The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 04-04-88ACTION AGENDA TUSTZN PLANNZNG COHHZSSZON REPORTS NO. 1 4-4-88 REGULAR MEETZNG MARCH 28, 1988 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ZNVOCAT[ON ROLL CALL: Present: Puckett, ~etl, Baker, Le deune, Ponttous PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the March 14, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting ~tsstoner Ponttous moved, Le 3eune seconded to approve the mtnutes of the Karch 14, 1988 meeting. Notlon carrled 4-0-1 (Weli abstained). 2. Permit to Operate a Large Family Day Care. Home APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: REQUEST: CLEATUS ANN POTTS 1862 PENNINGTON AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 FRED KINNER 14792 RIDGEBORO PLACE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 1862 PENNINGTON AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL-SINGLE FAMILY AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Chairman inquire if any person in the audience wishes to submit a protest, and then accept any protests submitted. If a orotest is lodged, then the matter should be continued to the next regularly :heduled Commission meeting in order for staff to evaluate the protest. If a .,forest is not filed, the Commission should approve the subject application without further discussion by Minute Order subject to compliance with all requirements.of Ordinance g91. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Planning Commission Action Agenda March 28, 1988 ~age two Commissioner Puckett moved, Le ~eune seconded to lssue a permit to operate a Large eamtly Day Care Center at 1862 Penntngton, by Ntnute Order. Motion carrted 5-0. 3. General Plan Conformity for Peters Canyon Regional Park RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2480 Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Commissioner Puckett moved, Ponttous seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2480 ftndtng that the proposed Peters Canyon Regtonal Park ts tn conformance with the Tusttn Area General Plan. Plotlon carrled 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Use Permit No. 87-29 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: £NV IRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: STEELCASE 1123 WARNER AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 PC-M (PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTIAL) AN APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN FILED FOR THIS PROJECT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON USE PERMIT NO. 87-29 TO MAY 23, 1988. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on subject project until the May 23, 1988 meeting. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development C~tsstoner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to continue the public hearing for Use P=,,::FIL~ to the ~i 23, 1988 meeting. Tqotton carried 5-0 5. Variance 88-3 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENV I RONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: INNOVATIVE GRAPHICS, INC. 833 N. ELM STREET ORANGE, CA 92668 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY 4833 FOUNTAIN AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CA 90029 1451 IRVINE BOULEVARD AT THE INTERSECTION OF RED HILL AVENUE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PR) CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 11 TO PERMIT A TENANT IDENTIFICATION MONUMENT AND WALL SIGN RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission table this matter. Planning Commission Action Agenda March 28, 1988 ~age three Presentation' Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development Commtstsoner Puckett ~mved, Pontious seconded to table thts matter as tt will return to the Commission on the Apr11 11, 1988 meeting as Use Permit No. 88-7. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Variance No. 88-4 APPLICANT- LOCATION' REQUEST' ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS' SIGN ARTS, INC. 2900 E. SATURN BREA, CALIFORNIA 92621 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BRYAN AVENUE AND JAMBOREE ROAD APPROVAL OF A 19 FOOT HIGH, 144 SQUARE FOOT "FUTURE FACILITIES" SIGN ADVERTISING OPENING OF THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE, PHASE I. THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15303, CLASS 3) FROM THE PROVISIONS OF CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner ~omtssloner Puckett moved, Pontious seconded to approve the temporary sign at the sou*.-~C corner ot~,L~ian Avenue .and Jambor-~-Road by the adoption of Resolution No, 2484 as revtsed, Motion carrted 5-0, 7. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-4 - Cultural Resources District RECOMMENDATION- It is recommended that the Planning Commission review proposed modification to Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-4 and adopt Resolution No. 2481, recommending the proposed changes to the City Council. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development C~tsstoner Baker moved, Pontious seconded to continue Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the A,,~:~m~J~~,~'~.jj~gmjjg Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. C~tssioner Puckett ~ved, Le Jeune seconded to direct staff, by Minute Order, to renotice, identify issues, and concurrently notice the continuance of the City Counctl meeting to Aprtl 18, 1988. Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS 8. Outdoor Dining Areas Oresentation: Joel Slavit, Assistant Planner Co~issioner Le Jeune ~mved, Baker seconded to continue establishing Outdoor Seating Guidelines using Alternative No. 2 as a guide. Motion carried 5-0. Plannlng Commission Actton Agenda March 28, 1988 Oage four 9. Comments on Draft EIR 88-1 for Western Neuro Care Center Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development The Com~isston gave verbal co~ments on the EIR. No other Commri sst on was necessary. NL~d BUSINESS 10. Santa Ana Planning Commission Tour Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Communlty Development No Commission action necessary. ST/U:F CONCERNS Ii. Report on Ctty Counctl actions of March gl, 1988 meeting Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development No Comd ston action necessary. :OMMI SS ION CONCERNS AOJOURmENT At 9:20 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Puckett seconded to adjourn to the nex~ regular Planntng Comdsston Wieettng on Aprtl 11, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. -AGENDA' TUSTIN PLANNING COHMISSION REGULAR NEETING RARCH 28, 1988 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Puckett, Weil, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontious PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE. DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the March 14, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting 2. Permit to Operate a Large Family Day Care Home APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: REQUEST: CLEATUS ANN POTTS 1862 PENNINQTON AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680. FRED KINNER 14792 RIDGEBORO PLACE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 1862 PENNINGTON AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL-SINGLE FAMILY AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Chairman inquire if any person in the audience wishes to submit a protest, and then accept any protests submitted. If a protest is lodged, then the matter should be continued to the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting in order for staff-to evaluate the protest. If a protest is not filed, the Commission should approve the subject application without -%rther discussion by Minute Order subject to compliance with all requirements of dinance 991. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Planning Commission Agenda March 28, 1988 '-'ge two 3. General Plan Conformity for Peters Canyon Regional Park Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner PUBLIC HEARING 4. Use Permit No. 87-29 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENV I RONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: · STEELCASE 1123 WARNER AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 PC-M (PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTIAL) AN APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN FILED FOR THIS PROJECT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON USE PERMIT NO. 87-29 TO MAY 23, 1988. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on Isubject _~roject until the May 23, 1988 meeting. .. ,'esentation- Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development 5. Variance 88-3 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: INNOVATIVE GRAPHICS, INC. 833 N. ELM STREET ORANGE, CA 92668 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY 4833 FOUNTAIN AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CA 90029 14511RVINE BOULEVARD AT THE INTERSECTION OF RED HILL AVENUE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PR) CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 11 TO PERMIT A TENANT IDENTIFICATION MONUMENT AND WALL SIGN RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission table this matter. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development 6. Variance No. 88-4 -~PPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: SIGN ARTS, INC. 2900 E. SATURN BREA, CALIFORNIA 92621 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BRYAN AVENUE AND JAMBOREE ROAD APPROVAL OF A 19 FOOT HIGH, 144 SQUARE FOOT "FUTURE FACILITIES" SIGN ADVERTISING OPENING OF THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE, PHASE I. Planning Commission Agenda March 28, 1988 ~mage three E NV I RO NM E NTAL STATUS: THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15303, CLASS 3) FROM THE PROVISIONS OF CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner 7. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-4 -~Cultural Resources District RECOMMENDATION: It is recommen, ded that the Planning Commission review proposed modification to Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-4 and adopt Resolution No. 2481, recommending the proposed changes to the City Council. Presentation' Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development OLD BUSINESS 8. Outdoor Dining Areas Presentation: Joel Slavit, Assistant Planner · Comments on Dr.aft EIR 88-1 for Western Neuro Care Center Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Commun.ity Development NEW BUSINESS 10. Santa Aha Planning Commission Tour Presentation' ,Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development STAFF CONCERNS 11. Report on City Council actions of March 21, 1988 meeting Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development COMMISSION CONCERNS AOJOURNMENT Adjourn to the next regular Planning Commission Meeting on April 11, 1988 at 7:30 pomo MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 14, 1988 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Puckett, Le Jeune, Pontious' Absent:- Wei l, Baker PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPE~AK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the February 22, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting 2. Final Tract Map 13053 Request: TO SUBDIVIDE 24.359 ACRES INTO 118 NUMBERED AND THREE (3) LETTERED LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the approval of Final Tract Map 13053 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2478 as submitted or revised. 3. Final Tract Map 13080 Request: AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 14.65 ACRES INTO 100 NUMBERED AND EIGHT {8) LETTERED LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend aproval of Final Tract Map No. 13080 to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2477 as submitted or revised. ,ommissioner Le Jeune moved, Pontious seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 3-0. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1988 F~--~ two PUBLIC HEARING · Permit to Operate a Large Family Day Care Home APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: REQUEST: BARBARA C. MARMOL 1952 JAN MARIE PLACE TUSTIN, CA 92680 HERMAN ACEVEDO 637 1/2 W. KELSO INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA 90301 1952 JAN MARIE PLACE TUSTIN, CA 92680 R-4: MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner The public hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. Mr. A. R. Bingaman, 13861 Browning Avenue spoke against the home. He indicated that ~he facility interfered with his peace and tranquility. He noted concern regarding additional noise created by the facility and asked if the property owner had been ...cified. He then asked if there was a notarized statement from the property owneU releasing permission to operate on this property. Commissioner Puckett asked what hours Mr. Bingaman worked and if he had ever had an occasion to complain in the past. Mr. Bingaman noted that he works from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. and that he had once complained to Orange County before the area was annexed into the City of Tustin, however, recently the facility had been relatively quiet. The public hearing was closed at 7:42 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the government mandates that if no negative impacts are found this type of permit cannot be denied. Commissioner Puckett agreed. Commissioner Puckett moved, Pontious seconded to approve, by Minute Order, a permit to operate a Large Family Day Care Home at 1952 Jan Marie Place. Motion carried 3-0. >lannlng Commission Minutes ~,-ch 14, 1988 e three Variance No. 88-02 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: INTEGRATED SIGN ASSOCIATES 10845-D WHEATLANDS AVENUE, STE. D SANTEE, CA 92071 HOME FEDERAL 625 BROADWAY SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 18231 IRVINE BOULEVARD AT THE INTERSECTION OF HOLT AVENUE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PR) CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 11 TO PERMIT A TENANT IDENTIFICATION MONUMENT SIGN. Resolution No. 2472 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. 88-2 FOR HOME FEDERAL SAVINGS AT IRVINE BOULEVARD AND HOLT , AVENUE. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission deny Variance No. 88-2 by adoption of Resolution No. 2472. Presentation: Joel Slavit, Assistant Planner The public hearing wsa opened at 7:47 p.m. Mr. Kurt Bauer, representing Integrated Sign Associates, noted it was his feeling that the design will have positive impacts. He noted that there was a building mix of both commercial and office tenants. He also stated that the sign is designed to give a professional look to the building and described the components. He felt that the impact of this sign would be small. He also,noted that the Craddock and Courtyard are different types of buildings. He indicated that the landlord had agreed to rename the building the Home Federal Building due to the recognition involved. He stated that in the surounding environment there are nine Savings & Loans and banks, seven of those have pole signs or monument signs larger than this proposal. He felt the sign was consistent with the design, size and materials that would benefit the tenants due to name recognition. He noted that the existing building sign does not have adequate visibility to the east bound traffic. Commissioner Puckett clarified the direction of the improper identification. Mr. Bauer indicated that the visibility was inadequate for westbound Irvine Boulevard traffic. Staff clarified that signage is normally provided on the side of the building that that tenant occupies. There was an exception granted in 1986 that was in addition to what the code already allowed. A tenant identification monument must be a single tenant with an occupancy of 5000 square feet or more. The Director noted that other st gnage referred to by the applicant are not in the same district as the proposed sign. The subject property designation is PR. Planning Commission Minutes · March 14, 1988 age four Mr. Bauer noted that the strict application of the code under professional only allowed six square feet to identify a building, major commercial users require more i denti fi cati on. Mr. Tom Hunter, representing Home Federal, summarized that they feel that they need additional si gnage at the west bound front entrance in the parking lot. They. want to identify the westbound traveler on Holt. He indicated that the property owner would like to rename the building the Home Federal Building and use the monument sign as aa identification sign that actually belongs to the building owner. Commissioner Puckett clarified that Home Federal does not occupy 50% of the building. Mr'. Hunter confirmed that they occupy less than 5,000 square feet and noted that the sign would be used as a building identification sign that would be four feet high, three feet wide and be placed behind the setback. Staff clarified that if a tenant occupied less than 50% of the building space they were only allowed signage on the side of the building that is occupied by that tenant. Commissioner Pontious what if the property owner asked for identif, ication of Home federal. The Director noted that there was a clear difference between tenant and center identification, a center identification sign cannot include a tenant name unless that tenant occupies more than 50% of the space. She also noted that the property owner could submit a large address sign.. Mr. Bauer noted that the building is already referred to as "the Home Federal Bui 1 di rig". Staff noted that they understand the problem of the applicant however, the City needs to follow the intent of the code. The public hearing was closed'at 8:08 p.m. Commissioner Pontious noted that she appreciated the position of the applicant however, she was concerned with the establishment of a precedent. Commissioner Puckett remembered a meeting in July, 1986 granting a larger sign. He indicated that the building is known as the Home Federal building with or without a monument sign and would prefer to adhere to the Sign Code. He also did not feel that this request meets the conditions for granting an variance. Commissioner Pontious moved, Le Jeune seconded to deny Variance No. 88-02 by the ~doption of ~esolution No. 24'/2. Motion carried 3-0. Commissioner Baker arrived at 8:10 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1988 '~ge five · 6. Use Permit 87-28 APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENV I RONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: WESTERN NEURO CARE CENTER 165 N. MYRTLE TUSTIN, CA. 92680 CONTINENTAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. O. BOX 715 MECHANICSBERG, PA. 165 N. MYRTLE P & I PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1 TO INSTALL A TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER IN THE REAR PARKING AREA OF AN EXISTING HOSPITAL FACILITY Resolution No. 2473' A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PERMIT 87-28 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 504 SQUARE FOOT TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER AT 165 N. MYRTLE AVENUE, TUSTIN ecommendati on: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 87-38 by the adoption of Resolution 2473 as drafted or revised. Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Associate Planner The public hearing was opened at 8:14 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 8:15 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the permit would be for 24 months and asked if there was any indication that the permitted time frame would be exceeded. Staff responded only if construction took longer than anticipated. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Puckett seconded to approve Use Permit 87-28 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2473. Motion carried 4-0. 7, Use Permit No. 88-5 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL TATUS: REQUEST: VINEYARD CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP 330 W. FIRST STREET TUSTIN FREEWAY COMMERCE CENTER PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PM) AN APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO LOCATE A CHURCH IN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PM) Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1988 'age si x Resolution No. 2474 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA APPROVING USE PERMIT 88-5 TO ALLOW A CHURCH USE IN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PM) AT 330 W' SIXTH STREET Recommendatl on' It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 88-5 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2474 and Negative Declaration hereby attached. Presentation' Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development The Director noted that following changes in Resolution 2474: 1. ~o Part II, add a'condition "Final City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 88-3". 2. To Part II, Item F, add words to read "..weekends and 75 spaces on evenings and Saturdays only subject to review..." 3', To Part II, Item G, 1., add "and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m." 4. To Part II, Item G, 2 and 3., change maximum number of persons to 225. The public hearing was opened at 8:27 p.m. Mr. Josh Stewart, 17851 Bigelow Park, the Senior Pastor of Vineyard Christian Church, )oted that the church can live with everything on the Conditional Use Permit. He felt he was sure that they could enforce the mitigation measures regarding parking and traffic control. He noted his appreciation. COmmissioner Le Jeune, noted that he was not previously aware of Sunday night. services. Mr Stewart, noted that Sunday night is their leader training time. The Director noted that February 19th was. when the City was first made aware of the Sunday nigh't meetings. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the building could hold more than the number of people specified in the use permit. He asked how the number was calculated. The Director noted that the building code does provide for a higher number of occupants than the application shows, however these figures were arrived at by using the numbers provided by the applicant, 359 in the sanctuary and 149 in the classroom. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if those numbers were enforceable. The Director noted that' they were if there were complaints. Commissioner Le Jeune expressed concern regarding the sensitive parking issue. 'he Director noted that the maximun number of seats are tied to parking requirements, if the number of seats are increased, then there must be an increase in parking. Mr. Stewart noted that the 149 are children that do not drive. Commissioner Puckett asked if the 4-8 p.m. hours in the evening are acceptable. Plbnnlng Commission Minutes March !4, !988 ~age seven Mr. Stewart stated that those hours are acceptable. Commissioner Ponttous noted that the church had a five year lease, what if the growth exceeds the accommodations. Mr. Stewart noted that they would either have to obtain more space in the building or build a new church. Richard Vining, 400 W. Main Street, noted that the area has had previous encounters with traffic problems and conl~laints. He indicated that it was important to the neighborhood that controls are established and maintained. Mr. Charles Anderson, 255 W. Sixth Street, referred to an article in the Tustin News stating that the parking lot is deserted On Sunday mornings. He stated that there are businesses operating seven days a week and 24 hours a day. He also noted a concern with the ability to evacuate the building of 150 to 200 people from one door. He also noted that there is a large number of children skateboarding on Sixth Street on the weekends. The public hearing was closed at 8'49 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked staff if a condition could be incorporated into the resolution to release the church from their lease should the congregation outgrow the facility before the lease is expired. The Director noted that the City could not get involved in a lease agreement. She also noted that if the congregation increases beyond that of the restrictions of the resolution, the church must return for modification of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Le Jeune added that he would like to see provisions for no parking along the residential area along "B" and Sixth Streets. The Director noted that an additional condition should be added to Resolution 2474 to state "Those attending any church related activities on the site shall be prohibited from parking on Sixth Street or "B" Street. The church shall design an enforcement program to insure compl lance wi th this conditi on." Commissioner Puckett questioned if the no parking on Sixth and "B" Streets could be acco~lished with signage. . The Director noted that the church should be responsible for enforcing the no parking requirement. She also pointed out that the structure has been reviewed by the Building Official and the Fire Department. There are requirements that must be met which include additional fire walls and expanded exiting requirements. These must be taken care of prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. .Commissioner Baker wanted to be certain that there would be some type of usher enforcing the parking. Commissioner Puckett stated that he wanted the church be successful and wants to see the congregation be good neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1988 le eight Commissioner Baker asked what type of signage the church intended to use. Mr. Stewart indicated that he would use sandwich type signs at the. driveway.s on Sundays and that the permanent signage would be a sign on the front similar to the one already existing. The Director noted that the applicant hasn't made a formal sign plan submittal and it would be subject to the City's Design Review procedures. Commissioner Baker noted that he is not against churches, but he wanted to assure that there will be no noise problems or problems with the members soliciting the neighborhood. Commissioner Pontious moved, Puckett seconded to approve the Negative Declaration for the proposed Use Permit 88-5 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2474 with conditions as revised. Motion carried 4-0. 8. Use Permit 88-3 APPLICANT: OWNER: J. OCATION: )NING: ~NVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: RANDY WOLFE/RICHARD MAIDEN ON BEHALF OF SOUTH COAST CHRISTIAN CENTER JUNE PERFIT 1193 EAST MAIN STREET CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-2); EL CAMINO REAL SPECIFIC PLAN NEGATIVE DECLARATION AUTHORIZATION TO COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. CONDUCT CHURCH SERVICES IN THE CENTRAL Resolution No. 2476 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING AN APPLICATION OF RICHARD MAIDEN OF SOUTH COAST COMMUNITY CENTER, REQUESTING , AUTHORIZATION FOR ESTABLISHING A CHURCH AT 193 EAST MAIN STREET Commissioner Pontious asked when the widening of Prospect Avenue would take place. The Director responded that there was no specific time frame, that it is a part of the City's capital improvement program but is not currently budgeted. Commissioner Le Jeune commented that there is a very small walkway between the parking and the rear of the complex that is unsafe and should be boarded up. He also asked how long the applicant has been having services in an unapproved facility. The Director verified for at least 60 days that the applicant continued to operate in violation of the code even after being notified. Staff has been trying to get a con~lete CUP application for the last 60 days. ae public hearing was opened at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Randy Wolf, the pastor noted that the church was-handed over to him by Pastor Richard Maiden about 30 days ago. He noted that the church was previously located at. 826 W. Katella. He stated that he has a letter from the owner that states that the church will be responsible for all the provisions and improvements. He has secured a parking agreement with the current owner of La Spada's Restaurant. He is now working Planning Commission Minutes March 14, lg88 ~ge ni ne with the new owner of the restaurant to obtain an agreement. The congregation is now 60 members but he feels sure that that number will grow to 100. Commissioner Le Jeune asked how the church can operate without a business license or a permit. Mr. Wolfe noted that the City would not give the church a business license or a permit until a Conditional Use Permit was approved. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the church was knowingly operating without a business license even though there were violations of fire and building codes. Mr. Wolf noted that there was a letter sent to the building that was not picked up for about a month. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there was a service thi.s past weekend. Mr. Wolf responded yes. Commissioner Le Jeune .noted that it appeared to him that the church will just' -continue to operate whether there is a permit or not. ~. ,.ir. Wolf stated that they have no other place to meet. They have been meeting as a small group on Wednesday nights in a house. He noted that for approximately three months prior to finding this building they were operating at Foothill High before the high schools disallowed their meeting at that location. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what the churches intentions were for the following week. Mr. Wolf stated that his intentions were to get this situation resolved so that they can operate legally. He would like to use this location as a bookstore and offices. They would like to meet there for a year so they can have the resources to run the facility as a non-profit organization. Commissioner Le Jeune asked staff how long and how much money they felt it would take to bring this location up to fire code. The Director noted that the major concern is the exiting on the Prospect side of the building and she wasn't sure what the costs involved would be. From a structural standpoint the building would need to be looked at by a structural engineer because it is an unreinforced masonry building. If the frame is to be altered the reinforcement and integrity of the building must be looked at. In a letter from.the Building Official dated January 20, 1988, two pages of code violations were listed that would need to be remedied before occupancy could be taken. '-"ommissioner Le Jeune asked if the Planning Commission could approve anything with ire code and building violations. Lois Jeffrey, Deputy City Attorney, noted that if the commission were to approve this permit, 'a condition of approval that would have to be met before operation could begin would be that the building would have to be brought up to code. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1988 ~ ~§e ten Mr. Wolf noted that the congregation has removed approximately 1000 cubic feet of trash from the outside area of the property. He also noted that since the trees were cut down the vagrancy rate in the area has diminished. He also indicated that the churches intent is to repair the building and the grounds around it. Lois Jeffrey, asked if the applicant is willing to commit to stop church services until such time as the property can be brought up to code. Commissioner Puckett agreed and noted that he did not feel that the Comission could give approval before the property is brought up to code. Commissioner Le Jeune and Pontlous agreed and asked to see more detailed plans for the project. Mike Rahlston, 14721 Livingston, an engineer that is a parishioner, referred to the January 20 letter from the Building Official which listed building code refractions. He estimated that these problems could be corrected in two weeks. He noted that Mr. Wolf had obtained parking statements for approximately 20 parking spaces. Commissioner Puckett noted that having a church on that location was not a problem. 