The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 09-15-86ACTION AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING COmmISSION REGULAR HEETING SEPTF~BER 8, 1986 REPORTS NO. 1 9-15-86 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Weil, Baker, Le Jeune, Ponttous, Absent: Puckett 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 August 25, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting. Baker moved, Le~eune second to approve the Consent Calendar. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Metton cat, ted 4-0. 2. TENTATIVE TRACT 12732 Applicant: Location: Request: Bren Company Lot 2 of Tract 12345 (East Tusttn) Authorization to subdivide for phasing purposes, lot 2 of Tract 12345 for residential condominium purposes. The subdivision would permit development of 248 condominium units. Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner Chair Pro Tem Well opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Ronda Heacock, Bren Co. representative, made herself available for questions. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Well closed the hearing at 7:41 p.m. CItsstoner getl moved, Ponttous second to recmmend to City Council approval of Tentative Tract 12732 by the adoptton of Resolution 2356 wlth an amendment to condition 19 excluding butldtng permits on mede1 homes. Morton carried 4-0. Planning Commission Action Agenda September 8, 1986 page two PUBLIC HEARXIIGS Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: USE PERMIT 86-25 Michael Todd Northwesterly corner of Redhill and Edinger Avenues Authorization to allow retail uses in an industrial zone MARY ANN CHAMBERLAIN, Associate Planner Chair Pro Tem Well opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Michael Todd, applicant, answered questions from the Commission concerning parking ratios for retail and R&D, and explained that a typical tenant would have retail use in the front with warehouse or manufacturing in the back. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Commissioner Well closed the hearing at 7:49 p.m. The Commission, staff and applicant discussed square footage calculations for the proposed retail uses. Commissioner Pontlous moved, Baker second to approve Use Permit 86-25 by the adoption of Resolution 2361 amendlng condition mx.B. to tnclude that retail uses uny not exceed 60% of the gross floor area (37,260 square feet). Motion carried 4-0. 4. ZONE CHANGE 86-1 Applt cant: Locati on: An action initiated by the Planning Commission 335, 345, 355, 365, 405, 415, 425, 435 and 445 W. 6th Street Request: To 'consider re-zoning of properties from Single Family Residential (R-l) to Planned Community Single Family Residential {P.C. Residential) Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner 5. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 11 Applicant: An action initiated by the Planning Commission Location: 335, 345, 355, 365, 405, 415, 425, 435, 445 and 455 W. 6th Street Request: Presentation: Adoption of a developmen~plan in the form of a Specific Plan. Said Specific Plan would authorize the development of single family residential homes on minimum lot sizes of 6,000 square feet. These homes would be limited to single story structures. / JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner Planning Commission Action ! ,nda September 8, 1986 page three 6. USE PERMIT 86-26 Applicant: Location: Atnslie Development 405, 415, 425 W. 6th Street Request: Authorization to construct eight (8) single family detached homes in accordance with proposed Specific Plan No. 11 Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner 7. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12833 Applicant: Request: Mark Ainslie To consolidate a~d re-subdivide three lots into eight lots for single-family residential purposes. L ocatt on: 405, 415, 425 Sixth Street Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner Chair Pro Tem Well combined the public hearings on Zone Change 86-1, Specific Plan No. 11, Use Permit 86-26 and Tentative Tract Map No. 12833. She opened the hearings at 8:16 p.m. for testimony from the audience. The following people spoke: Mark Ainslie, applicant, gave background on project and explained the Zone Change and Specific Plan would provide continuity for the entire area. This plan encourages lot consolidation and encourages development and improvement of existing properties. John Sauers, 515 S. Pacific, opposed the project; thought the Commission was giving the applicant preferential treatment; and, disputed staff's traffic count. Richard Vtntng, 400 W. Main, opposed the project; sees the Planned Community as a vehicle to circumvent the 7200 sq. ft. lots; this only benefits the applicant; creates spot zone situations; eight units where there are three creates an adverse impact on surrounding area; not an orderly growth pattern. Charles Anderson, 255 W. 6th, opposed to the project; only benefits the applicant; The City Council promised the citizens during the bed and breakfast hearings the area would be left as it is and would not be touched again. He also requested his curb be re-painted red. Ed Gage, 405 Main, opposed to project due to lack of recreational area; puts 50 to 60 people into an area designed for 25; negative impact on 6th Street due to limited access. Jack Carlile, 355 and 365 W. 6th, in favor of the plan because it should enhance the value of existing properties. Barbara Cox, 450 1/2 S. "B" Street, opposed; cited inaccuracy in public hearing notice; preferred six houses; the current zoning already allows property owners to build four houses on two lots so this proposal only benefits the applicant; she further cited the staff report, "the residents are urged to consolidate their lots" in her concern on overall density changes. Planntng Commission Action ~enda September 8, 1986 page four Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chair Pro Tem Wetl closed the hearing at 9:05 p.m. Commission discussion ensued: Commissioner LeJeune questioned the lot configuration, which is the front and back of the lot; asked for clarification on the increase in number of units per project when lots are consolidated; stated that a consistent plan providing for two houses per lot would be fair. Commissioner Baker expressed concern with the public hearing notice information being incorrect and confirmed the property owners received legal notice. He further clarified the procedure in amending the Specific Plan in the future. Chair Pro Tem Well explained to the audience good planning with single family homes using the Housing Element as a guideline. She further stated that she thought these houses and the Specific Plan would be an asset to the area. C_m~_tsstoner Ponttous moved, Baker second to recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 86-1 by the adoption of Resolution 2358. gatton carrted 3-1, LeJeune opposed. Cmmtsstoner Wet1 moved, Baker second to recommend to the Ctty Counct1 approval of Speclftc Plan Ilo. 11 by the adoption of Resolution 2359. gatton carrted 3-1, LeJeune opposed. C_m~__lsstoner Well moved, Pontlous second to approve Use Permtt 86-26 by the adoptton of Resolution 2360. gotion carrted 3-1, Le~eune opposed. C~tsstoner Wet1 moved, Baker second to approve Tentative Tract gap #o. 12833 by the adopttonn of Resolution 2362. Norton carrted 3-1, Le~eune opposed Chair Pro Tem Weil called for a recess at 9:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m. 8. VARIANCE 86-4 Applicant: Request: Mark Atnslte Authorization to vary with the lot size requirement in order to develop eight single family homes Location: 405, 415 and 425 Sixth Street Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner Rob Balen informed the Commission the applicant had requested withdrawal of his Yartance request. C_A~mtsstofler Baker moved, Le4eune second to accept the applicant's withdrawal of Yartance 86-4. Notlon carrled 4-0. OLD BUSINESS None. NEll BUSINESS None. Planntng Cor~lsslon Action September 8, 1986 page five nda STAFF CONCERNS 9. Report on Council Actions of August 18, 1986 Presentation: Rob Balen, Planning Consultant COM#XSSZON CONCERNS Commissioner Baker wondered what the construction is on the S Freeway between Newport and East Tustin area. Commissioner Well questioned the purpose of the joint meeting with the Council. Since staff had not been informed of the purpose, the Commission asked for clarification due to a letter received from Parents Who Care which assumes they are the reason for the meeting. Commissioner Well further requested clarification on the Sign Code and on CC&R's in Planned Community regulationns. Her concern is to reduce the city's liability by making the city part of the review process. Commissioner Well further informed that she is representing the city in meetings with North Tustin residents regarding annexation. ADJOURBIENT ~__Amm¶sstoner Le~eune moved, Baker second to adjourn at 10:OS p.m. to $:00 p.m. on September 22, 1986 for a tour and dtnfle, meeting prior to the regularly scheduled 7:30 Planning Co~sstofl meeting. Wlotlon carried 4-0. AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNXNG COMMZSSION REGULAR MEETZNG SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Counctl Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEG[ANCE/]NVOCATION ROLL CALL: Puckett, Weil, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontlous, PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU W~SH 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 August 25, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting. CONTINUED PUBLXC HEARING 2. TENTATIVE TRACT 12732 Applicant: Location: Bren Company Lot 2 of Tract 12345 (East Tustin) Request: Authorization to subdivide for phasing purposes, lot 2 of Tract 12345 for residential condominium purposes. The subdivision would permit development of 248 condominium units. Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner PUBLXC HEARXNGS 3. USE PERMIT 86-25 Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: Michael Todd Northwesterly corner of Redhtll and Edinger Avenues Authorization to allow retail uses in an industrial zone MARY ANN CNAMBERLAIN, Associate Planner Planning Commission Agenda September 8, 1986 page two 4. ZONE CHANGE 86-1 Applicant: Location: An action initiated by the Planning Commission 335, 345, 355, 365, 405, 415, 425, 435 and 445 N. 6th Street Request: To consider re-zoning of properties from Single Family Residential (R-l) to Planned Community Single Family Residential (P.C. Residential) Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner 5. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 11 Applicant: Location: An action initiated by the Planning Commission 335, 345, 355, 365, 405, 415, 42S, 435, 445 and 455 W. 6th Street Request: Adoption of a development plan in the form of a Specific Plan. Said Specific Plan would authorize the development of single family residential homes on minimum lot sizes of 6,000 square feet. These homes would be limited to single story structures. Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner 6. USE PERMIT 86-26 Applicant: Location: Atnslie Development 405, 415, 425 W. 6th Street Request: Authorization to construct eight (8) single family detached homes in accordance with proposed Specific Plan No. 11 Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner 7. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12833 Applicant: Request: Mark Atnslie To consolidate and re-subdivide three lots into eight lots for single-family residential purposes. Location: 405, 415, 425 Sixth Street Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner Planning Commission Agenda September 8, 1986 page three 8. VARIANCE 86-4 Applicant: Request: Mark Atnslie Authorization to vary with the lot size requirement in order to develop eight single family homes 406, 416 and 426 Sixth Street Location: Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. STAFF CONCERNS 9. Report off Council Actions of August 18, 1986 Presentation: Rob Balen, Planning Consultant COIlqlSSION COMCERNS ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. C,M.LTO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers pLEDGE OF ,M.L£GXA~CE/X~OCATIO# Present: Wetl, Baker, Le jeune, Ponttous, ROLL CALL: Absent: Puckett pUBLIC CORCERRS: ~oneo CORSERT CALE#OAR: Minutes of August ]*~-, ],986 Planning Commission Meeting. Final Parcel Map 86-20],, Chambers Road· to approve the Consent Calendar. Mort on Mr. Frank Wu Applicant: ],¢S7Z-92 ~olt Avenue Location: tattve Tract Map No. t2B55 containing the Approva~ ~? Ten ree lots into 19 townhome lots and three Request: subdtVt$tun of th and co~l~on ownership- lettered lots for access Presentation: MarY Ann chamberlain, Associate Planner ubltC hearing at 7:38 p.m: ~r. Frank Wu explained, in P the existing trees are not an Chair Pro Tem Well opened .t~,s question, that if response to CommiSSioner we~/ obstacle to construction they will leave them in. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Commissioner Well closed the hearing at 7:39 p m ........ ~ Tentative Tract 12855 by the Planning Commission Minutes August 25, [986 page two 4. VARIANCE 86-6 Appllcant: Location: Mr. Ted Fessler of Larwin Square Ltd. 520 E. First Street Request: Approval to vary from the size requirements of the Tusttn Sign Code for a new wall sign. Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Assistant Planner Chair Pro Tem Well opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Ted Fessler, Larwin Square Management, encouraged acceptance of this variance. Only three other tenants have 10,000 square feet so doesn't see problem with requests for additional signing developing with other tenants. John Ztsktn, Big 5, explained the importance to Big 5 to have the larger sl~n due to setback and trees in the center. Seeing no one further wishing ~ speak, Commissioner Wetl closed the hearing at 7:52 p.m. Commissioner Wetl moved, Baker second to approve Variance 86-6 by the adoption of Resolution 2355. Motion carried 4-0. 5. USE PERMIT 86-23 Applicant: Location: Mr. Manderschetd 2512 Walnut Avenue, Unit 5 Request: Authorization to install a type 47 general liquor license for on-site consumption in conjunction with a restaurant Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Assistant Planner Laura Pickup informed the Commission that the applicant withdrew his application. Chair Pro Tem Well opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak, she closed the hearing at 7:54 p.m. Commissioner Baker moved, Ponttous second to accept the applicant's withdrawal of Use Permit 86-23. Motion carried 4-0. 6. TENTATIVE TRACT 12732 AND DESIGN REVIEW 86-11 Applicant: Location: Bren Company Lot 2 of Tract 12345 (East Tustin) Request: To create a one lot subdivision for residential condominium purposes. The subdivision would permit development of 248 condominium units. Presentation: Jeffrey S. Davis, Acting Senior Planner Jeff Davis recommended consideration of Tentative Tract 12732 be continued to the next meeting to allow staff and the Bren Company additional time to negotiate a few details. Planntng Commission H~nutes August 25, 1986 page three f Chatr Pro Tem He11 opened the publlc heartng on Destgn Revtew 86-11 at 8:00 p.m. Ronda Heacock, Bren, explained that thts project wtll exceed the parking requirements by at least 28~. Seetng no one further wtshtng to speak, Commissioner Well closed the heartng on Destgn Revtew 86-[[ at 8:04 p.m. Commissioner Wet1 moved, Ledeune second to approve Destgn Revtew 86-11 by the adoption of Resolution 2357 wtth an exception to Ztem B. 7. adding rough plumbing for solar panels tn the recreation/pool area. Morton carrted 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Ponttous second to continue the public hearing on Tentative Tract 12732 to the September 8, 1986 Planning Commission meettng, t4otton carrted 4-0. OLD BUSZNESS None. HEH BUSINESS None. STAFF CONCERNS ~ 7. Report on Counctl Acttons of August 18, 1986 Presentation: Rob Balen, Planntng Consultant 8. Code Enforcement of Sign Regulations Presentation: Laura Cay Ptckup, Assistant Planner C(]M#ISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Pontlous requested assistance from staff on the sign code. She doesn't like dealtng with so many sign variances and requested adjustments be made to avotd so many variances and possibly change the sign code. Commissioner LeOeune expressed hts annoyance wtth so many temporary banners around town, especially on the weekends. Commissioner Nell requested the new Commissioners recetve copies of the East Tusttn documents. ADdOURI~qEliT Commissioner LeOeune moved, Baker second to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planntng Commission meeting. Hotlon carrted 4-0. CHARLES E. PUCKETT, CHAZRMAN DONNA ORR, RECORDING SECRETARY Report to the Planning Commission DATE: SEPTEHBER 8, 1986 ITEM NO. 2 SU~,]ECT: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12732 APPLICANT: LOCATION: BREN CORPANY ONE CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 EAST TOSTIN RESIDENTIAL PHASE I, AREA NO. 2, PROJECT AREA IS BOUNDED BY BRYAN AVENUE, TUSTIN RANCH ROAD, EL CAMINO AND PARKCENTER LANE AS SNONN ON TRACT NO. 12345 ZONING: PLANNED CO~NITY RESIDENTIAL ENV IROI~ENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: EIR 84-3 COVERING THE SUBJECT PROdECT AREA ~AS CERTIFIED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENYIROI~ENTAL QUALITY ACT. THAT THE .CO~ISSION RECOI~IEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT ~ NO. 12732 AUTHORIZING A HIJLTI-LOT SUBDIVISION FOR RESIDENTIAL CONDQHINIUN PURPOSES. RECOI~qENDED ACTION: That the Commission recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 12732 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2356. BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: Upon finalization of Tract No. 12345, the properties within Area 2 of The East Tustin Phase I area were granted authorization to be developed as residential condominiums. At the August 25, 1986 Commission meeting, Design Review 86-11 was approved for the 248 unit condominium project to be called Sycamore Glen. As a method to phase construction of the approved project in terms of actual construction and sales, The Bren Company has proposed Tentative Tract Map 12732. Effectively, this subdivision map will create eleven separate lots that may be developed individually. Given conditions of approval in proposed Resolution 2356, each lot will be able to stand on its own in terms of parking and on-site traffic circulation. Accordingly, it is recommended that Tentative Tract Map 12732 be recommended to City Council '~Resolutton~ ~DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner JD:do attach:~ Resolution 2356 Tentative Tract Map 12732 for approva~ the adoption oM ,'ROBERT W. B~LEN, v Planning Consultant FILE OPY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2356 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDINH TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12732 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: That Tentative Tract Map No. 12732 was submitted to the Planning Commission on behalf of The Bren Company for consideration. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for sat~ map. Ce That an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 84-3) has been certified in conformance with the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act for the subject project area. That the proposed division is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan and adopted Planned Community Regulations (East Tusttn, Phase I) as it pertains to the.development' of multiple family dwellings. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approVal of Tentative Tract Map No. 12732 subject to the following conditions: All applicable conditions of Tract No. 12345 shall hereby be imposed, by reference, on to Tentative Tract Map 12732. Preparation and submittal of a final grading plan delineating the following information is required: a. Final street elevations at key locattohs. b. Final pad/finish floor elevations and key elevations for all site grading. All construction within the public right-of-way and/or public easements must be shown on a separate 24"x36" plan with all construction referenced to the applicable City/County/IRWD standard drawing numbers. Improvements to be shown will include but not be limited to the following: a. Curb and gutter b. Sidewalk c. Utility connections (gas, electric, telephone, CATV. d. Storm drain connections to public facilities (the storm drain facilities within this tract will be private drains to be maintained by the Homeowners Association) e. Domestic water f. Sanitary sewer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 24 25 26 27 Resolution No. 2356 page t~o Additional right-of-way will be required for meandertnq sidewalks along "B" Street and E1 Camtno Real frontages. Payment of all required Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 sewer connection fees that may be required as a result of the interim connection to the District 7 facilities, will be permitted within this area. Payment of all required fees for the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program will be required at the time building permits are issued. 