Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-03-80 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular and Continued Meetings March 5, 1980 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, March 3, 1980, in the Council Chambers of the Tusfin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, Cali- fornia. The meeting was called fo order at 3:03 p.m. by Chairman Schuster. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mrs. Kennedy and the invocation was given by Mr, Saltarelli, ROkk CALL Present: Chairman Schuster; Agency members: Salfarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Sharp Absent: None Also present: Dan Blankenship, City Administrator Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Director Alan Warren, Senior Planner James Rourke, City Attorney Midge Mehl, Recording Secretary Other staff members: 2 General audience: 10 MI NUTES The minutes of the regular meeting held February 19, 1980 were approved as revised (page 10), and with the waivin9 of readin9 same. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Use Permit 80-3 Applicant: Location: Request: Burnett-Ehline Southeasterly corner of Irvine Boulevard and Holt Avenue Authorization for construction of an office building. Mr. Brotemarkle said this request was for a 45,OOO square foot office building and had been continued in order fo allow the applicant fo redesign 1he buildin9 fo meet the concerns voiced by the Plannin9 Agency. The original request was for four stories in height and over 60' in height. The current plan would re- fain the same architecture, however, the height has been reduced fo 46' fo top of the third story, in lieu of four stories. The 46' would not include the mechanical equipment which would be another 4 fo 8 feet in height. The parkin9 plan would afford an additional 8 spaces. The applicant had only one request on the conditions; fhaf if the Agency were fo approve this request that condi- tion ~11M of Resolution No. 1875 be modified to sfipu-late that the project would be approved subject fo final development plans bein9 reviewed by the Community Development Department for substantial conformance fo plans, as approved at this meefin9. The Agency asked questions about the present code height limit; investigation of re-doing the entire parcel, including the Don Josg Restaurant; consideration to relocating the proposed building in regard to setbacks; and total number of parking spaces. Mr. Brotemarkle explained the setback had been discussed with the applicant and due fo the Iong-sfandin9 lease lines which come right up fo the proposed strucutre, they have no ability to cross that lease line without a negotiated agreement with Don Jose~ The only agreement with the restaurant concerns the parkin9 bein9 mutually utilized by both properties. They are practically cover- in9 their entire Iol with the buildin9 and they have no additional property fo relocate the buildin9. Mr. Schuster asked if the flower shop dispute had been settled. Mr. Brotemarkle said fhaf would be primarily a relationship between the tenant and landlord which the City would not be involved in and was not current y Planning Agency Minutes - March 3, 1980 page 2. finalized. Chairman Schuster :eclared the continued hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition. Mr. Phillip Schwartze, representing Burnett-Ehline, said they felt they had responded fo the concerns of the Agency. The proposed parkin9 was in excess of code requirement; traffic circulation is 9ood; and he would like fo dis- play some additional drawings at this time. The flower shop, he said, would continue to be free-standin9 durin9 construction and when the flower shop moved in their exisfin9 buildin9 would be demolished. Mrs. Kennedy asked if the square footage of the flower shop building had been included in the square footage and if there was some protection fhaf the build- ing would come down upon completion of the proposed building. Mr. Brofemarkle said if would be brought back fo the Agency to see if we have sufficient parking fo meet the needs of both uses, if the shop were not re- moved. The existing flower shop is not as large as the one proposed in the new structure, so if would tend fo push them right fo code rather than have excess parking spaces. However, if the existing 2,000 square feet were utilized for office rather than commercial, as proposed, fhaf would also reduce their re- quired parking. It is hoped that the flower shop will relocate info the new building and the free-standing older building would be demolished. Mr. Saltarelli said he felt that should be a stipulated condition. Ms. Barbara Parker said she was the tenant of the flower shop in question and fo date they had not reached an agreement and she had not given up her lease fo the flower shop. There being no one else who wished to speak, Chairman Schuster declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Sharp questioned condition #11M in the resolution. Mr. Brotemarkle said that condition was imposed as staff did not have a final height plan for review. Therefore~ the