Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-02-79TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING Monday, July 2, 1979 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, July 2, 1979, in the Council Chambers of the Tustin City IIall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. The meeting was called to order at 3 p.m. by Chairman Schuster. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mr. Sharp and the invocation was given by Mr. Saltare]li. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Schuster, Mr. Sharp, Mr. Saltarelli, Mrs. Kennedy, and Mr. Welsh Absent: None Also present: Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Director Dan Blankenship, City Administrator James Rourke (3:20 p.m.), City Attorney Midge Mehl, Recording Secretary Chairman Schuster said on behalf of the Agency he would like to welcome the new Community Development Director, Mr. Michael Brotemarkle. MINUTES Mr. Welsh stated on page 3 of the June 18, 1979 minutes he would like to have his comments added, after Mr. Saltarelli's statement, and just prior to the motion. It was so ordered. The minutes were approved, as corrected, with the waiving of reading same. PUBLIC HEARINGS Use Permit 79-17 (continued hearing) Applicant: Far Western Bank, 2215 North Broadway, Santa Ana Location: The southwesterly intersection of Franklin and Walnut Avenues in the IrvJne/Tustin Industrial Complex, known as a portion of assessor's Parcel No. 432-491-1, Lot 16, Tract 8763. Request: To install a trailer on a 15,432 square foot area of Lot ]6, Tract 8763 to use as a drive-through banking facility for a temporary, but unspecified, time period. Mr. Brotemarkle stated this item had been continued from the last meeting in order to allow the applicant time to submit a complete application. IIe said all concerns have now been resolved and the primary change being a condition would be imposed requiring a utility fee covering the entire parcel. The staff, he said, would recommend approval. Chairman Schuster asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition to Use Permit 79-17. There being no one to speak, the Chairman asked the pleasure of the Agency. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Saltarelli to close the public hearing and approve Use Permit 79-17 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1832. AYES: NOES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster None Planning Agency Minutes July 2, 1979 page 2. Use Permit 79-21 Applicant: Mi]ton Miller on behalf of Super-Stop Grocery and self-serve gasoline station Location: 395 West First Street Request: To permit a gasoline price sign of 10 square feet to an existing pole sign. Mr. Brotemarkle said normally a request of this nature would not require Agency action; it would have been handled at the staff level, however, there was no Director at the time the application was submitted, therefore, it was scheduled for the Agency agenda. He said the staff would recommend ap- proval subject to the conditions as contined in Resolution No. 1831. Mrs. Kennedy asked if the requested size of the sign was permitted in our sign code. Mr. Brotemarkle said that was correct. Chairman Schuster declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone to speak ~n favor or opposition to Use Permit 79-21. There was no one to speak. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Saltarelli, to close the public hearing and ap- prove Use Permit 79-21 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1831. AYES: NOES: Sharp, Saltarell~, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster None PUBLIC CONCERNS None OLD BUSINESS Resolution No. 1826 (Variance 79-2 - IIadley's) MOTION by Saltarel]i, SECONDED by Welsh to adopt Resolution No. 1826 arid approve Variance 79-2 for the IIadley sign. ~s. Kennedy sa~d she would like the minutes to show that her objections to this resolution are based on the fact that, in her opinion, it does not meet the hard- ship that the City of Tustin's code calls for and that she would have preferred correcting the code rather than giving a variance without valid grounds. Mr. Welsh said he would like the minutes to reflect that he felt the variance was appropriate because the code indicates pole signs for freeway businesses, and he felt Hadley's is obviously a freeway-type business. AYES: NOES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Welsh, and Schuster Kennedy Resolution No. 1830 (Use Permit 79-18 - Radiation Sterilizers) Mr. Brotemarkle recommended that this item be continued to the 7:30 p.m. meet- lng in order that ~. Tony Mark of the firm of Dames and Moor and Mr. Clark Hickman from the Orange County Department of Health, who Js the responsible agency in charge of regulations of such uses could be here for valuable input for the Agency's consideration in this matter. Mrs. Kennedy asked if there was any written report on this or would they simply be taking verbal testimony. Mr. Brotemarkle stated there has been no additional written report ; it would be verbal testimony to answer some of the concerns of the Agency. MOTION by Saltarelli, SECONDED by Welsh to continue Resolution No. 1830 until the 7:30 p.m. meeting this date. Planning Agency Minutes July 2, 1979 page 3. AYES: NOES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster None NEW BUSINESS Notice of Preparation for 5-55 Freeway Interchange Mr. Brotemarkle stated the City was getting in on the very preliminary stages of the 5-55 proposed interchange modification. He said the State is in the process of preparing the environmental impact report and he felt it important that this issue be brought to the attention of the Agency at the earliest stages. With the aid of a display he pointed out the two alternatives which had been proposed. Mr. Brotemarkle stated there were representatives present, from the State, and he would like to call upon them to explain any questions the Agency might have. Mr. Frank Weidler, Caltrans, stated they were now beginning the early studies on this project. The Route 55 interchange has been recognized as probably one of the most troublesome areas in the county and there is a definite need to fix it up to help alleviate accidents and congestion. He said an earlier study indicated an enormous amount of right-of-way would need to be acquired and major social and community upheavals could result. Caltrans is looking at anything that is feasible; this major modification appears to be financially and politically feasible. Tie said they would be coordinating extensively with the different cities involved and would hold project development team meetings periodically. He said Mr. Ledendecker, the City Engineer, had been elected to be a team member and they would also invite someone from the city of Santa Ana. He said if things go the way hoped, they would start construction some- time in early 1985-86 fiscal year. Mr. Saltarelli said it was his understanding that th~s is statistically the worst interchange in the state's freeway system. He thought this project would qualify for safety monies rather than just genera] long-range planning money. Mr. Weidler said he didn't think the availability of safety money or federal aid inter-state money or whatever funding would increase the time frame on this project; there are certain things that have to occur and it takes this much time. He said this was a very large project. He further stated that Caltrans would be working very closely with the cities involved. Mr. Saltarelli said the City had been trying to hold off any development on those parcels which might be in the proposed right-of-way of this project, but wanted to know if anything is going to be done by the State to inform property owners and/or developers that their property which they are contemplating to develop might be condemned within the next three or four years? lle wanted to know what the Agency could do to help facilitate this problem. Mr. Weidler said he realized this was a problem, but the process they are now going through is a citizen involvement--letting people know what is contemplated. He said hopefully, with this kind of public information it is hoped to minimize the problems that could occur. Mr. Brotemarkle said he thought the City and the Agency had gone on record as favoring the solution of major deficiencies at this interchange more in the form of Study Pi~ B rather than the major ~mpact shown in Study Plan A-1. MOTION by Welsh, SECONDED by Saltarelli that staff be directed to recommend Plan B to Caltrans for the interchange project and that the project be com- pleted with the least amount of dislocation to property owners and residents, and in the fastest time frame possible. AYES: NOES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Walsh, and Schuster None Mrs. Kennedy said she hoped the Agency would be advised if the State decided to use the A-1 plan instead of the B plan. Planning Agency Minutes July 2, 1979 page 4. Condominium Conve rs ion s Mr. Welsh stated that it appeared to him that the recent apartment condominium conversion brought to light a number of new problems that when the Agency originally passed the new ordinance they were not abreast of. It would appear that the City needs to look at inclusiveness within the ordinance for re- location of the residents. We need to assure that we are not liquidatinq low cost housing in our community. IIe said it would be appropriate, since con- verted units are selling as new, that they should meet standards that are up to date. He would like to see an ordinance drawn up for conversion of apartments to condominiums that would include some of these items and those indicated in the staff report. MOTION by Saltare]li, SECONDED by Welsh to direct the staff to bring to the Agency proposed modifications to the existing ordinance that would tighten up the procedures along the basic discussion that we had at our last meeting relative to noise attenuation, relocation of residents, utilities, and a better definition of the open space requirement. Mrs. Kennedy said she would like to include something about our housing element. She said she felt ours was a little weak. Mr. Brotemarkle said they would be updating the housing element, probably be- fore the end of the year. He said there are certain time restrictions as far as the State of California is concerned. An ordinance revision and the housing element would be required to be consistent. Mr. Welsh said it should be addressed in the ordinance. This came out as evidenced in our recent apartment conversion--a criteria was needed on what we would consider available low cost housing, whatever staff recommends. It should be addressed in the ordinance. AYES: NOES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster None CORRESPONDENCE None STAFF CONCERNS Second Story Office Window Treatment (17th Street and Prospect) !4r. Brotemarkle stated that when the office complex at 17th and Prospect was approved by the Agency, there was major concern reqardinq the residences directly to the west and the north of the subject building with the second story offices having visual access into their back yards. The majority of the conditions have been included on the new site plan, however, there was a con- dition imposed that the second story windows have permanent visual screening. The architect has concern over the exterior inteqrity of the structure and the basic proposal presented to staff is one that would have the exterior glass with levelor blinds sandwiched in between an obscure panel that would be on the interior of the structure. From the staff's point of view, in order to clean the window that obscure panel would have to be removed. It could create a possible chronic code enforcement problem if the cleaning personnel or perhaps some tenants decided they didn't like the panels and removed them. If these windows were to be permanently fixed, a maintenance problem for clean- ing purposes would result. Mr. Welsh stated that he remembered when this matter was first brought before the Agency; they had set dowv~ criteria, lle questioned what had been set down concerning the privacy of the residents behind the structure. Mr. Brotemarkle said the criteria was that the visual access had to be "per- manently screened." Mr. Schuster said as far as he could recall he didn't think they wanted any windows at all unless they were high windows--above head height--so the tenants coul¢~'t look down. Anything inside would be under the control of the people occupying that building, and after it is constructed and everybody is moved in those panels could come down. Planning Agency Minutes July 2, 1979 page 5. Mr. Brotemarkle said the condition read "permanently screened" and the architect is trying to comply with this. Mr. Welsh said he thought the Agency was clear when it said there would be "no visual access." Mr. Blankenship stated that during the discussion there were several alterna- tives posed and discussed, but the applicant requested he be given leeway in order to look at several alternatives that might exist. One of the ways mentioned was a high window that would just have a wall and landscaping to protect the residents and they wanted to avoid that. They then asked for a more general direction so they could work on several alternatives. The designers thought the high windows would be less desirable to clients who wanted to lease space in the building. He said the Agency turned down the proposal of trees due to the fact that trees could die and would not provide a solid screening. Mr. Jim Lester stated he was a representative of the architects for the subject building. He said he had an exhibit he would like to show the Agency. Mr. Welsh asked if this was going to be a "permanent screening?" Mr. Lester said that was the intent. He said they were trying to make the in- side of the building leaseab].e; make an aesthetically sound building on the exterior; and to try to satisfy the adjacent homeowners. He said the Agency seemed to be concerned with the removal of those panels. He explained the operation and structure of the panels. Mrs. Kennedy said she would l~ke to hear from some of the residents. Mrs. Marguerite Gray, 13912 Laurinda Way, Santa Ana, said she had met with Mr. Brotemarkle this morning, and had reviewed the proposed type of screening. She said the problem was that there would be no control over just the use of blinds, you can pull them up or down. If screening can be unscrewed and re- moved by any maintenance man then the condition cannot be met and we could not agree with this. Mr. Welsh asked the city attorney if the Agency were to have a clause placed in the lease agreement that these windows are non-removable, how would the Agency enforce it. Mr. Rourke said he didn't know. Mr. Brotemarkle said if it was a condition of approval and the windows were removed, the Agency could revoke the use permit. He said that the locking feature, where the lock is controlled only by the building owner or manager, rather than each individual tenant, could be an alternative which would allow for easier administration. Mrs. Kennedy said owners,managers, etc. do change, and she felt there would still be an enforcement problem. Mr. Welsh said he felt the Agency had a moral obligation to insure by our procedures that the privacy of thc residents behind this structure is ~nsured; that two or three years from now, it cannot be undone. Therefore, he would be inclined to say that full cooperation should be given by the architect. Mr. Schuster said the staff has been charged with the responsibility to see that a permanent screening of these windows be done and he didn't feel that these blinds would be permanent, nor would it guarantee those residents any privacy at all after a period of time. The developer said he would do it during the previous review, and anything less should not be permitted. Mr. Saltarelli said it was his understanding that anything that was going to be satisfactory to the developer, the architect, the residents, and the staff was going to be satisfactory to the Agency. He said when everyone was in agreement, then the staff should inform thc Agency of the solution. Planning Agency Minutes July 2, 1979 page 6. Mr. Brotemark.]e sai. d }t was Ills interpretation then, that the proposal as it is now before the Agency is not acceptable un]ess it could b('. deemed to be per- manent. The Chairman said that was correct. Mr. Lester again explained the workings of the proposed window. He asked the Agency if they could solidify those panels on the inside arid still satisfy the window washing, would that be adequate to the Agency? ~tr. Welsh said if it was something that would satisfy the staff and the home- owners, then it would not have to come back to the Agency. The Chairman so ordered. There being no further business to come before the Agency at this time the Chairm~l declared the meeting adjourned, at 4 p.m. to meet again for the meeting to be held at 7:30 p.m. this same date, in the Council Chambers of the Tustin City Hall. S~ephen L~huster Chairman Donald J. Saltarelli Vice-chairman M.I. r~lehl Recording Secretary Planning Agency Minutes July 2, 1979 page 7. TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Adjourned Meetinq Monday, July 2, 1979 The Planning Agency reconvened at 7:35 p.m. Chairman Schuster said he would entertain a motion to convene as the City Council in order to take care of some Council matters and an Executive Session prior to taking up the Agency matters. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Saltarelli to adjourn as the Planning Agency and convene as the City Council to present a proclamation, then to have a brief Executive Session prior to convening as the Planning Agency. AYES: NOES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster None At 8 p.m. a MOTION was made by Saltarelli, SECONDED by Schuster to convene as the Planning Agency. AYES: NOES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster None Present: Chairman Schuster, .Mr. Sharp, Mr. Saltarelli, Mrs. Kennedy, and Mr. Welsh Absent: None Also present: Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Director Dan Bl~lkenship, City Administrator James Rourke, City Attorney Midge Mehl, Recording Secretary OLD BUSINESS Resolution of a~proval for Use Permit 79-18 (Radiation Sterilizers) Mr. Brotemarkle stated this matter had been continued in order to allow the City's consultant to prepare a report for the Agency's consideration and for the staff to prepare a resolution. IIe had contacted Colonel Sheldon of the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station to request the position of the base in regards to the proposed facility and they indicated that if permitted they saw no adverse impact on the base, but were essentially maintaining a nuetral position. Further, he had also contacted Don Honey of the California Bureau of Radiological Health which is the ultimate licensing authority for this type of facility and the State of California has been in radiation control business for approximately the past eighteen years. Mr. Honey indicated the proposed facility has a storage permit, however, the actual operations permit will be dependent upon field investigations which are conducted by the County Health Department. Clark Hickman of Orange County, who is in charge of this particular project, indicated Radiation Sterilizers has been in the review process for approximately one year and the County has an on-going monitoring process to review the facility. It was indicated that the State Health and Safety Code and the Radiation Control regulations possibly are a pre-emption of City action. Regardless of the City's position on such a facility, if it could not meet the guidelines of the State it would not be permitted to operate. Doug Brewer and Tony ~rk of Dames & Moore, consultants to the City, indicated that at the present time there was an extremely tight time frame with unavail- ability of qualified personnel who could react and report on such short notice. Based upon the time frame and the dollar allocation, there would probably be a less intense review than that which has already been conducted by other regu- latory agencies. Chairman Schuster asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition to this matter. Pl~lning Aqency Minutes July 2, 1979 page 8. ;.Ir. Clark Hickman, Public Ilealth Physicist for Orange County, stated he had been working in this particular field for sixteen years and would answer any questions which the Agency might have. Mr. Saltarelli asked if Mr. Hickman felt this operation represented any danger to the public health and safety of the residents of Tustin? Mr. Hickman said no, he did not. ~. Welsh asked if he thought the trans,)ration of the materials into our com- munity would represent a health hazard to the community? Mx. IIickman said no, he did not. He further stated that after about 13 months of review by 6 people from the State Department of Health and one person from the County Health Department, they felt it was a safe operation. He said the licenses would be issued in three shages (storage, test, and use), as opposed to being issued immediately. Dr. Anthony J. Mark, Project 5~nager of Dames and 5~ore, retained to review and advise the Agency on the broad scope of such problems, was asked to report on the status of any specific review of this use. I{e said he had discussed that application with Dr. Chin arid his representatives, and he had also contacted the Bureau of RadiologJ.cal IIealth in Sacramento and had spoken with Mr. Hickman. Additionally, he had made numerous professional contacts with nuclear engineers and health specialists in the radiation health fields. They had trouble finding someone to perform this review within our time constraints, but he was happy to report that as of today they have very good prospects to do the review. Mr. Welsh asked the cost of this review. Dr. Mark said Jt would cost from $12,000 to $14,000. .~_r. Hlckman said he cou].d obtain some of the sa;ne information free, and could do it in two days. Mr. Welsh stated Mr. llickman doesn't work for the company under consideration; he would be unbiased (let the record show);arid I accept his offer. MOTION by Sa]tarellJ, SECONDED by Welsh, to approve Resolution No. 1830 grant- ing Radiation Sterilizer the right to exist and operate in the city of Tustin; and also to accept the offer of Mr. Hickman who will send us a report of safety incidents for uses of th~s type. AYES: NOES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Welsh, and Schuster Kennedy Variance 79-1 (continued) Applicant: QRS Corporation Locat ion: West side of Enderle Center Drive Mr. Brotemarkle stated that this item had been continued, at the request of the applicant, and the staff's recommendation stands as before. Chairman Schuster asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or in opposition to Variance 79-1. Mr. Bob Van Gerpen, 1120 Town Avenue, IDS Angeles gave a quick review of what had transpired at the previous meetings. He said he would like to present find- ings as tie and the l-;nderle Center representat~es find them: unique situation in the size and type of the facility in this center, tenant is largest in the area not being in a s~ngle business; it is a key facility to the center due to the fact there are eight other locations in Orange County and people have become accustomed to the name Salty Sam's and it would be a key sign to bring the Planning Agency Minutes July 2, 1979 page 9. people to the center,particularly to that side of the shopping center; there is no fronting of the establishment to the normal traffic in the center; the sign as proposed would give a direction for traffic safety on the side street; and approval would not be special privilege. He said they had found that a variance had been granted in 1977 to Silver Streak, special consideration was given in 1978 to the Calvacade Escrow and also to the continuance of the non- conforming Tustin Realty sign--none of these signs meeting the criteria of the current sign code. Through this application, the City now has on file a compre- hensive sign program indicating the ingress and egress, the Salty Sam's sign location, and the signs along 17th Street. Two additional signs are proposed for the center; one is on Yorba Street and the other is on Vandenburg Lane, corner on Enderle Drive. He didn't feel they were setting a precedent or asking for a special consideration. The applicant and owner accept a stipulation that this requested sign relate only to that area that is the leasehold of Salty Sam's and that it would not be used for any other business or future tenant of this facility. Mr. Schuster asked how n~ny businesses were now in the center. Mr. Enderle stated they now have 41 with a potential of 42. He said according to the sign program submitted they have no provision, nor have the merchants requested, a general sign for every single merchant. Mr. Knowles of Salty Sam's said he felt the sign was very importatnt to their business. There followed a general discussion. MOTION by Kennedy to close the public hearing and deny the request as being a grant of special privilege without a showing of hardship. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Saltarelli asked Mr. Knowles if he would be willing, should the variance be granted, to stipulate that the granting of the variance does not constitute the granting of a continued use of that sign. Should this business go, the sign goes. Mr. Knowles said yes, that would be acceptable. Mr. Welsh stated he did not feel there was any compatability to what was granted to Tustin Realty, Silver Streak and Calvacade Escrow; the buildings are com- pletely detached from Enderle Center. It's an entirely separate operation and there is no similarity between the 41 businesses in Enderle Center and the Calvacade, etc. IIe also felt that the sign that is being requested could be ad- dressed by the Enderle Center if they had a master sign plan, therefore, he made a MOTION to approve Resolution 1821(A), to deny the request, SECONDED by Kennedy. Mr. Saltarelli said he found that there was absolutely a hardship in the case of this restaurant as they are having to compete with at least three other major restaurants who each one have their own sign. This center is undersigned, by the code, dramatically so and the Agency should be very pleased that the owner of the center, and others, have not requested the maximum use of the signs that are available under the sign code, which would be a pole sign on each side with individual business identification under the center identification. He said if they came in to use exactly what they were entitled to use, we would have a tremendous number of signs. He said this last motion should be voted down and hopefully grant the request, but he thought a priviso should be this variance would not consitute a grant of continuing use of the sign to any future tenant or sub-tenant that might go into that space; and that with the approval of this variance only the three signs that the Enderle Center plan to put up for center identification would be allowed. There followed a discussion regarding whether this request was a special privilege, and about their sign plan. Chairman Schuster asked for a vote on Mr. Welsh's motion. Planning Agency Minutes July 2, 1979 page 10. AYES: NOES: Kennedy and Welsh Sharp, Saltarelli, and Schuster The Chairman said the motion failed 3 to 2. '.iOTrON by Saltarelli, SECONDED by Sharp, to approve Rcsolution 1821(B) with the provisos that the variance does not constitute the grant of continued use of the sign to a future tenant and that ut~n the vacation of the premises by Delaney's Salty Sam's Restaurant that the sign shall be removed and that the Agency finds that a hardship does exist due to the competitive nature of the other restaurants in the center; and that Enderle Center shall not be granted more than three center identification signs in accordance with their submitted sign program, because of the approval of this request. AYES: NOES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Schuster Kennedy and Welsh There being no further business to come before the Agency the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. to meet again for the regular meeting to be held July 16, 1979 at 3 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Tustin City Hall. Donald J. Saltarelli Vice-chairman M.I. ~4ehl Recording Secretary