10. In Lieu of payment of New Construction Tax pursuant to City Code Section 2603, $126,000.00 shall be deposited into an approved fund for the development of the neighborhood park within Tract 12345 per Agreements between the City of Tustln and the Irvine Company. A complete phasing and construction schedule must be submitted, including complete i~rovement plans for model homes. CC&R's must be prepared and submitted for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. The City shall be made a party, for enforcement purposes, of said CC&R's and shall be prepared in accordance with format acceptable to the City. Note 13 on Tentative Tract Map 12732 shall be amended to read: "Approval of this tentative map shall remain in force for a period of twentz-four (24) months." 11. Note 15 on Tentative Tract Map 12732 shall be deleted. 12. All garage units shall be equipped with automatic garage door openers. 13. All private streets shall be constructed to minimum city standards in terms of type and quantities of materials used. 14. A total of 2.08 acres of parkland dedication is required pursuant to provisions of City Ordinance No. 921. 15. Water tn~rovement plans shall be approved by the fire chief for fire protection. The adequacy and reliability of water system design, and the distribution of fire hydrants will be evaluated in accordance with Insurance Service Office suggested standard. 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2356 page three 16. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, evidence that a water supply for fire protection is available shall be submitted to and approved by the fire chief. 17. That at such locations where the abandoned San Diego Pipeline encroaches into the project area, said pipellne shall be removed. 18. Streets 28 feet in width or less must be posted "No Parking-Fire Lane" and comply with the regulation in the Uniform Fire Code Section 10.207 and Vehicle Code Section 22500.1. lg. Assessment bonds on each property within the subdivision shall be converted to a fixed rate and confirmation of the conversion shall be furntsed to the City in a form approved by city's Finance Director upon issuance of building permits for any residential unit. 20. Developer shall be responsible for all costs related to the calculation of the revised parcel assessments, the preparation of the revised assessment diagram and other required administrative duties related to Assessment District No. 85-1 as a result of the subdivision of parcels of land previously established within the boundaries of Assessment District No. 85-1 confirmed by the Tustin City Council on July 21, 1986. 21. One of the two proposed recreation areas must be constructed simultaneously with the first phase of residential units. The second recreation area must be constructed at such time that building permits issued for residential units exceeding 124 in number. 22. A maximum of 248 units are authorized within this subdivision. 23. Precise phasing plan for development must be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on the day of , 198 . CHARLES E.PUCKETT Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Planning DATE: SUBdECT: APPLICANT & O#NER: LOCATION: ZONING: Commission SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 USE PERMIT 86-25 REDHILL EDINGER PARTNERSHIP OF RESCO DEVELOPMENT 1421, 1451EDINGER NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF RED HILL ~ND EDINGER INDUSTRIAL (M) DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: RECO~MENDEO ACTION: THIS PROgECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO ALLO# RETAIL USES IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE. APPROVE USE PERMIT 86-25 BY THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2361. BACKGROUND: In January of 1985 Resco Development proposed a Research and Development (R & D) project for the 4.7 acre parcel at the northwesterly corner of Red Hill and Edinger Avenues. Based on market studies which were prepared for the proposed Specific Plan No. 7, staff encouraged the developer to include commercial uses for the generation of sales tax revenue. The developer was agreeable to amending his plan to include a restaurant, subject to the contribution of funds from the Redevelopment Agency for the cost of public improvements. Amended plans which included a 5,200 square foot restaurant and two (2) R & D buildings of 62,[00 sq. ft. were approved by the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) in April of 1985. This RDA approval included a contribution of not more than $250,000 toward off-site public improvements. An analysis of costs and revenues was completed prior to the Agency's approval which indicated that return from the project in the form of sales taxes and property tax increments would repay the Agency contribution within five (5) years. PROgECT ANALYSIS: In the Industrial District (M) retail uses are allowed with a use permit. Proposed Specific Plan No. 7 (see attached plan) shows retail commercial uses for this parcel. Since the Specific Plan No. 7 has not yet been adopted, a use permit is required for this project. i, Community Development Deparlment ~ Planning Commission Report Use Permit 86-25 page two The developer Is now requesting authorization to allow retail uses tn the 62,100 square foot R & 0 buildings. The construction of the buildings and parking lot for this project were recently completed while the restaurant is still under construction. Resco Development is in the process of signing leases with proposed tenants for the center. Several of the tenants requested authorization for retail sales in the Industrial District. There are 235 parking spaces available for 62,100 square feet of butldlng area. According to the code, the following requirements for required parking is as follows: Off-street parking: (1) Office standards: One (1) space tot each 250 square feet gross floor area allocated for office uses, calculated as all floor space under roof. (2) Manufacturing, research and assembly: One (1) space for every 500 square feet gross floor area allocated for manufacturing, research and/or assembly uses, but in no event less than two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees must be provided. If there is more than one (1) shift, the number of employees on the largest shift shall be used in determining parking requirements. (3) Storage and warehouse: One (1) space for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the first 20,000 square feet of area allocated for storage and/or warehouse use; one (1) space for each 2,000 square feet for the second 20,000 square feet; one (1) space for each 4,000 square feet in excess of the initial 40,000 square feet, but in no event less than two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees shall be provided. (4) Retail Commercial: One (1) space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area allocated for retail sales areas. Typically the actual retail square footage for the type of users in this ara would be less than 1/2 of the building square footage while the remainder might be storage or warehouse area. All tenant improvements require permits from Community Development. Therefore, calculations will be made on the parking status prior to the issuance of building permits. If the calculations of floor areas exceed the number of parking spaces provided for the center, then no further permits would be issued for retail uses. However, the parking provided should adequately serve the proposed needs of the center. · The building elevations show glass fronts which could adequately serve as store fronts for retail users. Community Development Department .% Planning Commission Report Use Permit 86-25 page three The proposed conditions of approval are ltsted in Resolution No. 2361. Associate Planner MAC:gt Community Development Department 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 2~ RESOLUTION NO. 2361 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PERMIT 86-25 AT 1421 AND 1451EDINGER AVENUE. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustln does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: That a proper application, (Use Permit No. 86-25) has been filed on behalf of Resco Development to authorize retail uses at 1421 and 1451Edtnger Avenue. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. Ce That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings:- The use is in conformance with the Tustln Area General · Plan and the proposed Specific Plan No. 7. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, and should be granted. Proposed development shall be in accordance with the development policies adopted by the City Council, Uniform Building Codes as administered by the Building Official, Fire Code as administered by the Orange County Fire Marshal and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. F. That this project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. G. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Department. 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 Resolutlon No. 2361 page two II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 86-25 to authorize retail commercial uses at 1421 and 1451 £dinger Avenue subject to the following conditions: That a master sign plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of permits. Be Parking calculations shall be maintained for each tenant improvement. If the calculations of floor areas exceed the number of parking spaces provided, no further permits will be issued for retail uses. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tusttn Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 CHARLES E. PUCKETT Chairman DONNA ORR Recording Secretary gt Plannin Commission DATE: SUB,1ECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: PRESENT ZONING: SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 ZONE CHANGE 86-1 INITIATED BY THETHSTIN PLANNING COB~tlSSION 336, 345, 365, 365, 406, 416, 425, 435, AND 446 SIXTH STREET. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l) DISTRICT PROPOSED ZONING: PLANNED ~NITY-SINGLE FA#ILY RESIDENTIAL (P.C.RES.) DISTRICT'. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A NEGATIYE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONFOPJ4ANCE HI'TH THE CALIFORNIA EN¥IRONHENTAL QUALITY ACT. RECOI~IENDED ACTION: That the Commission recommend to City Counctl approval of Zone Change 86-1 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2358. BACKGROUND:' Over the past year several items have been before the Commision concerning land use designations for the subject properties. Consideration was given to a General Plan amendment and development proposal that would have authorized two story, multi-family dwellings at a density of 16 dwelling units per acre. However, at that time the Commission as well as the neighboring community considered the proposed development to be too dense, and therefore out of character with surrounding single family dwellings. On Ouly 28, 1986, an alternative development proposal featuring an eight (8) unit single-family subdivision was presented to the Commission. Because of a strict interpretation of the code, the subdivision submitted did not conform to various applicable zoning regulations. As such, a variance would have been required for development. However, based upon staff's analysis and a recommendation of the City Attorney, the Commission had difficulty maktng the mandatory finding of hardship needed to approve the variance. Accordingly, consideration of Variance application No. 86-4 was continued pending additional information justifying hardship or revision of the subject site plan. It should be noted that conceptually staff could have supported the eight unit development, and that the recommendation of denial for Variance 86-6 was based upon legal parameters rather than the project's merits. ,Com munity Development Department Planning CommJsston Report Zone Change 86-1 page two In working with the applicant and taking into consideration Commission and community concerns, another alternative proposal has been prepared for Commission review. This third Scenario calls for the re-zoning of certain properties on Sixth Street; the implementation of a specific plan for properties within; and the imposition of a requirement that a conditional use permit must be approved by the Commission prior to any development in the affected area. Authorization for public hearing to consider this zone change was given by the Commission on August 1, 1986. The remainder of this report will address zone change 86-1 only. DISCU$$IO#: Staff's position in recommending the proposed zone change is based primarily upon two factors. First, the development plan that is recommended provides an opportunity to meet a number of goals and objectives of the Tustin Area General Plan. Specifically, the Housing Element states the following as some of the policies of the City: The promotion and encouragement of owner-occupied housing for the purpose of correcting the imbalance between, rental and owner-occupied units. The availability of a variety of housing accommodations and housing values to enable economic integration of neighborhoods and communities. 3. The conservation and improvement of existing residential neighborhoods. Promote cluster housing within the land use density standards of the General Plan for the purpose of reducing the costs of housing construction. Owners of rental housing units which are determined to be substandard, in need of repair and a hazard to the health and safety of the occupants will be encouraged through financial incentives to remove and replace or rehabilitate the structures. 'Planned Community Districts and Specific Plans will be utilized to authorize and promote a variety of lot sizes and housing types within subdivisions. Additionally, the Housing Element, as a catalyst to housing development, encourages recycling of properties by lot consolJdatton. Lot consolidation provides larger sites giving designers flexibility to increase density and still afford a quality living environment. Developing lot by lot is piecemeal, with a result of developable space being lost due to setback requirements and driveways I in each lot. Lot consolidation will help prevent this, while providing opportunttles for a cohesive development. Community Development Deparlmem Planntng Commission Report Zone Change 86-[ page three Nhtle not a mandatory direction of the General Plan, the proposed zone change (with the adoption of Specific Plan No. 11) would be consistent with the Single Family Residential land use designation defined in the Land Use Element. This classification is related to the character of residential land use rather than to precise zoning classifications or density patterns. Within the parameters of the General Plan, single-family homes may range in type from four acre hillside estates to patio homes on a 3,600 square foot lot. The ~econd general area staff considered in reviewing the zone change is the type of project that would be authorized presuming Specific Plan No. 11 is adopted. As proposed, zone change 86-1 would enable development of what staff considers to be a quality residential ~oncept. Not only would a desirable product type be permitted, but issues of concern of the neighborhood can be addressed and problems resolved. For example, by the use of private drives and up to five on-site parking spaces per unit, parklng on the north side of Sixth Street (in front of particular projects) could be prohibited. O~ as an alternative, it might be an appropriate time, given conditions in the area, to implement a "resident only" parking program. Details of such a program are currently being reviewed by city staff. ANALYSIS: Zone Change 86-1 by itself would only authorize development of single family dwellings at a density of one unit for each 6,000 square feet of land area. Particular development standards and guidelines must be adopted via a development plan. In this case Specific Plan No. 11. Reduced to most basic terms, Zone Change 86-1 authorizes the potential for a maximum of 25 units within the project area. I practically, however, it is anticipated that given actual property configurations, only 21 units would be built. In comparison, under current code, a total of 18 units could be built on existing parcels, and if all properties were under single ownership, a total of 21 units could theoretically be constructed. With such comparisons in mind, staff has concluded that the adoption of Zone Change 86-1 would not have a significantly adverse impact on the area in terms of density, population, parking and/or traffic. In fact, with implementation of a comprehensive development plan present parking problems may be alllveated. In terms of traffic, using an accepted trip generation formula of 11 trips per household, the maximum increase in daily trips (above existing zoning) can be expected to be be 44 trips per day. This is equal to only 2% of existing traffic on Sixth Street (See Exhibit "A"). A traffic comparison table is also included with this report (See Exhibit "B"). Community Developrnen~ Depariment Planning Commission Report Zone Change 86-1 page four CONCLUSIONS: Based upon the analysis conducted and referenced in this transmittal, staff concludes that Zone Change 86-! should be given a positive recommendation. The subject zone change would set the groundwork for implementation of a development plan that will provide for alternative single-family housing product types while still addressing issues of concern in the area. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Commission recommend to City Council approval of Zone Change 86-1 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2358. Acting Senior Planner JSO:gt Attach: Exhibit "A"- "B" Street/Sixth Street Traffic Counts Exhibit "B"- Traffic Comparison Table Resolution No. 23B8. Community Development Departmenl Ir "~"~ TC-9 ,.._ X H ~ G I'T' MACHINE COUNT FIC COUNTING MANUAL SUMMARY TYPE OF COUNT, $ DIREGTIO~AL ~ P-WAY CHECKED BY ..... DATE DAY ~-~o ~ FO~¥ TC-9 MACHINE.. COUNT ~,~OE eY D~TE ......... CHECKED I~Y ..... DATE [FFIC COUNTING M,~NUAL ~,UMMARY TYPE OF COUNT= ~ DIRECTIONAL 2-WAY DATE BEGUN DAY A.M¸ EXHIBIT B TRAFFIC COMPARISOH TABLE Street/Intersection Sixth Street East of Pacific "B" Street south of Main Oxford 9 Walnut Sycamore 9 Redhill Main ~ Pacific Main 9 "B" Street "B" Street between 1st & Main Pacific between 1st & Main "B" Street between 1st & Irvtne Browning between E1 Camtno & San Juan Browning between San Juan & Bryan Average Daily Vehicular Trips 1834 1400 5700 7600 13100 11100 1150 4450 1550 2250 39O0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 ~5 16 17 18 19~ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2358 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON SIXTH STREET BETWEEN "B" STREET AND PACIFIC AS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-1 TO PLANNED COMMUNITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL {P.C.RES.) The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: That a proper application, (Zone Change No. 86-1) has been initiated by the Planning Commission for the purposes of rezoning certain properties on Sixth Street between "B" Street and Pacific from Single-Family Residential to Planned Community Residential. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. C. That a zone change should be granted for the following reasons: That by adoption of a Planned Community designation implementation of a comprehensive development plan for the area in the form of a Specific Plan can be achieved. That through implementation of a development plan, diversification of dwelling types, encouragement of lot consolidation, reduction in traffic oriented access points, and imposition of specific design and land use regulations in conformance with goals and objectives outlined in the Housing and Land Use Elements of the Tustin Area General Plan can be achieved. The proposed zone change is also in conformance with all other elements of the Tustin Area General Plan. That the adoption of a specific plan as defined by Section 65450 et.seq, of the California Government Code will be required prior to development of any properties within the subject area. That for new development, any specific plan will permit single family residential units only and will establish minimum lot sizes of 6,000 square feet. Development of subject property shall be in accordance with the policies adopted by the City Council; Uniform Building Codes as administered by the Building Official; Uniform Fire Code as administered by the Orange County Fire Marshal; and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. E. Final development olans shall require the review and approval of the CommunityDevelopment Director. 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. 2358 page two F. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Zone Change No. 86-1 from Single Family Residential R-1 to Planned Community Single Family Residential (P.C. Res.) PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission, held of the day of ,198.