HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-28-75 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
April 28, 1975
The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held
on the twenty-eighth day of April, 1975, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. of
said day, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, Centennial at Main, Tustin,
California.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners: McHarris, Dukleth, Hill, Kennedy, Schier
Absent:
Commissioners: None
Others
Present:
R. Kenneth Fleagle, Assistant City Administrator-
Community Development Director
Bruce Lenorovitz, Assistant Planning Director
Marge Will, Recording Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Kennedy.
INVOCATION was led by Commissioner Schier.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by McHarris, seconded by Hill, that the minutes of April 14, 1975
be approved as amende~.
Chairman McHarris announced that Ursula Kennedy is our latest appointee
to the Commission and that she is a familiar face to most people here as
she has been involved in many civic activities in the past, so he was
certain she will be a credit to the Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance 75-1 - A variance requested by John DeGennaro from the
required 15 foot rear yard setback of the E1 Camino Real Specific
Plan (Ord. No. 510) requirements, and a waiver of required contribution
to a parking district fund for 4 parking spaces
~r. Fleagle stated that the plans for modification of the structure were
submitted to the Planning Commission on February 24, 1975 and approved by
them with deviations from the parking design standards of the city, with
the stipulation that any new building will be required to come before the
Planning Commission. The applicant now desires to add a 1668 square foot
addition on the northeast corner of the property, and to provide 33 parking
spaces, 4 of which are unacceptable and 1 is substandard, for a net of
29 spaces. As initially submitted, the proposed addition would be 1 foot
from the rear property line in lieu of the required 15 foot rear setback.
The applicant has agreed to a 4' rear property setback to enable improving
the present alley to 16', with potential of an alley 20' wide.
The Engineering...Department commented that the parking area south of the
~xisting building is less than the minimum city standards, therefore making
it difficult to negotiate with cars parked parallel to the south side of
the building. They recommended that the four parallel parking spaces
adjacent to the building be eliminated even though it will provide less
parking spaces than the city requirement. The proposed new addition is
located immediately adjacent to the alley and sewer easement right-of-way.
This may present a problem in the future if the alley is widened. The
planter along E1 Camino Real northerly of the drive should have a curb
similar to the planter located southerly of the drive.
Staff advised the Commission that it is necessary to make a finding that
a hardship exists to justify the variance. The location of the building
addition was previously occupied by a structure that was removed to enhance
PC Minutes
4/28/75
Page 2
the appearance of the property, whereby the land use coverage is no greater
than existed under prior use. Also the setback requirement of 15 feet from
the rear property line would be a burden not imposed upon other properties
presently developed within the block. In the interest of the improvement
of this property, the Community Development Department would have no
objection to a waiver of the parking requirements and a waiver of the rear
yard setback on the condition that the 4' required for alley widening were
dedicated and improved for rear access to the property. In the interest of
the improvement of this property, staff would recommend approval, waiving
the requ/red ].5' rear setback and approving the parking accommodations as
shown on the revised plan with the stipulation that there can be no building
openings for any portion of the structure on the rear property line, and
that the required alley right-of-way be dedicated and improved.
Commissioner Schier asked staff for the background of the requirement for a
15' setback.
Mr. Flea~le replied that primary advantage is to allow a place for trash
storage area and a place for doors to open without opening into traffic lane.
Also it makes it much easier for access of fire fighting equipment.
Chairman McHarris opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Robert Meredith (realtor) speaking for John DeGennaro , requested that
Resolution No. 1438 be accepted as is. tie would like to delete the 2 gables
that are on the roof elevation plan.
Commissioner McHarris informed Mr.M~redith~hat the elevations are not a
part o'f"this request at this time.
Mr. Meredithsaid he realized it was an additional request at this time but
he is requesting that the original elevation already reviewed eliminate the
2 large gables so that the roof would conform more to the existing buildings
in the vicinity. He said Mr. DeGennaro's tenants have indicated that they
would prefer not having the gables. This is an additional request.
Tom Kelly, owner of the property across the street told the Commission that
he would like to compliment Mr. DeGennaro for bringing something good to
Tustin. I think this is what the downtown area has needed for a long time
and believe he is doing a fine job. He added that the parking should be
approved. E1 Camino Real is the only area in the city that has a 2-hour
parking limit without enforcement.
