HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 2 USE PERMIT 80-3 12-07-81December 7, 1901 Inter-Corn
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Chairman and Planning Agency Members
Community Development Department
Use Permit 80-3
Location: Southeasterly corner of Irvine and Holt Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
In March of 1980, the Planning Agency authorized the development of 44,476
square foot office/2,000 square foot retail building by approving Use Permit
No. 80-3. At the March 2, 1981 meeting, the Planning Agency authorized a one
year extension of the Use Permit.
Item number II. M. of approving Resolution No. 1875 stated:
"That the final site plan, parking layout, and building elevations
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Agency prior to
the submission of construction plans for plan check."
The applicant has submitted a slightly modified site and elevation plans for
Agency consideration.
DISCUSSION:
The modification from the original proposal include the following:
a) The total building square footage (gross) has been changed as
indicated below:
b)
March '80
offices 45,220
retail 2,000
47,220
Parking counts have changed as follows:
Modification
45,536
1,708
47,244 (+24 sq.ft.)
March '80 Modification
standard.size lg§ 163
compact 48 (20%) 79 (32.2%)
handicap 2 2
Totals 245 244 (-1)
Planning Agency Members
Report/Use Permit 80-3
12/7/81 - Page 2
In addition, a small amount of landscaping in the parking area has
been deleted. The minimum parking requirements for the complex should
be 242. Resolution No. 1875 required 248 spaces due to the ability of
the site to accommodate that number.
c)
The height of the structure has been reduced to the required 46' to
top of parapet (item II. J.). The building footprint has been
enlarged, however in order to retain the same floor area. The
building has been "filled in" at the corner (Irvine & Holt) and added
to at the east elevation. The expansion of the easterly elevation
caused the removal of standard parking spaces along that side.
d) At the 3rd story level, an open patio deck has been provided on the
easterly elevation.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
a) The parking quantity does satisfy minimum requirements for the
proposed areas and uses.
b) The percentage of compact spaces does exceed the suggested minimum of
the City's development guidelines.
c) The building height of 46' to parapet wall does eatisfy the maximum
authorized by Use Permit 80-3.
d)
The style of architecture is unchanged from the previous review by the
Planning Agency with a glass and brick facade. As staff reported in
the Use Permit analysis, this will be a new style for Tustin; one
which will give an urban look to the area.
e)
The reduction in height and retention of the floor areas was
accomplished by expansion of the building footprint and increasing of
the number of co,act size parking spaces over standard spaces.
f) An additonal protective landscape island should be provided at the end
of the row parking near Irvine Boulevard.
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Agency believes the amended plan is in substantial conformance with the
initial approval, it is recommended that the parking requirements be changed,
by minute order from 248 to 244. Precise review of landscaping, sign, and site
plans should be reviewed by the City staff.
AGW/mi
Development Review Summary
Location/District:
Action:
Building:
Front Setback
Side Setback
Rear Setback
Gross Sq. Ft.
Net Floor Sq. Ft.
Height
Number of Stories
Materials/Colors
Lot Size
Lot Coverage
Parking:
Number of Spaces
Ratio {space/sq. ft.)
% Compact Spaces
Type
District Requirement Proposed
'
Ac.Tlou
3.07 ARS C ~,~.)
No. of Public Notifications:
(Owners) IkIm~Jm t.~rrt~ q-Ni~ ~FW~t~ I~-~-I~l
* no standard
TUSTIN PLANNING AG.[NCY
Minutes of Regular and Continued Meetings
March 3, 1980
The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, March 3, 1980, in the
Council Chambers of the Tustin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, Cali-
Fornia.
The meeting was called to order at 3:03· p.m. by Chairman Schuster.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mrs. Kennedy and the invocation
was given by Mr. Saltarelli.
ROLL CALL
Present: Saltarelli~ Kennedy, Welsh,
Absent:
Also present:
Chairman Schuster; Agency members:
and Sharp
None
Dan BI. ankenship, City Administrator
Mike Brotemarkle, Corrmunity Development Director
Alan Warren~ Senior Planner
James Rourke, City Attorney
Midge Mehl, Recording Secretary
Other staff members:
General audience:
MI NUTES
The minu,es of the regular meeting held February lg, 1980 were approved as
revised (page lO)~ and wi~hofhe waiving of reading same.
CONT!NUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
on: Southeasterly corner of Irvine Boulevard and Holt Avenue
Request: Authorization for construction of an office building.
