Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 12-01-86ACTION AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING COPIMZSSION REGULAR MEETZNG NOVE~IBER 24, 1986 REPORTS NO. 1 12-1-86 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: All present: Puckett, Weil, Baker, Le Jeune, 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 C6NSENT 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.) Minutes of November 10, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting. Resolution No. 2373, La Fayette Plaza Pole Sign. to approve Net1 seconded, the Consent Calendar. USE PERMIT 86-32 WITH VARIANCE 86-6 Moved by CItSstoner Baker, Approved 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Applicant: Request: Mr. Raymond Salmi on behalf of E1Camlno Partnership V 86-6: To allow a reduction in the required number of parking spaces from 12 spaces to 9 spaces. UP 86-32: To allow over 50% office use in a building located in the C-2 zone. Location: Presentation: 333 E1Camino Real Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner Planntng Commission Action Agenda November 24, 1986 Page two Moved by Commdsstoner Wet1, seconded by Le aeune to approve Use Permit 86-32 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2369 with (2) tuo amendments. - 1.) Add 'earthquake standards' to Z.E and; 2.) Add the folloutng ftndtng to I-C-7 'There ts currently a high turnover rate for retatl users tn the tmedtate area and low pedestrian traffic rate'. Approved 5-0. Moved by Comdsstouer Wet1, seconded by Ponttous to approve Vartance 86-6 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2375. Approved 5-0. 4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12763 Applicant: The Irvine Company Location: Sectors 10 & 11 of the East Tustin Specific Plan Request: To subdivide approximately 215 acres of land providing for development of specific land uses pursuant to the East Tustin Specific Plan. Presentation: Jeffrey S. Davis, Acting Senior Planner Moved by Comlsstoner Wetl, seconded by Le deune, to approve staff's recommendation to continue Tentative Tract Hap No. 12763, as an open public hearing, to the next regular meettng. Approved 5-0. 5. USE PERMIT 86-33 Applicant: The O. K. Earl Corporation on behalf of Mercury Savings and Loan Location: 12911 Elizabeth Way Request: Authorization to install a parking lot at 12911 Elizabeth Way and demolish an existing single family home. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Moved by Commissioner Wetl, seconded by Pontlous, to approve Use Permtt 86-33 by the adoption of Resolution #o. 2374 with the following two amendments: 1.) Add the following to I1-0-2 '36 Inch hexed trees shall be Installed along the northerly property line adjacent to the south side of the proposed wall ~th spacing of the trees to be dense enough to adequately screen adjacent residential properties subject to approval of the Otrector of Commmntty Oevelopment'; and 2.) Add IX-H 'The parking lot shall be for daytime use only and chained off after banklng hours'. Approved 5-0. Planning Commission Action Agenda November 24, 1986 Page three OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS: 6. SITE PLAN / DESIGN REVIEW 86-29, MCKELLAR/TUSTIN Applicant: Gensler & Associates/Architects Development Location: 14272 Franklin Avenue Request: on behalf of McKellar Commission approval of Site Plan and Architectural Design of a proposed 69,972 square foot R & D Industrial/Office building. Moved by ComdsstonerWell, seconded by Baker that Oest~n Review 86-29 be approved by Resolution #o. 2372. Approved 5-0. 7. FORMAL FINDING NO. 86-1 Applicant: City of Tustin Location: First Street Specific Plan Area Request: To authorize pre-school and nursery school uses in the Commercial district established by Specific Plan No. 10. Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Assistant Planner Com~ssioner Wetl moved, Baker seconded to approve Formal Finding No. 86-1 by the adoptton of Resolution #o. 2371. Approved 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS 8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OF NOVEMBER 17, 1986 COMMXSSION CONCERNS Comdsstoner Wet1 requested that a memo be prepared for City Council consideration regarding the width of sidewalks in the industrial areas. The Co~sston ~elcoeed Ms. Christine Shingleton- to her new post as Otrector of Coeeuntty Oevelopeent. ADdOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to the the next regular meeting on Oeceeber 8, 1986. MINUTES · TUSTIN PLANNING COPI4I$$ION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 1986 7:30 p.m., City Counctl Chambers PLEDGE OF ALL~GZANCE/ZNVOCATXON ROLL CALL: Present: Also Present: Puckett, Wet1, Baker, Le Jeune, Ponttous, Rob Balen, Jeff Davis, Suzanne Atktns, Materassi, Donna Orr Patrizla PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: Minutes of October 27, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Wetl moved, LeJeune second to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLXC HEARINGS 2. VARIANCE 86-7 (continued from October 27,'1986) Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: San Juan Partners 1421 San Juan Street Authorization to vary with the lot width requirement in the R-3 multiple family residential district in order to allow three apartment units.- JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE VARIANCE FOR THE LOT WIDTH ONLY. DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION WITH CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT A. Jeff Davis presented the staff report covering two items: the lot width of the property located on the corner of Green Valley and San Juan; and a variance with the minimum rear yard setback requirements of the multi family zoning district. The Commission must make two findings: 1) because of circumstances applicable to the property including surroundings, shape, topography, location and other items as outlined in State Law, the refusal to grant a variance would deprive the property owner privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity; and 2) that any variance granted would be subject to such conditions that would assure adjustment, thereby authorized, shall not constitute a grant of special privilege. Planning Commission ;,1Inures November 10, 1986 page two Traditionally the zoning code identifies the width of a property as the n~rrowest portion fronting on a street. The R-3 district requires that a width of 70' be maintained on any property that is developed for multi-family residential use. In this case, the lot is approximately 60' wide at its narrowest point. However, given the fact that it is on a corner and that it do~s have a much longer street frontage on Green Valley, staff feels that by configuring the units on the site plan as shown, a Variance is appropriate because of the special circumstances and that it is zoned for multi-family units. The second aspect of the project calls for a variance of the rear setback as shown in the exhibit. The