Lou Gerding, owner of photography studio, again said he wanted to compliment
Mr. DeGennaro on what he is doing and wants to see it get off the ground
and completed as it will be a beautiful addition to the whole downtown area.
Commissioner McHarris asked if the applicant had considered diagonal parking.
Mr. Flea~le stated there was general reluctance on the part of the applicant
to place diagonal parking as it would force the alley to be used as an exit
way for one-way traffic northbound. Therefore it would be impossible from
the applicant's viewpoint to block off the alley to prevent unauthorized
uses of the parking spaces.
Commissioner Dukleth commented that if the applicant wishes to control acces~
to his parking lot from the alley, it would be desirable to have them enter
and leave from the E1 Camino frontage.
In reply to the Commission's question re landscape plans, MR. Flea~le
advised that they have not been submitted as yet, but that it is the desire
of the applicant to place treewells on the south property line - one every
30' or less. He also added that it would be feasible to have landscaping
in place of the 4 parking spaces, possibly a 5 foot wide curb planter.
Closed public hearing at 8:05 p.m.
PC Minutes
4/28/75
Page 3
Commissioner Schier stated that we are sacrificing a little in the way of
parking and also in setback, but feels that the building is such an
improvement to the district that he is in favor of approving the plan on
the condition that staff also review the final elevations and find to their
satisfaction the removal of the gabels.
Moved by Dukleth, seconded by Schier to adopt Resolution No. 1438 as
substantially drafted, with the stipulation that additional landscaping be
provided either on the southern property line or at the building contact
where the spaces have been removed; and as an alternative to the landscape
planter that the applicant create a walkway possibly incorporating treewells
with suitable protection for backing cars.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
Mr._ Flea~le asked the Commission if they would have no opposition if the
developer and staff could work out a feasible means of diagonal parking.
Affirmative reply.
Use permit to authorize the display of two hydroponic greenhouses
Within the fenced backyard of 700 W. First Street in the Planned
Community (Commercial) District.
_Mr- Lenorovitz told the Commission that the property and existing converted
dwellin~ was used previously by the Wind Ambulance Service. The applicant
plans to locate at this address for the purpose of representing, consulting,
and selling hydroponic equipment and services. Two greenhouses will be
displayed in the backyard and will be screened from view by the erection of
new 6'8" high fencing. The revised parking lot plan will allow the green-
houses to be located so as to conform to Building Code requirements. A new
parking lot will be constructed at the rear of the lot to accommodate 8 cars,
which is adequate for the 1600 square feet of building area that could
eventually be anticipated for ~etail and business use. Perimeter landscaping
is to be provided, and screening by use of shrubs is to be provided along
Myrtle Street. Future signing will be limited in size, non-illuminated, and
conforming to code. Comments from the Building Dept. related to placement
of greenhouses a minimum of ten feet f~om the west property line and that
use of basement for other than dead storage is prohibited.
Opened public hearing at 8:12 p.m.
Ross Ed~ell, attorney for Mr. Hummell owner of the property, stated that
Mr. Hummell will give a letter to the Planning Commission in which he will
limit in his lease the use of 1600 sq. ft. provided the Commission approves
the request that is before them at this time. tie added that the subject
greenhouses look like private greenhouses that people have in their backyard
and that the displaying on commercial property is actually what ultimately
goes on residential property. He believes it will be an improvement to the
corner and that Mr. Hummell will put in sidewalks down Myrtle Street, but
wanted the 1600 sq. ft. limitation.
In reply to a question re parking Mr. Lenorovitz stated that staff has aided
and offered technical services in the designing of the parking lot.
John Siegel, 1501 Charloma Dr., representing his father who is owner of the
five apartment units directly in back of the property which would be adjoin-
ing the 2 proposed greenhouses. He wanted to know if there would be any
unusual noise, storage of fertilizers, hours of operation, lights in the
back that would bother the tenants whose bedrooms were on the common
property line. And he requested the requirement for a fence on the
westerly property line.