~. ~HARLES E. PUCKETT, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary EXHIBIT A MAIN STREET "~ SIXTH STREET L_ ZONE'CHANGE NO, RESOLUTION No,: DATED: 786 -1 Planning Commission DATE: SUB,1ECT: APPLICAIIT: LOCATIOII: PRESEIIT PROPOSED ZONIIIG: ENVIROIlIqENTAL STATUS: SEPTERBER 8, 1986 SPECTF]~C PLAII IlO. 11 ~'II)TIATED BY THE TUSTI*II PLAIIIII*IlG 335, 345, 355, 365, 405, 415, 425, 435, AND 445 SIXTH STREET. · SIIIGLE-FA.qILY RESIDE#TIAL (R-l) DTSTR*]~CT PLAIIIIED COIqlqUII]ITY SIIIGLE-FMq)LY RESIDE#TIAL (P.C. RES.) DISTRTCT ill'TH THE ]'HPLEIqENTATION OF A SPECIFIC A IIEGATi*VE DECLARAT]IOII OF EII¥~ROIIRENTAL I'HPACT HAS BEEII PREPARED Tll COIIFOPJqA#CE iii*TH CEQA. RECOIllENDED ACTION: That the Com~tssion recommend to City Council approval of Specific Plan No. 11 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2358. SIJ~ARY: Provided that the Commission recommends to City Council approval of Zone Change 86-1, consideration must be given to a development plan for the subject properties. In this instance, the proposed development plan is in the form of a Specific Plan as authorized by Section 65450 of the California Government Code. As drafted, Specific Plan No. 11 would serve as the development plan for Sixth Street. Additionally, said plan upon implementation would result in the attainment of several goals of the Tusttn Area General Plan (See staff report on Zone Change 86-1 dated September 8, 1986). Finally, Specific Plan No. 11 is merely the tool that would put into effect density limits and development types authorized by Zone Change 86-1. Accordingly, staff recommends approval of the Sixth Street Specific Plan. ~ , Corn munity Development Department · P]anntng Comlsston Report Spectftc Plan No. 11 page 1~o DISCUSSION: In general, specific plans are instruments that Implement the general plan and zontng regulations of a jurtsdfctton. Authority for such plans fs gfven In Sectton 65450 of the California Government Code. The purpose of such plans is to allow diversity tn development standards whtle retaining the integrity of denstty and land use regulatfons for particular properties. In thts manner tssues of trafftc, stte planning, and development type can be addressed adequately when unusual circumstances (i.e. irregular lot sizes or shapes) extst tn an identified area. In other words, the spectftc plan process recognizes that not all zonfng regulations for a certain type of development can necessarily be tmposed uniformly tn all areas of a jurisdiction. ANALYSIS: Specific Plan No. 11 is a development plan for Sixth Street that attempts to balance the pressures for development with neighborhood and community goals, resulting in an orderly growth pattern for the area. In the most basic terms, Specific Plan No. 11 is the implementation' tool putting into effect Zone Change 86-1. Without repeating the text of. Specific Plan No. 11 here, implications of the document can be summarized as follows: 1. Only single family detached dwelling units will be authorized. 2.. Only one (1) unit will be permitted on any lot with less than a 115 foot lot width. 3. All current uses of the subject properties will be permitted to remain pursuant to existing non-conforming regulations of the Municipal Code. 4. For consolated lots with a combined lot width equal to or greater than 115 lineal feet, single family units may be constructed at a density of ! unit/6,000 square feet of land area. 5. A conditional use permit will be required for all multi-lot subdivisions. 6. For multi-lot subdivisions, each home must be situated upon its own lot, and homes will be limited to one (1) story in height. Given criteria outlined in the proposed specific plan anJ the configuration of parcels in the area, it is anticipated that the following development pattern will occur: 1. For single parcels, only one (1) dwelling unit will be permitted. 2. Where two lots are consolidated, four (4) units would be authorized. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Specific Plan No. 1! page three 3. Where three lots are consolldated, eight (8) units would be authorized. e Although an analyMs of development of four or more lots has not been conducted, the maximum unit count (assuming Mngle ownership) for the entire project area ts a potential of 25 homes. For further analysis of the implications of development under the proposed density, see Report to Planning Commission: Zone Change 85-1 dated September 8, 1986. CONCLUSZONS: Based upon information gathered, including review of previous Commission hearings on projects in the area, staff has concluded that a very appropriate way to balance all issues concerned is to implement a Specific Plan for Sixth Street. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Commission recommend to City Council approval of Specific Plan No. 11 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2359. Acting Senior Planner JSD:gt Attach: Res. No. 2359 Draft Specific Plan No. 11 Community Development Department 2 3 4 5 6 7 I. 8 9 10 12 ~3 14 ~5 16 ~7 18 19 20 21 22 II. 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2359 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. II INCLUDING CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON SIXTH STREET BETWEEN "B" STREET AND PACIFIC AS INDICATED ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO The Planning Commission of the city of Tusttn does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows: Re That an action was initiated by the city of Tusttn to adopt a Specific Plan for single family residential uses upon certain properties on Sixth Street between "B" Street and Pacific. Specific properties are indicated on the attached Exhibit "A". B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. Ce That the establishment of a specific plan would be Jn the interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare for persons residing or working in the immediate vtctntty as evidenced by the following findings: 1. Oevelopment standards contained in the text of Specific Plan Regulations have been established to mitigate potential adverse impacts of development by addressing lighting, traffic circulation, maximum building hetghts, minimum setbacks of structures, minimum lot sizes, and the encouragement of lot consolidation. That the proposed Specific Plan serves as a tool Implementing goals of the Tusttn Area General Plan and therefore is consistent with the same. D. That a Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance wtth the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the Ctty Councll that Specific Plan No. 11 be adopted, subject to the following conditions: Re Al1 projects wtthtn the project area shall comply with the specific plan regulations, as drafted in the attached Exhibit 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 Resolutfon 2359 page two PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meettng of the Tustfn P]ann~ng Commission held on the day of , 1986. CHARLES E. PUCKETT, Chatrman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary EXH IB IT A MAIN STREET SIXTH STREET L.. r- S'PEC1FIC RESOLUTION No,: DATED: ORDINANCE NO.: DATED: PL'AN NO, 11 EXHIBIT "B" SPECIFIC PLAN NUMBER 11 SIXTH STREET I. OBJECTIVES Ao Preserve and protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the area by encouraging the orderly development of the subject properties. Plan for a consistent neighborhood development which conforms with the General Plan for the City of Tusttn and goals of the community. C. Develop standards that will be uniformly applied to all lots within the specific plan area, regardless of ownership. D. The active encouragement of lot consolidation within the specific plan area. E. Reduction in the number of curb-cuts and drive aprons currently providing ingress and egress onto Sixth Street. II. STATISTICAL DATA The specific plan shall include the parcels indicated on the attached exhibit, and consists of a total area of approximately 3.56 acres. III. GENERAL NOTES/PERMII'FED USES Within the specific plan area, only single-family dwellings, each upon its own lot fronting on a private drive or public street will be permitted. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required for a project consisting of more than one (1) dwelling unit. B. The continued use of existing structures as single family dwellings, as defined in Tusttn City Code Section 9223(a)1 shall be permitted. C. No building permits shall be issued for any project which does not conform to the general development standards of this plan. Where conflicts between these general development standards and other zoning regulations exist, the provisions of the specific plan shall prevail. Within the specific plan area, water services will be provided by Tustin Water Works, sewerage facilities by the County Sanitation District No. 7, electrical services by Southern California Edison, and gas services by Southern California Gas. Drainage plans shall be reviewed by the Building Official and conform to the requirements of the Orange County Flood Control District. Sixth Street Specific Plan page two IV. DEFINITIONS A. Where applicable, definitions in Tustin City Code Section 9297 shall be incorporated into this specific plan by reference. V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS To meet the objective of lot consolidation outlined in this plan, two sets of development standards shall be in effect: A. Single Lot Development - The following criteria shall apply to any single parce) with, at the adoption of this plan, a lot width of less than 11S linear feet. 1. Single Family Detached Dwellings: a. Maximum b. Minimum c. Minimum d. Minimum e. Parking: f. Maximum height: two stories, 30 feet maximum height. front yard setback: 20 feet side yard setback: S feet rear yard setback: 1S feet Two car garage plus a minimum 20'x20' driveway. lot coverage (building footprint): 40 per cent Multiple Lot Development - The following criteria shall apply to any group of existing parcels with a combined lot width at the adoption of this plan in excess of, or equal to 11S linear feet. 1. Single Family Detached Dwellings: a. Maximum height: one story, 24 feet maximum height. b. Minimum front yard setback: 20 feet measured from curb face on private drive. c. Minimum side yard setback: S feet d. Minimum rear yard setback: 1S feet e. Parking: two car garage plus minimum 20'x20' driveway. Additionally, one (1) guest space for each unit in a particular subdivision is required. f. Minimum lot size: 6,000 square feet. Each lot must front upon and have access to a privte drive or public street. g. Maximum lot coverage (building footprint): 40 per cent h. Minimum setback from Sixth Street: 20 feet. VI. GENERAL REGULATIONS Ae Dedication of land and construction of public improvements as required by the Tustin City Code must be achieved prior to occupancy of any structure in the Specific Plan area. Improvements include, but are not limited to: Sixth Street Specific Plan page three Construction or replacement of all missing or damaged street improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, drive aprons, street pavement, street trees and street lights. Be Compliance with