Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-21-80 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular Meeting January 21, 1980 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting ~t~nday, January 21, 1980 in the Council Chambers of the Tustin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. The meeting was called fo order af 3:02 p.m. by Chairman Schuster. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mrs. Kennedy and the invo- cation was given by Mr. Welsh. ROLL CAk4 Present: Chairman Schuster; Agency members: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, and Welsh Absent: None Also present: Mike Brofemarkle, Community Development Director Dan Blankenship, City Administrator Alan Warren, Senior Planner James Rourke, City Attorney Midge Mehl, Recording Secretary Other staff members: 4 General Audience: 14 MI NUTES The minutes of the regular meeting held January 7, 1980 were approved as cor- rected (the spelling of Kathy Well's last name; page 4) and with the waivin9 of reading same. PUBLIC HEARINGS Use Permit 80-1 and T~ntotiv~ TrOcf No. 10979 Applicant: Location: Request: Gfeller Development 228 West Main Street Authority to develop a professional office complex on the Stevens' property. Mr. Brotemarkle said both the staff and the developer, at this time, request that this item be continued to the next regular meeting, however, the Agency might desire to open the public hearing to take any testimony from the audi- ence and discuss the design concept. He said this is the project that mid last year was presented fo the Redevelopment Agency concerning a more pre- liminary concept. The Stevens' home has a major historical value to the city and Mrs. Stevens has been very particular as fo the future use of the property, including the pre6ervafion of fha family home and the surrounding grounds. The concept calls for taking access from "C" Street in order not to impact the residential area westerly with additional traffic. Of the 164 parking spaces, 115 would be underground, so there would be a more spacious green area rather than having asphalt around the buildings. One major problem may arise in the long run due fo traffic impact on "C" Street. "B" Street is the logical street where, in the future, there could be a signalized inter- section at Main. To signalize "C" Street would not be practical because it is too close fo El Camino Real, but this plan will have a greater impact on that intersection. There are a couple of trees that are in the public right- of-way at "B" and Main Streets. If development goes forward one alternative would be to remove those trees now and put in fha curb radius ultimately needed, or we codld require a cash deposit equivalent fo the cost of such public works so they could be installed at such time as needed. Planning Agency Meeting Minutes - January 21, 1980 page 2. Chairman Schuster declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone fo speak in favor or opposition to Use Permit 80-1 and/or Tentative Tract No. 10979. Diane Lee Edgell, 345 West Main Street, stated she was concerned about the additional traffic on "C" Street and if the traffic would continue as far south as Sixth Street. She said she was not aware of a proposed signal at Main and "B" Streets and she thought that would create noise with cars stopping and sl'arfing. She also asked how many buildings would be placed on the property. Mr. Brofemarkle said there would be additional traffic up fo 500 vehicles per day on "C" Street, if was hard fo fell how much over 50~ of the traffic would go north to Main. The hypothetical issue of the signal at "B" 8nd Main Streets is a long-range proposal, depending upon the overall traffic impact in future years. Any future signal would be less likely to be at "C" Street and more likely to be at "B" Street. There would be no access to Main Street from the project. He said there would be seven other build- ings constructed on the property. Ms. Edgell said since this development would be encroaching into tho resi- dential area, she wanted to know how the surrounding areas would be zoned; are there plans to rezone the surrounding area? Mr. Brotemarkle explained that the Stevens' property is zoned R-3 and all properties west are zoned R-l. He said under tho current zoning provisions the subject property is the last one that could request a uso permit for an office building. Ho said at this time there are no plans for a major re- zoning of any of the R-1 properties. Mr. Doug Gfeller, 2070 Business Center Drive, Irvine, speaking in favor, introduced Mrs. Esfelle Stevens and explained how Mrs. Stevens had been working very closely with them on this development. He said he would like 1o address tho concerns mentioned because they were also their key con- cerns. He said they wanted to be sure the buildings would be compatible with the neighborhood because there are some beautiful homes in the area. With tho aid of plot plans and architectural drawings displayed, he explained the relationship of the proposed buildings fo the existing Stevens house. We are going to elaborate the existing garden, preserve as many trees as possible, keep the buildings' appearance as much as possible like residences, with the same architecture as the existing house. He said very early in the program if was decided fo fake all access af "C" Street and abandon access off Main Street. He said since this is the last piece of property in the immediate area upon which office buildings could be erected, they felt they had to respect the privacy and desires of the residences on 'B" Street and avoid