Carol Hammond applicant, described hydroponic farming as basically farming
in an environmentally controlled (s6phisticated) greenhouse, which has air
conditioning and heating which controls the environment. As far as fertili-
zers, hydroponic means grown in water and that the nutrients are fed thru
the water. There will be no watering during the night due to the fact this
PC Minutes
4/28/75
Page 4
would cause problems as far as mildew and gro~ lights are not used. We do
not plan to expand our operations. The lot is of particular interest to us
as the converted home will be used for display of equipment, while the yard
will be maintained and landscaped as a private backyard where clients will see
how the greenhouse fits into their own yards.
In reply to a question about the noise level, Ms. Hammond stated that the
water pump would be about the same as a pump and heatin~ equipment for a
backyard swimming poool, and no water would be running after sundown. The
air condition will be equivalent to a window unit, no outdoor floodlights,
and the hours will be 11 to 6, 7 days per week.
Mrs. Charles Logan, 140 Myrtle, said that she was concerned about the fact
that ~edrooms in the apartment house where she lives face the greenhouses,
and would like to know about the noise, traffic and odors.
Commissioner McIIarris explained the hours of operation and emphasized there
would be no lights. Mr. Edgell informed Mrs. Logan that the nursery would be
a lot less offensive than the fertilizer people use in their flower beds. He
said the alley and fence would screen off traffic, and the nursery noise would
be far below any noise level requirements in the city.
Closed public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
The Commissioners agreed that with the 4' high wood fence on the property
line was not enough screening for the residents of the apartment complex.
Moved by Schier, seconded b~ }{ill to adopt Resolution No. 1437 substantially
as drafted, With the provision that the 6'8" fence be extended around the
entire exterior that is open either to the streets or to the neighboring
residents. The fencing may be of standard wood-type in acceptable quality,
approved by staff.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
Chairman McHarris called for a 5-minute break at 8:45 p.m. and turned the
meeting over to Vice Chairman Dukleth.
Commissioner Dukleth called the meeting to order at 9:00 p.m.
3. Adoption of Noise Element to the Tustin Area.
Mr. Flea~le told the Commission that a public hearing on the Noise Element of
the General Plan as required by State law has been duly advertised for this
time and place. This draft incorporates many of the comments received from
Dr. John K. Hilliard, Bio-Acoustical Engineering Corp. Copies of the draft
were also circulated to other City Departments and interested County Depart-
ments. Further refinements and technical changes to the draft element are
required and will be incorporated in the final document, including the
suggestions and amendments proposed by the Planning Commission and testimony
from interested persons will be evaluated for amendment to the draft.
Opened and closed public hearing at 9:05 p.m.
In reply to the Commission's inquiry, Mr. Fleagle stated the maximum allowable
noise levels during daytime are 60 dB(A) and 55 dB(A) at night in the
residential areas. The noise levels are the same in other jurisdictions as
this element has been coordinated with other cities in Orange County and the
Orange County General Plan. The criteria established has been universally
accepted as being an acceptable living environment. Dr. Hilliard spent
extensive time reviewing the draft making suggestions, modifications, getting
standards compatible with other communities. Mr. Fleagle added that paragraph
3 on page 10 will be deleted. Paragraph 3 on page 11 will be changed, and
paragraph 5 will be deleted.
Commissioner Kennedy was disappointed, that motorcycles were not mentioned by
name in the report.
PCMinutes
4/28/75
Page 5
Mr. Fleagle replied that motorcycles are a chief cause of noise complaint,
but that the calls go to the Police Department and not the Community Develop-
ment Department. This is not controlled by the City and pre-empted by Stat~
law. At the request of the Commissioners, Mr. Fleagle said that the
enforcement of State laws relating to noise suppression will be incorporated
in the document.
Commissioner Dukleth asked staff to thank Dr. Hilliard for his asstance to the
City l~n' ~he preparation of the noise element and everyone who worked in the
preparation did an outstanding job.
Moved by Hill, seconded b~ Schier to direct staff to prepare a resolution
~nd submit the amended plan to the Commission at their next regular meeting.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0
For the record, Mr. Fleagle stated that Alan Warren of our Department
expended most of the energy on this plan. It was a joint project within the
staff with Gene Snyder in cooperation with the County Health Department
initiating the contour measurement where he went out into backyards of people
who gave permission to put monitors there for 24 hours. Mr. Warren deserves
most of the credit for preparing the document.