the general development and landscape standards as adopted by the City Council is required unless otherwise specifically stated within the specific plan. Final landscape plans subject to review and approval of the Director of Community Development. Elevations of any proposed structure shall reflect a style compatible with the surrounding area. The use of earthtone colors and materials such as brick, wood, and stucco shall be required. All final site plans, elevations, colors and materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of building permits. Prior to the issuance of building permits a detailed exterior lighting plan shall be submitted indicating, but not limited to the following: 1. Location, intensity and orientation of parking lot or private drive lighting; 2. Location, intensity and orientation of lighting; 3. Mechanisms provided to ensure that lighting does not adversely impact abutting residential properties. An appropriate Tract or Parcel map shall be filed in conjunction with any lot consolidation and subsequent subdivision within the Specific Plan area. F. Any single project will be permitted only one (1) ingress-egress access point. Where possible, the mutual use of access points between adjacent projects will be encouraged. Private drives shall be a minimum of 28 feet in width. Parking will be permitted on one side only of any private drive less than 36 feet wide. VII. STATEMENT OF RELATIONSHIP OF SPECIFIC PLAN NUMBER 11 TO THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN. By the adoption of this plan, the development permitted upon the properties within the project area will be consistent with all elements of the Tusttn Area General Plan. Planning DATE: SUBdECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Commission SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 86-26 MARK AZNSLIE ON BEHALF OF AINSLIE DEVELOPMENT 13641MALENA DRIYE TUSTIN, CA 92680 405, 415 AND 425 WEST 6TH STREET PRESENT ZONTNG: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l) DISTRICT PROPOSED ZONING: PLANNED cOIqlFJNITY SINGLE PLAN NO. 11. FAI~ILY RESIDENTIAL #ITH SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: A NEGATIYE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONFOR#ANCE #ITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT TO DEVELOP EIGHT (8) SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING UNITS UPON INDIVIDUAL LOTS, IN CONFORMANCE WITH SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 11. RECOI~ENDED ACTION: That the Commission approve Use Permit Application No. 86-26 by adoption of Resolution No. 2360. SLIIMRY: Use Permit Application No. 86-26 if approved would authorize development of eight (8) single family homes, each on individual .lots in conformance with all provisions of proposed Specific Plan No. 11. A use permit is required pursuant to the specific plan. The project would result in construction of single story homes of between 1300 and 1480 square feet upon 6,000 square foot lots. Each lot would front upon a private drive. Since the proposed project meets all requirements of proposed Specific Plan No. 11, staff recommends Use Permit 86-26 be approved. PROdECT ANALYSZS: The subject project site is a 58,941 square foot area which if approved would consolidate and re-subdivide three existing lots. Eight (8) single family lots would be established as well as a separate lot deltntattng a private drive and common area serving the project. Corn munity Development Department Planning Commission Report Use Permit Application No. 86-26 page two As mentioned, the proposed project meets all requirements of Specific Plan No. 1! which in turn is compatible with standard R-1 regulations with the exception of lot size. In fact, Specific Plan No. 11 is in some ways more restrictive than the R-1 zone. For example, five (5) parking spaces per unit are required instead of four (4). The subject project provides 5.37 spaces per .unit. Further, in the R-! District, two-story, 30 foot high homes are permitted. Within the Specific Plan Area for multiple lot projects, the maximum height is one-story not to exceed 24 feet. Finally, rear yard.setbacks are to be at least 15 feet, where in the R-1 District only a 5 foot setback is required. A positive factor of the site design is that with a 28 foot driveway and 20 to 25 foot setbacks, a substantial open area between structures has been provided. Also, most of the features of traditional single family homes have been provided. Architecturally, proposed units are compatible with the surrounding area. The use of wood siding, large front window areas and pitched roofs is consistent with the type of architecture predominant in the vicinity. Finally, since a subdivision map is required for the project, appropriate conditions concerning maintenance of the private drive, enforcement of applicable regulations, and the establishment of a Homeowners Association will be ~mposed upon the associated tentative tract map (Tentative Tract 12833). CONCLUSZONS: Since the project meets all requirements of Specific Plan No. ~1 and architecturally the design is compatible with the surrounding aera. Staff recommends that Use Permit 86-26 be approved by the adoption of Resolution No. 2360. JSD:gt Community Development Department 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2360 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 86-26 AUTHORIZING DEVELOPMENT OF EIGHT (8) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN CONJUNCTION WITH SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 11. The Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: That a proper application, (Use Permit No. 86-26) has been filed on behalf of Ainslte Development requesting authorization to develop an eight-unit single family subdivision on the properties located at 405, 415, and 425 Sixth Street in conformance with Specific Plan No. 11. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings: That the proposed project is in conformance with Specific Plan No. 1land the Tustin Area General Plan. 2. That single-family dwellings only will be permitted within the subject project. 3. That all required parking for the project will be accommodated upon private property. 4. That all .units within the subject project will be limited to one-story in height. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to the general welfare of the City of Tusttn, and should be granted. Proposed development shall be in accordance with the development policies adopted by the City Council, Uniform Building Codes as administered by the Building Official, Fire Code as administered by the Orange County Fire Marshal and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 23 2~ 25 26 27 Resolution No. 2360 page ~0 II. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and is hereby approved. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Department. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 86-26 to authorize development of eight (8) single family dwellings at 405, 415, and 425 Sixth Street subject to the following conditions: Am Be De Ee The final site plan shall be standardized and reflect all appropriate City standard drawing numbers. The developer shall construct all missing or damaged street improvements to said development per the City of Tustin "Minimum Design Standards of Public Works" and "Street Improvement Standards". This work shall consist of, but is not limited to, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, drive apron, and street pavement. Payment of Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 sewer connection fees will be required prior to issuance.of a building permit. Payment of East Orange Cunty Water District fees will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. Payment of the required fees for the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. A separate street improvement plan will be required for all construction within the public right of way with all improvements referenced to applicable City standard drawing numbers. This will include but not be limited to the following: a. Curb and gutter b. Sidewalk c. Drive apron d. Street light (if required) e. Street trees f. Domestic water services g. Sanitary sewer service h. Fire protection line/hydrant (if required by the Orange County Fire Marshal) 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ResOlution No. 2360 page three A grading plan must be submitted for review and should be based on the Orange County Surveyors bench mark datum. Impact of potential drainage onto adjacent properties must be addressed and mitigated. G. On-site fire hydrant is required with a minimum flow of 1000 GPM at 20 lb. Private drive and turnaround shall be posted "No Parking-Fire Lane" and comply with the requirements of the Vehicle Code and Fire Code. I. Curbs along private drive shall be vertical curbs built to current city standards for public improvements. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC & Rs) will be required for the subject project and a. homeowners association established. K. CC & Rs will be submitted in a format approved by the City Attorney. Le Ne Pe Qe The City shall be, for enforcement of public health and safety requirements, made a party to a CC & Rs. ' Provisions in CC & Rs shall .be made for the maintenance of, and funding sources for, the private 'drive created by Lot "A" on Tentative Tract Map 12833. All development within the subject tract shall comply with Specific Plan No. 11. Private drive shall be constructed to current city standards for public streets. A 6'0" to 6'8" wood fence shall be constructed along the side and rear perimeter property lines of the subdivision. Said fence shall be constructed such that all support posts and cross supports are on the side facing the subject subdivision. Payment of New Development Tax shall be remitted at the time of building permit issuance. Parkland Dedication Fees in an amount prescribed by Ordinance 921 shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2360 page four A complete landscape plan for front yards and areas adjacent to public right-of-ways shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for revte~ and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Landscaping shall be installed according to said plan prior to release of utilities for any unit in the project. Existing trees shall be shown on the landscape plan and retained where possible. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on , 198 DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary gt CHARLES E. PUCKETT, Chairman Report to the Planning Commission DATE: SUBOECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: PRESENT ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: SEPTDIBER 8, 1986 TENTATIYE TRACT NO. 12833 AINSLIE DEVELOPHENT 13641 HALENA DRIVE TUSTIN, CA. 92680 405, 415, 425 W. SIXTH STREET ENYIRONI~NTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ITffi NO, 7 SINGLE-FAmILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l) DISTRICT PLANNED COI~IJNITY SINGLE FAHILY RESIDENTIAL wrrlt SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 11. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN' COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENYIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO CONSOLIDATE AND RE-SUBDIVIDE THREE (3) EXISTING LOTS INTO EIGHT (8) LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAmILY RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES PLUS ONE '(1) LOT FOR COI~ION DRIYE-WAY AREA. RECOmmENDED ACTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 12833 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2362. SII~IARY: Tentative Tract Map No. 12833 if approved would create eight parcels for the purposes of accommodating eight single-family homes. Additionally, a separate lot would be created delineating a private, common drive for the project. As submitted, each lot created for homes will be a minimum of 6,000 square feet, and therefore would be in conformance with proposed Specific Plan No. 11. As such, it is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 12833 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2362. Community Development Department Planning CommJsston Report Tentative Tract No. 12833 page two BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Presently, lots addressed 405, 415 and 425 West Sixth Street are developed as stngle-famfly residences. Each lot Is an average of 59 f~et wtde and 333 feet deep. Zontng and General Plan designations for the area both are Single-Family Residential. However, a proposed zone change and spectftc plan for the project wtll be considered at the September 8, 1986 CommtsMon meettng. The Tract Map before the Commission proposes to consolidate the three (3) ex~sttng lots and re-subdivide them into etght lots, each for the purposes of development of single-family dwelllngs. Each lot created wfll be a mtntmum of 6,000 square feet tn conformance w~th proposed Spectftc Plan No. 11. Additionally, a separate lot for a pr1¥ate, common drive has been proposed. Issues concerning the subdtvtMon aspect of th~s project are fatrly limited. Standard conditions relattng to publlc improvements, on-slte ftre hydrants, and rights of' ingress and egress wtll be incorporated fnto the resolution of approval for the map. However, one other area of concern warrants further discussion. Specifically, the maintenance of the private drtve Indicated as Lot Although the developer originally had wished to avotd establishment of a homeowners association, staff strongly recommended otherwise. A homeowners association should be established as should an acceptable set of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, (C.C.& R's) l~stlng rules and regulations for the subdJvtslon. In staff's opfnton, these C.C.& R's may be ~tmtted, even to the pofnt of only setttng parameters and fundtng sources for the private drive maintenance. Wtth an assocfatJon tn place, the C~ty wfll have an establlshed body to work with In terms of the proper maintenance of the drtve as well as the upkeep of the enttre project. The Ctty Attorney wtl~ review and approve all proposed C.C.& R documents prtor to recordation of any f~nal tract map. CONCLUSIONS: Given that the proposed subdtvfslon is in conformance with proposed Spectftc Plan No. 11 and that a homeowners association wfth approved C.C.& R's wtll be established, tt is concluded that the project wtll be a posttfve addttton to the area. Accordingly, tt is recomended that the Commission recommend to C~ty Counctl approval of Tentative Tract Hap No. 12833 by the adoptfon of Res. No. 2362. L Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Tentative Tract No. 12833 page three JSD:gt Attach: Tentative Tract Map 12833 Community Development Department 1 2 3 4 The 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2362 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12833 Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve follows: II. as The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae That Tentative Tract Map No. 12833 was submitted to the Planning Commission on behalf of Ainslie Development for consideration of the consolidation and re-subdivision of three existing lots into eight numbered and one lettered lot for single family residential purposes. Be That a public hearing was duly c~lled, noticed and held for said nlap. Ce That a Negative Declaration for the project is hereby approved in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. That the proposed division is in conformance with the Tusttn Area General Plan and~the Tusttn Zoning Code as it pertains to the development of multiple family dwellings. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 12833 subject to the following conditions: Payment of Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 sewer connection fees will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Payment of East Orange County Water District fees will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. Payment of the required fees for the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. A separate street improvement plan will be required for all construction within the public right of way with all improvements referenced to applicable City standard drawing numbers. This will include but not be limited to the following: 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 2~ 25 27 28 Resolution No. 2362 page two e 10. 11. 12. 13. a. Curb and gutter b. Sidewalk c. Drive apron d. Street light (if required) e. Street trees f. Domestic water services g. Sanitary sewer service h. Fire protection line/hydrant Orange County Fire Marshal) (if required by the A grading plan must be submitted for review and should be based on the Orange County Surveyors bench mark datum. On-site fire hydrant required with a minimum flow of 1000 GPM at 20 lb. Private drive and turnaround shall be posted "No Parking-Fire Lane" and comply with the requirements of the Vehicle Code and Fire Code. Curbs along private drive shall be vertical curbs built to current city standards for public improvements. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC & Rs) will be required for the subject project and a homeowners association established. CC & Rs will be submitted in a format approved by the City Attorney. The City shall be, for enforcement of public health and safety reutrements, made a party to a CC & Rs. Provisions in CC & Rs shall be made for the maintenance of, and funding sources for, the private drive created by Lot "A" on Tentative Tract Map 12833. All development within the subject tract shall comply with Specific Plan No. 11 1 2 3 4 .5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution 2362 page three PASSED' AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary CP:gt · 198 CHARLES E. PUCKETT, Chairman Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONE DESIGNATION: SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. 86-4 HARK AINSLIE ON BEHALF OF AINSLIE DEVELOPMENT 13641 gALENA DRIVE TUSTIN, CA 92680 405, 415 and 425 ffEST 6TH STREET SINGLE FARILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l) DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE NITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT TO DEVELOP. EIGHT (8) SINGLE FAHILY DETACHED HOUSING UNITS UPON INDIVIDUAL LOTS, #HICN AS PROPOSED, ARE INCONSISTENT #ITH R-1 LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. RECQI~ENDED ACTION: Contingent opon Commission consideration of land use acttons Zone Change 86-1, Spectftc Plan Ho. 11, and Use Permit 86-26, two recommendations are presented for the Commission: 1. If the referenced land use actions are gtven favorable consideration by the Commission, then it is.recommended that the applicant withdraw his application and the Commission formally recognize the appllcant's request. 2. If the referenced land use actions are denied, then it is recommended that Variance Appllication No. 86-4 be denied on the basis that the hardship identified by the applicant does not justify deviation from required development standards. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: On July 28, 1986 the Planning Commission continued consideration of Variance Application No. 86-4 pending either alteration of the proposed project or an amendment to land use regulations in the vicinity. As a result, an alternative method for processing development along Sixth Street was reviewed by staff. This alternative entailed Zone Change 86-1, Specific Plan No. 11 and Use Permit 86-26. If these actions were approved by the Commission, then the need for Variance 86-4 would be removed. ~ Community DeVelopment Department planning Commission Report Variance Application No. 86-4 page ~o On the other hand, if the referenced land use actions were not approved, then the Commission must again consider Variance application No. 86-4. Since the project has not been substantially revised and still proposes lot sizes of less than 7,200 (R-[ requirement), staff would again recommend denial of the subject variance. Supporting information and reasoning behind staff's recommendation ar detailed in the attached report dated July 28, 1986. Further elaboration on the project will be presented to the'Commission at the September 8, [986 meeting if such discussion is warranted. JO:gt Attach: Report to Planning Commission dated July 28, 1986. community Development Department Planning Commission DATE: dULY 28, 1986 SUBdECT: VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. 