Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-01-79TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular and Continued Meetings October 1, 1979 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, October 1, 1979 in the Council Chan~ers of the Tustin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. The meeting was called to order at 3:07 p.m., by Chairman Schuster. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mr. Sharp and the invocation was given by Mrs. Kennedy. PRESENT: Chairman Schuster, Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, and Welsh ABSENT: None Also Present: Mike Brotemarkle, Co~mnunity Development Director Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer, Director of Public Works Alan Warren, Senior Planner James Rourke, City Attorney Midge Mehl, Recording Secretary MINUTES The minutes of the regular and continued meetings held September 17, 1979 were approved as written, with the waiging of reading same. PUBLIC HEARINGS Use Permit 79-24 and Tentative Tract No. 10852 (continued) Mr. Brotemarkle stated that the Wellington Group, applicant for Use Permit No. 79-24, had requested this item be removed from the Agenda at this time because of a pending court case involving the property. MOTION by Saltarelli, SECONDED by Welsh, to remove Use Permit 79-24 and Tentative Tract No. 10852 from the Agenda, as requested by the applicant. AYES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster NOES: None Use Permit 79-27 (continued) Applicant: Location: Request: APH, Incorporated, on behalf of Bob J. Burks 150-160 E1 Camino Ileal and 155-165 "C" Street Authorization to construct part of an office structure on properties zoned Multiple }~amily (R-3). Mr. Brotemarkle, with the aid of sketches displayed on the screen, showed the proposed parking structure to accommodate 70 parking spaces. He said at the last meeting staff had indicated a concern regarding the parkinq and the pro- vision of sanitary sewer service. IIe said this proposal is indirectly related to one agenda item, and directly related to an item on the Redevelopment Agency Agenda, the sanitary sewer facility. He said the applicant proposes to pay a fee in lieu of providing eight (8) parking spaces. He further indicated that Resolution No. 1845 had been modified by three changes and although an amendment to Ordinance No. 510 is under consideration, on today's agenda, the applicant had filed based on the current Ordinance No. 510. Chairman Schuster declared this was a continued hearing, thus the hearing was still open and asked if anyone wished to speak in favor or opposition to Use Permit 79-27. Planning Agency Minutes October 1, 1979 page 2. Mr. William L. Hockenberry, 180 East 5~n Street, #170, Tustin, stated he representated the applicant and said he would answer any questions the Agency might have. Some of the Agency's concerns included the type of clientele, the height of the building, the cost of a parking space now as opposed to what the appli- cant was proposing under th(., current ordinance, and the width of the drive aisle. Mr. Hockenberry said that the structure would be strictly for profe§sional offices, including pension fund administrators, CPAs, attorneys, etc. The building would be under the C-2 height limit except possibly for some minor rooftop equipment, dependent on final design. This project has been well underway through design and review prJor to consideration of Ordinance 5]0. The 13 1/2 foot, one-way drive aisle was within recommended standards for the American Institute of Architects accepted by the County for all private parking areas and would most likely be tenaht assigned parking. Chairman Schuster declared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasuro of the Agency. MOTION by Saltarelli, SECONDED by Kennedy, to continue Use Permit 79-27 until the Agency had taken action on the amendment to Ordinance No. 510, the next item on the agenda. AYES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster NOES: None Amendment to Ordinance No. 510 Mr. Brotemarkle stated this amondment had previously been discussed and he felt there was a key question which the Agency needed to answer before any action could be taken. IIe said there was the question of parking space waiver fees that are embodied in the code section. If those fees were intended to provide for future public parking, then that section of the code is wholly deficient. If, however, those fees were intended to allow uses to be created to exp~ld the Old Town area, to promote development of new and expanded uses, then the proposed amendment as existing in this document, would be inappropri- ate. The real question, he said, is: is the parking fee supposed to provide for future parking facilities or is it supposed-to be a mechanism whereby we can promote the type and character of uses desired in the E] Camino Real area? Depending on the Agency's answer to that question, staff's recommendation would shift as to what we would recommend on this particular item. Dr. Fleagle said when Ordinance No. 510 was adopted for the E1 Camino Rea] Specific Plan we had gone f~ve years without a request, for a building permit in that area. The reason was there was no way an applicant couId satisfy the parking requirements. When Ordinance No. 510 was introduced it was proposed, at that time., that all parking requirements be waived in the E1 Camino Real area. There was no parking problem because there were no businesses there; it was a dying, decaying area. It was an encouragement to get development going, and it has worked. The primary objective was to encourage people to redevlop without the burden of ?laving to provide parking which they could not provide and not require them to pay the full market price for such waivers. ~r. Brotemarkle said if the Aqency were to reaffirm the policy as described by Dr. Fleagle, the staff would then recommend that the amendment to Ordi- nance No. 510 is inappropriate and only that portion of the Ordinance re- describing "area" be approved. IIowever, the staff should be directed, if the Agency reaffirms that policy, that such policy be more carefully spelled out in Ordinance No. 510 fa%her than indicating that the fees would be collected to provide future parking accommodations. It might be more generally indicated Planning Agency Minutes October 1, 1979 page 3. the fees would be used for such other purposes, other activities, in the E1 Camino Real design district, and that we look to such programs as the diagonal parking concept endorsed' by the E1 Camino Business Association and the Parking Assessment District to provide