An amendment to EIR 74-2 to permit the construction of 2-story homes
in lieu of the single story homes identified in the certified EIR
Mr. Lenorovitz stated that the EIR for tentative tract 8490 was certified
on August 19, 1974 by both the City Council and Planning Commission which
included "that the adverse impact of the proposed development will be
greater upon the inhabitants of the proposed subdivision by reason of noise,
air pollution, and traffic constraints than upon the adjoining properties."
Now the developer proposes to construct some 2-story homes in order to "have
necessary freedom and creativity of design and the most realistic possible
use of property." Due to the proximity to the Newport Freeway the site is
subjected to an excessive noise level and that the erection of a 12 foot
high barrier consisting of a 6'8" high wall and earthen berm, in conjunction
with the envisioned single story homes, would help to minimize noise
complaints. Plans and hearing notices for this E1-R amendment were circulated
and FHA responded that they would not be able to participate in mortgage
insurance for the tract. The City Engineer questioned what effect will the
freeway have on two-story dwellings on lots 1 through 25, especially lots 1
through 137 Will they require any special treatment? There should be a
certification from a licensed acoustical engineer~assuring that this con-
struction will conform to the Noise Insulation Standards as set forth in
California Administrative Code. The Building Official also requested a
certification that conditions and materials of construction will result in
sound levels which meet FItA and State standards. If 2-story construction is
permitted, the following extra attenuation of the second story only is
required: Regular wall without openings facing the freeway, and 1/4 inch
thick glass in the side windows. The only condition for allowing windows
at the rear will be to use double pane windows with a minimum spacing of
2 inches between the pane sash. Side windows must be similar, and air
conditioning is a necessity if 2-story homes are constructed.
Commissioner Schier wanted to know if the Planning Commission could use their
o--wn judgment based on discussions here as to what we feel an acceptable sound
level on this development due to lack of legislation.
Commissioner Kennedy was concerned about the quality of air? Mr. Lenorovitz
~eplie~ that the homes would be less than 100' from the freeway. Emi~si~hs~
are definitely a problem but outside of the control of the city.
Opened public hearing at 9:35 p.m.
~erry Klein, President K&W Development Korporation stated they did not plan
to use FHA or VA financing; the reason for requesting 2-story homes is to
get some diversity into the sign, market demand and aesthetic reasons.
PC Minutes
4/28/75
Page 6
Mr. Fleagle asked the Commission to see if it is the intent of the developer
to have continuous 2-story homes along the freeway, or is it the intent to
have them interspersed. Will there be more 2-story homes adjacent to each other
at any one point along the tract boundary.
Mr. Klein replied that it is their intent to have them interspersed with no
more than 2 adjacent to each other and will be fully air conditioned.
Closed public hearing at 9:50 p.m.
Commissioner Kennedy was interested in the effect of family living this
~lose to the freeway. Is the City liable if people are poisoned from the air?
Mr. Flea~e replied that as far as the City's liability there is none. The
developer does retain a liability. The buyer is furnished a copy of the sub-
division report by the State Real Estate Commissioner. This report addresses
the evaluation of the project as related to noise and certification of
attenuation measures of the structure. As far as backyard noise levels and
air pollution factors, there is nothing beyond what is proposed--the barrier
and wall which makes it compatible with our standards.
Commissioner Schier stated that since the 2-story has sufficient sound
attenuation acc~rding to Dr. Hilliard to get inside levels down, he recommends
that we approve the tract homes as they are now presented but with the
qualification that we believe the attenuation measures are insufficient for
the outside of the home and that anything else that can be done to remedy or
reduce the levels in accordance with the noise element of the general plan
should be considered.
Er. Fleagle asked the developer if he would have any objection to the
elimination of the 2-story homes on those 16 lots which back up to the freeway
which are separated by the road and whether or not it would be feasible to
eliminate the 2-story homes on those lots, or 5 homes out of 417
Mr. Klein replied that we prefer to have the option of placing 2-story homes
on ~ lots that back up to the freeway.