condition now reads that the final site plan would come back to the Agency for review. Mr. Sharp asked if there would be any problem with the condition remaining as if now reads. Mr. Brotemarkle said no, there would be no problem. MOTION by Salfarelli, SECONDED by Sharp, to approve Use Permit 80-3 as pre- senfed with the following stipulations: fhaf the condition II M remain as now written, with the Planning Agency fo have final approval of the site plan including that the parking lot design shall be approved by the Planning Agency, and an additional condition fo state that an agreement concerning removal of the existing flower shop be developed for review by the Agency prior fo issu- ance of permits. Mr. Saltarelli said he undersl'ood the problem between the renan[ and landowner, but felt the City needed a protective clause if fhaf free-standing Flower shop building was to remain there; that the proposed new building should have an equivalent reduction from the approved plan of say 1,200 square feet. He said he would like to see that building removed~ but he realized that was a civil matter. Mrs. Kennedy said she was still concerned about the 46' height, the size of the lot, the way if sits on the edge of the property, and she would like ad- ditional time to review this site plan which she had just received this after- noon. She said she would like fo offer a substitute motion fo continue Use Permit 803 for one more meefin9 so the Agency could review these site plans. There was no second to the motion. Planning Agency Minutes - March 5, 1980 page 3. Mr.Welsh voiced his concern on the height of the building and the architectural design, and said if was not compatible with the character of Tusfin. Chairman Schuster asked the pleasure of the Agency on the motion. AYES: NOES: Sharp, Salfarelli, and Schuster Kennedy and Welsh Variance 80-2 Applicant: Location: Request: Tune-Up Masters 695 El Camino Real Vary with sign ordinance for three additional wall signs. Mr. Brofemarkle said this variance request had been continued three times since the initial hearin9 January 21, 1980; the request is fo authorize the retention of three non-conformin9 signs, three moFe than permitted by code and over the permitted sign area by ninety square feet. Chairman Schuster declared the continued hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished fo speak in favor or opposition. Mr. Floyd Wheeler said the applicant could not appear, again, due to an ex- tensive fravelin9 schedule and he regretted fhaf he was unable fo appear at the last meeting. He said Tune-Up Masters, the leader in this field, had been in business for 20 years and they needed the requested identification due to the location of their shop. He said the present signing is minimal and the request was vital fo their business. We have 50% less signin9 than we would normally install at such a facility. There being no one else fo speak Chairman Schuster declared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. Mr. Welsh asked if this request was for signs which had already been placed on the business, and not in conformance with the Sign Code. Mr. Brofemarkle said that was correct. MOTION by Welsh, SECONDED by Kennedy, to deny Variance 80-2. AYES: NOES: Sharp, Salfarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster None Varijnc~ 80-4 Applicant: Location: Request: Mark Szeber on behalf of Sfeelcase, Inc. 1123 Warner Avenue Vary with sign ordinance fo permit two (2) 444 sq. ff. wall signs in lieu of the authorized 64 sq. ff. Mr. Brotemarkle said this request was continued because of a tie vote at the last meeting due fo the absence of one Agency member and if was the decision of the Agency fo hear this matter before a full Agency. He said the Agency also wanted fo learn what the Irvine Company's requirements would be in relation fo a sign of this size. He said their maximum size would be 200 square feet under their CC&Rs. However, there are other factors fo be considered such as the removal of two 141 square foot legal non-conforming signs as proposed by the applicant. To approve this request, as submitted, could be construed that the City has proposed to abrogate a private party agreement between the seller of the property and the uses contained in their CC&Rs. The Irvine Code was intended so that one major user would not monopolize major signage in the area fo the detriment of adjacent uses which could not have such substantial sign areas. He showed slides of existing signage at Steelcase and the size of the buildings For which the applicant is requesting new signage. He said staff would not recommend establishing new ordinance provisions permitted such large signs, but fo continue fo look at them under a special exception basis for such large users. Mr. Brofemarkle said in light of the Irvine Industrial Complex Code and the question of non-conform~n9 signs, perhaps there is some answer that would be available between the city's 64 foot sign restriction and lhe applicant's Planning Agency Minutes - March 3, 1980 page 4, proposal of 444 sq. fi. for two signs or almost a fetal of 900 sq. ft. Mr. Sharp said that earlier this week he had received a letter from the city attorney, asking that, since he was absent from the last meeting, that he listen to [he tape and reveiw other materials pertaining fo this request. He did that and if seemed to him that tho public hearing was closed, with a 2 to 2 vote, necessitating some action on his part fo change that situation. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Rourke said the public hearing was closed; the hearing could be reopened or not, as soon fit by the Agency. His advice fo Mr. Sharp was simply that if he were fo be able to vote he would need to familiarize himself with the material and testimony pret;enfed at the last meeting. He has done this and now the Agency can discuss the matter; vote on if; reopen if and fake further evidence before voting, or whatever tho Agency desires. Mr. Sharp is now able fo participate, if he so chooses. Mr. Sharp asked if the Agency would accept a MOTION to grant a sign on each frontage not to exceed 200 square feet in keeping with Irvine Code and the City Code, which says signs shall be consistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity. If was his understanding that the Irvine Company indicates that any prelect in that complex, by the CC&Rs, would not have a sign larger than 200 square feet. His motion would be that signs for the Sfeelcase prelect not exceed 200 sq. ft. on each elevation, consistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity, and in conformance with the Irvine Company sign requirements. Mr. Saltarelli SECONDED the motion. Mr. Blankenship asked iF that would be in addition fo the existing signs on other buildings. There followed a discussion regarding the existing signs and whether or not they would remain or have fo be removed. Mr. Sharp said it seemed to him that since the Irvine Company had controls which limited signs to 200 square feet, that his motion was fo adop[ those same controls. This would have the same general consideration. Chairman Schuster recognized Mr. Klaus Sarrach, representing the Steelcase Company, and asked if he wished fo make a statement. Mr. Sarrach displayed a sketch showing the 450 foot sign. He said they still felt tho 9' letters would be best, and he felt the maximum they could reduce the size of letters would be 7' and this would be over the 200 Feet mentioned in Mr. Sharp's motion. Discussion was held on the relative size of business enterprises and the amount oF signage permitted. Mr. Welsh asked if whab was proposed in Mr. Sharp's motion was compatible with the Irvine Industrial Sign Code presently enforced by the Irvine Company. Mr. Brotemarkle said that was correct. They have a proportional sign code in which they say that a sign may be equivalent to 10% of the wall surface area, but not in any case to exceed a maximum of 200 ~quare feet. Mr. Sarrach said the 9' high letters would give them a much better sign than a 4' high letter. Even though we feel that the 9' high letter would better suit our needs we could live with a 7' high letter. This would spread over 37' in length which would give us 260 square feet of sign area. We would like to remind you that we would be removing two 14~ square feet of signs that are presently mounted with the old logo style. He requested that the Agency approve the 7' high letter which would still give them a viewing distance of about 3,000 feet. Planning Agency Minutes - March 3, 1980 page 5. Mr. Salfarelli asked if the request would still include removing the two square foot signs. Mr. Sarrach said that was correct. Mr. Salfarelli said he would agree with that. Mrs. Kennedy said she simply tried to give every business the same crack at signing so she coldn'f make allowances for each business unless if did show legitimate hardship. Currently, you have about 500 square feet of signing and you are willing to give up 282 to gain about 600 square feet. Mr. Sarrach said they would like to identify to Red Hill Avenue and the New- port Freeway and to do that they felt it took at least a 7' high letter. Mr. Welsh said perhaps if would be appropriate fo ask if the applicant did not remove the existing signs, would they be in conformity with Irvine Company Sign Code. Mr. Brofemarkle said af this point he thought they would be in conformance as these are legal non-conforming signs, but the Irvine Company administers their sign regulations separate from the City. Mr. Schuster said he was in favor of the motion, but fo let them keep the signing they presently have. Mrs. Kennedy said she couldn't support the motion. Mr. Welsh said perhaps they could make a proviso fo the motion that all signs be in conformity with the Irvine Company requirements. Mr. Sharp said that was the intent of his motion. Chairman Schuster asked for a vote on Mr. Sharp~s motion. AYES: NOES: Sharp, Salfarelli, Welsh, and Schuster Kennedy INITIAL PUBLIC HEARIN~ Use Permit 80-7 Applicant: Location: Request: Stewart Development Company IV 14742 Newport Avenue Construction of 18,848 square feet office building. Mr. Brotemarkle said