Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-17-79TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING December 17, 1979 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, December 17, 1979 in the Council Chambers of the Tusfin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. Tho meeting was called fo order at 3:05 p.m. by Vice-chairman Salfarelli, in the absence of Chairman Schuster who was out of town on business. The Pledge of Allegiance fo the Flag was led by Mr. Sharp and the invocation was given by Mrs. Kennedy. ROLL CALL Present: Vice-chairman Saltarelli; Agency members Sharp, Kennedy, and Welsh Absent: Schuster Al so present: Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Director Dan Blankenship, City Administrator James Rourke, City Attorney Midge Mehl, Recording Secretary Other staff members: 4 General public: 20 MI NUTg~ The minutes of the regular meeting held December 3, 1979 were approved as written, with the waivin9 of readin9 same. PUBLIC H~ARING$ U~e Permit 79-~6 Applicant: Michael Lenhart Location: 2680 Walnut, Unit 6-D - Tustin Business Center Mr. Brofemarkle said the original Use Permit 77-29 for the U.S.A. Sandwich Shop was approved October 3, 1977. Conditions of that approval included hours of operation; a maximum seafin9 capacity of sixteen seats; and fhaf the primary operation should be directed fo those workin9 in the Tusfin Business Center. He said this business center had not been designed [o accorrrnodafe a sit-down restaurant and parkin9 spaces provided were adequate for industrial uses only. He said the fake-out service, with minimum seat- ing, as originally approved, had grown info a restaurant type use with approximately 40 seats and a game room. He said there had been legal action instigated by the Tusfin Business Center against the former tenant in September, 1978. Early this year staff received a number of complaints concernin9 parkin9. A letter was sent fo the new owner August 16 by Mr. Gene Snyder, alertin9 him of the operation restrictions. In response, a petition was submitted signed by employees of Ocean Pacific, sfatin9 they had no problem with the parking, however, the signers ~eren'f tenants of the subject Center. A letter was sent fo Mr. Lenhart, informin9 him that due fo their expansion a new use permit was necessary. The Irvine Company had submitted a letter regarding this application. The Irvine Company recognized ~he need for food facilities for those working in and around the industrial complex, but objected fo expansion of the seating capacity to create a restaurant. If would not be an appropriate use for this location. The Irvine Company supported the continuance of the U.S.A. Sandwich Shop's conditions of approval as they now stand. Planning Agency Minutes December 17, 1979 page 2. Vice-chairman Salfarelli declared the public hearin9 open and asked if there was anyone who wished fo speak in favor or opposition to Use Permit 79-36. Mr. John Le]nieks, attorney representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the request. He said if seemed that the ma]or concern is the parking situation, however, parking is not a real consideration because the primary business is by foot traffic. He said if is a support service business for the tenants and employees of the Center and ho offered to submit a list of 280 signatures of people who uso the facility, indicating their desire to have seating provided at the U.S.A. Sandwich Shop. He said the seating re- quested is a convenience for customers and controls trash and people flow in the immediate area. He said two years' experience shows the need to ex- pand the original use and they believed this consistent with the use of the Center. He further said the hours of operation have been limited fo the original use permit requirements and the game room had been closed. Sharon Dawson spoke in opposition. She and her husband operate the business directly next door. She had a photo showing parking problems and also said the walls are not insulated and the noise makes it difficult to work in their office. There had been several brawls which necessitated the police coming fo the facility and this had become a detriment fo their business. Bob Lawley, speaking in favor, said he was representing a company across the street with 60 employees. About 80% eat at the U.S.A. Sandwich Shop and although his company does have eating areas, people like fo get away for lunch. Mr. Lee Lenharf, father of the applicant and part owner, said in reference fo the noise mentioned by Mrs. Dawson, the sandwich shop was there before tho Dawson's moved in. There were some problems, under the former owner and we asked the Dawson's when we took over what we could do fo be good neighbors. We discontinued the game room and we offered fo insulate the wall, paying for half the cost, but Mr. Dawson didn't want to do that. As for the park- ing, people who come are there for a short time; they come in fo eat and are out. He said the Dawson's have several trucks parked immediately in front of their place and the U.S.A. Sandwich Shop every day. Paula Matthews of The Irvine Company said she wanted to make sure the Agency had received the letter in opposition to this request and favoring