Mr. Brofemarkle said this request was For a ~5,000 square foot office bui ding
and had been continued in order to allow the applicant to redesign the building
to meet the concerns voiced by the Planning Agency. The original request was
for four stories in height and over 60' in height. The current plan would re-
tain the same architecture, however, the height has been reduced to 46' fo top
of the third story, in lieu of four stories. The 46' would not include the
mechanical equipment which would be another 4 to 8 Feet in height. The parking
plan would afford an additional 8 spaces. The applicant had only one request
on the condiflons; that if the Agency were to approve this request that condi-
tion · 11M of Resolution No. 1875 be modified to stipulate that the project
would be approved subject to final development plans being reviewed by the
Corrrnunify Development Department for substantial conformance to plans, as
approved at this meeting.
The Agency asked questions about the present code height limit~ investigation
of re-doing the entire parcel, including the Don Jos~Restauranf; consideration
to relocating the proposed building in regard to setbacks;.and total number of
parking spaces.
Mr. Bro,emarkle explained ,he setback had been discussed with the applicant
and due to the long-standing lease lines which come right up to the proposed
strucufre, ,hey have no ability to cross ,hat lease line wlthou, a negofia,ed
agreement wi,h Don Jose~ The only agreement with the restaurant concerns the
parking being mutually u, illzed by bo,h properties. They are prac, ically cover-
ing their entire lot with the building and they have no additional property to
relocate the building.
Mr. Schuster asked if the Flower shop dispute had been settled.
Mr. Brofemarkle said that would be primarily a relationship between fhe tenant
and landlord which the City would not be involved in and was not currently
Planning Agency
Minutes - March 3, 1980
page 2.
finalized.
Chairman Schus,er .~eclared ,he continued hearing open and asked if there was
anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition.
Mr. Phillip Schwartze, representing Burnett-Ehline~ said they felt they had
responded to the concerns of the Agency. The proposed parking was in excess
of c~de requirement; traffic circulation is good; and he wguld like fo dis-
play some additional drawings at this time. The flower shop, he said, would
continue fo be free-standing during construction and when the flower shop
moved in their existing building would be demolished.
Mrs. Kennedy asked if the square footage of the flower shop building had been
included in the square footage and if there was some protection that the build-
ing would cOme down upon compretion of the proposed'building.
Mr. Brotemarkle said it would be brought back to the Agency to see if we have
sufficlent parking to meet the needs of both uses, if the shop were not re--
moved. The exist-ing f.lower shop is not as large as t.he one proposed in.the new
structure, so if would.fend fo push them right fo code rather than have excess
parking spaces. However, if the existing 2,000 square feet were utilized
for office rather than commercial~ as proposed~ that would also reduce their re-
quired parking. It is hoped that fha flower shop will relocate info the new
building and the free-standing older building would be demolished.
Mr. Saltarelli said he Pelt that should be a stipulated condition.
Ms. Barbara Parker said she was the tenant of the flower shop in question and fo
date they had'not reached an agreement and she had not given up her lease to the
flov.'er shOP.
There being no one else who wished to speak, Chairman Schuster declared the
pub.llc hearing closed.
Mr. Sharp ques,ioned condi,ion ~11. M in the resolution.
Mr. Brotemarkle said that condition was imposed as staff did Oot have a final
heic.~t plan for review. Therefore, the condition now reads that the final site
plan would come back to the Agency for review. .
Mr. Sharp asked if there would be any problem with the condi'tion remaining as
it cow reads.
~r. Brotemarkle said no, there would be no problem.
~OTION by Saltarelli, SECONDED by Sharp, to approve Use Permit 80-3 as pre-
sented with the following stipulations: that the.condition II M remain as
now ~ritten~ with the Planning Agency to have final approval of the site plan
including that the parking lot design shall be approved by the Planning Agency~
and an additional condition to state that an agreement concerning removal of
the existing flower shop be developed for review by the Agency prior to issu-
ance of permits.
Mr. Saltarelli said he unders,ood ,he problem between ,he tenant and landowner,
bur felt the Ci,y needed a pro,ec,ive clause if tho, free--s,anding flower shop
building was to remain there; ,hat ,he proposed new building should have an
equivalent reduction from ,he approved plan of say [,200 square fee,. He said
he would like ,o see ,ha, building removed~ bu, he realized that was a civil
matter.
h~rs. Kennedy said she was s, ill concerned about fha 46' height, the size of
the'lo~, the way it sits on the edge of the property, and she would like ad-
'ditional'time to review this site plan which she had lust received this after-
noon. She said she would llke to offer a substitute motion to continue Use
Permit 803 for one more meeting so the Agency could review these site plans.
There was no second fo the motion.
Mt.Welsh voiced his concern on the height of the building and the architectural
design, and said it was not compatible with the character of Tustin.
Chairman Schuster asked the pleasure of the Agency on the motion.
AYES:
NOES:
Sharp, Saltarelli~ and Schuster
Kennedy and Welsh