this concerned property on the southeasterly corner of Newport and Sycamore Avenues. The proposal meets all of the development standards for an office complex. On the Sycamore Avenue frontage they may reduce the setback fo fifteen feet, as required by code, since the Newport Avenue frontage would require a fifteen foot setback. The square footage of the structure would not change and the plan would still be within the develop- menf standards. The staff would like fo bring out that the initial environ- mental study had not addressed a number of orange trees and three large specimen trees ~,hich would have fo be removed to permit development. If if were fo appear fo the Agency that the removal of these trees would not create a sub- sfanfial environmental impact, then a Negative Declaration could be forwarded and staff's recommendation would be for approval. If, however, the Agency's determination was that this would be a significant impact and the frees should either be relocated or possibly a redesign pursued which would save lhe maxi- mum number of frees then we would recommend continuance of the item to con- sider the environmental impact. Mrs. Kennedy said she did not have a copy of the initial environmental study and she asked if Mr. Brotemarkle had a copy. Mr. Brofemarkle said he did not. The question is whether the issue should be included as the other environmental impacts that were noted were all construed to be not significant. The initial study form does not address that concern in depth. Mrs. Kennedy said she had no information on the age, size, or variefy...how Planning Agency Minutes - March 3, 1980 page 6 was she supposed to know. Mr. Brotemarkle said the staff did not have this information either. That is the question; whether the issue should be so expanded to include such information. If, however, it is not considered fo be a major concern, from an environmental slandpoint, then the Agency may go ahead and act upon the use permit request. 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 80-7. Mr. Sherman Ellis, representing the Stewart Development Company, said their environmental impact assumed that we would have fo remove the existing trees. A landscape plan had been prepared for review by the Agency. He said of the three frees in question, the walnut tree would wind up in the sidewalk area if not removed and is not a viable free for consideration. There are two other frees involved which would be removed by construction. Experience is that orange trees in a landscape environment tend fo die and there are flies and rotting fruit. Other frees are more suitable than orange frees. Mr. Scotr Peterson, a landscape-architect with Richard Prior and Associates, displayed a sketch showing the location of the existing trees and the I o- cation of trees they proposed fo replace these trees with. He explained that two of the trees were diseased and not salvageable and the big cedar tree would cost about $5,000 fo box and move and then there is doubt if could survive. He said the large orange circles on the plan indicated the trees they proposed to substitute for those which they would remove. Mr. Brofemarkle said the planting proposed is a substantial mitigating measure and is in excess of what we would normally require. Had the property been vacant we would not have achieved such substantial landscaping as six 36-inch boxes, a large number of pines, and a complete boundary of Eucalyptus trees. He said if the Agency were fo decide this was a substantial mitigating measure deserving a Negative Declaration, such would be incorporated into the reso- lution and appropriate conditions imposed. There being no one else who wished fo speak Chairman Schuster declared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. MOTION by Welsh, SECONDED by Saltarelli, to approve Use Permit 80-7 in accord- ance with staff recommendation and direct that a resolution be prepared. Mr. Welsh asked if there would be any problems with the second story in re- lation to the residential area.. Mr. Brofemarkle said a condominium abutted this property which has very few windows and all ifs parking between the project and the subject site, so the screening is not considered a major factor, Mrs. Kennedy said she could not make a judgment on the trees because she had no information; no estimate of cost, etc. She could not judge the value of one or all three of these trees. Chairman Schuster asked the pleasure of the Agency on Mr. Welsh's motion. AYES: NOES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Welsh, and Schuster Kennedy Mr. Brotemarkle said the staff would prepare a resolution of approval and bring back fo the Agency at their next meeting. PUBLIC CONCERNS None OLD BUSINESS None Planning Agency Minutes - March 3~ 1980 page 7. NEW BUS I NE~;$ None CORRESPOND~NC~ None STAFF CONCERNS None AGENCY CONCERNS pantry Parking Lot Mr. Saltarelli asked if any members of the Agency viewed the parking lot at the Pantry Shopping Center~ as he had requested they do. Mr. Schuster said he had. Mr. Saltarelli said he wished they would do so, so they