'lhe problem was that the Commission could not approve the use of the property if it ~es not comply to the building and fire codes. He suggested that the Commission ~ontinue this item until the building is repaired. The Director noted that the item could be continued. She stated that the concerns in the letter were .not adequately addressed. She indicated that she would not suggest continuing the item until such time as plan check and structural details are submitted. Commissioner Pontious asked where the next Sunday meeting was going to be held. Mr. Wolf indicated that they would meet either in a private home or at the Holiday Inn. Commissioner Pontious asked if there was a crosswalk to the restaurant across Main Street. Mr. Rahlston noted that there was a brick crosswalk. The Director noted that parking was very questionable. parking agreement that will run with the land. There must be a permanent Commissioner Puckett noted that he didn't see how all of these problems could be sol ved in two weeks. -~r. Rahlston noted that the church did not want to spend $1,000 for panic hardware Jr a door without the knowledge that the Use Permit would be approved. Commissioner Baker asked for clarification on who the applicant actually was. Mr. Rahlston stated that it was Mr. Wolf on behalf of South Coast Christian Center, that Mr. Maiden is in an outside missionary capacity. Planning Commission Mi nutes March 14, 1988 - ~ge eleven Commissioner Baker asked when the building was built and if there had been any stuctural inprovements since that time. Mr. Rahlston indicated that it was around 1907. He indicated that some of the windows had been blocked out, and a door in back that had been cinder b'locked over. Commissioner Baker asked if anyone has checked to verify if there is any re-bar in the structure. Mr. Rahlston stated not to his knowledge. He also noted that there is a loading bay on Prospect that could be left opened until the panic hardware is installed. Commissioner Baker noted that the report stated that the building owner didn't permit total building access to the building. The Director noted that a number of complaints have been received and the department has requested access to the building to the immediate west and to the storage buildings to the north, as the fire department has received complaints that there are fire hazards on the grounds. The City has not been provided with field inspection opportunities. ommlssloner Le Jeune noted his concern and asked how that affects this building. The Director noted that they are all a part of the same complex and any fire hazard in the other buildings poses a potential hazard to the subject building. Mr. Rahlston noted his contacts with Mrs. Perfit, the property owner, and stated that he had intentions of cleaning up the area and making it a more profitable commercial use for her property. He also noted that he would like her to remove the metal stqrage shed and in general, clean up the property. Commissioner Puckett noted that the Commission is not opposed to the operation of the church, they are opposed to operating a church in a sub-standard facility. He asked that the Commission continue this to provide some time for the applicant to work in earnest with staff and at the next meeting, come back with a proposal that all concerns have been met. He would 6ave to vote against the facility at this point. Mr. Rahlston stated that the church would not be meeting at this location as an assembly for approximately a year or more. Their ultimate plans are to improve this storefront into a better commercial area within the next two or three years. He spoke on behalf of Pastor Wolf guaranteeing that the church will stop meeting in the building. He also assured that the applicant will appear at the next Commission meeting. In the interim they will be meeting with the Building Official to ensure that the outstanding concerns are dealt with adequately and~possibly provide the Commission with price and time quotes for the work to be done. ,nold Surfas, owner of the property at 365 E1 Camino Real, opened his store approximately 18 months ago. He went to great expense to upgrade the electrical in his building. He is also concerned with the lack of parking in the area. The public hearing was closed at 9:55 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1988 ge twelve Commissioner Le Jeune noted that there was no option but to deny the application as submitted. Commissioner Baker noted that the character of the people involved in a situation is what makes the law work. The building is unsafe and it continues to be used. He would lean toward denying the use permit. Commissioner Pontious agreed. Commissioner Baker asked staff the difference between denial and continuance. ,: The Director noted that if the application was denied, the applicant could not return again for a period of one year, a continuance could be no longer than 90 days for specific things requested. The parking requests have to be addressed or a variance would need to be applied for. The building alterations need to be submitted for plan check. A plan to make improvements should be made before the application is brought back to the Commission. Occupancy is the most important issue. Since January staff has made contact requesting that there be no occupancy of the building, yet there has been occupancy. We need to look at what liabi'lity the City has in continuing the matter when we know that there have been at least 90 days of violation. lis Jeffrey noted that Mr. Rahlston is not the applicant, it would be important to .,ear this commitment from Mr. Wolf. Mr. Wolf stated, that he would be willing to comply wi th that and he has concerns about sinking money in the building without any guarantee 'of the ultimate use of the building. They would fi nd alternate places to meet as long as they would obtain the cooperation of the City. ! Commissioner Le Jeune asked for the record if he was stating that there will not be any services held in the building prior to obtaining approval? Mr. Wolf, stated that he was. He noted that they only met on Sunday mornings and that any other meetings were to clean the property up. Commissioner Puckett suggested that the commission allow a continuance for 90 days. Commissioner Baker asked how long it would take to comply with City requirements? Mr. Rahlston indicated that it would take approximately one month to submit plans and quotes from contractors including time frames. Lois Jeffrey brought up the commitment from property owners that are willing to commit to a long term lease for parking spaces. .... ~. Rahlston noted that their lease with the property owner is monthly. He intends ~ obtain signed releases from the property owners guaranteing that the required spaces are available for the duration of their lease. The Director pointed out that a conditional use permit runs with the land. Considering that they might have a month to month lease, any tenant can .occupy that building under the terms' of the conditional use permit. A reciprocal parking agreement or a long term lease for parking for the life of the use is needed. .. · Planning Corem1 ssion Mi nutes ~arch 14, 1988 ge thtrteen Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Commission could continue the matter for 90 days. The Director stated the alternatives and suggested that the matter, be brought up at the next meeting for a status report if the progress is not acceptable the item could be conti hued again. Commissioner Puckett asked that the applicant work closely with staff. Commissioner Baker moved, Puckett seconded to continue Use Permit 88-3 to the April 11, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Puckett called a five minute break at 10'05 p.m. At 10'10 the meeting was called back to order. Use Permit 88-4 APPLICANT: PROGRESSIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. 1031S. 158TH STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON ~N BEHALF OF: P.H.P. HEALTHCARE CORPORATION 4900 SEMINARY ROAD ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22311 PROPERTY OWNER' LOCATION' TUSTIN CORPORATE PARK LIMITED 3300 IRVINE AVENUE;. #100 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 2492 WALNUT AVENUE ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: PC-C: PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS I) AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL A MEDICAL CLINIC AND LABORATORY IN AN EXISTING 44,014 GROSS SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AT 2492 WALNUT AVENUE Resolution No. 2475 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF A MEDICAL CLINIC AND LABORATORY AT 2492 WALNUT AVENUE Recommendati on' It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit No. 88-4 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2475. Presentation' Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner The public hearing was opened at 10'15 p.m. · Derek Dean, representing Grubb and Ellis, offered to answer any questions tile Commi ssi on mi ght have. Commissioner Baker clarified that the storage area for the two banks is for five year terms. P]annlng Commission Mi nutes · M~arch 14, 1988 te fourteen The public hearing was closed at 10'17 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune clarified that the sidewalks were installed. Commissioner Baker asked if there will be a need for any special signing. Staff noted that they would be no stgnage requested that is not allowed by the master Sign Plan. The Director pointed out that there was a previous conditional use permit approved for a medical facility at this location about a year ago. That tenant found another location, there are just some square footage modifications. This permit is for about one fourth of the area of the previous permit. Commissioner Baker moved, Pontious seconded to approve Use Permit 88-4 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2475. Motion carried 4-0. 10. Sign Code Amendment - Update Presentation' Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development ceived and fi led. 11. Planning Commission' Training Session Presentation' Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development The Director noted that there will be a training session about every third meeting. Received and filed. Session date changed to May 9, 1988. 12. Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 88-01 LOCATION: 165 MYRTLE AVENUE AND 14851 YORBA STREET ZONING: PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL {P&I) AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE {PR) .Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Received and fi led. 13. Outdoor Dining Areas Recommendation: Planning Commission action as deemed appropriate. .. ,e Outdoor Dining areas report was continued until the ~larch 28, 1988 meeting. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Mi nutes March 14, 1988 ~ge fifteen STAFF CONCERNS 14. Report on City Council Actions at March 7, 1988 Meeting. Recommendation' Receive and file. Presentation' Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development The Director noted that the following items were discussed at the meeting: Annexations 142, 144 and 145 Cultural Resources Ordinance The first reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-4 churches-in the PM Dis tri ct Facilities fees Fire, Civic Center and Irvine Blvd. improvement Meeting times for Planning Commission change to 7:00 p.m. CC&R's will be discussed on March 21st. CONNI SSION CONCERNS ---~Commisstoner Le Jeune noted the March 31st meeting of the South Orange County 'lanning Commissioner's meeting. He volunteered to attend. Commissioner Puckett said he would go. Commissioner Baker thanked staff for all the work on this agenda. ADJOURNRENT At 10:30 p.m. Commissioner Le Oeune moved, Pontious seconded to adjourned to the next regularly scheduled meetin9 on March 28, 1988 at 7-30 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. Kathy Wei Chairman Penni Foley Secretary Report to the Planning Commission Item No. 2 DATE' SUBJECT' APPLICANT' OILIER: LOCATION: REQUEST: MARCH 28, 1988 PERMIT TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME CLEATUS ANN POTTS 1862 PENNINGTON AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92000 FRED KINNER 14792 RIDGEBORO PLACE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 1862 PENNINGTON AVENUE TUSTIN , CA 92680 PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL-SINGLE FAMILY AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME RECOMMENDED ACTION' It is recommended that the Chairman inquire if any person' in the audience wishes to submit a protest, and then accept any protests submitted. If a protest is lodged, then the matter should be continued to the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting in order for staff to evaluate the protest. If a protest is not filed, the Commission sllould approve the subject application without further discussion by Minute Order subject to compliance wi th all requirements of Ordinance 991. · BACKGROUND' Mrs. Potts presently operates a Small Family Day Care Home at 1862 Pennington Avenue and is requesting authorization to operate a Large Family Day Care Home. Section 9223a6 of the Tustin Zoning Code establishes, the requirements and standards for the operation of Large Family Day Care Homes. These homes may care for up to 12 children including their own children under the age of 12. In August of 1987, Ordinance 991 was adopted by the City Council which amended and expanded the criteria for Large Family Day Care Homes. (A copy of that -~-dinance is attached.) Community Development Department ~ anning .Commi ssion Report Permit to Operate A Large Family Day Care Home March 28, 1988 Pa ge two Inspections have been made at the subject address by the Community Development and Fire Departments with the following findings- 1. The proposed day care home by design, location and layout will not consitute a noise nuisance to neighboring properties. 2. The day care home is not within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of any existing large family day care home. 3. All property owners within a 100 foot radius of the exterior property boundary were notified of the intent to establish this home. 4. The proposed day care home has been inspected by the Orange County Fire De par tmen t. The play yard of the proposed home is enclosed by a six-foot high fence which is setback from the r.equired front yard. 6. The proposed home does not have a swimming pool. 7. The proposed home provides adequate off-street parking areas and has adequate drop-off and/or pick-up facilities both on-site and off-site which will avoid interference with traffic and promote the safety of children. 8. The applicant has applied for a license with the State of California. CONCLUSION ' The California Health & Safety Code mandates that permits for these homes must be granted by the City unless a formal protest is made by a property owner within 100 feet of a proposed home. This protest must be based on one or more of the following adverse impacts' noise, traffic, parking, concentration or spacing of such homes. This. is not an open public hearing' however, it is recommended that the Chairman inquire if any person in the audience wishes to submit a formal protest. All such protests should then be received as part of the public hearing record. At the time of the writing of this report, no formal protests had been filed. ~ ' A:rs~ciAan~eCp~llPlamnbneerlrair' ~rrle'~ct~;SfA'COShm~nung~ ty Deve¥opment MAC 'pef-ts Attachments' Map. '. Ordinance No. 991 Corn rnunity DeveloPmen~ Depar~rnent .~ LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE CENTER NOT TO SCALE S~ CITY OF TUSTIN NORTH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .16 17 18 19 20 23 2~ 25 2¢~ 27 28 I ORDINANCE NO. 991 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN AMENDING SECTION 9223a6 OF THE TUSTIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES. The City Counctl of the City of Tusttn does hereby ordain: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: a) That the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 1597.46 mandates that a permit be granted for large family day care homes if they comply with local standards and - requirements. b) That to ensure that the integrity of the Single-Family Residential zone is maintained, the City may establish applicable standards for spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking and noise control. c) That a Negative Declaration has been prepared conforming with the California Environmental Quality Act and is hereby approved. II. The City Council hereby amends Section 9223a6 as follows: "6. Large family day care homes", caring for seven (7) to twelve (12) children, are subject to the following regulations- a) Prior to commencement 'of operation of any large family day care home, the applicant for a permit shall complete and submit an application to the Community Development Department. Information provided on the permit shall include: Name of operator; address of the home; and a list of property owners within a 100 foot radius of the exterior property boundary of the proposed day care home. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 Ordinance No. 991 Page Two b) Large family day care homes shall be operated in a manner not exceeding the noise level in the Tustin Noise Ordinance, nor shall such day care homes be allowed to operate in a manner that would constitute a nuisance to neighboring properties. A day' care home shall by design, location and layout avoid any potential noise which may constitute a nuisance to neighboring properties. c) A permit shall not be granted for a large day care home that would be established within 300 feet of the exterior property boundaries of any existing licensed large family day care home. d) All property owners within a 100 foot radius of-the exterior property boundary of a proposed large family day care home, as shown on the last equalized County assessment roll, shall be notified of the intent to establish such a home. e) No hearing on the application for a permit shall be held by the Planning Commission unless a hearing is requested by the applicant or a property owner within a 100 foot radius of the exterior boundary of the proposed home; If no hearing is requested, the permit shall be granted if the large family day care home complies wi th the provisions of this code. f) Any day care home must comply with all regulations adopted and enforced by the State Fire Marshal and Orange County Fire Department. g) The play yard of the home must be enclosed by a minimum si x-foot high fence setback from the required front yard. h) The Planning Commission shall not grant a permit for a large family day care home for any location that has on the property a swimming pool as defined by Section 102 of the Uniform Swimming Pool Code, as adopted. Ordinance No. 991 Page Three Any day care home must comply wi th the provisions of the State Uniform Building Code and City of Tusttn Building requirements which apply to single family residences. 6 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 Any large day care home must provtde one ([) off-street parktng space for each employee who is not a resident of the premises, and provide adequate drop-off and/or ptck-up facilities on-site or immediately adjacent to the site as necessary to avoid interference with traffic and to promote the safety of children. k) An applicant for a large family day care home shall be 11censed or deemed to be exempt from licensure by the State of California as a large family day care home. 1) Nothing contained in the provisions of this amendment shal.1 preclude the revocation for cause of any permit granted for a large family day care home following proceedings conducted by the Planntng Commission to determine if said use is ope'~ated in a manner detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the community or surrounding properties. · 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2~ Mary E. Ct ty Cletfl~ 2~ PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tusttn City Council, held on the 3rd day of A.g,~t , 198_7_. 26 27 28 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) § CITY OF TUSTIN ) MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 991 was duly and regularly introduced and read at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of July, 1987, and was given its second reading and duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of Auqust, 1987, by the following vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: COUNCILPERSONS: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kelly, Kennedy, Prescott COUNCILPERSONS: None COUNCILPERSONS: None City of Tustil¢, California Published Ordinance: August 13, 1987 Tustin News Planning Commission I rem No. 3 DATE' SUBJECT- .; MARCH 28, 1988 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FOR PETERS CANYON REGIONAL PARK RECOF~ENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2480 which finds that the proposed Peters Canyon Regional Park is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION .Section 65402 of the California Government Code, requires a determina.tion by the tanning Commission regarding the conformity of proposed parkland dedication · ith a city's general plan. In conjunction with the East Tustin development, the Orange County Harbor Beaches and Parks District is planning to accept the dedication of certain lands from the Irvine Company for the proposed Peters-Canyon Regibnal Park. A portion of the area is within the City limits which is shown in the attached map. After the dedication is accepted by the County, the entire park site will be owned and operated by the Parks District. After the park plans have been prepared by the County, the City will then be given an opportunity for review and comment. As requested by the County of Orange, staff has reviewed the location of the proposed park site and determined that the park site is in conformance with the goals and policies as contained in the Conservation/Open Space, Recreation and Land Use Elements of the Tustin Area General Plan. These policies are delineated as part of the East Tustin Specific Plan which was adopted by Resolution No. 86-32 on March 17, 1986 as follows- "Section 1.3 General Plan Policies Specific Plan Conformance Open Space and Conservation Element Coordinated and inter-related local open space and trail areas with the regional facilil~ies of the County and adjoining cities. The opportunity for develop- ment of a regional park and trail system to be integrated with the County facilites as well as those in adjoining Cities of Orange and 1trine is pr o'v i'ded." · Corn munity Development Dep. art.ment · .i~:.''-... .' · · arming Commission Report General Plan Conformity for Peters Canyon Regional Park March 28, 1988 Page two "Section 2.9, Recreation and Open Space Plan Peters Canyon Regional Par____~k The plan anticipates a possible acquisition and development by the County of Orange of a regional park in the Upper Peters Canyon Regional area. An asterisk on the Land Use Plan identifies the general location area under consideration for such a park which might also include lands outside the City of Tustin (see attached land use plans). Within the City of Tustin, the proposed park might encompass approximately 100 to 125 acres in Sector 1. It is intended to include low intensity recreational facilities which are compatible with the natural environment and existing and proposed development adjoining the park." MAC :CAS' ts Attachments' Map Resolution No. 2480 Corn rnunity Developmen~ Depar~rnen~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2480 A RESOLUTION OV THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PETERS CANYON REGIONAL PARK IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Plannlng Commission finds and determines as follows' A. That the County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency proposes to accept the dedication of certain lands from the Irvine Company for the proposed Peters Canyon Regional Park. B. That Section 65402 of the California Government Code provides that the County may not acquire land for park purposes within the corporate limits of a city unless the location and purpose has been reported upon as to conformity with the adopted general plan for the jurisdiction. C. That the Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed dedication of certain lands from the Irvine Company for the proposed Peters Canyon Regional Park is in conformity with the goals and policies as contained in the Conservation/Open Space, Recreation and Land Use Elements of the Tustin Area General Plan in that these policies were set forth in the East Tustin Specific Plan and were adopted by Resolution No. 86-32 on March 17, 1986. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1988. Kathy Wei l, Chairman Penni Foley, Secretary ~Jty ~o4;0 r~ UPPER PETERS .h ,<½ ' PRoP0SE~D .i/PETERS'CANyON "REGIONAL .PARK -. ./"-" '~.. GENERAL PLAN · STUDY AREA · ,(Ci,t.y .of 'Orang'e_). ~--~ --..:~ ~ - ~. ~,~ 40 109 :,' ,.t .:.: .... Z_ J '68 '~ 80 " -£ "'"" ,, ~ i ~ · '"/' ' \. g i # :' - '." 5' ~,''~ .-"," "<' · ) ' , ~:~ " 'N ' ', ' ' i ",, : ,.'~ C ..... \ /IRViNE ',,) ' ! ~ ;il, '~ : ' ...... / ' · , ,\ r"..- \ PLANNING AREA ~,( J -'~ ;' \ \ --~, .. _~ .,_~_.,f_.-~.. ..... ~ ',, ... : : ,~(Clt,. 0'. ,.}~x.ln.e>.. Sphere)..~. '~" ,~, ~ ~,~.... .r ~~ '~ ~f < I ! ~ i/ ~ ) ~, ~ ~ k~ ~ ~ ,.;.. (City o'. I'~ :~ ~~-. I T u','tin)' . 16': .' ~~1.. . I~ .- ~ · = .... ~.:, ~' ~ ;T:'~-" = .. ~ ~. . : =~' '. ~ '.~-;~.~ :~' .... ~ · .J . , - .~ ~.1 .,~ .... '. · I '~g' ~'~ , · ~ , t - "' '..'.:;~:.~ / : '- ' ~ I ~~=.'/:':.~:',i:- i~.T..-~: · ~ ~-- " ' i '__ ~-T~'h' "~:':"~"' - : ~ ~ ' ' ~r~ I~v I ' .~12 ..... ' ':'R4 '~: . ~'~',' '{ . r~ - ' " ' ~ ;I ~ ,' ...... . . ' · . , T .,, · · ' - ~ ~ ", r, // : ..... ' ":~ ~/ ' '. , :'&~ "' ...... I : ( LEGEND ~ BOUNDARY OF 'PROPERTY' [::::::::::::l PROPOSED PETERS CANYON REGIONAL PARK ("PARK SITE') 'PARK'SITE' AND 'PROPERTY' Report to the Planning Commission Item No. 4 DATE' SUBJECT' APPLICANT' LOCATION' ZONING' EN V I RONMENTAL STATUS' REQUEST' MARCH 28, 1988 USE PERMIT NO. 87-;)9 STEELCASE. 11:)3 WARNER AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA g2680 PC-M (PLANNEO COMMUNITY INOUSTIAL) AN APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE OECLARATION HAS BEEN FILED FOR THIS PROJECT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON USE PERMIT NO. 87-:)9 TO MAY g3, 1988. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on subject project until next meeting of May 23,, 1988. BACKGROUND At it's meeting of February 8, 1988, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the subject appli.cation to permit the applicant the opportunity to revise their proposal to 1) comply with .recommended setback requirements contained in proposed amendments to the Uniform Fire Code and/or 2) to provide for undergrounding of all proposed storage of combuscible and flammable 1 iquids. The applicant is now requesting the continuance of said public hearing until May 2?~_rd, in order to complete required plan revisions. ' / ~' ~ ' ' ' ~ ..... / ~ ' ' 4 Patti zi-a gaterassi, " Christine A. Shing) Planner Director of Community'Development PM :CAS' ts Community Development Department Report to the Planning Commission Item No. 5 DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: ONNER: LOCATION: TONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MARCH 28, 1988 VARIANCE 88-3 INNOVATIVE GRAPHICS, INC. 833 N. ELM STREET ORANGE, CA 92668 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY 4833 FOUNTAIN AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CA 90029 145! IRVINE BOULEVARD AT THE INTERSECTION OF RED HILL AVENUE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PR) CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 11 TO PERNIT A TENANT IDENTIFICATION MONUMENT AND WALL SIGN RECO~tENDATION That the Planning Commission table this matter. BACKGROUND Information obtained in conducting further research on the subject project has indicated that the application was mistakenly noticed. This matter will be · renoticed and returned to the Commission at their meeting on April 11th as Use Permit No. 88-7. A~i stant Planner JS:CAS:ts Christine A. Shingleto~, Director of Community/~Development Community Development Department Report to'.the Planning Commission Item No. 6 DATE' SUBJECT- APPLICANT- LOCATION- REQUEST- ENVIRONMENTAL .... STATUS- MARCH 28, 1988 VARIANCE NO. 88-04 SIGN ARTS, INC. 2 900 E. SATURN BREA, CALIFORNIA 92621 SOUTHWEST CORNER' OF BRYAN AVENUE AND JAMBOREE ROAD APPROVAL OF A 19 FOOT HIGH, _144 SQUARE FOOT 'FUTURE FACILITIES" SIGN ADVERTISING OPENING OF THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE, PHASE I. THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15303, CLASS 3) FROM THE PROVISIONS OF CEQA.. RECO~ENOATION Pleasure of the Commission. BACKGROUND The applicant has requested a variance from sign provisions in the East Tustin Specific Plan and the Tustin Municipal Code for a future facilities sign along the 1-5 Freeway. The East Tustin Specific Plan allows for the placement of Future Facilities signs to be placed on a project site for the purpose of announcing the nature of the future development of that site. Such signs are permitted on each street frontage of a project site and are restricted to a maximum area of 96 square feet. The height of these signs is regulated by the Tustin Municipal Code, which permits a maximum height of 10 feet. The developers of the Tustin Market Place have placed several 10 foot high x 6 ~ot wide future facilities signs on their project site along Bryan Avenue and mboree Road, and also along the I-5 Freeway {the I-5 is considered an eligible street frontage"). ~ Community Development DeparTment ~ . lanning Commission Report Variance No. 88-04 March 28, 1988 Page two DISCUSSION Submitted plans propose the placement of a 19 foot high, 12 foot wide, 144. square foot future facilities sign adjacent to the southerly property line of the subject property along the I-5 Freeway {see attached site plan and elevations). The copy of the proposed sign would contain the same in, formation as the existing 10' x 6' signs: the name of the project, a phone number for leasing information, the major tenants of Phase I, the developer and the projected opening date {see attached elevations). The design and colors of the sign is consistent with similar signs throughout East Tustin. Staff has conducted a field test by driving both southbound and northbound on the 1-5 Freeway to measure site conditions. In the southbound direction only the top of the existing 10' x 6' sign was visible above the center divider viewed from the far right-hand lane, which afforded the widest angle of view. The name "Tustin Market Place" was visible, but not very readable. Travel speed was 55 mph. In the northbound direction, traveling in the far right-hand lane at a speed 'of 35 mph {due to traffic conditions) staff was able to read the name "Tustin Market Place" at a distance of approximately 100 feet, and the phone number at approximately 75 feet {at this point, staff was quickly coming abreast of the sign and had to look forward). No other copy was readable. Based upon this field test, it is clear that sign height and letter height/size are the two most critical constraints on the readability of a sign in this location. A higher sign might allow a'driver to see the sign itself from a greater distance, and larger copy can be read more easily and safely at higher speeds and distances. Height is most important to the sign's readability from the southbound side of the freeway, so as to be visible above the center divider; however, due to the angle of view, it is Possible that an even higher sign than the one proposed would be necessary to be clearly and easily read. The following is a comparison of letter height/size between the existing 10' x 6' sign and the proposed 19' x 12' sign: 10' x 6' 19' x 12' Name Word "Leasing" Tel ephone Number All other (Developer, ,enants opening date) 8 1/4" 16 1/2" 3 1/2" 7" 7" 14" 2" 4" to 7" Corn rnunity DeveloPment Department lanning Commission Report Cariance No. 88-04 March 28, 1988. Page three The name and phone number on the proposed 19' x 12' sign would likely be quite readable to most traffic from several hundred feet. The rest of the copy is very close in size to the existing 10' x 6' sign and would be readable from approximately 100' and less on the northbound side and not too readable at all on the southbound side (readability may vary from either side=:due to travel speed). ~. Staff has looked at several alternative methods of addressing the issues discussed above without having to resort to a variance. One possible alternative to the requested variance lies in an administrative procedure contained in the East Tustin Specific Plan which would allow a 10% increase in sign height (from 10' to 11'). With such a procedure, the applicant could place an 1.1' high x 16' wide sign (with the copy occupying a 6' x 16' area, equalling 96 square feet) along the I-5 Freeway. Such a sign might allow for the name and phone number to have 14 inch letters with the remaining information being similar to the proposed letter sizes. Readability would suffer to some extent due to the reduced height and visibility of the sign as a whole from greater listances (particulary from the'. southbound side) as well the slight reduction in ~etter size. In reviewing this variance requesl~, as well as the alternative discussed above, the Commission should consider the following issues- affecting a sign in this 1 oca ti on: Exposure to passing traffic Placement of sign (cannot be placed on property subject to dedication to Cal trans) Speed of traffic Overall visibility of sign Readability of copy Having considered these issues, the Commission must make the following findings in order to grant the requested variance: 1. That there are exceptional or extradionary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning di strict; 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district; That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to ,the publ.ic welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located; '~ Corn rnunity DeveloPment Department ~ fanning Commission Report ~ariance No. 88-04 March 28, 1988 Page four 4. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the general plan or the policies and requirements of the East Tustin Specific Plan. CONCLUSION The existing 10' x 6' future facilities sign along the I-5 Freeway clearly makes a case that greater sign height and letter height/size is needed in this location.' Both the proposed 19' x 12' sign and the alternative 11' x 16' sign would be more readable as far as the name and leasing phone number are concerned; however in either case, the remaining information would not be too readable. StUn, ~' Senior P1 anner SR:CAS-ts Attachments' Appl ication Site Plan E1 eva ti on s Resolution No. 2482 Christine A. ShinglerS, _ Director of Communi:~/Development Comrnunity Development Department APPLICATION FOR Use Permtt Vartance .x Zone Change Number Genera] Plan Amendment · Filing Date ~ -- &'._ "~ · A petition is hereby made to the Tusttn Plannthg Commission pursuant to the provisions' of the Tusttn Zoning Ordinance No. [57 (as amended) for consideration of the property and intent herein described. A preliminary review by Cf~ S~ff is required prior to the acceptance of this application. Proflect APpl fcant Name Si~n Arts, Inc. Mailing Address 2900 F,. Saturn Brea. California 92621 Phone Number (7].4~ 993-4050 Request to Permit sign. Owner/Lessee Donahue Schriber Mailing Address 3200 Bristol, Suite 660 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Phone Number 73.4 979-2230 One (1) 19' X 12' Double-face TempOrary Constrution (if additional space is' requi red, use back of page) · Location of Property South. property line is I-5 FreewaT, East ~rooerty line is Jamboree, North prop-~._-ty line is Brian, and 7:]est property !J.:le is the drainage ~l~.uh. Legal Description of Property Present Use and Zoning of Project Deed Restrictions, Easements (Attach if applicable) Envt ronmenta 1 Status By: · (S i~nature of App 1 i cant Received by- s, narts March 1, 1988 Mr. Steve Rubin City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 RE: Variance for Freeway sign for the Tustln Harket Flace Dear Steve: The following are reasons why the additional height for the Freeway Sign is needed: 1. To facilitate visibility from both sides of the Freeway. The maximum copy height for the 11' high sign would be 2" high, which cannot be read from the Freeway. 2. Because of the close proximity of the Tust~n Market Place to the Tustin Auto Mall, we feel the Freeway sign needs to be larger to compete with the other signage. 3. The design of the sign has been strictly regulated by the Irvine Company, therefore, we cannot increase the width, but are required to increase the height in order to facilitate visibility. Please call with any further questions. Sincer~y, ,/~ ,~ / V:~X~. e Pr~sident ' MV/lml 2900 EAST SATURN . BREA, CALIFORNIA 92621 . 71 4 / 993-4050 DONAHUE 5CHRIBER RECEi~£D - February 29, 1988 Mr. Steve Rubin City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 RE' VARIANCE REQUEST POR PREEWAY SIGN TUSTIN MARKET PLACE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Dear St~ve: We hereby give Signarts authorization to represent Donahue Schriber in our .request for a variance to the City of Tustin for a temporary freeway sign. Donahue Schriber has contracted Signarts to 'do the temporary signage for Tustin Market Place. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, DONAHUE SCHRIBER, a California Corporation J~Tfrey W. Simonds JWS/df 3200 Br;S~.c'~t. 5uJ. te 660 C¢:'~ta Me':.;a, CA 92626 ,714) 9?9-2230 OWNER' S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS. CITY OF TUSTIN ) we, I, /£ ~1~c/ < · (Please print name in full) being duly sworn, depose and say that the undersigned currently .own the subject property described in this application and that the foregoing information, Exhibits 1, 2, and 4~ and the Deed Restrictions and Covenants are in all resp.ects trd'e and. correct to the best of (our) (my) knowledge, information and belief. Phone Number ~l?.o- 555o S t gned: Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~-~>~t~ day of ;~- ?9 ' ) Notary 'Pub i i c :~ OFFICIAL SEAL KARIN PAVLOSKY Notary Public--California ORANGE COUNTY My Comm. Ex~. May 22. 1990 4 Eccelstone Circle. Irvine. CA 92714- .. , 1983. U .. RESOLUTION NO. 2482A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING VARIANCE 88-04, FOR A 19 FOOT HIGH, 144 SQUARE FOOT FUTURE FACILITIES SIGN ALONG THE 1-5 FREEWAY IN TRACT 13274. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows- 7 -8 9 10 11 12 Il:" The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows' A. A proper application (Variance 88-04) was filed by Sign Arts, Inc. respresenting Donahue Schriber and the Irvine Company, requesting approval of a 19 foot high, 144 square foot future facilities sign, located along the souterly property line of Tract 13274, adjacent to the I-5 Freeway, to advertise Phase I of the Tustin Market Place. B. A public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application ~n March 28, 1988. 13 14 C. Pursuant to Section 9292 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings, approving Variance 88-04: 15 lG 17 18 19 2(t 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district; in that there are no other undeveloped commercial properties in the same zoning district located in East Tustin along the I-5 Freeway. 2. That this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district; in that the proposed height and area of the proposed sign is necessary to be readable to passing vehicles on the I-5 Freeway which right is enjoyed by existing commercial projects along the I-5 Freeway. 3. That the granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvement in the area in which the property is located; in that Ithe proposed sign is temporary and will only be in place during the construction of the first phase of the shopping center, and will allow easier reading of said sign, reducing risk to drivers. · That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the general plan or the poliCies and requirements of the East Tustin Specific Plan. .i Resolution No. 2482A page two 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20[ i 21 23 D. That pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the subject variance is considered Categorically Exempt (Class 3). II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Variance No. 88-04 subject to the following conditions: A. The copy 'of the sign may be revised to reflect phasing development. B. Said sign shall be maintained in a neat and orderly fashion. C. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the Building Division prior to the installation of said sign. D. Colors and materials shall comply with those indicated on the proposed plans date stamped by the City "March 2, 1988". E. Said sign shall be removed no later than the opening of Phase I. F. Said sign shall be located on the project site and not on property that is subject to dedication to Cai trans. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of _, 1988. Kathy Weil, Chairman Penni Foley, Secretary 24 25 26 28 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 17 18 19 23 24 25 RESOLUT-ION NO. 2482D A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING VARIANCE 88-04, FOR A 19 FOOT HIGH, 144 SQUARE FOOT FUTURE FACILITIES SIGN ALONG THE I-5 FREEWAY IN TRACT 13274. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I · The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. A proper application (Variance 88-04) was filed by Sign Arts, Inc. respresenting Donahue Schriber and the Irvine Company, requesting approval of a 19 foot high, 144 square foot future facilities sign, located along the souterly property line of Tract 13274, adjacent to the I-5 Freeway, to advertise Phase I of the Tustin Market Place· B. A public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on March 28, 1988. C. Pursuant to Section 9292 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings, denying Variance 88-04: 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district; in that there are other commercial properties in other zoning districts adjacent.to the I-5 Freeway in the City of Tustin faced with the same visibility problem. 2. That this variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is not possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district; in that other commercial property owners do not have the right to erect a similar advertisment adjacent to the I-5 Freeway. 3. That the granting of this variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvement in the area in which the property is located in that the proposed sign will not be significally more readable-than a sign with out a height and area variance and may become a distraction to drivers. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Resolution No. 2482D page two That the granting of such a variance will be contrary to the objectives of the general plan or the policies and requirements of the East Tustin Specific Plan, in that the sign provisions of the Specific Plan addressed all aspects of advertising for future facilities and did not 'find signs of such height and area to be appropriate. II. The Planning Commission hereby denies Variance 88-04 based on the findings stated above. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1988. 12 13 14 Ka thy Wei 1, Chairman 15 1G 17 18 19 Penni Foley, Secretary 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Report to the .Planning Commission Item No. 7 DATE' SUBJECT' ~ARCH 28, 1988 ZONING ORDINANCE A~END)IENT 87-4 - CULTURAL RESOURCES DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review proposed modification to Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-4 and adopt Resolution No. 2481, recommending the proposed changes to the City Council. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The City Council at,their regular meeting on March 7, 1988 reviewed proposed ~ing Ordinance 87-4 as recommended by the Planning Commission at their regular .,,eting on February 8th. At the conclusion of their hearing on the matter, the City Council requested that staff make a number of modifications to ti~e proposed - ordinance, including the. foll owing: Extension of' the proposed boundaries of Cultural Resource Overlay District between Main and First Street west to 'the 1-55 Freeway. 2. Deletion of those areas in the proposed District north of First Street. 3. Establishment of a clear definition of the proposed Cultural Resources Advisory Committee as advisory and assignment of responsibilities for project review and issuance, of Certificates of Appropriateness to Community Development Department staff. 4~ Removal of a Planning Commission member from the proposed Cultural Resources Advisory Commi tree, 'Pursuant to California Government Code, Section 65857, the City Council has referred the proposed modifications to the Planning Commission for a report and recommendation prior to taking any final action on the proposed ordinance. While there was not majority concurrence for additional modifications to the ordinance, the City Council also discussed the possible removal of commercial properties along E1 Camino Real from the proposed District. -- Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-4 Cultural Resources District March 28, 1988 Page two Commercial areas in the vicinity of E1 Camino Real between 'C' Street and Prospect Street were included in the proposed District for the following reasons: The commercial "Old Town" area was historically the commercial center of the City. E1 Camino Real, in particular, has been defined as a gateway to "Old Town", and, as such, has played a special role in continuing to define the image of the community. This has been reinforced by the City in the placement of special historical signs, bollard light fixtures, and kiosks in the area and the concentration of major community events in the area such as "Tiller Days". The area contains the City's oldest surviving commerical buildings some of which still retain much of their original facades. This includes a significant number of potential historical sites as identified by the 'Tustin Historical Society.' A major portion of the area is within the original City of Tustin jurisdictional boundaries. Old Town is comprised of a commercia.1 component and residential component. The two have historically interacted to compliment each other. Both components provide an opportunity to capitalize on the historical integrity of Old Town to achieve a unique and economically vital community. Staff review of Cultural Resource programs in other communities throughout California revealed that almost all programs seem to concentrate on a City' central or commercial area as a core with the inclusion of surrounding residential areas. We found that the historic/cultural character of an area was best experienced when a total environment or neighborhood was included. The beauty and marketability of Old Town lies in the area's characterization as a balanced community with functional representation of all those land uses that were important to the community over it's history (ie. commerical uses, schools, parks, churches, and homes). The heart of Tustin is more than just a few randomly located historic buildings. No one home or commercial building creates the importance for the area on its own, but it is the collective concentration of buildings which provides an important historic panorama, creates a sense of time and · place and adds to the economic and social, desirability of living in Old Town. This justifies the staff recommendation for creation of a "complete" district which exhibits special ambiance associated with a time and place in hist°ry. CoKn [Tlurlit¥ DeveloPment Depar~r'nent Planning Commission Report Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-4 Cultural Resources District March 28, 1988 Page three The need to assure proper monitoring of rehabilitation and new construction in the commerical areas in terms of issues like architectural style, height, bulk and massing to ensure compatibility and limited environmental impacts on immediately adjacent residential area. This does not mean that all buildings need to be alike. Buildings should be recognized as products of their own time. While there have been no issues specifically presented for not including commercial areas in Old Town in the proposed Cultural' Resources District, there may be concern from property owners about any additional administrative procedures they would need to go through to process building construction plans. With the role of the Advisory Committee significantly revised, property owners should be assured that they would not have to go through a separate process to obtain plan approvals. The Community Development Department would go through the same design review process it currently undertakes in reviewing lans and would also make, at the same time, whatever findings are required in ~e Cultural Resources Ordinance. Unlike other ordinance's found in Cities like orange, there would not be mandatory design guidelines imposed by the ordinance on commercial properties. Any guidelines developed would be advisory only. While staff would recommend that all commercial areas currently included be retained in the District, we also recognize tht the City Council might not be comfortable with designating within the District all commercial areas currently shown within the proposed District boundaries. In such a case, we would be prepared to recommend two possible alternatives that the Commission might want to suggest to the City Council. 