Moved by Dukleth, seconded by Schier to limit one-story homes on the lots
%~5~-back up to the freeway 1 thru 13, lot 26 could be 2-story, and 50%
suitable mix of 2-story and single-story homes on the remaining lots, with
not more than 2 2-story homes adjacent to each other.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0
In response to Mr. Klein's request to expedite the approval of this amendment,
Mr. Flea~le replie~' that staff will prepare a resolution incorporating the
findings of the Commission, which will be on the agenda for adoption at their
next regular meeting. If the Commission adopts the resolution, it will then
go to the City Council's agenda the next Monday for their approval. The
final tract map has yet to be filed, which requires Planning Commission and
City Council approval which is required by State law.
PUBLIC CONCERNS - None
OLD BUSINESS
1. Authority for Change of Use to restaurant operation
Mr. Fleaale reported that the Commission on April 14 considered the request
of the Heritage House owners for authorization to convert an office building,
delicatessen and liquor store to the additional use of a sit-down restaurant,
with minimum parking accommodations. The matter was continued until tonight'~
meeting for the purpose of contacting the adjoining property owners who have
filed complaints, and giving them an opportunity to voice their concerns.
Mr. Harry Carter has requested further continuance until May 12, 1975 in order
for Mr. William Zink to also be present at the Commission meeting.
Commissioner Dukleth asked David Baade, attorney, representing Amalgamated
Restaurants, Inc. if an architect has ever been retained to analyze the
structure and determine if there are any possible UBC violations?
Mr. Baade replied negative.
PC Minutes
4/28/75
Page 7
Mr. Flea~le asked whether the manager or owners or anyone related to the
property know at what time the dishwashing facilities were placed in the
building? What time, what permit, what authority and to whose satisfaction?
Mr. Baade replied at least 90 days prior to October 1974.
Harry. Carte~, 171 N. Tustin Avenue requested this hearing be continued
to May 12, 1975 in order for Mr. Zink to be heard in this case, as he has
a particular problem in relation to his business which is located at 131 N.
Tustin Avenue.
Mrs. ~arry Carter, 171 N. Tustin Avenue showed photographs that illustrated
continued parking violations by customers and employees of the Heritage
House. She also asked continuance in order for Mr. Zink to be present.
Moved by Schier, seconded by Dukleth, to continue meeting until May 12, 1975.
At the request of the Planning Commission, the City Attorney has been
requested to furnish an opinion in reference to the requirements for
handicapped persons.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0
NEW BUSINESS - None
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None
CORRESPONDENCE
1. Orange County Zone Change 75-11
Mr. Flea~le reported that the Orange County Environmental Management Agency
~as received a zone change from Orange County changing E-4 district to
R-1 District for the property occupied by the Trinity Presbyterian Church
at 17th and Prospect. No justification nor explanation was given for the
proposed zone change although expansion of the church site is a probability.
The proposed zone change action would thus be for the purpose of bringing
the church into conformity with the zoning classification. A more appro-
priate action would be the creation of a zoning classification that
accurately portrays the authorized use, such as the P&I District that
has been adopted and implemented by the City of Tustin.
Moved by Schier, seconded by Dukleth that staff respond to the County of
Orange with the proposal that a classification be established for public,
semi-public and institutional uses and that the appropriate action would
be to so classify the Trinity Presbyterian Church in said district.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0
STAFF CONCERNS
Amendment to Sign Ordinance Relating to Professional Office Buildings.
Mr. Lenorovitz stated that the Sign Ordinance does not contain a provision
allowing for a sign on each street frontage in the case where a professional
office is located on a corner lot.
Moved by Kennedy, se~.onded.~¥ Schier to authorize staff by minute order to
~nit~ate an amendment to {he Sign Ordinance to allow for sign identity on'
each street frontage when an instance exists such as a building on a corner
which would need two signs.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0
PC Minutes
4/28/75
Page 8
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Schier inquired as to the reasons for the 15' setback and
as to whether or not this was a hinderance to redevelopment. Mr. Flea$1e
responded that there would be no setback requirement where the redevelopment
extended from E1 Camino Real to the next through street. Where there is a
rear alley, the setback facilitates refuse and service entrances,
especially if the frontage is pedestrian oriented.
Moved by Hill, seconded by Schier to adjourn at 11 p.m. to the next
regular' meeting of the Planning Commission.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0
P ~.~N%NV~fFOM_M I S S I~gN C ~-IA I RMAN
/
PLANN~G COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY