the Planned Development District standards. Chairman Schuster stated the Agency would receive public testimony at this time, however, the matter would be continued fo the 7:30 p.m. meeting. Mr. Brotemarkle said Use Permit 80-10 is for the same property covered in a re- cent variance request to condominium conversion standards which was denied for open space and parking requirements fo provide affordable housing units. The applicant has now submitted a proposal fo build a two-level parking structure on the north and west property lines and fo convert all fha parking along Pasadena and along the southerly boundary to open space. The project would lose four units and then be in compliance with the conversion development standards. Chairman Schuster declared the public hearing open and asked if there was any- one to speak in favor or opposition fo Use Permit 80-10. There being no response he asked the pleasure of fha Agency. MOTION by Welsh, SECONDED by Salfarelli, to continue Use Permit 80-10 fo the 7:30 p.m. meeting, this date. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Salfarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster None Sharp Planning Agency Minutes - April 7, 1980 page 2. V~riance 80-8 Applicant: Location: Request: Elizabeth Howard on behalf of Curtain Call Theater 690 El Camino Real A freeway sign fo be located on the rear wall of the ~heafer building, facing the Santa Ana Freeway. Mr. Brofemarkle said this request was for a fetal of 480 square feet and staff had analyzed it based on previous freeway oriented sign actions. Using the Irvine Company standard of 10% would equal 380 sq. fi. Agency's previous approvals of similar uses, such as the Laguna Hotel and Hadley's, had permitted 180 square feet for advertising and the remaining 200 square feet would be for the changeable marquee. He said if is the applicant's desire that the original request, as sub- mitted, be approved as they felt a larger sign area is needed to give the south- bound traffic more time fo reach the off-ramp. Staff has given a favorable recom- mendation for a maximum 380 sq. ff. in sign area for only the theater use. Chairman Schuster declared the public hearing open for Uso Permit 80-8 and asked if there was anyone fo speak in favor or opposition. Bill Becket, signmaker, representing the theater, displayed a rendering which depicted the entire rear of the building. Ho said if showed the relative amount of space the signing would have on this specific wall. He said the actual footage that the Agency granted fo Hadloy's for their sign was a total of 630 square feet. He also pointed out that a public service would be conducted by the theater; they are going to have a dinner facility serving over 300 people at one time; and he felt this is fatally contributory fo the community. He said tho signing requested is more appropriate because of the typo of sign and the roadibility. Also, in- dividual letters have the highest incident of mechanical problems. Mr. Welsh asked s~aff fo explain the discrepancy in fetal sign area quoted for Hadley's. Mr. Brotemarkle said staff was only referring to the sign that was actually ap- proved by a use permit, and not the total signage for Hadley's. Mr. Becket said perhaps the staff had not considered the complete dimension of the rear wall of the building. He pointed out on the rendering the amount of footage of the building. He also said Mr. Zappas was denying, as owner of the building, any other signing requests on the rear wall, of other tenants in the building. Even though other tenants might request signing on the rear wall, Mr. Zappas would not permit it. Mr. Welsh asked if staff, or Mr. Becket, had that in writing. Mr. Brotemarkle said at this pein1 lust about every new sign has to come before s[aff for consideration; they have a master sign plan and this particular request is not included in ift nor would any other wall signs of this type be included. Such other wall sign would have fo have such consideration as this. Mr. Welsh asked what footage of the rear wall had been considered by staff. Mr. Brofemarkle said the wall surface was measured from ~he original plans of the former theater and only the theater wall facing the freeway, not other vacant portions of the shopping center walls. Mr. Welsh asked if Mr. Zappas were fo guarantee there would be no more signing on the rear wall, would the applicant's request be in conformance with staff's recommended 10%. Mr. Brotemarkle said it would if all erbar wall surfaces were to be considered. Mr. Salfarelli said item liE, in the Resolution, ~uld preclude any other signs fo be placed on the rear wall. Mr. Welsh said he would like a written commitment from Mr. Zappas, and permit the requested sign. Mr. Zappas said he could make the commitment that they would not request any more signs on the rear wall that comprises the theater building. Chairman Schuster asked if there was anyone else fo speak in favor or opposition Planning Agency Minutes - April 7, 1980 page 3. to Use Permit 80-8. Hearing no response he asked the pleasure of the Agency. MOTION by Salfarelli, SECONDED by Welsh, fo close the public hearing and that Use Permit 80-8 be approved as requested, subject to fha condition that prior to the issuance of fha building permit that fha property owner agree that no ad- ditional signing be permitted on tho entire rear wall facing the freeway of the subject building. Mrs. Kennedy said she would like fo see a successful business there, however, the cultural subject of the theater does not require a sign of this size. She said the Agency wanted fo prefect fha beauty of the city and attract people by the control of our signing and she felt there is already huge signing in the area, and although she liked the design of fha sign she didn't feel if needed fo be as large as that requested. Chairman Schuster asked the pleasure of the Agency. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Saltarelli, Welsh, and Schuster Kennedy Sharp Mr. Brotemarkle said staff would modify the Resolution of approval and bring it back to the Agency at their next regular meeting. Variance ~Q-7 Applicant: Location: Request: Mark Williams on behalf of Ron Weber 1052 San Juan Street Authorization fo construct apartment units on multiple-family zoned property of substandard width. Mr. Brotemarkle stated that the City has approved similar variances in the past for prelects which met all the zoning criteria, but were developed on a lot subdivided prior to fha development of our minimum lot sizes or subdivided under County standards. Previous approvals for such requests have included South Pacific, 1042 Bonita, 525 South B Street, and 325 West Second Street. The primary reason for the approval has been due fo a hardship because of fha size. Staff feels that if the Agency were fo approve this request, that in the future such actions as these should fake place af the Zoning Administrator level, since it's really a question of equity for a property that was subdivided prior to ordinance development. Mr. Salfarelli asked how many other lots similar fo this are in fha city. Mr. Brofemarkle said quite a few, especially in this area. The zoning standards can be complied with; it's only the lot size that is of concern. Chairman Schuster declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone to speak in favor or opposition to Variance 80-7, Hearing no response he de- clared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency, MOTION by Saltarelli, SECONDED by Kennedy, to approve Variance 80-7 subject to staff recommendations. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Salfarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster None Sharp Mr. Salfarolli said he felt that any other properties that fall under this cafe- gory should be heard by the Zoning Administrator process, if they specifically met fha criteria of having been subdivided by fha County and met all our zoning standards. With no objection from the Agency, the Chairman so ordered. Use Permit 80-9 Applicant: Location: Request: John Di Francesco on behalf of Tustin Bujsiness Park Association 2512-2522 Chambers Road, Tustin-lrvine Industrial Park Approval of a master sign plan fo authorize cor~nercial signing for certain business in a professional office building. Planning Agency Minutes - April 7, 1980 page 4. Mr. Brotemarkle said under the provisions of the zoning code, signs in a Planned Community District are subject to approval by a use permit. A similar case occurred recently at a Planned Communify-Cornmercial in Packers Square where they had a problem because they failed fo file a proper sign request at an earlier date, In this case, the applicant has submitted a request for commercial signing for two tenants; one being the Bank of America and the other a real estate office. He said staff has reviewed tho request and proposed a modification of the original request. He said for the Bank of America, instead of four signs, staff recom- mends a maximum of two signs not to exceed 30 square feet in area on any one sign. This would be 6 feet less than the applicant's request. For the real estate office, the same standard would be recommended causing a 28 foot reduction in the size requested. Mr. Saltarelli said if seemed that applicants come in so they can build more square footage in their buildings and have less parking spaces required by erecting a building subject fo professional office standards and then request signing to the commercial standards. He said at some point the Agency has fo draw the line. Mr, Brotemarkle said even in a commercial zone their parking would remain as per the use; if would be for a bank. Mrs. Kennedy said a similar problem came up regarding Orange Tree Realty in Packers Square only there is ample parking in this situation. She said af least these people came in before they installed their signs. Mr. Schuster said he didn't recall the Sign Code spelling out fhaf only single Face monument signs were authorized for office buildings. Mr. Brotemarkle said in the Professianal Office Zone signs are required fo be parallel fo the building. This applicant Feels a double faced, perpendicular sign is necessary as they have building visibility off Walnut, but their access is off Chambers, therefore, they feel the double faced sign would give people a chance to note their location and make the appropriate left turn. Chairman Schuster declared the public hearing open and asked if there was any- one who wished fo speak in favor or opposition fo Use Permit 80-9. Mr. John Dj Francesco said he wanted to commend staff for an excellent job in preparing their report for Agency discussion. He said he had reviewed their recomrnendafion and concurred with all conditions. There being no one else fo speak Chairman Schuster declared the hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Welsh, fo approve Use Permit 80-9 subject fo staff's recommendation. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Salfarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster None Sharp PUBLIC CONCERNS None OLD BUSINESS None RESOLUTION NO, 1885 {V~rjance 80-4) Mr. Brotemarkle said this concerned the previously approved sign request for Steelcase. Planning Agency Minutes - April 7, 1980 page 5o MOTION by Salfarelli, SECONDED by Kennedy, to approve Resolution No. 1883. AYES: Salfarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster NOES: None ABSENT: Sharp RESOLUTION NO! 1889 (Amendment to Use Permit 78-18) Mr. Brofemarkle said this concerned a previously approved sign request for Orange Tree Realty and the Resolution would restrict this approval fo real estate firms and chartered financial institutions in Buildin9 D, with signin9 to be removed upon vacation of the repmises by either one of these uses. MOTION by Salfarelli, SECONDED by Kennedy, fo approve Resolution No. 1889. AYES; Salfarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster NOES: None ABSENT: Sharp NEW BUSINESS None CORRESPONDENCE None ~TAFF CONCERNS None A~ENC¥ CONCERNS Mrs. Kennedy said she had been asking, for the past two years, fo have the micro- pones fixed and she would like fo make the request again. AD¢OURN~ENT MOTION by Salfarelli, SECONDED by Kennedy, fo adjourn the meefin9 (3:50 p.m.) until 7:30 p.m. this date. AYES: Salfarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster NOES: None ABSENT: Sharp Chairman Schuster called the meefin9 fo order af 7:30 p.m. All members were present except Mr. Sharp; and there were approximately 18 in the 9eneral audience. pse Permit 80-10 (continued) Applicant: Acacia Equities (Tusfin Arms Location: 15851 Pasadena Avenue Request: Authorization fo convert 116 apartments fo condominiums. Chairman Schuster explained that Use Permit 80-10 had been continued from the afternoon meeting in order fo allow workin9 tenants of Tusfin Arms II fo attend the public hearin9 af this time. Mr. Brofemarkle said this use permit request covered the same property as a variance request by the applicant in February, 1980. He said the previous request fo deviate from conversion standards and with the Planned Development provisions. The modifications include a two-level parkin9 structure with a total of 242 park- in9 spaces; the elimination of tenant vehicle access alon9 the southern boundary and the addition of landscaped areas with emergency vehicle access; and the loss of four units. Chairman Schuster asked how much open space would be available. Planning Agency Minutes - April 7, 1980 page 6. Mr. Brotemarkle said approximately 52%. Mrs. Kennedy said their relocation plan did not reflect what the Agency and City Council had asked for tenants. Mr. Brotemarkle explained the current ordinance relative to a relocation plan and that the submitted plan was in addition fo those requirements. Mr. Welsh said the original plan which was denied indicated as alternatives the removal of entire buildings with over 40 units, and now vie have a plan indi- cating the removal of only four units. Is this lacking credibility? Mr. Brotemarkle said the original variance request had four alternatives; this plan represents a modification of one of those four alternatives. There had been discussion af that previous meeting that the concept closely following ordinance provisions might be acted upon, however, it was the consensus fhaf the variance be denied and the applicani resubmit for a use permit. Chairman Schus[er declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished fo speak in favor or opposition to Use Permit 80-10. Speaking in favor: Henry Fredricks, representing Acacia, 270 Laguna Rd., Fullerfon Jim Manning, representing Acacia Speaking in opposition: Jim Brown, resident Tusfin Arms II Bonnie Volden, resident Tusfin Arms II Carol Dailey, 15851 Pasadena, Apt. F1 Elizabeth A. Sfaub, resident Tustin Arms II Bob McConnell, resident Tusfin Arms II Leslie Walters, resident Tusfin Arms II Linda Holfkamp, resident Tustin Arms II James Cook, resident Tustin Arms II The opposition voiced their concern over the displacement of people, the inability of single women fo get loans with which fo buy homes, the overall high price of purchasing a home, and tho lack of available rentals within the city. Questions concerning pricing, tenant discounts, improvements, financing, relocation bene- fits, the General Plan, and similar concerns were discussed. Mr. Manning attempted to clarify some of the questions from the tenants, pertain- ing to proposed improvements, landscaping, price of condominiums, and down payments. He also felt, after the Agency's denial of the variance request, that the intent was that only a project conforming to the conversion standards would be considered. That is clearly their intent with this proposal and he hoped that was unders[ood. Mr. Fredricks indicated up to a $10 per square foot d!scounf could be offered to tenants accepting an "as is" purchase, no tenant would be required fo move for one year, Acacia would bo in a position fo offer favorable financing and all pro- visions of the City's conversion ordinance would be fulfilled. Chairman Schuster declared the public hearing closed. The consensus of Agency members was that the verbal s'i'atemenfs and clarifications of therolocafioNdiscounf plan needed further written elaboration to ensure fhaf everyone clearly understands what is proposed. If was further felt that the action on this item may be just the first of many requests as the economics now appear fo justify ma]or expenditures on parking structures and removal of units. At the request of Agency member Kennedy, staff was directed to look at the general issue of conversions, the Uniform Building Code, expected activity and alternative responses of the City. Agency member Welsh also felt that this specific project may be in compliance with the letter of the standards, however, some aspects such as the parking and distance fo units needed attention as if appears inconvenient to future residents. Mrs. Kennedy also felt further information on pricing and financing would be Planning Agency Minutes - April 7, 1980 page 7. needed in view cf lhe Housing Element's concerns for inclusion oF Iow and moderate income housing units. Chairman Schuster asked the pleasure of the Agency. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Welsh, fo continue Use Permit 80-10 until the regular meeting fo be held April 21, 1980. AYES: Salfarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster NOES: None ABSENT: Sharp ADJOURN/N~NT There being no further business fo come before the Agency, Chairman Schuster declared tho meeting adjourned af 8:52 p.m., fo meet again for a regular meeting fo be held April 21, 1980. Mary E. ~ynn 'J Recording Secretary