1. Deletion of commerical areas within District boundaries south of Sixth Street where there is a significantly different character then the "downtown" portion of Old Town; or 2. Deletion of areas south of Sixth Street and modifications of the westerly boundary of the District south of Main Street to comply at that location with the original jurisdictional boundaries of the City. · Each of the above alternatives is shown in Attachment I. Please find specific revisions to the proposed ordinance prepared by staff in response to more specific modification requests made by the City Council. All Corn munity DeveloPment Department Planning Commission Report Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-4 Cultural Resources District March 28, 1988 Page four modifications to the ordinance have been highlighted as deletions (dashed out) or. additions (darkened and underlined). Staff will review these changes with the Commission at their meeting. C'hri~s ti ne A. Shinglet~f~ Director of Community ~Development CA:S: :ts.' At ~.hments' Attachment I, Resolution 2481 Ordinance 1001 Community Development Department ATTACHMENT I IRVINE BLVD ~ '--~ ' ' ~'--r-~ ...... ~ ...... ~ ~-', -~- ~ ,~ ~ ~- ~ ~--~~~ 8 ~ ~--~- -----c-- r ~ ~ .... . ~ .... ~ ~-~ ~ ~ ..... , ~ ~ , , ~ ..... ~ ..... ~ t-~ t_-~ . ~ [.~ '~ '~ ~; ~ '~'-'-~ - FIRST STREET ....... .___~ ~,- ..... ~, . ,..___~ ,~ , , ...... -- ~ ~ ~ ..... ~..~ ..... ~ ~ ........... ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , .... ~,----~ ~ , ~ ..... ~ ~--~ ..... ' ~ '~ .... ~ .~ , ~ ~ .. ~.~ ~ , CITY OF TUSTIN NORTH OLD TOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES DISTRICT -ALTERNATE 1 (DELETES AREAS SOUTH OF SIXTH ST.) -MODIFICATION TO ALTERNATE ONE (DELETE SHADED AREA TO REFLECT ORIGINAL CITY BOUNDARY) RESOLUTION NO. 2481 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF REVISED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 87-4, AMENDMENTS TO PART 5 AND 7 CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 9 OF THE TUSTIN MUNICIPAL CODE AS IT RELATES TO CULTURAL RESOUCES. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as fol 1 ows: 7 8 9 10 11 12' 14 I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. The City Council at their regular meeting on March 7, 1988, requested modifications to Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-4; as recommended by the City Council. B. Pursuant to California Government, Section 65857, the City Council has referred proposed modifications to the Planning Commission for a report and recommendation prior to taking final action on the proposed ordinance. C. A public' hearing was held on March 28, 1988 to hear arguments for and against the proposed revisions to Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-4. 15 II. 17~i 19[!,, 21 The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council the following: A. Modifications to Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-4, as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part by reference. Be In the event that the City Council has concern about inclusion of all commercial areas within proposed Cultural Resource District boundaries, it is recommended that the City Council only modify the boundaries to reflect two alternatives reviewed by the Commission as shown on Attachment I attached hereto and made a part by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1988. 24 Ka thy Weil, 25 Chairman Penni Foley, Secretary ReVisions ORDINANCE NO. 1001 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 87-4 AMENDING PART 5 AND 7 OF CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 9 OF : THE TUSTIN MUNICIPAL CODE AS IT RELATES TO CULTURAL RESOURCES The City Council of the City of Tustin does ordain as follows: Section 1: That Part 5, Chapter 2 of Article 9 of the Tustin Municipal Code entitled "Combined Districts" be retitled to read "Combining and Overlay Districts". Section 2' That Section 9252 be added to Part 5, Chapter 2 of Article 9 of the Tustin Municipal Code to read as follows: 9252 CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT (CR) A. PURPOSE Tustin has played a vital role in the history of Orange County and has retained a rich and unique cultural heritage. Ii is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the recognition, preservation, protection and use of culturally significant structures, natural features, sites and neighborhoods within the City of Tustin is required in the interest of the health, safety, prosperity, social and cultural enrichment and general welfare of City residents· The purpose of this District is to: · Safeguard the heritage of t~e City by preserving neighborhoods, structures, sites and features which reflect elements of the City's cultural, architectural, artistic, aesthetic, political, social, natural and engineering heritage. · Encourage public knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the City' s past. · Strengthen civic and neighborhood pride and a sense of identity based on the recognition and use of cultural resources. · Promote the private and public enjoyment, use and preservation of cul rural ly significant neighborhoods, structures and sites appropriate for the education and recreation of the citizens oF Tustin and visitors to the City. Ordinance No. 1001 Pa ge two 5. Enhance the visual and aesthetic character, diversity of architectural styles and aesthetic appeal of the City. 6, Enhance property values and increase economic and financial benefits to the City and its inhabitants. 7. Assure that new cOhstruction and subdivision of lots in the Cultural Resource District are compatible with the character of the district.. 8. Identify as early as possible and resolve conflicts between preservation of historic and cultural resources and alternative 1 and uses. B. APPLICABILITY 1. The Cultural Resource District is' an overlay District and shall apply to those properties as shown on the official Tustin Zoning Map and to those cultural resource .structures and sites as may be designated by resolution of the City Council and listed by address and filed with the Department of Community Development. 2. The zoning district map shall be amended to indicate the application of the Cultural Resources District. The designation CR shall be added after the underlying zoning designation. 3. The requirements of this section shall be considered in conjunction with the requirements of the underlying district. If a conflict exists between the requirements of the underlying district and this Section the requirements of this Section shall apply. C. CULTURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1. There is hereby created a Cul rural Resource.s Advisory Committee which shall consist of five (5) members appointed by the City Council-a--ma-j~by-~>f-~$~all of whom shal 1 ~ha~ 1 resi de -or- ow~ q~roper-t~y- tm -~ -r~J d:,~l~ia),L)~ -z~e~reas within the City of Tustin a-~e~Jgambe~-C~l-t~l- ,Re~a~r~e~-BLs~b. At 'least three members on the Committee shall also reside or own ~roperty in the residentially zoned areas within a designated Cultural Resources District. 2. To the ex tent possible the Committee shall have among its membership at least one person engaged in architecture or a design profession, one person with a demonstrated interest and knowledge in local history and historical preservation, Ordinance No'. i001 Page three one person engaged in business wi thin a designated Cultural Resources District, an~-~-membe~-ef-~e-Gi-t~yJs -Pt~nnfn~r-¢omntilf(o~ and a member of the Tustin Area Historical Society. e The original appointment of the members of the Committee shall be as follows: two for three years, and three for four "years, e~eei>t- - ~t-- Che - -~erm- - o£ - -the_ _ 21~m~img :el'~-Orl-ttre'q~ommfs~n. Subsequent appointments for all other committee members shall be for a four year term. -4-.---T~~- -:~mmi~cte~- iha~l-- a dOl~t-- +~- ew~- m~)e~- an~- b~--L~w~ ~o~ ~ ~e~- w~ ~k~ -i.ts_a~th~£ i~y_ ~_ s~t~ -fo~ th. J~el ow. e The Co~m~ittee shal 1 draft rul es and bylaws consistent with it's authority as set forth below. Rules and bylaws shall not be adopted until approved by the City Council. ~.- - -~t~ Commi-l>tee -~ha41 - h~ve- ~che -f~q ~ e~%q~-'pew~- an~ ~J~es ': Re~c~ew- -a~d- -co~nmen: - upon- -:he- -Gon4uo t. - ot~ - l~nd- -ase~ ho~s.ieg - en~- r e devil e pmer~t-,- m~r~c4 i~aL -i~mp ~ ev<~nea ~ r: ~ e ~her--~y~e e- e~- pLan~ a g- an~- ~r~g~ a m~- u~der ~k.n- ~y P e~a-te- -re- -pre p er-t-i es - w~ ~+~n- -t~e- ~ ~r~ - ~ee e u~c~s -pre s emit>t~ ve - s ~&n<l~ ~ ~ ~ - a ~ t~mr- ~i>pe eyed- -by- -tJ~e ~o u~eiq- ~o -be- ~se~ q~y- ~h~ ~emm~t~e- p~l-i~a ti~nf- ~o~ ~yer mS,s- -to - ¢oni~cr uel~,-: han~, - a~ter, mo<i_f~% _ :~model, _ :am~e, _ or_ _~i~j~ 1ili nan :L~ Ue~i~a :s~ -C~ ~umml- -F~e~a ur-~ ~x~-~:a ~r-tJ es - w~t~a- a ~l-~uma L -R~s~ ~ +~ ~ ~r-i~t~ ~t._ _ _ A~>~r~>ve-. - e~ - - d i-sa-.p-p~,e v-e-,- - Ja- - who-l-e- - ~>r- - 4 n - - p~r-t, a p~lq~a ~i~>n~- for'- i>er m~ ~s- -pu~ ~u-a..n-t- '~o- -t.~ s -S~--t~ o~. Ordinance No. 1001 Page four 5. The Committee shall act solely in an advisory capacity 1~ the City Council in matters affecting the establishment of a Cultural Resource Disl~ict, designation of Cultural Resources, and as l iason be~een residents, and property owners and ~he City Council wi thin a Cultural Resource Disl~ict. The Corem1 t~ee shal I not exerci se any i ndependen t fi hal decision-raking authority or expend city funds. Actions of the Advisory Committee shall not be considered actions of the city and shall not be represented as'such. ~= - - -A4 ~ -~q~l-i b e~a-t4 en~ ~>f- t~ £ommi-t~cee -s~) ¥ -be- at -pub~ f ¢l~j- no ti-c~d -Cemmi-s~-i e~ --mee-t J-n-g-s-~ ' 6. Meetings of the Co,mai tree shal 1 only be cal 1 ed when requested by the City Council or the Community Oevelopment Oirector, provided the Committee shall meet at least four times per year, with meetings at regular intervals. 7. The Committee shall keep minutes and records of all meetings and proceedings including voting records, attendance, resolutions, findings, determinations and decisions. All such material s shall be public record. 8. All deliberations of the Committee shall be at publicly noticed meetings, fol 1 owing the notice procedure for P1 arming Commission meetings and shall comply with provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act. D. CULTURAL RESOURCE DESIGNATION CRITERIA For the purposes of this Section, an improvement or natural feature may be designated a cultural resource by the City Council, and any area within the City may be designated as a Cultural Resource District by the City Council if it meets the following criteria: · It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cul rural, architectural, aesthetic, social, economic, political, artistic, engineering and or architectural heritage; O~ · It is identified with persons, a business use or events significant in local, state, or national history; or · It embodies distinctive characteristics of style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftmanship; or Ordinance No. 1001 Page fi ve It is representative of she notable work of a builder, designer, or architect; or 5. Its unique location or singular physical characteristic represents an established and familiar visual 'Feature of a neighborhood, community or the City; or 6. Its integrity as a natural environment or feature that strongly contributes to the well being of residents of the City or the well being of a neighborhood within the City; or e It is a geographically definable area possessing a concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects as unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development. E. CULTURAL RESOURCE DESIGNATION PROCEDURES Cultural Resource Districts and Designated Cultural Resources shall be established by the City Council as follows: 1. Any .person may request the designation of an improvement as a cultural resource or the designation of a Cultural Resource District by submitting an application for such designation to the Committee Community Development Director. The Committee or City Council may also initiate such proceedings on their own motion. Z. The Community Development Director or City Council shall refer the proposed request to the Committee for their study, review and r ecommen da ti on. 3. The Committee shall conduct a study of the proposed designation and make a preliminary determination based on such documentation as it may require as to its appropriateness for consideration. If the Committee determines that the applica.tion merits consideration, but only if it so determines, it shall schedule and notice a public hearing. 4. The Committee's decision to schedule or not to schedule a public hearing shall be in writing and shall be filed with the Community Development Director. Notice of a decision not to schedule a public hearing shall be given by mail to the applicant. No permits for alteration, demolition or removal of any improvement, building or structure within the proposed Cultural Resources District or relative to a proposed cultural resource shall be issued while the public hearing or any appeal related thereto is pending. Ordinance No. 1001 Page six · In the case of a proposed Designated Cul rural Resource, notice of the date, place, time and purpose of the hearing shall be given by first class mail to the applicant, property owner, and occupants of the improvement at least 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing, using the name and address of such owners as shown on the latest equalized assessment rolls, and shall be advertised once in a newspaper of general circulation. 6. In the case of a proposed Cultural Resources District, notice of the date, place, time and purpose of the hearing shall be given by first class mail to the applicant, property owners and occupants of all properties within the proposed district at least i0 days prior to the date of the public hearing, using the name and address of such owners as shown on the latest equalized assessment rolls, and shall be advertised once in a newspaper of . general circulation. 7. At the conclusion of 'the public hearing, but in no event more than 30 days from the date set for the initial publ.ic hearing for-the designation of a proposed cultural resource or Cul rural Resource Di strict, the Commi tree shal 1 recommend approval in whole or in part, or disapproval in whole or in part of the application in writing. In the case of a proposed Cultural Resource District, the Committee's recommendation shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission who shall follow all Zoning Amendment procedures contained in the Tustin Municipal Code considering establ i shment of the Cul rural Resource District. In the case of designation of a cultural resource or site, the Committees recommendation shall be transmitted directly to the City Council. 8. The City Council, after receipt of the recommendations from the Planning Commission for designation of a Cultural Resource Di strict, shal 1 by ordinance approve the application in whole or in part, or shall by motion disapprove it in its entirety. In the case of designation of a cultural resource recommended by the Committee the City Council shall by resolution approve the application in whole or' in part of, or by motion disapprove the request. . Failure to send any notice by mail to any property owner where the address of such owner is not a matter of public record shall not invalidate any proceedings in conjunction with the proposed designation. Ordinance No. 1001 Page seven F· G · 10. As soon thereafter as reasonably possible the Community Development Department shall send 'by first class mail a copy of the Ordinance designating a Cultural Resource District or a certified copy of the resolution designating a Cultural Resource to the property owner or owners in the District or the property owner or owners of the Cultural Resource, as applicable. 11. Amendment, revision or deletion of a designation may be accomplished by following the above procedures. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REQUIRED 1. A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be required prior to: a· Alteration of the exterior features of a building or site within a designated Cultural Resource District, or alteration of a Designated Cul rural Resource, Or construction of Improvements wi thin a desi gna ted Cultural Resources District requiring a City building permit. bt Demolition or removal of any Designated Cultural Resource or of any Improvements in a Cultural Resource District· C· A certificate of appropriateness shall not be required for the following: 1)ordinary maintenance or repairs that do not involve a change in design, exterior material or original appearance of an Improvement, nor 2) any construction, reconstruction, alteration or ~'~moval of any feature which has been determined by the Building Official to be necessary to protect the public heal th or safety due to an unsafe or dangerous condition provided the Building Official certifies such a c ti on .