future parking accommodations and not rely that heavily on such fees that might be collected. There followed a discussion regarding whether the parking standards are good standards; what the Redevelopment Agency could do to bring this all together; cost-sharing with Redevelopment Agency; and modifying E1 Camino Real, Second and Third Streets to obtain 50-60 new parking spaces. There was a consensus that staff should pursue an amendment which promoted new development and also pursue the parking modifications on Second, Third and E1 Ca/nino Real which were presented. MOTION by Saltarelli, SECONDED by Walsh, to close the public hearing and that the staff b~ directed to prepare and advertise an ordinance for adoption to Ordinance No. 510, amending it in terms of the boundary definition and bring back to the Agency some alternatives on modifying the parking requirements based on Agency discussion and as previously mentioned by the Community De- velopmont Director. AYES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster NOES: None With no objection from the Agency, Chairman Schuster said the Agency would now return to the matter of Use Permit 79-27. Use Per,hit 79-27 (continued) There was a discussion regarding the parking for this particular request. MOTION by Saltarelli, SECONDED by Sharp, to close the public hearing and to approve Use Permit 79-27 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1845. Mr. Sharp said he would like to incorporate a statement that the representa- tive of the applicant made earlier, by reference, at the last hearing on this item. He said he had asked Mr. IIockenberry if his client would allow phblic parking in that area outside the gates, not under the building, to be used by the public at times when the building tenants were not using the parking spaces. He said he recalled that Mr. Burks had said yes, they would do that. He thought that should be incorporated by reference to this item. Mr. Saltarelli asked if it would be unwise to include and incorporate into Resolution No. 1845 that the owner of the property shall not restrict public use of the parking, after hours and weekends. In other words, they foreclose the option of putting a gate at the back of the property on the side parking lot. Would you object to that, 5~. Hockenberry? Mr. Hockenberry said their primary concern was that if the area was to be used by the public there might be a problem of litter and debris in the parking lot and this could cause additional cleaning maintenance for the owner and he would object to that, otherwise, there would be no objection. Mr. Welsh asked the city attorney if there would be an advantage or disadvantage for the Agency to incorporate such a line in the resolution. Mr. Rourke said if the Agency wanted to retain that right or that right for the public, they better get it commited somewhere. Planning Agency Minutes October 1, 1979 page 4. Mr. Brotemarkle said it was staff's opinion that you could impose it as a condition and if the applicant did have a hardship such as Mr. Hockenberry described, the applicant could then come back to the Agency and request re- lief from that particular condition. Chairman then asked the pleasure of the Agency. The question was called: AYES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Welsh, and Schuster NOES: Kennedy (because the project was below the standard guidelines for parking) . Tentative Tract No. 10887 Applicant: Location: J.P. Kapp on behalf of Clock Construction North side of Dow Avenue, easterly of Frank]in Avenue Chairman Schuster declared the public hearing open. Mr. Kapp, representing the applicant, said he would answer any questions the Agency might have. MOTION by Welsh, SECONDED by Saltarelli, to close the public hearing and reco- mmend approval of Tentative Tract No. 10887 to the City Council for adoption of Resolution No. 1844. AYES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster NOES: None PUBLIC CONCERNS Chairman Schuster acknowledged the large audience and stated he knew why they were present. He requested that one speaker come forth to present their con ce rn s. Ms. McKay ca/ne to the podium and on behalf of the senior citizens, voiced their disapproval of the recent testing for the position now held by Isabelle McClements. In summary, she said they did not feel a test was warranted for a position which had been held by Ms. McClemonts for the past five years simply because she had been CETA employe and now that the federal funds had run out the City did not want her on the payroll. Also she questioned the validity and applicability of the written test used. She said the seniors felt that 5~. McClements had all the qualifications and human qualities needed and de- sired by the seniors and they requested the Council keep her in the position of Senior Aide. ~. Ida Sternberq spoke, saying basically the same as Ms. McKay. MOTION by Welsh, SECONDED by Kennedy, that lsabel]e McClements be retained in her present position and that we institute an investigation into the City's past employment practices, its present emplos~ent practices, and recommendation for the future. It was also pointed out that such ~n interim action had al- ready been taken by City staff until the matter could be brought forth at an executive session. Mr. Sharp questioned the validity of the motion due to the fact that this body was still acting in the capacity o~ Planning Ageny. He said he thought they should adjourn as the Planning Agent~;, reconvene as the City Council and then take action on this matter. With no objection from the Agency, Chairman Schuster declared the Planning Agency adjourned at 4:42 p.m. and reconvened as the City CounCil. See the Council Minutes of October l, 1979 for fu~kher action. Chairman Schuster reconvened the continued Planning Agency meeting at 4:47 p.m. Planning Agency Minutes October 1, 1979 page 5. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS R~solution No. 1843 Mr. Brotemarkle stated this was the Resolution f6r Use Permit 79-26 which was approved at the last meeting, September'17, 1979. MOTION by Saltarelli, SECONDED by Welsh, to approve Use Permit 79-26 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1843. AYES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, ~d Schuster NOES: None CORRESPONDENCE, None STAFF CONCE~S None AGENCY CONCERNS None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Agency Chairman Schuster declared the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m., to meet again for a regular meeting to be held October 15, 1979. ~.~.~en L. Schuster Chairman M.I. Mehl Recording Secretary