could see the problem. He said with the number of medians and landscaped areas, probably 20% of the parking has been removed. Two rows of diagonal parking are no longer there. That, coupled with the more intense use of the Center, which comes after im- provement, has already created traffic problems. He would like the staff to review and bring the Agency recommendations for modifications relative to our requirmenfs for setbacks on parking lots and bring parking lot approval of final design to the Planning Agency. He felt some mistakes were causing hazards and inconvenience fo residents. He said we did not need less parking and more landscaping; we need more parking and as much landscaping as we can get. He wanted staff to review the ordinance for possible modification, Mr. Schuster said he agreed; Mrs. Kennedy said she disagreed; and Mr. Welsh said he had always felt there was a certain amount of give and take between traffic safety and adequate parking and aesthetics. There was no objection to staff coming up with research on the matter, After we have a report from staff then we should discuss whether we should change our ordinance, Mr, Sharp said he would agree fo a study. The Chairman so ordered. Mr, Saltarelli said his second concern was the basic parking requirements for professional and commercial developments; he felt they were too lenient. He said a case in point is the new shopping center where the Irvine Ranch Market is located at Irvine and Newport. Mr. Schuster and Mrs, Kennedy agreed, Mr. Salfarelli said he felt the basic parking requirements need to be changed. He said he would also like a study on the parking requirements. Mr. Schuster said he had received numerous calls regarding what appears to be inadequate parking at the Packers Square Shopping Center. He said if should be investigated. He directed that this study be made soon as possible in con- junction with the previous study. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Agency at this time Chairman Schuster declared the meeting adjourned at 5 p.m.~ to meet again af 7:30 this date for the continued meeting. Planning Agency Minutes - March 3, 1980 page 8. The Planning Agency reconvened af 7:36 p.m. All members were present and there were approximately 85 general audience in attendance. Chairman Schuster stated that the Agency would now hear the continued hearing on Variance 80-3. Variance 80-3 and Tentative Tract Mae No. ~Q87~ (continued) Applicant: Location: Request: Acacia Equities 15851 Pasadena Avenue To vary with the provisions of converting apartments to condo- miniums for Tustin Arms II Apartments. Mr. Brofemarkle explained that the applicant had filed this request in antici- pation of possible code amendments addressing the concerns of the open space and the need for Iow-cost housing. The developer has requested consideration of concepts in providing alternative ways that some of these code amendments could possibly be pursued and these range from the possible development of a condominium complex in conformance fo the existing code with ('he loss of up to 42 units [hrough demolition to essentially an opposite extreme which v~uld be proving all 42 units as affordable housing and the utilization of roof-top areas on a parking structure as open space. It would appear to staff that a conceptual decision is needed so the developer may pursue the particular con- cept which is most acceptable. The applicant has submi[fed additional information concerning affordable housing and has now indicated a program fo provide such housing essenlially in perpetuity. Both staff and the developer would request this item be continued. Chairman Schuster declared the continued hearing now open. Mr. James Manning, representing Acacia Eqifies, showed plans depicting the various alternatives. He said in all cases the residents of record on the date of the official notification to convert would have at least ninety days fo decide if they want to buy their unit or any other available unit. All alternatives can conform to the parking requirmenfs without fearing down build- ings. If granted a variance on open space units not removed would be offered fo qualifying seniors at a price of $37,000 for a one-bedroom unit and a $47,000 price for a two-bedroom unit. He said he didn't think anyone wanted to fear down valuable living units as it would mean that 42 families would not have a chance fo have affordable housing in Tusfin. He said that affordable housing for seniors only was a concept based on housing for those most directly impacted by high housing costs; however, other options, fo expand to other house- holds such affordable units if desired, could be pursued. Another question the Agency had, af the last meeting, was how long would units remain controlled as affordable housing and who was going fo administer this program. Acacia can offer that service and as indicated, for a period of time, as long as determined necessary. Perpetuity is one concept and if there is a county or city housing agency that can perform the service, it should be involved. Mr. Manning