taking any access on that sfreel. A registered traffic engineer had pre- pared a traffic report which had been reviewed by the staff, which basically showed that ~his specific prelect would not cause a need for any signalization on "C" and Main Streets. I1 is difficult fo predict the direction of the traffic flow, but they are talking about a limited number of trips per day. He said Mrs. Stevens' attorney is now preparing a deed restriction, which would be presented fo tho City, precluding the developer from doing anything other than maintenance fo the exterior of tho Stevens' house. The only changes would be the interior remodeling to make if suitable for office uses. There would also be a deed restriction regarding certain tree specimens on the property, which requires us to maintain those trees as long as they are healthy. He said in order fo preserve the house and leave one-third of the site untouched, it requiredundergroun¢ parking fo make the pro]ecl feasible. Chairman Schuster asked if there was anyone else fo speak in favor or op- position and hearing no response he asked the pleasure of the Agency. Planning Agency Meeting Minutes - January 21, 1980 page 3. ICOTION by Salfarelli, SECONDED by Kennedy, fo continue the public hearing until the next regular meeting fo be held February 4, 1980. AYES: Sharp, Salfarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster NOES: None Use Permit 80-~ Applicant: Location: Request: Burnetf-Ehline Southeast corner of Irvine Boulevard and Holt Avenue Authorization fo develop a four-story, 63' high (67' with mechanical equipment) office structure in conjunction with an existing restaurant, in the Planned Community District. Mr. Brotemarkle said staff had reviewed the plans and they met all of the development code requirements, however, this is a use permit fo determine the impact, as well as code compliance of the project on the area. He said there are two primary areas fo address. One being the height of the particu- lar structure, which is 63' up fo a point where they have mechanical screen- ing equipment. He said both the C-2 and C-3 zones permit heights up to 50'; the Planned Commercial District has been a vehicle by which higher heights have been permitted for various structures. He said Mervyn's, across the street from this property, is 38' in height to the parapet wall; the Meredith complex at 17th and Prospect is 58'; immediately across the street from city hall is an office complex 49' fo the top of the stair tower and the tallest structure in the city is, of course, Sfeelcase at about 79' overall height. The architecture of the project is basically urban with some special facets which the architect will explain. Chairman Schuster declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone fo speak in favor or opposition fo Use Permit 80-3. /~". Phillip Schwartze, representing the Burnetf-Ehline, said regarding the property line and parcel map discussion, they would like to resolve that with the staff. He said they were agreeable to all other conditions mentioned in staff's report. He said they were attempting to. integrate the architecture with the area and then displayed a scale model of the proposed complex and some architectural renderings. Mr. Leland W. Stearns, architect for Burneft-Ehline, explained the architectural drawings and how they proposed to use brick and reflective glass in the structure of the building. He said this building would be situated on a corner, exposed on three sides, and the bottom of the building would be brick with arches and a traditional type feeling. The combination of contemporary design with traditional features would make it more pleasing and get away from a monolithic type structure. The fop three floors would be of a dark gray glass and reflective glass, bul with the design of the building, the broken lines, sbtback of upper stories and terraces if would create a very nice building. We are attempting an interesting structure, riot just a box-like building. Mr. Sharp asked if they had complied with all the latest energy restrictions, using all this glass. Mr. Stearns said that would be done in final design and they had done a build- ing similar to this one and are well within the restrictions. Mr. Brotemarkle said the staff, in working with the developer and architect on this proposal, had difficulty in finding a major theme fo follow; we have a spanish-type building hidden with tropical landscaping fo the south; we have a rather startling masonry building fo the west; immediately adjacent we have late 50's early 60's offices with no specific design theme; and across Newport Avenue we have a woodsy atmosphere. We are dealing with four very diversified styles of architecture in the immediate area. Through the Planning Agency Meeting Minutes - January 21, 1980 page 4. uso of the brick and the arches the developers have Iried to capture the masonry and spanish look while still trying to be cornpa~iblo wilh the landscaping. They had a very difficult task. Mr. Saltarelli asked about staff's recommendation for another ZO feet of irrevocable right-of-way dedication and the effect on setbacks. Mr. Brotemarkle said the final plot plan had been modified to reflect all our concerns and Resolulion No. 1875 now represents those conditions which would be recommended should the Agency approve the request. Mr. Salfarelli asked the present setback. Mr. Brotemarkle said the structure would set back 20 feet from the current right-of-way line on Irvine and would be 10 feet from ultimate ri9ht-of-way. If we were to widen the street fo its ultimate right-of-way, they