the use permit as originally approved. Michael Lenharf, the applicant, said if, in fact, parking is the primary concern, he didn't feel one photograph should preclude the approval of his request. He said at any given time there are 10 parking spaces i r~nediafely behind the sandwich shop vacant all the time. If they could get cooperation of the Alison Company, a sign indicating additional parking in the rear would alleviate the parking problem. He said he purchased this business July 15 as an on-going business and due fo ignorance did not know the seating limi~ was 16. It was operating with 40 seats when he bought if. He said he would do whatever was needed to get along with his neighbors. Joe Janesse said he worked for Consolidated Beverages, across from the U.S.A. Sandwich Shop and he didn't feel the 40 seats were excessive. He said the quick service is very important and U.S.A. is a convenience both mentally and physically for the tenant of the Center. Vice-chairman Saltarelli asked if there was anyone else who wished fo speak in favor or opposition to Use Permit 79-36 and hearing no response he de- clared the public hearing closed. The Agency discussed the convenience of the sandwich shop, the parking, and the fact that the approval of this request would violate the City's Planned Development for this particular area. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Welsh, to deny Use Permit 79-36. Planning Agency Minutes December 17, 1979 page 3. AYES: Sharp, Kennedy, Welsh, and Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Schuster Use Permit 79-37 Applicant: Thomas O'Hara Location: 15471 Red Hill Avenue, Suite D - Red Hill Business Park Request: To expand the approved use permit to include Unit C (additional 1,920 square feet) Mr. Brotemarkle explained the required, existing, and proposed parking and that the basis for staff recommendation in this and the previous case was the same. Vice-chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished fo speak in favor or opposition. Tom O'Hara, applicant, said that by design of his kitchen his business is a fast food service. If didn't make any difference whether ho had 10 or 40 seats; the kitchen was designed for fast food service. He said in contrast fo the request just heard, Tom and Jerry's had more parking available and the expansion would make available to them one-half of the building. There being no one else fo speak Vice-chairman Salfarelli declared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. Mrs. Kennedy asked if there was a restaurant planned, in the future, for this facility. Mr. Brotemarkle said no, not at this site. The original request for this use was approved fo provide a convenience service for this Center. The occupancy restrictions were based upon the parking provided and the avail- able parking would be 8 parking spaces. Currently there is an excess of parking because two suites in their building are vacant af this time. Mr.Salfarelli asked if this business was 100~ take-out or did they have sit-down eating acco~r~nodations. Mr. Brotemarkle said the major business is take-out and they have not ex- panded beyond the original occupancy limitation. Mr. Saltarelli asked if they served beer and wine. Mr. Brotemarkle said yes, they do have a beer and wine license. Mrsi Kennedy said her concern was the ssme for this request as the previous one. She asked what the maximum seating would be. Mr. Brotemarkle said 24 total for the entire business. MOTION by Saltarelli, SECONDED by Sharp, to approve Use Permit 79-37 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1863, and with the amendment of Section II.G. fo read "Seating capacity shall be limited fo 24 seats total for the entire facility." AYES: Sharp, Kennedy, Welsh, and Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Schuster Mr. Sharp said it seemed to him that perhaps the staff should study this con- cern in relation fo energy problems, gasoline shortages, traffic congestion, new industrial complexes, and a method fo permit greater numbers of services provided directly in such centers without creating problems. Not as an Planning Agency Minutes December 17, 1979 page 4. attraction for greater traffic, but fo reduce the number of people on the street by recommending ordinance changes. With no objection from the Agency, the Vice-chairman so ordered thai this study be made. QF~inaqce Amendment - Regulating conversion of apartment rental units fo individual ownership. The proposed ordinance provisions relate fo typical use permit provisions incorporated on previous applications con- corning Fire, conformance with other code sections, Public Works, Building and Planning requirements. Under minimum sbandards of Building and Plan- ning we have expanded on requests for plans, reports, and outlined procedural aspects. The major portion of new information is to implement the relo- cation plan as generally indicated by the housing element and these were minimum requirements. Mr. Brofemarkle indicated fhaf there will be two areas of concern coming up in the near future. Tho first will be new standards affecting use of rooftop areas as open space. Staff feels there is merit in a properly designed roof bop recreational area to be considered as part of the open space. Secondly, there will most likely be requests creating a dilemma of either fearing out units to conform to fha open space requirements or using these units as affordable housing with waiver of open space requirements. To lose sound units, reduce open space or maintain the status quo are not the ideal de- cision in any case. Those would be two issues that, if the Agency so desires, can be addressed after we get this basic mi. nimum ordinance on the books and either review if as prelects come in, making such requests, or develop al- ternative code provisions to permit roof fop open space and establish criteria for affordable housing concerns. Mr. Welsh said the proposal had merit and he would like to see if addressed at the appropriate time. Ho said on page 3 of Resolution No. 1860, under II.e.(4)(a) he believed the Agency had some previous discussion on this and he wondered how they could ensure the last month's rent wasn't dumped down fo $10 a month for fha last month. It would appear fo him thai we need some safeguard against this, in fha ordinance. Mr. Brofemarkle said annually City staff surveys the rents charged by most complexes within the city. We know what the rents were as of February of [his year. He said the tenant relocation plan is not something that we should leave as an after-the-fact item of approval of a use permit, but something that should be included in tho documentation and submitted with the original request for the use permit. He said it would still come before the Planning Agency for action on specific cash amount of relocation assist- ance. The Vice-chairman declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished fo speak in favor or opposition. Hearing no response ho declared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. Mr. Saltarelli said he found it abhorrent to think of people tearing out dozens of dwellings where people are now living when we have such a critical need for housing. It didn't seem logical or reasonable. Mr. Brotemarkle said there were a number of options, including a cooperative agreement with the Orange County Housing Authority, the development of agreements between the City and developer, the City being an approving agency on the rental of affordable housing units, etc. We would need to set up minimum standards, but be flexible enough so where we see a prelect proposal that has that sort of ~pporfunity, tho City may come up with a solution that would be suitable for both tenants and developers. Mr. Saltarelli asked if, by passing this resolution and recommending if to Council, we in no way restrict any of our options regarding those other points? Mr. Brotemarkle said no, such requests shall s~ill be considered as a regular conditional use permit, Planning Agency Minutes December 17, 1979 page 5. The Agency could impose necessary conditions as desired to implement such requests. In the meantime, stall will develop guidelines and criteria affecfirg fha issues discussed. Mrs. Kennedy voiced her concerns regarding the fact that the Agency has been felling the community that strict standards for condominium conversion will be adhered to and not fo deplete our apartment rental units. This was said by the whole Agency, and now staff comes in and suggests not only fhaf we get involved in affordable housing, but that we put in danger our City standards. If is such a departure from our previous history that she was alarmed. She said she agreed there was a shortage of housing, but the answer must not be by reducing standards, but finding other alternatives. The developer is going fo press for conversions because the profits are astronomical, but she didn't want the standards lowered fo meet this need. She wasn't sure if was legal for the Agency fo become a housing agency and asked that the city attorney look into this matter. Mr. Saltarelli said we have strict conversion regulations and have kept to those rigid standards, but if a person comes in with a large apartment com- plex and he meets the standards of the ordinance, we should approve if. If, to meet the standards, he has fo tear out numerous apartments for open space, supposedly he can do if. Now if that's in fha best interest of the City and the existing residents we can certainly stay with that. However, we do have other people coming in saying we don't have enough housing, escpecially Iow cost housing. If we hold firmly to the standards, we could have even more conversions as it becomes economically feasible for developers fo knock out a great number of units and still successfully convert an apart- ment building info a condominium thereby decreasing the housing supply. If was the opinion of the majority of the Agency that adoption of Ordinance No. 1860 would not corrmif the Agency to new open space or affordable housing provisions, however, staff should study the issues and prepare possible code modifications for Agency consideration should such issues arise. Mrs. Kennedy questioned why individual metering had not been included as a code requirement. Mr. Brofemarkle responded that such had not been a precedent on previous Agency actions and had inferred that such requirements had been precluded due fo cost. Utility regulation by association CC&Rs was discussed. Mr. Salfarelli indicated fhaf such additional increase in the cost of housing for an unnecessary requirement was not appropriate. Mrs. Kennedy and Mr. Welsh said they preferred individual metering because they felt tenants would be more cautious using gas and elecficity if they were paying For it as individuals rather than as a group. Mrs. Kennedy re- quested staff fo address this issue at the next hearing and staff indicated they would research the matter. Mrs. Kennedy also requested staff to include a study of providing open space at other locations and possible charges for inadequate open space. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Salfarelli, to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment for condominium conversion to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 1860. AYES: Sharp, Kennedy, Welsh, and Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Schuster PUBLIC CONCERNS None Planning Agency Minu[es December 17, 1979 page 6. OLD BUSINESS Resolution No. 1862 (Variance 79-7) Mr. Brofemarkle explainod that this was the resolution approving Mr. Walter Foster's variance request, heard before the Agency af their meeting held December 3, 1979. MOTION by Sharp, SECONDED by Salfarelli, fo approve Resolution No. 1862. AYES: Sharp, Welsh, and Salfarelli NOES: Kennedy ABSENT: Schuster NEW BUSINESS Final Tract Mao No. 10762 (CITCON) MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Welsh fo recommend approval oF Final Tract Map No. 10762 fo the City Council by tho adoption of Resolution No. 1861. AYES: Sharp, Kennedy, Welsh, and Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Schuster Final Parcel M~p No. 79-1033 MOTION by Welsh, SECONDED by Sharp, to recommend approval of Final Parcel Map No. 79-1033 to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 1864. AYES: Sharp, Kennedy, Welsh, and Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Schuster Quail place RelocQfion plan Mr. Brofemarkle said the applicant would like to address the Agency regard- ing their relocation plan ~or the condominium conversion at 17552 Vandenberg Lane. Mr. Donald Berman stated Quail Place Development, on February 22, 1979 had committed themselves fo the tenants with what they Felt fo be a very ~quifable relocation plan and had been the first to bring forward such a plan. We are now informed, by staff, that we have not met the requirements of the resolution requiring formal approval of the plan. He said he desired some direction from the Agency as to whether their plan would be acceptable fo the Agency. Their conversion had been approved prior fo development of the Housing Element and new minimum cash relocation allowance criteria. The Agency discussed ~uail Place Development's relocation plan. MOTION by Salfarelli, SECONDED by Sharp, fo approve ~he relocation plan of Quail Place Development as submitted with a cash relocation allowance of $500. AYES: Sharp, Welsh, Saltarelli NOES: Kennedy ABSENT: Schuster Planning Agency Minutes December 17, 1979 page 7. Mr. Brotemarkle read a letter received from the Orange County Fire Marshal regarding sprinklering of the parking structure for the Quail Place Develop- ment. In accordance with code, an exception was granted by the Fire Depart- ment for an "in lieu" protection system equal to or better than fhaf required by code. However, as our contract agent, the County Fire Department would let that decision stand unless unsatisfactory to the City Council. Discussion was held regarding interior auto fires, gasoline and sprinkler systems. Mr.Brotemarkle said unless otherwise directed, the Chief's decision would stand. A.rs. Kennedy moved fo agendizo the matter. Motion died for lack of a second. P~rklfne ShoDpina Center Mr. Brotemarkle said the Parklane Shopping Center had submitted a Master Sign Plan for Agency's consideration. MOTION by Sharp, SECONDED by Welsh, to approve the Parklane Shopping Center Master Sign Plan, as submitted. AYES: Sharp, Kennedy, Welsh, and Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Schuster CORR~$pONDf~NCE None ~TAFF ~QNCERNS Mr. Brotemarkle said the staff had received an inquiry whether a sun tan salon could be considered a legal use in the commercial zones. He further stated the staff would like the Agency's direction as to whether this type of use should be considered a beauty salon type use or necessitate a use permit. Cities have gone both ways and staff felt if was similar fo a beauty salon. There followed a discussion concerning which of the approved uses in com- mercial zones could best describe the sun fan salon use, MOTION by Saltarelli, SECONDED by Sharp to direct staff to consider it a permitted use and prepare appropriate code amendments [o implement same. AYES: Sharp, Kennedy, Welsh, and Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Schuster A~;ENC ¥ CONCERNS None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business fo come before the Planning Agency Vice- chairman Salfarelli declared the meeting adjourned at 5 p.m., to meet again at a regular meeting fo be held January 7, 1980 af 3 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Tustin City Hall· D~ald Salt Vice-chairman · · Mehl Recording Secretary