explained the various alternatives: (1) with the parking structure and removal of two buildings; (2) with four buildings removed; (3) two large buildings and two small buildings removed with 72 living units remaining fo be sold and the removal of 42 units; and (4) a plan with no units removed, the existing situation with realigned parking and interior modifications reducing 120 living units fo 106 (giving two parking spaces per unit). In the last alternative units would be Iow- to moderate-income housing for seniors or other people in town. What we are asking is conceptual direction~ so we can sl'arf developing detailed answers to ques[ions you may have about a specific plan. There followed a discussion concerning the parking structure, loss of units, landscaping, tenant concerns, demolition of units, and the price of the units. Mr. Manning said Tustin Arms II has experienced a 62% turnover; this is not a fixed residential area. We have agreed to pay the assistance and give more time and help with moving, but we do have a point where there are property Planning Agency Minutes - March 3, 1980 page 9. rights also. An owner has purchased property, developed it, provided a good product for' years and now intends fo do something else with it. We believe fhaf those are also rights that need fo be considered. The management of Acacia and Tustin Arms II is willing fo provide every possible assistance to our tenants. Alternative schemes and variables of pricing, demolition, who benefits, right of first refusal for tenants, new construction costs, rate of return, advantages of conversions fo home buyers, and tenant relocation were discussed. Mr. Saltarelli said if the average or mean price was say $80,000 with every- thing included, would if be any different if we had you remove the 42 units and go with the full open space plan and if so, by how much? Mr. Hardy, President of Acacia, said the difficulty with pricing is with some alternatives there are extensive trade-offs. Where we keep more units, but build an expensive parking structure, prices go up. The plan without a parking structure allows us to price some of the units at a below market price as we have saved a substantial amount of units that would otherwise be demolished so that those are in effect bonus units and eliminate the cost of a parking structure. Ms. Leslie Walters said she was a tenant at Tustin Arms II and wanted to know the selling prices and if gas or wafer would be individually metered. Chairman Schuster asked Mr. Manning if there would be separate metering. Mr. Manning said the electric meters are individual now; the gas meters de- pend on the requirements of the gas company and whether if is an advantage on energy for individual meteres; and water is normally not a separate meter. However, there would be separate shut-offs. Ms. Walters said the tenants of Tusfin Arms II had a petition which she would like fo submit at this time, which contained approximately 103 signatures of tenants against the conversion. Ms. Elizabeth Sfraub said she was also a tenant and the majority of the people residing there are young adults with one bedroom units which might sell for $60,000. Just for principal and interest, fhe..paymenfs would be $682.81 with a 15% interest rate, not including association fees. That's double current rent and she didn't think many young adults could afford that. Linda Holtkamp said she was also a resident and there was a Icl of talk about affordable housing and as far as she was concerned Tusfin Arms II was afford- able the way it is; not as a condominium. Housing is housing, whether it's rental or whether you buy if. Ms. Carol Dailey said she was a resident of Tusfin Arms II and had received a letter, last week, informing her of this meeting tonight. In that letter was a questionnaire asking if she would consider buying one of the units, and she didn't know what she would be buying. In this letter if stated they would like fo convert these within two years, and yet in the last month she had seen more people going through Tusfin Arms II than she had ever seen in the four years she had lived there. They are measuring and preparing estimates, etc. in preparation for conversion now and she didn't think there was going fo be foe much consideration given to the tenants. She complained about the piping and bad sewers and said she didn't see them measuring to fix them. These units are Z4 years old and should Hot be selling for $~17,000, which her unit would cost. You could buy a new home for that. Mr. John Wilson said he was a tenant at Tusfin Acres and he wanted to tell the Tustin Arms II people that they would be promised the world, but forget it. He said his unit would cost him, if he were fo buy if, $780 a month. Young people can't afford payments like that. Where are we supposed fo move fo? Mr. Saltarelli said the problem is political because eight years ago hundreds of people were saying we have too much density in Tustin; do away with apart- ment zoning; don't build apartments; keep Iow income people from coming into Tusfin; and don't let all that traffic and congestion happen. City govennmenfs throughout the county stopped giving zoning to build apartments, constricting the supply of apartments and rents have been going up dramatically. We have a Icl of young people that would like fo buy fo build some equity and others Planning Agency Minutes - March 3, 1980 page 10. who want rental unils, but it's not always going to happen both ways. The answer is not ]usf whether fo convert or not fo convert; [hat's lust part of a whole big problem. Mr. Ron Hoesferey said his questions were not so much for the developer as they were for the Planning Agency. He said based upon what he heard the proposed variance is now down fo two options, if he heard correctly. The destruction of units with the addition of a parking garage fo meet code provisions or waiving open space requirements to allow units which would have been demolished, fo be sold as affordable housing. So basically the question now becomes what are the goals of the City and what are the short term versus long term trade- offs for such a decision. Mr. Salfarelli asked Mr. Hoosterey what he suggested. Mr. Hoesferey said such would be inappropriate af this time. He said if was something ho would like the Agency fo consider and review in this proposal. He said he wouldn't attempt to answer in two minutes a problem the Agency had been working on for a long period of time. Mr. Craig Mole[f said he lived af 15851 Pasadena Avenue and he wished to speak to the comment about the 62% turnover. During fha1 two year period there have been a number of people living there in excess of four years, however, military personnel make up a major portion of the population and are sub]ecl fo relocation or transfer on a regular basis. Apartments are meant for those people who do not want or cannot afford fo buy housing; or prefer apartment living. There being no one else to speak Chairman Schuster declared the public hear- ing closed. Mrs. Kennedy said this was a very difficult situation. She could find no hard- ship in this instance; it's not compatible with City code; it could destroy good housing; and she felt if should remain an apartment complex. Mr. Salfarelli said he didn't feel that the applicant could prove a hardship and should not be granted a variance, but could pursue an alternative conforming fo conversion standards. Mr. Welsh said the difference is simple. If is one thing for the Agency, representing the public, to set up a criteria which they feel is good for the fetal community. This, he felt, was necessary for a fetal balance in the com- munity. Balance is a prerequisite fgr a good community. The issue that is be- fore the Agency, fo propose standard and enforce that standard, is philosophi- cally supportable from his position, but to change from that standard to a position of dictating what a person can do with their property over and above that standard is an entirely different issue which he found difficult to support. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Welsh, to deny Variance 80-3. AYES: NOES: Sharp, Salfarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster None Mr. Brotemarkle said he would like clarification. Has Variance 80-3 been completely denied and ~he applicant needs fo re-file for concepts meeting the ordinance, or aremerely the variance portions of this application denied and the subject matter continued as part of this application? Mr. Rourke said he had not seen the application, but it was his understanding from the agenda materials this was lust an application for a variance. Mr. Brotemarkle said as part of the variance the applicant submitted four scenarios. One proposal being adherence fo use permit guides; the second being one with a parking structure to meet use permit guidelines; the other two requiring variance approval. So, rather than just submitting two appli- cations, one for a conditional use permit and one for a variance with two sets Planning Agency Minutes-March 5, 1980 page 11. of options, it was submitted as a single proposal. A discussion was held on the intent of the action. It was determined the appli- cant shall file a new application covering the requested action, on a use permit, not requiring a new filing fee. This would clearly separate the concepts. MOTION by Salfarelli, SECONDED by Welsh, that af the discretion of the city attorney, Variance 80-3 may be reagendized at a subsequent meeting, either as a new use permit application or an application for consideration of items 2 and 4 under this original application, and that additional fees be waived. That would not be a continuance of this hearing, but would be a new application and a newly advertised hearing. AYES: NOES: Sharp, Salfarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schusfer None ADJOURN/~NT There being no further business to come before the Planning Agency, Chairman Schuster declared the public hearing adjourned af g:05 p.m., fo meet again for a regular meeting fo be held March 17, 1980 in the Council Chambers of the Tusfin City Hall. Stephe¢~ L. Schusfer Cha i rman M.I. Mehl Recording Secretary