Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.C. MINUTES 10-20-82 (2)TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular Meeting October 4, 1982 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, October 4, 1982, at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Edgar at 3:04 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Greinke and the invocation was given by Mr. Hoesterey. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also present: Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli None William Huston, City Manager Michael Brotemarkle, Community Development Director Robert Ledendecker, Director of Public Works James Rourke, City Attorney Janet Hester, Recording Secretary MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting held September 20, 1982, were approved as submitted. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. VARIANCE 82-10 Applicant: Location: Request: Philltp B.Schindler 15601 Newport Avenue Authorization to va~ with Zoning Code provisions to develop a lot of substandard width and to construct a driveway apron not in conformance with City standards. After presentation of the staff report, Mrs. Kennedy moved to delay consideration of the item until Mr. Whitney Sharpe, owner of the neighboring property, was present. Mr. Hoesterey seconded. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC CONCERNS: Realizing many in the audience were present to speak for the Public Concerns portion of the agenda, Chairman Edgar moved ahead to that item. Betty Wagner, Housing Referral Representative, E1 Toro Marine Base, stated she had received many complaints from military personnel who were residents of the Windsor Gardens apartments. The complaints were a direct result of the condominium conversion process and included; serious lack of parking because of demolition of carports, no notice of conversion, patio doors boarded up, pool closed, water being turned off without notice, threats of eviction from manager, and chain link fencing. Lt. Anderson, Windsor Gardens resident, stated he felt the fencing created a fire hazard and fire trucks would not have access to the rear apartments. Dave Hudson, Windsor Gardens resident, stated he felt the residents had been lied to about the construction schedule. He had been told the carports would not be torn down until the new parking structure was complete. Fencing and barricades presented a fire hazard and parking was a serious problem. Planning Agency Minutes October 4, 1982 Page 2 Chairman Edgar asked Mr. Brotemarkle if Cai-State Associates, the developer of the project, was complying with conditions of the permit to convert. Mr. Brotemarkle stated that Cai-State had not anticipated such a high (almost 100%) occupancy rate during the conversion process and had hoped more people would take advantage of the relocation benefits before construction began. The Fire and Building Departments had inspected the complex and determined the patio doors were convenience accesses, and the fencing was required by Cal OSHA to keep people away from the hole being dug for the new parking structure. The fencing is secured with special locks that the emergency services can break to gain access. Cai-State was required to loop the water system in order to provide continuous availability during construction. Cai-State would not evict any tenant for con~laining, most of the co~ments regarding eviction threats seemed to revolve around the manager of the complex. Cai-State was complying with the conditions set forth and though problems had been expected, not to the degree experienced because of the high occupancy rate. Chairman Edgar asked if staff had any suggestions. Mr. Brotemarkle replied staff had looked into the possibility of leasing parking space and also temporarily eliminating red curbing along Mitchell. The Public Works Department felt City liability would be too great if the red curbing was temporarily waived. Mrs. Kennedy asked why people haven't moved. Betty Wagner stated that many of the tenants were not eligible for relocation benefits and could not afford to move. Debra Toman, Windsor Garden resident, stated that when she rented the apartment, she was not told about the conversion. She could not afford to move. Richard Weiss, Windsor Gardens resident, stated he had been told the conversion would not start for at least a year. He had signed a waiver of relocation benefits, but it did not give a specific date for the construction to start. He stated there were four dompsters for 70 people, parking was a serious problem, emergency vehicles did not have access to the rear apartments, a rain would cause buildings to slide into the hole being dug for the parking structure, and the children had no place to play as the playground had been torn up. He also could not afford to move. Carmen Lesack, Windsor Gardens resident, stated a neighbor had found a dead rat. Mrs. Kennedy suggested perhaps a committee made up of the City Manager, a representative of Cai-State, and representatives of the tenants, could be formed to work out solutions. Chairman Edgar asked Mr. Ledendecker if the red curbing could be te~orarily waived. Mr. Ledendecker replied, it was staff's recommendation not to remove the red curbing as the liability to the City would be too.great. Chairman Edgar asked Mr. Brotemarkle if the conversion was to be phased so as to eliminate problems such as parking. Mr. Brotemarkle stated it was not one of the conditions of approval. Planning Agency Minutes October 4, 1982 Page 3 Mr. Saltarelli stated he believed some concrete directions could be established to at least temporarily solve problems. He discussed five areas needing attention: 1. Trash: Either more dumpsters should be provided or pick up frequency increased; 2. Parking: See if more parking can be made available on Mitchell temporarily, with signage and patrol, or obtain temporary parking on other property (e.g., Stater Bros.) 3. Cai-State, he felt, should refund deposits to those wishing to leave inmmdiately so they had money to go; 4. Check on a case by case basis to see what parties are entitled to relocation benefits; and 5. Ask the contractor or City to have someone on a permanent basis to look out for the general safety and everything else while construction goes on. It was determined Item 5 should be at the developer's expense. Mr. Greinke asked if that was a motion. Mr. Saltarelli so moved, seconded by Mr. Greinke. Chairman Edgar requested Ms. Wagnerwork with staff as part of the motion in trying to solve problems and that staff report at the next regular meeting on the progress made. Mr. Hoesterey stated that Cai-State should have a better line of communication with the apartment manager to ensure she is following their direction. Motion carried: 5-0 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: EDGAR, GREINKE, HOESTEREY, KENNEDY SALTARELLI None None Chairman Edgar adjourned the meeting to the City Council at 3:50 p.m. and re-convened to the Planning Agency at 3:55 p.m. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. VARIANCE 82-10 Chairman Edgar opened the Public Hearing at 3:55 p.m. Phillip Schindler, applicant, stated there were driveways in the City smaller than what he was proposing, that his development would not add significantly to the traffic in the area, and when he purchased the property it was his understanding the property was, and would remain, under the jurisdtcation of the County. He asked why the City connected the parcel to the sewer if it was considered unbuildable. Whitney Sharp, owner of the neighboring business, asked how the City could consider the property buildable now when it was not considered such before. The Public Hearing was closed at 4:02 p.m. Mr. Gretnke moved denial, Mrs. Kennedy seconded, of Variance 82-10. Mr. Hoesterey stated he felt it was a good proposal for development of that site. The architectural theme was in keeping with what the City wanted and the structure would serve as a landmark for Tustin. Mrs. Kennedy felt the hardship resulting from the size and location of the property was self-imposed and would create a traffic hazard. Mr. Saltarelii suggested perhaps the City could offer to buy the land at appraised value. Planning Agency Minutes October 4, 1982 Page 4 Chairman Edgar stated that the driveways which were smaller than City standard had been grandfathered in. Motion carried: 3-2 AYES: EDGAR, GREINKE, KENNEDY NOES: HOESTEREY, SALTARELLI ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. USE PERMIT 82-27 Applicant: Location: Request: A.F. MacDonald 14982 Prospect (northeast corner of Prospect & First Street) Authorization for a pole sign of twenty-five (25) square feet and for the use of the property as a minor tune up center with the sale of propane gasoline After presentation of the staff report, Mr. Brotemarkle stated the staff recommendation was to continue the item to the next meeting to give staff and the applicant time to work out design considerations. The Public Hearing was opened at 4:15 p.m. Mr. A. MacDonald, applicant, stated he was willing to abide by most of staff's recommendations. He had purchased the business and obtained a business license before he realized a use permit was necessary to operate. He felt it would not be feasible for him to move the bay doors to the back of the building, as staff had suggested, because of cost. He stated he wanted to withdraw the request to sell propane. He intended to get the tune up portion of the business running smoothly before taking on additional responsibilities. Mrs. Kennedy asked if his operation would be noisy. Mr. MacDonald replied it would not. Mr. Greinke spoke to encourage the sale of propane as he felt there was a need for it in the community. The Public Hearing was closed at 4:24 p.m. Mr. Saltarelli moved, Mr. Gretnke seconded, approval of Use Permit 82-27 with the conditions that the sale of propane woutd be allowed subject to review, that conditions 2, 4 and 5 of the staff report be incorporated into the resolution of approval, and that staff review the final plans and bring them before the Agency if necessary. Motion carried: 5-0 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: EDGAR, GREINKE, HOESTEREY, KENNEDY SALTARELLI None None 2. USE PERMIT 82-28 Applicant: Location: Request: Frank Ohlgren on behalf of Larwin Square Limited 618 E. First Street Authorization to install thirty (30) video game machines as an arcade Mr. Brotemarkle presented the staff report stating the City had received no complaints about the recently approved Ski Fever arcade. No complaints had been received from the tenants of Larwin Square and the owner of the center was willing to allow the arcade. Planning Agency Minutes October 4, 1982 Page 5 Chairman Edgar opened the Public Hearing at 4:30 p.m. Mrs. Kennedy moved approval, Chairman Edgar seconded, of Use Permit 82-28 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2064. Mr. Saltarelli suggested the motion be amended to include a review in one year. Mrs. Kennedy and Chairman Edgar agreed to the amended motion. Motion carried: 5-0 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3. VARIANCE 82-1! EDGAR, GREINKE, HOESTEREY, KENNEDY SALTARELLI None None Applicant: Location: Request: James Lewis on behalf of Lewis Property 14772 Plaza Drive Authorization to allow architectural projections into the front and sideyard setback areas for a proposed office building After presentation of the staff report, Chairman Edgar opened the Public Hearing at 4:42 p.m. A representative of Lewis Properties, Inc., presented himself to the Agency for any questions they may have. Chairman Edgar closed the Public Hearing at 4:43 p.m. Mrs. Kennedy moved approval, Mr. Greinke secOnded, of Variance 82-11 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2063. Motion carried: 5-0 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: EDGAR, GREINKE, HOESTEREY, KENNEDY SALTARELLI None None PUBLIC CONCERNS: None other than heard previously. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Resolution of Approval for Use Permit 82-22'(Heritage House) Mr. Saltarelli moved adoption, Mr. Greinke seconded, of Resolution No. 2062. Motion carried: 3-2 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: EDGAR, GREINKE, SALTARELLI HOESTEREY, KENNEDY None Mr. Brotemarkle informed the Agency that an appeal of the approval had been filed by the owner of the property to the south. NEW BUSINESS: None, STAFF CONCERNS: None, AGENCY CONCERNS: Mr. Saltarelli expressed concern over recently signed legislation authorizing the development of the "bullet train" from Los Angeles to San Diego which would give the State the authority to condemn private Planning Agency Minutes October 4, 1982 Page 6 and public property without a public hearing. This would affect Tustin as the proposed route would follow Interstate 5 which goes through the City. Mr. Saltarelli asked that staff and the City Attorney follow up to find out what is going on. Mr. Huston said staff knew nothing other than what was in the newspaper but understood that a movement was in progress to have the legislation reviewed. He felt the City should write a letter. Mr. Saltarelli also asked staff to look into the possibi.lity of taxing video machines. Mr. Hoesterey asked why Mr. MacDonald would have been issued a license to operate before having approval for the use permit. Mr. Huston stated that was why the business license division had been moved to the Community Development Department. There would be better assurance of businesses meeting zoning and other codes. ADJOURNMENT: At 4:46 p.m. to the next regular meeting. Richard B. Edgar, Chairman Janet Hester Recording Secretary