would have very little problem in comparison fo many of the offices on Irvine which would have a one fo five foot setback if we should widen the street. Mr. Salfarelli then asked about the parking ratio and whether if was based on not or gross square footage. Mr. Brotemarkle said it was one per 300 and based on gross leasable area. They are approximately four spaces over the required number of parking spaces. Mrs. Kennedy said she was concerned with the height and the style of archi- tecfure of the building. She asked if it could be located more centrally on the lot rather than immediately on the corner and are there similar build- ings which could be Iookodaf in Orange County. Mr. Sch~Jarfz explained that although the height would permit i~lore than four stories, if was their intent fo have only four stories. The ground floor would have an open feeling, with high ceilings. Mr. Brotemarkle said one problem with moving the building farther south was the shared parking agreement with Don Jose's. This agreement dates back fo the development of the currently defunct disco/bar which abuts the southerly lease line. To move if farther south would encroach into that shared park- ing. tC~s. Kennedy said she would be in favor of continuing this item until she could see something comparable to this proposal. Mr. Saltarelli said his main concern is the parking. He said he didn't care what ratio was used, but with 44,000-45,000 square feet additional, a study of uses going into this building is necessary. He said if 2 or 3 floors were rented to an insurance company, the parking would be deficient. He said the type of occupancies would dictate what the parking requirements should be. He requested staff get together with the developer and analyze the uses an- ticipated so we could carefully calculate the parking for the entire site. Mr. Welsh said he concurred with the potential parking problem and also felt there would be a problem with access onto Holt Avenue. He felt the issue of the structure's heightwas pivotal in view of past citizen concerns in that regard. Mr. George Mefsovas, speaking in opposition, said he owned the building on Irvine and Plaza Drive and he wanted to know how many parking spaces there would be and questioned the feasibility of using the flood control right-of- way for parking. Mr. Brofemarkle indicated 242 total spaces were proposed with 81 of those for the restaurant. Orange County has granted permission fo cover the drainage facility with parking, but they could not build a structure over if because the County might need fo have access fo that drain at some time in the future. Planning Agency Meeting Minutes - January 21, 1980 page 5. Mr. Mefsovas said he didn't want to be blocked out by a four-story building across the street from his units and didn't think it blended in with the rest of the area. He also said Beverly Hills Savings and Loan had received no notification of this hearing. Mr. Brotemarkle checked the file and ascertained that notice of the public hearing had been mailed fo their main office in Beverly Hills. He explained that notices are mailed fo the owners as listed in the latest County Tax Assessor's Rolls, within a 300 foot radius of the sub]ecl property. tees. Kennedy suggested that staff contact all property owners within 300 feet of this proposal, advising them of the continued hearing and what exactly was being proposed. Also, to keep a list of who was contacted. Mr. Brofemarkle asked if she meant tenants as well as owners. Mrs. Kennedy said yes. Mr. Schuster said he agreed that everyone in fhaf area should be notified of this proposal. Mr. Welsh said it appeared to him that the project had been presented and not only is parking a concern as indicated by other members of the Agency, bul from his own comments on height and architectural design, being inappropriate in not completely unacceptable; perhaps the appropriate procedure should be for the Agency to close the public hearing and deny the request. Mr. Schwartze said he would like fo address some of the Agency's concerns. Regarding parking, they could not guarantee the long range future, but initially there would be a bank or a savings and loan company and another floor would contain the corporate offices for Burnett-Ehline, and only the fop two floors would be lease space. There would be a florist there, but that is a quick in and out type of business. He said they have other build- ings of this type and have had no parking problems. He said on the issue of height and architecture, they wanted if fo be a good addition to Tusfin and with this property's unusual shape they had tried to develop if to the best advantage for everyone. Mrs. Kennedy asked how many parking spaces they would get when they build out over the flood control channel and would they fall below the parking standards if this agreement could be revoked. Mr. Schwartze said they would gain a cenferline and if if were fo ever be revoked they would be below the parking standards by 18 spaces. It was pointed out that the development rights above the channel were granted in perpetuity. Mr. Saltarelli asked if the item on the agenda regarding surplus property was land adjacent to this development and could if be used for this particular development. Mr. Brofemarkle answered yes to both questions. The only owners on this triangle are Mr. Larsen and the City. The surplus parcels would be best used in this manner and could be included if acquisition were anticipated. Mr. Sharp said he was speaking only for himself, but thisis a high rise building. If built, it would be the first high rise structure in the city. If would be the first one to have basically reflective glass. He thought more time to study traffic impacts, parking, efc, was needed, and he wanted more time fo think about this proposal. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Sharp, to continue the public hearin9 for Use Permit 80-3 in order fo study the architectural design, parking, set- backs, comparability, and height until the regular meeting fo be held Planning Agency Meer Minutes - January 21, 1980 page 6. February 4, 1980. AYES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster NOES: None Chairman Schuster said he had been reminded that Council was to have a presentation by Mr. Hollinden at 4:30 and it was now past that time. He asked if there was a motion to adjourn the Agency meeting until after the presentation regarding Orange County Transportation System. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Schuster, to adjourn the Planning Agency meeting until after the Orange County Transportation System presentation to Council. AYES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster NOES: None Chairman Schuster declared the meeting adjourned at 4:43 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 5:20 p.m. Variance 80-2 Applicant: Larry H. Selditz on behalf of Tune-Up Masters Location: 695 EI Camino Real Request: Authorization to vary with the provisions of Sign Ordinance No. 584, to allow three (3) non-conforming wall signs. Mr. Brotemarkle said the applicant has requested a continuance on this matter since he was out of town. Chairman Schuster .asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in favor or oppositi"on to Variance 80-2 and hearing no response he asked the pleasure of the Agency. MOTION by Welsh, SECONDED by Kennedy, to continue the public hearing on Variance No. 80-2 until the regular meeting to be held February 4, 1980. AYES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster NOES: None PtJBL I C CONCERNS None OLD BUSINESS Mr. Brotemarkle said this resolution concerned the denial of Variance 80-1 at 195 Myrtle Avenue. MDTION by Welsh, SECONDED by Kennedy, to approve Resolution No. 1869. AYES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster NOES: None __~ A~orovai of Resolution No. 1874 Mr. Brotemarkle said this was a resolution which denied Use Permit 79-36 for U.S.A. Sandwich Shop. • A Planning Agency Meeting Minutes - January 21, 1980 page 7. MOTION by Welsh, SECONDED by Kennedy, to approve Resolution No. 1874. AYES: Sharp, Saltarelii, Kennedy, Walsh, and Schuster NOES: None Mr. Brotemarkle said the first item concerned a 6-acre site at 14901 New- port Avenue, known as the Williams property. Currently the property i~s zoned "M" and master planned multiple family residential. He said on the multi-.family residential side some other properties have been developed with apartment complexes, however, the property is subjected to noise lavels from the freeway, the railroad, and from the airport right-of-way, making it somewhat difficult to develop. There is industrial property to the south, across the railroad tracks. At this point staff is looking for some direction from the Agency. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Welsh, to continue the matter of the incon- sistency between present zoning and the Tustin Area General Plan on property at 14901 Newport Boulevard until the evening meeting. AYES: Sharp, Saltarelii, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster NOES: None Final Tract MaR No. 10281 Mr. Brotemarkle said this concerned the Jansvu property. NYDTION by Saltarelii, SECONDED by Sharp, to recommend approval of Final Tract Map No. 10281 to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 1871. AYES: Sharp, Saltarelii, Weish, and Schuster NOES: Kennedy Disposition of Surolu^s Prooe^t~ Mr. Brotemarkle said this concerned property previously discussed, on New- port Avenue. MOTION by Saltarelii, SECONDED by Sharp, to recommend disposition of the surplus City properties to the City Council by adoption of Resolutions No. 1872 and No. 1873. AYES: Sharp, Saltarelii, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster NOES: None Chairman Schuster adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m. to meet again at 7:30 p.m., same date, in the Council Chambers of the Tustin City Hall. Planning Agency Meeting Minutes - January 21, 1980 page 8. MINUTES OF CONTINUED PLANNING AGENCY MEETING January 21, 1980 Chairman Schuster reconvened the meeting at 7:31 p.m. All Agency members were present. NEW BUSINESS Inconsistency b~tween zoning and Tusfin Area General Plan - 14091Newoorf Mr. Brofemarkle reiterated the discussion on this continued item concern- ing property master planned for multiple-family residential use, yet having "M" zoning. In summarizing the situation, you could be led fo believe if~s most appropriate for residential due to the fact we do have apartments in the immediate area and the street is a dead-end cul-de-sac street. However, it abuts two fransporation corridors and is under the airport approach pat- tern. If also abuts industrial property fo the south. This might be a piece of property that would be a transitional use providing a buffer be-- fween the transportation corridors and the current residential use. An office use, however, would produce more traffic on Ne~..~orf Avenue. He said staff is seeking direction from the Agency with regard as fo the appropriate use designation. Mr. Salfarolli asked the main problem with the existing zoning from staff's point of view. /V~. Brotemarkle said "M" zoning is an encompassing zoning classification; if would permit major industrial development, commercial or offices, and the property is in the immediate vicinity of residential uses. Mr. Welsh said the map which staff provided fo the Agency is misleading because if shows the property as Mr. Brofemarkle said that is a general plan map which shows the designation of the General Plan. True state is "M" zone. Mr. Saltarelli said the staff then is not recommending multiple family use. Mr. Brotemarkle said no. The multiple-family use could be appropriate through design and would be harmonious with other residential in the area, but there are certain other distinct drawbacks such as noise, the airport path, the railroad, and industrial to the south. Office on the other hand is a negative use if you consider traffic impact until Newport Avenue would be put through. Ho said the only other agency to contact is tho Airport Land Use Commission which may have some concern due fo the location of the property. Mrs. Kennedy said when you consider the disadvantages she couldn't see how the Agency could approve residential, even though some is already there. She said in her opinion the only possible and best use would be some type of storage facility. Discussion was held regarding zoning classifications and the potential fo restrict the site fo a specific use. It was determined the code would have fo be amended and the property down-zoned. Mr. Schuster said the property is presently surrounded by apartments. He said there is a nursery and storage there, three different entities. The existing situation is highly undesirable. He asked if there had been any complaints about noise from the apartment tenants. Mr. Brofemarkle said not to his knowledge. Normally, however, those com- plaints would be made fo the airport commission rather than fo the City. Mr. Saltarelli felt residential zoning is not inappropriate for this property. High density apartments are next door and across the street. This indi- cated fo him that ifps a fairly desirable area, from an investment point of view, as residential. He would not want a 6-acre office complex with all fhaf traffic in the residential area. An industrial use next fo those Planning Agency Meeting Minutes - January 21, 1980 page 9. residences would be inappropriate and a storage facility brings people in day and night. He felt there were still design alternatives staying within the category of multiple-family residential uses that would be appropriate for the area. Mr. Welsh said the Agency should not guess what the developers would be most interested in developing, but assure it is compatible with the neighbor- hood; therefore, it appeared i'hat the appropriate zoning would be for multiple family use. MOTION by Welsh, SECONDED by Sharp, that the zoning should be PD in conformance fo the Tustin Area General Plan designation of residential multiple-family. Under discussion Mrs. Kennedy said the precedent of already having multi- family units in the area was not a good reason fo repeat the mistake again. Noise factors and i. nappropriate adjacent uses are good reasons fo not con- finue the mistakes of past planning. She realized this was a problem property and there was no easy answer, but she could not agree fo allowing multi-family fo go in there. Her choice would be a Iow profile, Iow traffic use, fo pro- tect the people who are already there and not 1o put more people under poor living conditions. Chairman Schuster asked for clarification of the motion. Mr. Welsh said his motion was fo zone the land as it is already designated in the Tusfin Area General Plan, as residential multi-family, Planned De- velopment (PD). Mrs. Kennedy said that was not the way she understood the motion. She asked staff fo clarify their two recornmendafions, and tell her how Commission Welsh's motion fits in with that. Mr. Salfarelli said his motion is for staff recommendation ~2. Mrs. Kennedy said she needed further clarification. She asked if PD per- miffed just any planned development. Mr, Brofemarkle indicated that PD is a residential district, Mrs. Kennedy asked if the maker of the motion would consider PC, without a use designation, so the property could be developed wi[h either idea, de- pending upon the market, or do you want fo limit if fo residential develop- ment only. Mr. Welsh said he felt the land should be zoned accordin9 fo our master plan which is residential and fo keep the land compatible to the existing neighborhood pattern. He asked if if were zoned PC could it be developed residential, such as Packers Square, or could if be developed commercial and the Agency would have no control other than the use permit. Mr. Brofemarkle said under the PC classification the Agency would have to act upon a use permit, however, historically the City has not designated an area as a wide open PC--it's always been PC-Industrial; PC-Business; PC-Com- mercial, efc. A discussion followed on the original adoption of the General Plan, the con- difions and attitudes af that time and citizen involvement. Chairman Schuster called for a vote on the motion. AYES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Welsh, and Schuster NOES: Kennedy CORRESpONDgNCE None Planning Agency Meeting Minutes - January 21, 1980 page 10. STAFF CONCERNS None AGENCy CONCERNS None ADJOURNA/~_NT There being no further business fo come before the Agency the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m. to meet again for a regular meeting fo be held February 4, 1980 in the Council Chambers of the Tusfin City Hall. Sfephe/n L. Schuster Cha i rman M.I. Mehl Recording Secretary