86-4 APPLICANT: MARK AINSLIE ON BEHALF OF AINSLIE BEVELOI~ENT 13641 #ALENA DRIVE TOSTIN, CA 92680 LOCATION: 405, 415 and 425 WEST 6'rH STREET. ZONE DESIGNATION: SINGLE FAHILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l) DISTRICT EIIV IROI~qENTAL STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONREBTAL IMPACT HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONFORRANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUEST: TO DEVELOP EIGHT (8) SINGLE FAHXLY DETACHED HOUSING UNITS UPON INDIVIDUAL LOTS, WHICH AS PROPOSED, ARE INCONSISTENT WITH R-1 LOT SIZE REQUIRE)lENTS. RECOI~ENDED ACTION: It is recommended that Variance App]lcatton No. 86-4 be denied on the basis that the hardship identified by the applicant does not justify deviation from required development standards. SLII~IARY: Variance Application No. 86-4 if approved would authorize the development of eight (8) single family homes, each on individual lots. However, said lots would be inconsistent with zoning regulations in that within the single family residential (R-l) district building sites are to be a minimum of 7,200 square feet and are required, by definition, to front upon a "street, road, highway or waterway". As proposed, only lots 1 and 8 shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map 12833 have street frontages. Further, lots 4 and 5 on the proposed map, in addition to not fronting on a street, are substandard since each lot covers only 6372 square feet. Without the finding of hardship, independent of the overall quality of the project, variances to the Municipal Code cannot be granted. In this case, staff does not concur with the applicant's contention of hardship and accordingly recommends that the project as submitted be denied. Com reunify Development Department lUgLU~J~dgG lUgLUdOIg^~Q /Qlun~uuuoo om. a6~d lz-98 'Olt uot~.~otldd¥ a3u~tu~t, ~.uodalt uol, sstu~uo:) 6u~uu~[d ~.uoLu~.:edoo ~u~u. Jdol,a^;~Q ,4~!unuJ LUOD sseL o~ed ~e X~suep do~ §u~oLte ease eq~ do~ pe~dope aq PLnOO ueLd e Jo uo~3eu~sep X~[unu~uo3 peuuetd V 'eeae 3eea3S q~x~s eq3 ao~ suo~3eLn~ej 5u~uoz pueme o~ s[-e~3euae3Le ue 'suo~eLnSea 5u~3s~×e o~ 3uensand peAoddde eq ~ou ptnoqs 3eX eLqe3de33e'~LLgn3de3uo3 s~ pesododd 33e~oad eq3 ~eq3 :se3u~d~A ~uemdOLeAaO 0% 'SUO~h~Ln§ed ,(he~es ed~t qh~ X'LdmOo Oh pehtq~qodd eq hsntu eLSie e~,~p aqh u~ 6Ul.~lded 'suo~s~pqns T-I~ pdepU~hS u~ ,(LL~nsn s~ 5Uplded heed~,S edetl~ h~qh s~ .~e~e~oq hnOX~L e~,~s etp, Oh ~l~eq~edp ¥ · pep~Aoad ueeq aAeq samoq XL~me~ eLSuLs LeUO~3~pea3 ~o sedn~e~ eq3 ~o 3sod 'OSL¥ 'opep~Aoad ueaq seq saanhondhs uee~eq eede uado Lel,huehsqns e 'sqoeqhes hoo~ S~ oh 0g pue ~e~eAl,dp hOO~ SZ e qhl,~ heqh sl, uSl,sap ahl,s aqh ~o Johoe~ eAl,hl,sod V pue (SXe~-eAl,dp §UOL e~hxe) pepl,AOdd uaaq seq 5ul,qded ahl,s-uo ehenbepe ueqh edom ~pdepuehs e~e seeJe pde~ dead pue epts :'hee~ 0g ~o mnmtul,m eede saoeq has (headhs eheAl,dd mode pednseam) huod~ 'hotdhSl,Q T-~ eqh ~o spdepuehs aaqho LLe sheam hoe[odd pesododd eqh 'epl,se smah~ aeqho LL¥ :ael,Aa~ uStsaQ aqh hdoddns houueo ~ehs 'aseo eq~ 5ul,eq qons 'hae~ edenbs 00g'Z pedtnbed uaaq seq ezl,s hot 'Xhl,o eq~ utqht~ suol,s.l,*l,pqns XLl,mea eLSul,s pdepuehs daqho 'I eLqel ul, u~qs se eeae ~ e 5utAeq q~ea ShOL LenPl. Al. pUl. hqSl,e eheado pLnoa UOthOe sl,qJ. 's:~oL 5ul,hsl,xa aeaqh epl,Al,pqns-a.~ pue ehePtLOSUOO pLno~ pa, oddcle :SISA1VN¥ eedqh e§ed · e-98 'ON uol,?,eOl,LddV eouel,deA hdodetd uotssl,mmo3 5ul,uUeLd Planning Commission Report Variance Application No. 86-4 page four than 1 unit: 7,200 square feet. In fact, if the Commission and the Community have no objections to the project itself, then the most appropriate action would be for some type of zone change in the area. By changing the zone, wholesale revisions to allowed uses are not necessarily required. For example, requirements mandating individual lots, minimum lot sizes and restrictions that only single family houses be permitted can all be incorporated into a specific planning process. If the Commission concurs with this alternative process, then it is suggested that in a separate action a zone change be initiated. CONCLUSION: As outlined in this report, staff does not support approval of Variance Application 86-4 as submitted because .mandatory determinations for such approval do not seem to be present. Conceptually and archt tecutrally the proposed project be a positive addition to the area. However, the Commission is cautioned that the merits of a project are not sufficient grounds for approval of variances. Instead, specific findings must be made justifying such variances. Since these conditions do not appear to be present, staff concludes that the project as submitted should be denied. J~' AS~rC I/~'E PLANNE~ JD:do SENIOR PLANNER Community Development Department TABLE I Gross Square Footage Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Net Square Footage 7,434 ...................... 6,384 7,434 ............... - ....... 6,384 8,230 ..................... 6,314 6,372 * ..................... 6,372 6,372 * ..................... 6,372 8,230 ...................... 6,314 7,434 ...................... 6,384 7,434 ...................... 6,384 * Substandard lot size independent of requirement for street frontage. Community Dcvelopmcn~ Deparlment Report to the Planning Commission ITFm Nfl DATE: 'SUBdECT: SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS-SEPTEmBER 3, 1986 Oral presentation to be given by Rob Balen, Planning Consultant. gt Attachments: City Council Agenda - September 3, 1986 Corn munily Development Department ~ II. III. IV. AGENDA OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 CENTENNIAL WAY SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 7:00 P.~. CALL TO 0NDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PUBLIC 1. STREET INE CllNIE gll JOAQUIN ~ TO JAI~0REE ROAD AgO ~F~D ROAD TO ,)/~IBOREE ROAD RESgI.UTIOII NO. 86-109 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CN. IFORNIA, CHANGING DESIGNATION OF SAN JOAQUIN ROAD, BETWEEN BARRANCA ROAD AND WARNER AVENUE, TO JAMBOREE ROAD, AND MYFORD ROAD, BETWEEN mINGER AVENUE AND BRYAN AVENUE, TO JAMBOREE ROAD Recommendation: Adoption of Resolution No. 86-109 if the City Council ascertains it will be in the best interest of the City and its citizens and residents to approve subject name change. ~IC IIIPUT (For City of Tustln Residents and Businesspersons on any matter, and for Water Service Customers having a concern unresolved by Administrative procedures.) COKSEIIT CAUiND~ 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 Council, staff or public request specific items to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1. N)PROVAL OF NI~S - AUGUST 18, 1986, REGULAR MEETING 2. APPROVAL OF DEJ~UIDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,853,403.81. ~TIFICATIDII OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $138,219.77. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE BIDS - TRNq=IC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT ~IN STREET ~ P~IFIC STREET, Nil) N~Ill STREET ~1~ 'B' STREET RF. SGUJTION !1). ~-110 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CA&.IFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET AND PACIFIC STREET AND AT THE ItfTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET AND "B" STREET AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS Recommendation: Adoption of Resolution No. 86-110 as recommended by the City Engineer. 4. TREE RE)lOYAL AT 1882 SANDWOOD PI.ACE Recommendation: Authorize staff to remove the Rusty Leaf Fig Tree in ~Sandwood Place as recommended by the City Engineer. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Page 1 9-2-86 FIliaL P/~J~EL I~P 86-L~01 - Z¢72, 14451, All) 14471 C3~MBERS ROAD RESOLUTI08 ROD 86-107 - A RESOLTUION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING FINAL PARCEL ~P 86-20! LOCAT~ AT Z472, 14451 AND 14471 CHAI~ERS ROAD Recmmendatton: Approve Final Parcel Resolution No, 86-~07 as recmmended Department. Map 86-20! by the adoption of by the Community Development 6. TE~rATXVE TIL~T 12855 - 14572, 14582, & 145g~ HOLT AVE. RESOLUTI08 RD. 86-108 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12855 LOCATED AT 14572, 14582, 145gZ HOLT AVENUE Reco~end&tton: Approve Tentative Tract No. 12855 by the adoption of Resolution No. 86-108 as recommended by the Community Oeve]opment Department. 7. SIGII C{~E ~ON FOR TUST]N PA¥ZLII~I CAFE Recmmendatton: Approval of sign code exception for the Tustin Pavilion Cafe pemttttng an addttlonal wall sign for building identification as recommended by the Community Oevelopment Oepart'ment. 8. ACCEPTNICE OF RIBLIC BIPI~OVE~ENTS ~D RELEASE OF BONDS FOR TRACT 12273 ' EAST ~DE OF 'B' STREET, RORI'I~d~Y OF MITCHELL AVENUE Recommendation: Accept, all public Improvement's and authorfze release of Faithful Performance Bond ~O1NAA024310 in t'he amount, of $19,000.00, Labor and Materials Bond #01NAA02¢310 In t'he amount of $9,500.00, and Honumentatton Bond #01NAA02¢31! in t'he mount of $500.00 as recomended by the City Engineer. VI. ONDIN/~CES FOR IWTROOUCTIO# None. VII. ONDIW/tWCE$ FOR ADOPTION None. VIII. OU) BUSIWESS 1. ~l~i'U~l. STRIPIW6 WBOIFICATIOI~ ~LO~G ~ ~IN ~/~Y~ AVE~ C~I~ (~N ~ ~ ~I~ A~S) R~endatlon: Authorize the restrtplng of Bryan Avenue fr~ about 100 f~t ~st of R~ Hill Avenue to B~tng Avenue as reco~ended by the City Engineer, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Page 2 9~2-86 IX. UMDER6ROU#I) TANIC TESTUli t ate of Xunti ngton Beach to ..... Hekimian and /kss.oc at 1472 Service · aa~lu,,~ Aut. hori.ze storage tanks locat~., ~ 32B.00 as perTo~ ~: ,l~ ~ mmltfornla ~e~, Road as r~u~r~ ~ ~- rec~end~ by the City Engineer- Rec~en~tton: Pleasure of the City Councll. kll actions of the Planning Co~tss~on becOm final unless appeal~ by the City :ounct~ or ~ber of the public. R~o~endation: R~e4ve and f41e. 3. R~datton: Recelve and f~le. 4. ClTl~R ~ ~I~ SI~[ ~lTI~ Reco~endatton: Receive and file. 6. CITI2~R CONCERNS - CL'NTTNIIIAL pARIC LANOSCAPING Recommendation: Receive and file. IlgREASE TO SOLIO WL~TE COU.£CTION FEES Recommendation: Receive and file. 7. PLAIN STREET pET)lAN ISLANO i#STALLATTOII Pleasure of the City Council, 9, TUSTTN HEi_G~_..S,,.SHOPPING CENTER E]fTIUUIC[ ROOIFTCATIOR AT IR¥INE BL¥O. RND OLD UtYTNE re.wu. Recommendation: Receive and file. 10. PROPOSED RATE IRCRF. ASE FOR CO¥14uNITY CABLEVTSION Recommendation: Receive and file. 11. RATE INCRF. ASE FOR ~]i~UNICOI4 CABL~ TELE¥~SIOI4 Recommendation: Receive and file. 9-2-86 Page .... ~n,~rTI AGEItOA 12. EXTENSION OF NIS$ION BELL THENE ~LONG EL C~IIlO REAL UPGRADIII~/MODIFI- CATION (IF 0OMIIT0¥N ~A $IilIF3E Recoa~,endati on: Racet va and ltl e. II. OTIIER BUSINESS 1.CITY IM#AiER CITY ATTORNEY 3.CITY COUI~IL XlI. /U~IOUIUI~IlT To the next Regular Heeting on Monday, September 15, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Page 4 9-2-86 AGE~ (~ All AG~)OUR#ED REGULAR I~ETING OF TME TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER Se APPROVAL OF MINUTES -AUGUST 18, 1986, REGULAR IIiETING Recommendation: Approve. e APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3L~,302.SO Recommendation: Approve. TRAFFIC SIGNAL I#STALLATIOIIS AT MAIN STREET AND PACIFIC STREET Recommendation: Authorize the City of Tustln to administrate the construction contract for the installation of traffic signals and safety lighting at the intersections of Main Street at Pacific Street and Main Street at "B" Street as recommended by the City Engineer. 6. OTIER ~I~IN~S ADJOURNMENT To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, September 15, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA Page 1 9-2-86