~e - t-he- ~ u~t~m a ~ -Eese ueees- ~omm~ PROCEDURE FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS · Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be made on forms provided by the Community Development Department and shall contain whatever detailed information (plans, drawings, agreements, photographs, etc.) as is determined by the Community Development Department to be necessary for the ~emm~t~tee Department to act on the request ~ RGl~Jd-i~g - ~ayn~- ~>f--f~ae~. Where the proposed project requires other discretionary approvals such as a tentative tract map, the background information shall al so be concurrently submitted to the-Gomm$~ Department on each Ordinance No. 1001 Page eight · e · of these applications. Applications for Certificate of Appropriateness shall comply wi th the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Community Development Director shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, ~Hsapprove or deny ~r~ -~f~- -t~- -t~e- qC~ ~q - -~eu~c~- ~emm~t-t~e Certificates of Appropriateness for m~nor Improvements requiring a City building permit -re- - ~ - 4e;~ow~g :- In reviewinO aj)p1 ications for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the ~lrector may consult with and receive the advise and recommendation of the Cultural ;esources Advisory Committee prior to rendering a decision. The decision of the Community Developmen: Director ~e~f-ical~ ~f--Af)pr-o. pr4 ~;en.e~- ~r- ~i~e~- D~ove~ i s appealable to the ~l-~-~~G~m-~~- Planning Comission and any decision of the<~m~t~ Comission is appealable to the City Council. Any appeal shall be ~de in writing and delivered to the Department of Community Development no later than seven calendar days from the date of the decision· Such appeal shall specify the grounds upon which the appeal is based and be accompanied by a fee set by resolution of the City Council· The ~uEt~-~ou~~+~ Planning Co~ission or the City Council, as applicable, shall set the ~tter for consideration at the next regular meeting of the ~omm~t~ee Comission or City Council, and shall give written notice ~ the' appellant of the time and date set for consideration of the appeal. Upon the hearing of such appeal, the ~omm~t-tte Comission or City Council may affirm, reject, or modify a.decision on the Certificate of Appropriateness· A Certificate of Appropriateness shall lapse and become void one year followipg the date on which the certificate was approved unless the conditions of the approval specify a lesser or greater ti me or unless, prior to such expiration date, a building permit is issued by the Ordinance No. 1001 Page ni ne Building Official and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion on the si~e which was the subject of the application. A Certificate may be renewed for an additional period of one year or for a lesser or §rearer period provided that prior to the expiration of the time period granted, an application for renewal of the permit is filed wi th the Community Development Department. The -C~-~u~a~l- -~e~r-ce- ~emmi-t-~ee -om--~he- Community Development Director, i~--~e--c~e-~ -m~Q~-i~Q~e~q~ may approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for renewal of a Certifiate of Appropriateness such decision may be appealed as set forth in paragraph 6 above. 6. Any Certificate of Appropriateness granted in accordance with the terms of this Section may be revoked by the City Council in the manner hereinafter set forth if any of the conditions or terms of such Certificate are violated or upon violation of any applicable provisions of this Section. Before the Council considers revocation of any Certificate of Appropriateness, the Cul-t, ura~ - -~s~u~Ge- - JCQmmi-t~tee Planning Co~m~ission shall hold a hearing thereon after giving written notice thereof to the-permittee at least ten (10) d~ys in advance of such hearing. Within five (5) days thereafter, the C~nm~i~e~ Commission shall transmit a report of its findings and its recommendations on the revocation~ to the City Council who will act on the matter. H. REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION The following findings are required for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of Designated Cultural Resources, or for construction of improvements within a Cultural Resource District. No Certificate shall be issued if the findings cannot be made. For work on a Designated Cultural Resource within a Cultural Resource District, the required findings for both the Resource and District shall be made. 1. Alteration of a Designated. Cultural Resource: a. The proposed Work will not detrimentally alter, destroy or adversely affect the .resource and, in the case of a structure, is compatible with the architectural style of the existing structure. Ordinance No. 1001 · Page ten b. The proposed modification will retain the essential elements which make the structure, site or feature culturally significant. 2. Construction of Improvements in a Cultural Resource District: a. The proposed work conforms to the. Municipal Code and design standards which may be established from tilne to time by the Cultural Resources Committee. b. The proposed work does not adversely affect the character of the District or Designated Cultural Resources within the District. c. The proposed work is harmonious with existing surroundings. The ex tent of harmony shall be evaluated in terms of appropriateness of materials, scale, size, height, placement and use of a new building or structure in relationship to existing buildings and structures and the surrounding setting. I. FINDINGS AND ADDITIONAL PERMIT PROCEDURES FOR DEMOLITION, REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF DESIGNATED STUCTURES OR STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED PRIOR-TO 1940: 1. A Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of a Designated Cultural Resource shall not be approved unless the Committee Colunity Development Director or, on appeal, the City Council finds that one or more of the following conditions exist: a. The structure/site is a hazard to public health or safety and repairs or stabilization are not physically possible. b. The site is required for a public use which will be of more benefit to the public than the Cultural Resource, and there is no feasible alternative location for the public use. c. For a Designated Cultural Resource only: 1. It is not feasible to preserve or restor, e the structure, taking into consideration the economic feasibility of alternatives to the proposal. 2. The proposed replacement structure does not detract from the neighborhood. d. Reconstruction or restoration is not feasible or practical. Ordinance No. 1001 Page eleven 2. No person shall carry out 'or cause-to be carried out any demolition removal or relocation of a Designated Cultural Resource or structure within a Cultural Resource District built prior to 1940 without first receiving a demolition or relocation permit from the City. Such permit shall not be issued unless one of the following events has ocurred and in the Case of a demolition the applicant has complied with 1.3 bel ow: a. A Certificate of Appropriateness has been approved by em-a~e~ the Community Development Director or by the City Council on appeal; or b. A period of 180 days has expired from the date of C~l-~u~l-- .,~e~our. ce- -Comm~i~ _~lentaJ the Community Development Director's denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness, and there has been no City Council appeal. c. A period of 180 days has expired from the date of City Council denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness. . In addition to ~he above requirement, no demolition permit or relocation permit shall be issued for the demolition or relocation of a Designated Cultural Resource or structure within a Cultural Resource District built prior to "1940 until a Certificate of Appropriateness and City building permit has been issued for a replacement structure. J. DESIGN CRITERIA AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS · 1. The ~ul-tq~ra~ Rcseu~c~s-Gemn~i~e~ City Council may establish, promulgate and adopt by resolution, C~i-t~-G®~nc41~ design criteria and standards for properties as are necessary to supplement the provisions of this Section as a guide to evaluate applications for Certificates of Appropriateness, said criteria may include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Acceptable materials for new construction such as stucco, masonry, metal, and glass curtain; b. Appropriate architectural character, scale, and detail for new cons tr ucti on; c. Acceptable appurtenances to new. and existing structures such as gables, parapets, balconies and dormers; Ordinance No. 1001 Page twelve d. Acceptable textures and ornamentation such as paint colors and types, use of wood, stone, metal, plaster, plastics, and other manmade materials, use of shutters, wrought and cast iron, finishes of metal, colors of glass, such as silver, gold, bronze, smoke, and other details or architectural ornamentation; e. Acceptable accessories on new or existing structures such as light fixtures, gas lights, canopies, exterior carpentry, tile or wood, signs, banners, flags and projections. 2. Residential sl~ndards a. Permitted uses: 1. All uses shall be permitted in the Cultural Resources Overlay District as are authorized in the underlying Residental District. 2. The City Council may also permit other non-listed uses which suppor~c the purposes of the District as a conditional use following a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning Commission. b. Site development standards: · Minimum single family lot size: 10,000 square feet Minimum multiple family lot size: 15,000 square feet. 3. Commercial Standards a. Permitted uses: 1. All uses shall be permitted in the Cultural Resource District as are authorized in the underlying commercial district. The City Council may al so permit other non-listed uses which support the purpose of the district as a conditional use following a public hearin(F and recommendation from the Planning Commission. b. Limitations on permitted uses' 1. No merchandise shall be displayed nor advertised for sale on or over public right-of-way. This section is not to be construed as restricting nor limiting the outside display and sale of m.~r.cha, n.di se on pri rate property wi thin the ' Cll ST~ICT,. Ordinance No. 1001 Page thirteen c. Authorized and encouraged uses The following uses are authorized and encouraged with the interest of creating a commercial village atJnosphere: Pipe & Tobacco Shops Wine Tasting Rooms Leather Goods Candle Shops Boutique Coffee Shops Ethnic Restaurants (Spanish, Mexican French, German) Hobby Shops Del i catessens Antique Shops Lamp shops Yardage Goods Knit Shops Ice Cream Parlors Jewel ry Shops Wrought Iron Ware Art Galleries General Offices Photographer's Studios Gift Shop China and Crystal The above list of potential uses is not all encompassing but typifies the character of uses tha-t illustrate the desired image. d. Site development standards and exception In order to provide maximum flexibility in design and development for various lot sizes, consistent with a concept of village environment, the following criteria and exceptions are applicable: 1. Front building setbacks may be established at the property 1 ine except for corner properties requiring a five foot (5') line of sight clearance. 2. Rear yard setbacks shall be established at fifteen (15) feet from the rear property line, or in the event the development extends to the next intervening street, the rear setback line shall be construed as the frontage on "C" or Prospect Streets. 3. As an exception to the general sections of this Chapter and other provisions ~of the Zoning Ordinance, when commercial and professional properties are developed or converted to permitted Ordinance No. 1001 Page fourteen ee uses under the provisions of this Ordinance, on-site parking requirements may be modified under any one or a combination of the following provisions- a. Property or properties that lie within a Vehicle Parking Assessment Distict or Business Improvement Area shall be exempt from the requirement for on-site parking accommodations, subject to the provisions of the Parking or Improvement District Ordinance. b. On-site parking requirements may be waived upon the presentation to the City of a long term lease, running wi th and as a conditions of the business license, for private off-site parking accommodations within 300 feet of the ibusiness or activity to be served. c. All or a portion of' required number of -parking spaces may be satisfied by depositing wi th the City an amount, to be used for public parking accommodations wi thin the area, equal to 4 times the assessed value as determined from the latest assessment roll 'of the County Assessor, of 200 square feet of land within the area, for each required parking space not otherwise provided. Public Improvements Public' improvements contributing to the motif of the area and the intent of this .ordinance are to consist of the following: 1) Street furniture for convenience of the pedestrian shopper to consi st of benches and trash receptacl es. 2) Street lighting with the use of stanchions and fixtures that contribute to the development theme. 3) Street portals to create an identity of approach to the area for vehicle and pedestrian traffic. 4) The use of wishing wells as theme and area i den ti ry. 5} Street and traffic patterns that segregate vehicle from pedestrian traffic by providing rear access to parking accommodations, delivery services, and through traffic, with frontage accommodations for Ordinance No. 1001 Page fifteen pedestrians and short term convenience parking. K. DUTY TO KEEP IN GOOD REPAIR The owner, occupant, or other person in actual charge of a Designated Cultural Resource s,hall keep the exterior of any designated structure, site, or feature in good repair and any interior portions which are nelC, essary to prevent deterioration and decay of any exterior' architectural feature. L. ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES 1. Methods of Enforcement. In addition to the regulations of this section which govern the approval or disapproval of Certificates of Appropriateness covered by this section, the Community Development Department shall have the authority to implement the enforcement thereof by any of t)le following mean s: ae Serving notice requiring the removal of any violation of this section upon the owner, agent, occupant or tenant of-the improvement, building, structure or land; b. Calling upon the City Attorney to institute any necessary legal proceedings to enforce the provisions of this section, and the City Attorney is hereby authorized to institute any actions to that end; c. Calling upon the Chief of Police and authorized agents to assist in the enforcement of this section. In addition to any of the foregoing remedies, the City Attorney may maintain an action for injunctive relief to restrain or enjoin or to cause the correction or removal of any violation of this section, or for an injunction in appropriate cases. 2. Penalties. Any person violating any provision of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in an amount not exceeding $500.00 or be imprisoned for a period not exceeding six months or be so fined and imprisoned. Each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such hereunder. SECTION 3. That Section 9297 of Part 7, Chap'ter 2 of Article 9 be amended to add the following definitions alphabetically' "Alteration" means any exterior change or modification, of any Ordinance No. 1001' Page six teen Designated Cultura1 Resource or of any property located within a Cul rural Resource District. "Certificate of Appropriateness" means an approved certificate issued for the construction, demolition, alteration, removal, or relocation of any publicly or privately owned Designated Cultural Resource, or any structure, natural feature, of site within a Cultural Resource District. "committee" means the Cultural Resource Advisory Committee. "Cul rural Resource District" means any area containing improvements which have a special character, historical interest or aesthetic value or which represent one or more architectural periods or styles typical to the history of the City, and which improvements constitute a distinct section of the City that has been designated a Cultural Resource District pursuant to Section 9252 of the Zoning Code. "Designated Cultural Resource" means improvements, buildings, structures, signs, features, sites, places, areas or other objects of scient~i fi c, aesthetic, educational, cul rural, architectural, or historical significance to the residents of the City that has been designated a Cultural Resource by the City Council. "Designated site" {cultural resource site)" means a parcel or part thereof on which a cultural resource is situated, and which has been designated a cultural resource site by the City Council. "Demolition" means to tear down or demolish. "Exterior architectural feature" means the architectural elements embodying style, desiga, general arrangement and components of all of the outer surfaces of an improvement, including but not limited to, the kind, color and texture of the building materials and th.e type and style of all windows, doors, lights, signs and other fixtures appurtenant to such improvement. "Improvement" means any building, structure, parking facility, fence, gate, wall, landscaping constituting a physical betterment of real property, or any part of such betterment. Section 4. That Ordinance No. 157 entitled the E1 Camino Real Redevelopment Plan (Specific Plan No. 1) is hereby repealed. Section 5. That the official Tustin Zoning Map is hereby amended to include a Cultural Resource District and to include those properties shown on Exhibit A within said district. Ordinance No. 1001 Page seventeen Section 6. That Ordinance No. is hereby entitled repeal ed. Section 7. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declared that it would have passed this Ordinance and adopted this Chapter and each Section, sentence, clause, or phrase, thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the day of , 1988. Ronaid B. Hoesterey Mayor Mary E. Wynn City C1 er k Report to the Planning Commission Item No. DATE ' SUBJECT: la. ARCH 28, 1988 OUTDOOR DINING AREAS RECOPIqENDATION · Pleasure of the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission at one of their regular meetings identified the need to ~.xamine issues associated, with outdobr dining. In response to this request, staff have identified current code requirements for outdoor dining areas in the City, issues associated with outdoor seating, surveyed standards for outdoor dining found in other cities and identified possible, alternative methods for regulating outdoor dining as a means of stimulating further discussions on this matter by the Commission. These materials are. attached to the report and staff will be available to summarize the information collected to date and to answer any questions. Joel Siavit, ASsistant Planner JS'CAS 'ts Attachments ~'Ch ri s ti ne A. Shingleton,~z Director of Community Development · ~ Community Development Department EXHIBIT I CURR£~ COOE R£OUIR~£NTS ZONE REQUIREMENT C-1 Restaurant allowed, no drive-ins, outdoor dining not specified. C-2 CUP for "Outdoor markets & outdoor sales establishments" not clear as to whether this includes outdoor dining. C-3 CUP for "Outdoor sales establishments" and "Alcoholic beverage sales establishments" Again, not clear on outdoor dining. CG Restaurants allowed, drive-ins with a CUP, CUP for "Outdoor markets and outdoor sales establishments", similar to C-2. M&PM Restaurant with a CUP, no mention of outdoor dining. 1st St. Specific Plan Restaurants need a CUP. PC ' CUP only. Specific Plan #1 (El Camino Real ) Does not specifically address outdoor dining, but as an objective, it encourages an increase in pedestrian traffic to Old Town, Tusti n. Alcohol Beverage Guidelines At the discretion of the Planning Commission as part of the CUP for al cohol i c beverages. EXBIBIT II ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITX OUTDOOR DINING Can create a sense of place for commercial uses providing a pedestrian or vi 1 lage atmosphere. · Can attract business. Potential conflicts related to actual location of outdoor eating areas {due to inadequate site selection and lack of screening). Trash and clean-up issues. Take-out concept of outdoor seating vs. a restaurant outdoor seating concept are very different concepts with different issues. EXHIBIT III SURVEY RESULTS le Cities which have no specific requirements: i.e., part of design/site plan review on a case by case basis or CUP and on a case by case basis' CitY Process Anaheim Brea ~ Beverly Hills Buena Park Carmel Costa Mesa Cypress Del Mar Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grove La Palma Laguna Beach San Clemente San Jose Yorba Li nda CUP Design review Design review CUP CUP CUP Design review Design review CUP Design review CUP if in historical area, otherwise design review Case by case CUP if wi th entertainment or alcoholic beverages, otherwise design review CUP if wi th entertainment or alcoholic beverage otherwise design review Design review, if it's a nightclub, a noise analysis is required CUP Cities with other requirements: La Habra Zone Variance Pal m Springs Land use permit required in addition to architectural review done on a case by case basis. Outdoor dining areas need to have trash containers, sidewalks steam cleaned and are to be self contained. EXHIBIT IV ALTERNATIVES AND POSSIBLE SCHEDULES There are numerous alternatives to select from. Assuming a course of action will be taken, the following is a list of the alternatives which involve varying levels of staff involvement. A1 ternative 1- '1 The most si~nplistic approach would be to create "in-house" department procedures and guidelines. The code would remain the same and no Planning Commission actions would be required. The new procedures and guidelines would be approved by the Community Development Director and become part of the department's administrative procedures manual to be used in site plan review of outdoor seating and conditional use permit applications. Alternative 2' This approach suggests the adbptlon of Outdoor Seating Guidelines by the Planning Commission. These guidelines would be used for authorized (CUP 'equired) outdoor seating areas in the C-2, CG and PC districts. These guidelines could be sent to the Planning Commmission for approval by Resolution. Timing: Resolution can be scheduled in April. .Alternative 3: This alternative involves the most staff, Commission and Council involvement, however, it establishes a solid basts for outdoor seating enforcement and design. This approach includes an amendment to the C-1, C-2L CG' and Industrial zones so it is determined whether or not and when a conditional use permit should be required for restaurants wi th outdoor seating areas and al so establishing design guidelines which are approved by resolution. This program could fol 1 ow the fol 1 owl ng schedule. April Prepare Zone Changes, Guidelines and Environmental documentati on. May 9, 1988 Planning Commission Workshop', May 23, 1988 Public Hearing by Planning Commission. June 6, 1988 Public Hearing and first reading by Council. June 20, 1988 ,uly 19, 1988 Second reading and adoption by Council. Zone Changes in effect and Code Enforcement begins. Report to the Planning Commission Item No. 9 DATE' SIJBJECT' MARCH 28, 1988 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR 88-1 FOR WESTERN NEURO CARE CENTER RECOMMENDAT]:ON It is recommended that the Planning Commission refer any verbal or written comments to staff on this project. DISCUSSION On March 14, 1988, the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was presented to he Planning Commission. The EIR was for the proposed expansion of the Western :ufo Care Center. Staff has scheduled a [~ublic hearing for the EIR and e.xpansion proposal on April i1, 1988. In order to hold this hearing, all comments on the Draft EIR must be coordinated and responded to and a Final EIR prepared. Staff is requesting Commission comments, if any, for incorporation into the Final EIR. Laura Cay Pick Associate Planner LCP:CAS-ts Christine A. Shingleto~/ Director of Community D~evelopment .,, Community Development Department DATE: MARCH 28, 1988 Item No. 10 Inter- Corn TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION CHRISTINE SHINGLE-TON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNIIIF DEVELOPMENT SANTA AHA PLANNING COMMISSION TOUR On February 11, 1988 the Santa Aha Planning Commission participated in a van tour which included observing the following areas of our City. Those areas include the fol 1 owl ng: Mimi's Center (Seventeenth Street and 1-55 freeway) Lafayette Plaza (Newport Avenue and Irvine Boulevard) Larwin Square (Newport Avenue and First Street) Carver Center (Newport Avenue and Main Street) The minutes {including comments by their Planning Commission and staff) of that tour are attached for Your information. · per Attachment cc: William Huston MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION VAN TOUR SANTA ANA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 1988 The Special Session Van Tour of the Santa Aha Planning Commission began at 3:13 P.M. in front of the Santa Aha City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Aha, California. Those who attended included Chairman Hector Godinez, Commissioner Roy Uno, Commissioner Genet Chavez-Gomez, Commissioner Don Sizemore, Act~ing Planning Director Kenneth Adams, Project Manager II Patti Nunn, and Recording Secretary Kathy Pounds. Chairman Godinez expressed his appreciation to those who were in attendance and gave a special welcome to Patti Nunn. The purpose of the tour was to- view various centers in the area to examine possibilities for mixed uses in centers and land use. It was desired that as a result, ideas and expectations for a quality, not marginal, rehabilitation of Honer Plaza could be exchanged and a basis could be given for negotiations. Traveling east on Seventeenth 'Street, building signage visibility for the Santa Ana Plaza tenants was examined. Variance No. 88-1 to allow a freestanding sign in excess of the size and items of information allowed by Code for this center, located at 1002 East Seventeenth Street, had been heard by the Planning Commission at its Regular Meeting of January 25, 1988. At that time the hearing was continued to the Regular Meeting of February 22, enabling staff and the applicant to work out many issues. It was determined that signage on all the buildings wouid be quite visibl~ from Seventeenth Street. The following sites were viewed and discussed: 1. Shopping Center at 17th Street and the Newport Freeway in Tustin The center, approximately 24 months old and sparked off the design of nearby Mimi's Restaurant, uses one architectural theme. It is a good center with good design that utilizes river rock, good colors and roof design. It was noted that the center looks like a little village with nice decorative treatment, monument sign and kiosk. Due to a law suit, the center lost the front corner piece of the property. This front pad has been developed with a restaurant that is in conflict with the rest of the center. Since it sits on a front pad, the theme of the center is hidden and the effect of the center is destroyed. Those on tour wer~ impressed with the Unocal 76 service station across the street. Garage doors faced away from the street; the use of river rock made a nice treatment; and good interior'landscaping was provided. ~e wall along Seventeenth near Hewes in Tustin was noted. This type of wall was not desired on Bristol. Meandering sidewalks and the use of walls going in and out along Newport Avenue were noted. These were desired types of street treatments. 2. Lafayette Center on Newport Avenue near Irvine Boulevard in Tustin It was noted that this is a nice center with good landscaping and good setbacks. 3. Larwin Square at Newport Avenue and First Street'in Tustin Larwin Square has created a nice entryway with one monument sign. The mature landscaping, including all types of tall trees, and meandering roadways provide good impacts. 4. New Shopping Center on Newport Avenue in Tustin between Main Street and E1 Camino Real Those in attendance were impressed with the theme of the center, its entryway, interior landscaping, including mature palm trees, the variety of interior streets, and corner treatments. However, signage has no continuity and too many colors. Mr. Adams pointed out examples of parking stalls that utilize overhang on landscaping as had been discussed at the the last Planning Commission meeting. These stalls are striped at i6 feet, but actually provide 18 feet of parking because of the overhang. He also noted that Mr. Ellenbecker was responsible for the landscape changes that have occured in commercial projects within the City. In the next couple of years, the product of his work will be seen. Also of interest were the medians on Newport Avenue. Good landscaping was provided--even in the small fingers. 5. The Marketplace on Campus Drive near Jamboree in Irvine (Across from UCI) Chairman Godinez provided a briefing on the center which was to be used as a contrast with Honer Plaza, across the street from Rancho Santiago College. As a contrast, this center is surrounded by high density housing whereas Honer Plaza is surrounded by single-family residences. The center is an excellent development with excellent land uses and architectural theme. Multi-uses included high rise, various types of retail establishments, community uses, courtyards and food pads. Of special interest, and desired for the Museum District, was the bridge over the street between the center and the college campus. Chairman Godinez noted that he would be pleased if Santa Aha could get 70% of the quality of this center for Honer Plaza. Those on tour were particularly impressed with the courtyard treatments, landscaping, harmony in architectural design, use of various levels, use of street lamps, the bridge, small identification signs, the small monument sign, business offices, restaurants, specialty shops, and creativity in design. There was no reason why the same type of development couldn't be made in Santa Aha. Also noted were the concrete columns to break walls, suttle differences in front pad usage, the center's entryway theme, the variety of uses, nondescript several story building in the background, the trees and chips in planters, hedge trim on the streets, the use of a lot of little details, and the metal-framed kiosk. Of special interest was Pinky's -Hamburger Grill and drive-through on a front pad. Mr. Adams noted that the narrow entrances reduce speed of traffic without speed bumps. 6'. Campus Plaza at Cornell and Campus Drive in Irvine Here was seen the interesting use of side buildings and a Del Taco in the back. Bob's Big Boy, a sit down restaurant, was on a front pad catty-corner across fhe street from the college. It was noted that the center had good quality but was less expensive then "The Marketplace." Points of interest noted in other areas included the Atrium ~tt Mart_£t~ :tt~l Vot~ Karman in Irvine, the nice curved streets and curved meandering sidewalks along South Coast, and.the Harbor Center near Harbor and Wilson. It was felt that this center was a more direct comparison to Honer Plaza. 7. Costa Mesa Courtyards at Harbor and 19th in Costa Mesa It was noted that this center had many similarities to centers in Tustin; Features noted included the fountain treatment, changes in grades, small signs in front, interior landscaping, plastic signs', and a theme center building. Of special interest was the rehabilitation with false facades on older buildings across the street from the center. The medians along Fairview were noted. It was felt that although they were basically good, the sticks on the fingers were not attractive. Also noted were the terrible landscaping at Shakey's Pizza Parlor, the corrosion to the ditch behind houses on Fairview, this area being in the Flood District, and the Isaac Development at Fairview and First. Of special concern were the blue awnings which were quite dirty. Ms. Nunn questioned if a cleaning program could be required for awnings. The Special Session Van Tour adjourned at 5:43 P.M. HECTOR R. GODINEZ, CHAIRMAN SANTA ANA PLANNING COMMISSION Report to' the ~~::'~~ Planning Commission Item No.' 11 DATE: MARCH 28, 1988 SUBdECT: REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS - March 21, 1988 At the time of the preparation of this packet the Action Agenda for the subject meeting was unavailable. The item will be hand delivered to the Commission prior to the meeting. Oral presentation. p~f · ~ "-~ Corn munity Development Department ,