R-3 requirement is that the rear yard setback be 10', applicant is proposing that only 5' be utilized. Staff opposes this because 1) it is the side yard of an adjacent property and it is a two story structure. Staff would encourage the maximum setback allowed to provide space between structures should a similar structure be constructed on the adjacent lot. 2) by moving the structures and attaching to the existing home, the structure can be moved forward with no need for a variance. Staff cannot support the finding there is undue hardship on the applicant other than the cost incurred for restoring the existing single family home. All other aspects of the project are consistent with zoning regulations in terms of parking and lot coverage. Additionally, the elevations shown in the exhibit is the flavor of construction supported by staff as an improvement to the area. Staff recommends aproval with request to vary with lot width requirement and deny the request for variance from the rear yard setback. Commissioner Wetl questioned how many units are under discussion. Jeff Davis responded the construction of two units. The remodel aspect is recommended by staff as a condition of approval to upgrade the entire project to give it a cohesive look. Commissioner LeJeune questioned the site plans on exhibit and which was the original drawing. Jeff Davis responded with the types of problems encountered during the review process and that this exhibit is the second submittal. Chairman Puckett questioned if moving the garage and two apartments 12' was discussed with the applicant to avoid the rear setback. Jeff responded the information was presented to the project architect. Chairman Puckett opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. A.J. Coco, on behalf of the applicant, explained attaching the apartments to the existing dwelling is not a viable option to the applicant due to the expense. The submittal before the Commission is a compromise they understood was acceptable to the staff until last Friday when the new option of attaching came up. After referring to several sections in the staff report, Mr. Coco pointed out the applicant has the right to develop the property to the density requested by code; that it would enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood; and, that the plan meets all city standards except to require a rear yard variance. The applicant is not asking for a variance for anything, in fact, staff is requiring two variances. The reason the rear yard/side yard setback was surprising is because the new units are projected to be built replacing the structure at 1371! Green Valley. Mr. Coco handed out pictures of the existing situation. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1986 page three He explained these ptctures were made in conjunction with the first proposal which also shows another project on Green Valley with garage doors facing the street. Outing the application process, they were told garage doors facing the street were not preferred by the City. The middle picture shows the existing structure that is to be removed. The address of the structure is 13711 Green Valley. To the right of the structure the side yard is proposed to be 5'; to the 'rear of that structure the rear yard is proposed to be He referred to the Development Review Summary. District requirement and proposed requirement. The front setback requirement is 15', they are proposing 20' The height of 35' ts permitted, they are proposing 24'. The number of stories is two. The lot size of 7,000 required, they have 8,760 square feet. The lot coverage allowed is 65S, they have 354. The lot width, because of prezontng aspects and access from Green Valley, the 70' to 60' ts thetr rtght as owners, tn no. 2 and 3, they are propstng a side yard setback of 5' and rear yard setback of 10'. The requirements of the district are 5' for the side yard and lO'for the rear yard. They are in conformance with the district requirements. Commissioner Wet1 clarified the address is actually on Green Valley rather than San Juan. Mr. Coco responded the application was made for 1421 San Juan and that is why staff misunderstood the situation. It never occurred to the applicant throughout the discussions with staff there would be a rear or side yard problem, so it wasn't necessary to address the address problem. He clarified there are two separate addresses for this project; one of which is Green Valley. Comaflssoner Wetl further questioned if the present single family house and the two small buildings in the back are all on one lot with one title. Mr. Coco responded affirmatively. Commissioner Wetl further questioned why there are two different addresses. In essence, the applicant would like this project treated as if it faces on Green Valley to eliminate the problem with the width. Mr. Coco responded it is not so much the width of the lot, because of the prezonlng situation the 60' is a moot point. They can build on a 60' lot. The definition of which is the side and rear yard is what he would like the Commission to consider only to the extent the Commission needs to find there are no special privileges involved. This would be strictly an acknowledgement that the side yard is on Green Valley. Commissioner Well further commented the lot would then be 146' wide and 60' deep. This situation is unique because it is a corner lot. She questioned if the applicant had a problem with bringing the existing house into conformance with the colors and textures of the rest of the project. Mr. Coco responded they have no problem with that. Chairman Puckett questioned where the front door faces. Mr. Coco responded it will face Green Valley. The garages would be on Green valley if the city allows it. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1986 page four Jeff Davis clarified it is not where the property is addressed or which way it is oriented. By definition the lot width is the narrowest dimension that fronts on a street. The width of the lot, for which one of the variances is requested, is the San Juan frontage and that is the variance staff supports. Again, by definition, although we are saying there are circumstances to waive this requirement, that does not make the Green Valley frontage the frontage or the line along Green Valley the property frontage. The property line perpendicular to San Juan adjacent to the garage structures is still the rear property llne and that is where the rear yard setback is measured from. In point of fact, the area Mr. Coco says is the rear property line parallels the Green Valley property line. Staff would have a problem with the stairways because they are setback 8' and not 10'. So again, we would have a structural element into a setback area. Through the design recommendations simply moving the structure over and the driveway over does eliminate the need for the variance. Chairman Puckett stated the question here is 5'. We have 12' between the existing structure and garage, couldn't we just move the project 5' and have a 10' setback and still have 7' between the structures. Jeff Davis responded there would then be problems with the zoning code, fire code, and building code. There has to be at least a 10' separation between structures. The way to circumvent that regulation is to attach the building, then that meets the requirements of the building code. Mr. Coco asked that they not require an attachment because it is economically infeasible. The applicant was hopeful tt wouldn't be considered a variance because Green Valley has always been there. It never has been a San Juan address. Commissioner Wet1 questioned the curb cuts on Green Valley and if that solved the problems. Jeff Davis responded it is-not the orientation of the building, or the address or any other configuration. By definition it is the narrowest dimension of a lot that fronts upon a street which is the lot frontage. Commissioner Wetl questioned if chimneys or stairs were allowed in setbacks. Rob Balen responded generally chimneys, eaves and architectural projections are considered an enhancement to a structure and therefore would be allowed up to 18". But, if you take the landing of a building and put a stairway into the sideyard, that becomes part of the structure and it is not an architectural appurtenance. Mr. Coco stated after review of several alternatives staff recommended attachment of thews which the applicant has never considered viable. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1986 page five Rob Balen informed that staff worked with the configuration several times, met with the architect on all options. There is only one option that conforms to the code and that is to attach the units. The reason attaching is economically infeasible for the applicant is because he would have to bring the front unit up to code. Jim Kincannon, 1461 San J~an, his office property abuts the property on Green' Valley. He is concerned with precedents being made that would be detrimental to the neighborhood in the future. Corner lots were made wider in early planning to accommodate double setbacks from both streets. His concern was with building to the absolute rear of the project, living units over the garage, 5' side yard proposed, no visible access from ground level, proper landscaping and maintenance of same, and a 20' cavern along property line with units above garage. He was also concerned with the life of the existing house compared to the life of the new apartments. Commissioner Baker questioned project fencing and expressed concern with maintenance between buildings. Jeff Davis responsed a 6'8" wood fence is the minimum required. Commissioner Ponttous questioned Alternative C and wondered what the problem is with the garage facing the street. Jeff Davts responded staff hasn't seen Alternative C which applicant handed out to the Commission during his testimony. After a brief review of applicant's hand out, Jeff continued that it appears the distance between the apartments and existing structure would require 15' on the second floor. Backing out onto the street requires a variance of the municipal code. There may be a potential for conflicting traffic movements with the two driveways so close to each other. Staff does not recommend backing onto the street. Those are issues that would more appropriately be addressed by the City Engineer. Commission, applicant and staff discussion regarding Alternative C ensued concerning driveway width, length and visibility obstructions. Mr. Coco explained the applicant is now at the point where safety, density, etc., are taken care of. The question left is which is the side and which is the rear yard. Commissioner Wetl commented the project numbers were origially established for a piece of vacant land. In essence you have taken a granny-flat type situation complicated by an R-3 district. The big problem is the existing single family house. Mr. Coco responded that is essentially true and staff has made it clear they would like to see the house removed. Con~tsstoner Well asked if bringing the existing house to code is why the applicant doesn't agree with the alternative staff recommends. Mr. Coco responded it is one of the economic aspects. Another one is the space that could be devoted to each family unit is severely restricted by moving 12'. They would not be separate family units anymore, they would be a clump. Refurbishing of the front unit or removal of it makes it totally infeasible. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chairman Puckett closed the hearing at 8:25 p.m. Planntng Commission Minutes November lO, 1986 page six Chatrman Puckett begatn the Commission discussion by commenting ~hat if this project has been draggtng on for four months, the Commission obviously will not hit upon the solutton tonight. He would like to see the lot developed the way tt ts presented, but he still has to lean toward staff's recommendation. He can't buy the front/side argument. He has to go along with staff's recommendation. But as he sees tt, tf they approve the lot width and deny the rear setback they et ther force the applicant to move it and join the structures or start over from square one. But, that appears to be the only way to do it. He supported staff's recommendation. Commissioner Well stated housing is needed in the city, but she has a problem with the age of the existing house. They are asking to compound the problem. She felt the hardship they would have to find in order to approve the variance is self inflicted. Commissioner Baker requested explanation of the problem with Alternative C. Rob Balen explained that in multi-family units the code does not allow garages to face the street. The code also prohibits vehicles backing into the street from these types of units. The problem with the closeness of the two driveways compounds the visibility and all the problems related with backing out into the street. Commissioner Pontlous questioned if this is a viable alternative with taking the driveway out. Jeff Davis responded yes, that was .an attempt to make the plan work. The only problem is it goes through a guest parking space which is required. Staff could not find another place for the guest parking. Rob Balen commented the front unit constrains the design of the project. Commissioner Baker questioned how close the untts can go to the house. Rob Balen responded staff's interpretation of the code is the second story of the two story unit has to be 15' away from the single family. Otherwise, 10' from the single story to the front of the garage and then the second unit would have to be set back 5' on top of the garage. Commissioner Baker requested clarification because what is suggested is 12'. Rob Balen responded the second unit above is set back 5' to get this project going. That is a concession made Commissioner LeJeune questioned Mr. Coco's photos of houses on Green Valley. They certainly look like multtple residences with immediate access to the street and very wide driveways, ts that what is unacceptable under Alternative C. Rob Balen responded that is not acceptable with multi family units according to the code. Commissioner LeJeune further questioned if the other residences were done through a variance. Rob Balen responded they were built when the area was under the County jurisdiction with different regulations. Planntng Commission Mtnutes November 10, 1986 page seven Further Commission and staff discussion ensued concerning Alternative C and City driveway requirements. Jeff Davts explained that the configuration gtven has a guest parktng space. Assuming that space ts occupied, backtng out from that locatton the visibility would be obstructed. ROb Balen reiterated that from a code, design and code enforcement perspective staff would rather see the units joined together; moving it over 5' and attaching the existing unit with one of the proposed units. It is the most viable alternative, it meets all the codes except for lot width with which staff doesn't have a problem. By moving two units over an additional 5' you remove the reason for the rear yard variance. Chairman Puckett expressed his' preference for staff's recommendation as the only a]ternative. COmmissioner LeJeune confirmed that the applicant has been fully apprised of of the 15' requirement above the garage. Commissioner Wetl expressed concern with the contrasting life spans of the existing unit and new units. Commissioner Wetl moved~ Ponttous second to approve Variance 86-7 with the variance for the lot width only and direct staff to prepare a Resolution with conditions as provided in Exhibit A: Motion carried 5-0. 3. USE PERMIT 86-31 APplicant: Loca ti on: Request: P:resentatt on: Burnett Ehltne Properties and Bental Properties Northwest corner of Newport Avenue Irvtne Boulevard "La Fayette Plaza" To install a pole-type center identification sign to be located at the center of the principal site frontae on Newport Avenue. ROBERT BALEN, Planning Consultant RECOMMENDED ACTION: TO DENY USE PERMIT 86-3[ Rob Balen presented the staff report. He explained the Planning Department philosophy in the past has been to discourage pole signs. In fact, they are discouraged on a routine basis at the front counter. When applicant's find out staff will recommend denial on a Use Permit, it discourages a lot of individuals. Apparently, it has been accepted practice to recommend denial on most pole signs that do not have freeway visibility and are needed for that visibility. A few problems with the pole sign encountered are the overall design, color scheme, sign sty]e. These things are not consistent with the other on-site signs. The shape of the sign should be oval or ornamental with soft design outlines without the bandings that are presented. It is rectangular in shape and the other signs in the center are more pleasing or oval, or ornamented or have sculptured edges. The proportion of the sign is large and bulky compared to the other signage on the site. It is kind of on a short pole for the scale of the sign. It is not in harmony with the scale of the Planning Commission Htnute~ November lO, 1986 page eight project. The sign is overly large and the center will not suffer from poor identification. The architecture is very good, the color scheme is very good, the on-site signs are very good. If we did not have the problems with the design of this pole sign it does meet most of the criteria for approval and staff would normally recommend approval of the sign because it does meet the criteria. It kind of points up an inconsistency with the sign code that may need to be discussed through the sign code revisions because it puts the staff in a position of consistently recommending denial on signs that sometimes may be adequate and some may serve a useful purpose. But, tt has been established policy of the department to carry on with that policy. Commissioner LeOeune questioned if this sign would be in place of a monument sign. Rob Balen explained the code allows a monument sign. Initially and with other developments on Newport, we have gotten the applicant's to go along with monument signs. A number of different things have led to other monument signs being put along Newport Ave. on some of the recent large projects. Carver Development for instance. The code allows pole signs with a Conditional Use Permit with these findings that have to be made. Some cities do not allow pole signs any longer without a variance. In Tusttn, pole signs are discouraged, we get them on larger projects usually but we are faced with the code here that says you can have one with a conditional use permit. What staff is objecting to is the design. Commissioner Wetl asked if it would be acceptable if they followed the rounded theme of the other center signs as depicted in the exhibit on the wall. Rob Balen responded from a consistency standpoint staff would like to see all the signage on site match the theme that has been selected. The designers have done a wonderful job. If they were to take any one of those signs with scrolls or the oval shape or any of those and put it on a pole or maybe a double pole with lights shining back down on it, staff would be happy with that. Commissioner Wetl, confirmed staff objects to the design of the sign rather than the pole. Rob Balen responded there is a departmental philosophy against pole signs, but reading the code you could make most findings required to allow a pole sign. Commissioner Wetl questioned why staff tries to restrict pole signs. Rob Balen explained it is because of visibility and safety. From a design standpoint, the modern trend is to go with monument signs and staff has always tried to get monument signs. Commissioner Wetl questioned if there would be lighting in the center that would be consistent with the pole. Rob Balen responded there will be theme lighting as displayed in the exhibit. Planntng Comadsston Mtnutes November 10, 1986 page ntne Commissioner LeJeune clarified that thts stgn ts tn 11eu of a mOnument stgn. Rob Balen responded they would be allowed an additional monument stgn at the restaurant stte south about 300'. They are proposing another street oriented freestanding sign. Commissioner Baker requested clarification that a sign would be permitted up to 24' and-they are proposing Rob Balen responded afftrmetlvely. It ts 11mtted to keep tt In scale with the building. Commissioner Baker questioned lighttng of the stgn. Rob Balen responded thts is not an internally Illuminated sign. The stgn has altght recessed around the edge of It, a halo type. Chatraan Puckett opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Dante1Btsh, consultant ~o Burnett Ehltne, explained the sign program was designed to meet the requirements of the ordinance. A prtmary issue is the difference between the ordinance and the planntng department philosophy. The philosophy should be in wrtttng. The applicant ts not applytng on a hardshtp basts. A monumemt stgn would have a negattve tmpact on the ingress and egress of trafftc tn the center. In all discussions wtth the Sta'ff, the shape of the stgn was never a problem. He was surprised that the shape was presented as a problem during thts heartng. The oval shape would present a problem because of the copy that needs to be housed. Any other other shapes are presented only tn the context of establishing "no two of a kind" signs throughout the center. Those shapes are recommended shapes, guidelines and directions for Individual tenants to pursue something wtthln that character for their own Individual Identity. Secondly, the second monument which was referred to is not a center monument stgn, tt Is a separate Issue, tt ts a stgn which by code ts allowed for a freestanding structure of so neny square feet. That requirement ts met by that structure. That should not be a consideration with respect to thts. It Is not a project monument stgn. Commissioner Wet1 questfoned tf the color rendering on the sign Is the same scheme throughout the center. Mr. Btsh responded it is compatible. Each of the tenant signs will be reviewed on an individual basis based on pre-established criteria. It is noted in the report, they did not supply specific color chips. The sign will be painted to reflect the colors. They are prohibiting any backlit plexiglass stgnage even though it is allowed by the city. That is not in keeping with the character of the development. The lighting on this sign will all be behind reveal neon halo, no visible neon. These will be silhouetted forms with refract color off the face of the sign from the concealed neon. Thecolor schematics that have been supplied the city on the other sign are very much in keeping with the color suggested for this sign. Commissioner Wetl asked if the center sign plan utilizes pastels. Mr. Btsh responded the color scheme on the building utilizes pastels, there are brighter colors, but they are not dominant. Planning Commission Mtnutes November 10, 1986 page ten Commissioner Baker clarified the exhibit presented is a replica of the actual sign. Mr. Btsh, responded with the exception of t~e back lighting halo affect. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chairman Puckett closed the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. Con~ntssloner LeJeune questioned the square footage and if it is more or less than the monument sign. Rob Balen responded it would be less. Jeff Davis clarified they are entitled to a 75 sq.ft, monument sign, this is 49.4 sq. feet. Chairman Puckett agreed with staff's recommendation as to why the sign is not necessary because the center will be very visible. However, he liked the sign and the colors. The center is unique and the sign goes with it. Commissioner Baker thought the sign is tasetfully done and reflects the appearance of the center. Commissioner We41 appreciated the exhibit presented because the coloring is so subtle it brings the whole thing to life. It is very well done. She recommended approval. Co~tsston.er Wetl moved, Baker second to approve Use Permit 86-31. Motion carried 5-0. Rob Balen further commented that during the sign code revision process, this is the type of problem that should be addressed. Commissioner Wetl also further commented, staff indicated they would prefer consistency with the oval signs that have been recommended for the shops, but at this point they are just recommendations. This approval is a firm commitment as far as the design is concerned, so it is quite possible the shop signs may fall in line with the center sign. OLD BUSINESS None. NE# BUSZNESS None. Planntng Commission Htnutes November 10, 1986 page eleven STAFF COIIC£RRS 4. Report on Council Actions of November 3, 1986. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Acting Senior Planner The Council suggested the planning staff initiate a dialogue with the downtown residents generally in the area between Irvtne Blvd. and Sixth Street, the freeway and E1Camino Real to, in a very nubulous fashion, take a look at the existing situations and potentials for existing development for redevelopment in the downtown area that would be consistent with their needs. There wasn't any specific direction, for example a specific plan be drawn, Just to be in contact with the downtown residents. He anticipated they would not initiate any such action until the new Director has a chance to review the situation. It will probably come back to the Commission sometime next year. Secondly, the Council minutes are incorrect where they reflect Ruby's Restaurant has been demolished. They have actually requested to demolish the building and to come back with an alternative plan. It will be presented to the Redevelopment Agency within a few weeks. CQPIIISSIO# C0#CER#S Commtssoner L~Jeune questioned if they have started to demolish Ruby's Restaurant. Jeff Davis responded the decision hasn't been finalized. Rob Balen explained the City commissioned an economic analyst to look at the fiscal impacts of annexing a rather large area in north Tustin. There is between $400,000 to $600,000 shortfall on an annual basis for the city if they annex this area; basically, because the cost of providing city sehvices. He handed out the report prepared by Start Hoffman. Chairman Puckett expressed the Commission's appreciation to Rob Balen for the excellent job he's done in managing the Community Development Department during the Director hiring process. ADdOURIIqEIIT Commissioner Wetl moved, Baker second to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on November 24, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. CHARLES E. PUCKETT, Chairman DONNA M. ORR, Recording Secretary 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 ITEM NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2373 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 85-31 REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL A CENTER IDENTIFICATION, POLE TYPE SIGN AT 13031 NEWPORT AVENUE. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustln does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application, (Use Permit No. 85-31) has been filed on behalf of Burnett-Ehltne Properties and Rental Properties, Inc. to authorize the installation of a SO square foot, center identification pole-type sign, 17'6" high at 13031 Newport Avenue. Ce 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: 1. That the design of the pole sign meets City code and standards. e That the pole sign is compatible with the architectural quality of the structure to be served. That approval of'a pole sign on the subject property will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area. Ee 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. 1 3 4i 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2373 Page ~o F. Proposed sign is categorically exempt from Environment Review under Class 11 of California Environmental Quality Act. Final development plans including design and structure shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Department and issuance of sign permit. II The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 85-31 for a pole-type center identification sign subject to the following condition: Be That the proposed project shall substantially conform to submitted sign plans, date stamped on file with the Community Development Department as herein approved in accordance to this ordinance. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1986. CHARLES E. PUCKETT, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary PM:jd Planning Commission DATE: NOVEMBER 24, 1986 SUBdECT: USE PERMIT NO. 86-32 NITH VARIANCE NO. 86-8 PROPERTY ONNER/ APPLICANT: MR. RAYMOND SALMI 148 W. MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 LOCATION: 333 EL CASINO REAL ZONING: C-2 CENTRAL CO~ERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO. I ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN FILED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REQUEST: V 86-8: TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FROM 12 SPACES TO 9 SPACES. UP 86-32: TO ALLOW bVER 505 OFFICE USE IN A BUILDING LOCATED ZN THE C-2 ZONE. RECOF~IENDED ACTION: Approve Use Permtt No. 86-32 by the adoption Of Resolution 2369 and' approve Varfance No. 86-8 by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2375. SIJ~IARY: On October 27, 1986 this project was continued at the request of the applicant. Since this date, the proposed project has been revised. The applicant is now the property owner and some minor architectural and parking details have been revised as discussed further in this report. This application involves two separate requests. The first is a Use Permit that, if granted, would allow the applicant to lease over 50% of the buildlng to professional office users. The second is a request to vary from the C-2 parking requirements by a total of three (3) spaces. On July 11, 1983 a Variance and Use Permit (No. 83-6) was approved for a similar project in the same building. The Variance was conditioned similar to that which is being proposed. Seeing that the Planning Commission previously Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Use Permit 86-3g/Variance 86-8 Page two approved a similar project and that findings were made to support its approval, staff is recommending that this revised request be approved. BACKGROUND AND ANALYS[S: Staff has identified issues concerning the Variance, Use Permit, and architectural design as discussed below: Variance No. 86-8 As previously mentioned, a Variance was conditionally approved for the same request in 1983, but expired due to the applicants failure to meet the original conditions of aproval. Therefore, a new Variance and Use Permit must be obtained. The staff report and resolution of approval for that project are attached for reference and review. The applicant is proposing to use the building as office on the ground floor, office use on the second floor and to leave the basement for storage. Under current parking standards, the number of parking spaces required are as follows: 5.76 spaces for second floor offices (1440 sq.ft./2SO) 6.00 spaces fo~ first floor office area (1523 sq/ft./250) 0 spaces for unused basement ~ Total parking spaces required Specific Plan No. 1 was adopted in 1971 to encourage revitalization of the Old Town area. This Specific Plan allows parking Variances if certain conditions can be met. The applicant has agreed to provide five (5) off-site parking spaces in addition to the four {4) on-site spaces currently available. Therefore, a Variance for only three (3) spaces is needed. The Specific Plan for the Old Town area addresses parking requirements. As stated in Section g-3 of the attached Ordinance No. 510 (Specific Plan No. 1), parking requirements may be waived or modified if certain measures are taken. The Specific Plan does not state the proportion of parking that shall be provided. Therefore, staff has used the previous Variance as guidance. These five (5) spaces will be acquired by one of the options provided in the Specific Plan. These options include leasing spaces from nearby properties or the public parking structure, or paying into the parking district established by the Specific Plan. Whichever option the applicant chooses, all requirements, fees and lease agreements wtll'be reviewed, and approved by the City. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Use Permit 86-32/Variance 86-8 Page three Staff recommends the following conditions of approval for this Variance: The building shall not be occupied or building permits for construction/renovation issued until an acceptable parking lease and/or agreement is approved by the City. The applicant shall purchase or lease a minimum of five (5) surplus off-site parking spaces. An agreement shall be signed by the property owner to identify and guarantee the availability of all nine (9) parking spaces for the life of this Variance and Use Permit. The basement shall remain unoccupied for the life of this Use Permit and Variance. ~ A Certificate of Occupancy will be issued for the first two floors only. Should a retail tenant occupy the building at sometime in the future, additional parking spaces shall be acquired at the rate of one (1) space for every 200 square feet of retail area. These conditions provide options for future retail tenants as opposed to the current request for use of 'the building as office. The .location of the spaces provided may, as previously allowed by the Commission, be farther than 300 feet from the property so that spaces may be leased from the public parking structure once it has been repaired. Use Permit No. 86-32 The applicant'has proposed to occupy the first and second floors as an office use. Parking 'requirements are somewhat less than that for retail users, therefore the parking needs are reduced for the building. Should a retail user wish to use the building in the future, additional .parking spaces shall be obtained at a rate of one space per every 200 square feet of retail area. As previously granted, the Use Permit No. 83-6 allowed office uses in over 50~ of the building when approved in 1983. As required by the Municipal Code (Section 9232-d) the Commission must determine that office use in over 50[ of the building area is 'appropriate and that retail use is not necessarily adequate for the building. The proposed user of the building is Rengel and Company, an architecture firm. The owner, Mr Rengel has submitted a letter justifying office use in over 50[ of the building for the following reasons: 1. The use applied for is an allowed use in the C-2 zone and Specific Plan No. 1. There is currently a high turn over rate for retail users in the immediate area and low pedestrian traffic rate. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Use Permit 86-32/Variance 86-8 Page four As required findings to findings as The proposed use is service oriented as opposed to a office type user and this use is consistent with other uses in the downtown area. by the C-2 zoning requirements, the Planning Commission must make allow office use in over SO~ of the structure. Staff has identified follows: The use applied for is an allowed and listed use in the C-2 zone and Specific Plan No. 1. Should retail tenants propose to use the building in the future, provisions have been made to allow retail occupancy. The proposed user is a service oriented business and the use is consistent with other uses in the area. Development of professional office at the subject property would be more compatible with surrounding uses in the area than permitted retail commercial uses. Architectural Design.: The previous applicant~ (El Camino Partnership) had proposed to upgrade the exterior of the building by continuing existing architectural elements to the sides of the structure. The use of awnings on the front and rear elevations was also proposed. The new tenant, Rengel and Company, has taken over the project and is now prop'oslng some changes in the treatment of the building. Staff has reviewed the revised plans and have concerns regarding the type of elements and t~xtures proposed. The previous request by E1 Camtno Partnership proposed to maintain the historical nature of the building. Whereas, the new proposal suggests a more modern approach'using the following elements: 1. Sandblasted concrete walls, a portion of which shall be painted and the remainder left natural. 2. Removal of all but one of the previously proposed awnings. 3. Removal of the proposed cornice and corner treatments on the side of the building. Staff considers the previou~ proPosal to be more appropriate for the area. Matntentance of the historical nature of the building will encourage renovation in the area. The objectives of the Old Town Specific plan also state that a village concept is encouraged. Both design proposals are attached for review. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Use Permit 86-32/Variance 86-8 Page five CONCLUSIONS: Plans submitted with this application indicate renovation of the building and parking area to meet present codes where possible. The Specific Plan and the current appearance of the structure encourage the proposition of renovation and occupancy of this building. This project is considered to have a positive influence on the downtown in that a building which has been vacant for over seven (7) years will be upgraded and occupied. Therefore, achieving the goals and encouraging the success of the Old Town area. Staff recommends approval of Variance 86-8 and Use Permit 86-32. Should the Commission concur, findings must be made to justify the granting of a Variance in accordance with the following (City Code Section 9292): The Variance granted shall not constitute granting of special priviledge inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated in that Specific Plan No. i provides measures for off-site parking and encourages rehabilitation of Structures in the vicinity. That because of special circumstances applicable. ~o subject property, including size, 'shape, topography, location or surroundings, the istrict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification in that the. parking options provided in Specific Plan No. ! apply to all properties within the Plan area. LAURA CAY P Assistant Planner LCP:jd attach: Resolution 2369 Resolution 2375 Variance 83-6 Report Resolution 2101 Specific Plan No. 1' Site Plan Elevations Letter from Applicant ~~~~tor Comrnuni~' 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 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2369 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN AUTNORIZING USE PERMIT NO. 86-32 AL[OWING OVER 50% OFFICE USE IN A BUILDING LOCATED IN TNE C-2 ZONE AT 333 EL CAMINO REAL The Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ao A proper application (Use Permit 86-32) has been filed on behalf of Ramond Salmi requesting authorization to allow over 50% office use in a building in the C-2 zone of Specific Plan No. 1. .B. A public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. Establishment, maintenance,.and operation of the use applied for will not, under any 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: 1. The use is in conformance with the land use element of the Tusttn Area General Plan. 2. This project is located in the C-2 zone Specific Plan Area No. 1. 3. The use applied for is an allowed use in the C-2 zone and Specific Plan No. 1. General office use is a permitted listed use in the C-2 zone and is similar to other uses in the area. Should retail tentants propose to use the building in the future, provisions have been made for retail occupancy. Development of professional office at the subject property would be more compatible with surrounding uses in the area than permitted retail commercial uses on the subject property. 1 2 '3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 26 9,7 28 Resolution No. 2369 Page t~o II. 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 Codes administered by the Orange County Fire Marshal and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. A Negative Declaration has been filed for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Department. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 86-3 to allow installation of over 50~ office use in a building located in the C-2 zone, subject to the following conditions: 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. The applicant shall purchase or lease a minimum of five (5) surplus off-site parking spaces. An agreement shall be signed by the property owner to identify and guarantee the availability of all nine (9) parking spaces for the life of this Use Permit. The basement shall remain unoccupied for the life of this Use Permit and Variance and the Certificate of Occupancy will be issued for use of the first and second floors only. Should a retail user occupy this building at some time in the future, additional spaces shall be obtained at a rate of one (1) space for every 200 square feet of retail area. 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2369 page three Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Municipal Code, building plans shall be modified to conform to the approved design concept of the Planning Commission prior to issuance of Building Permits. The project shall substantially conform to the plan, date stamped November 24, 1986, as herein modified, all modifications to this plan shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. All architectural elements shall substantially conform the plans submitted by E1Camtno Partnership. The applicant shall complete and return an agreement to conditions imposed form as required by the Director of Community Development. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tusttn Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1986. CHARLES E. PUCKETT Chairman DONNA bRR, Recording Secretary LCP:jd 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2375 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A VARIANCE OF THREE OF THE TWELVE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES AT 333 EL CAMINO REAL. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustln does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A proper application, {Variance No. 86-8), was filed on behalf of Raymond Salmi, requesting authorization to vary from the requirements of C-2 zoning district by a reduction in the number of required parking spaces from twelve (12) to nine (9). B. A public,hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. Co Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, relative to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, a strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification, evidenced by the following findings: 1. The use is in conformance with the land use element of the Tusttn Area General Plan. 2. The use applied for is an allowed use in the C-2 zone and Specific Plan Area No. 1. e The Variance granted shall not constitute granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated in that Specific Plan No. 1 provides measures for off-site parking and encourages rehabilitation of structures in the vicinity. e Because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification in that the parking options provided in Specific Plan No. 1 apply to all properties within the Plan area. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2375 Page two II. D. A Negative Declaratfon has been filed in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The granting of a variance as herein provided will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated. That the granting of the variance as herein provided will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or the public safety, health and welfare, and said variance should be granted. Go 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 Codes as administered by the Orange County Fire Marshal; and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. H. Final sign plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The Planning Commission grants a Variance No. 86-8 as applied for, to authorize the reduction of the required parking spaces from twelve (12) to nine (9), subject to the conditions: The project shall substantially conform to the plan, date stamped November 24, 1986, as herein modified, all modifications to this plan shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. The building shall not be occupied or building permits for construction/renovation issued until an acceptable parking lease and/or agreement is approved by the City. The applicant shall purchase or lease a minimum of five (5) surplus off-site parking spaces. An agreement shall be signed by the property owner to identify and guarantee the availability of all nine (9) parking spaces for the life of this Variance. The basement shall remain unoccupied for the life of this Variance by issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first two floors only. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 Resolution 2375 Page three Should a retail tenant occupy the buildtng at sometime tn the future, addttlonal parking spaces shall be acquired at the rate of one ([) space for every 200 square feet of retail area. 5. The applicant shall sign and return an agreement to conditions tmposed form as required by the Community Development Director. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198__. CHARLES E. PUCKETT, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary TOt FROH: $ UBJ ECT: Honorable C~atn~mn & Planning Commission ~embers ¢ommuntty Oevel opment Department Vartance ~3-~ A~chttect's Office with ~etail ¢o~e~cial 333 ~1 Camino ~eal This variance application is a request from Mr. Raymond Salmi to vary from the parking standards of the Zoning Ordinance by allowing re-occupancy of his vacant non-conforming building which has less off-street parking than required by code. Specifically, where sixteen (16) parking spaces would be required for new construction, Mr. Salmi can only provide the four (4) existing spaces due to the properljy's~age and configuration. Secondly, included with this variance is a/u~sefp~rmit request to allow an office use in the C-2 (Central-Commercial) z~ina.~' In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, this project has been determi ned categorically exempt from envi ron'mental consi derati on. AMACYSI$ Mr. Salmt approached department staff approximately four years ago at the time 6erding Photography Studio vacated the subject building. Since the property was developed prior to City enactment of the lg61 Zoning Code, the property became legal non-conforming in that parking provided did not meet code requirements for either retail or office usage. Therefore, Mr. Salmi had one year to re-occupy the building to maintain legal non-conformity. Staff favorably, responded to Mr. Salmi's request at that time; however, four years have now passed while the property still remains vacant. The property today may not be occupied without a parking variance since the required number of spaces for either retail comerotal or office have not been provided on site. Plans submitted with this application indicate renovation of the building and parking area to meet present codes where possible. Both the interior and exterior of the building will be remodeled as proposed in the attached plans. Specifically, the building's second floor, totaling 1,¢42 squarr will be used· for office space, the first flocr, at street grade, totalin~ [,523 square feet will be used for retail commercial and the basement totaling 1,i70 square feet will also be used for office and storage. Based upon this usage, sixteen (16) parking spaces are required by present codes. Honorable Chairman & Commission Members June 27, [983 Page 2 ~hile staff encourages upgrading of this deteriorating property, we are concerned about the lack of adequate off-street parking and the potential lengthy schedule for the property owner to complete this restoration project. The building has remained vacant for the past four years and become detrimental to the surrounding properties. It is staff's hope the building will not remain vacant for four more years. Staff believes that a variance request is justified since it is necessary for virtually any land use to occupy this building. However, to vary from the sixteen required spaces to only four as presently available would not be in the community"s best interest. Staff believes the Commission should require the applicant to lease five (5) usable parking spaces within 300' of the property or consider totally eliminating usage of the basement area. Secondly, Idle Commission should consider a time limitation for restoration of the building .to ensure conformance with the Commission's approval. RF. COIIIDIDAT'ZON Staff reconmmnds an mended approval of Variance 83-6 and the included use permit for office usage in the C-2 (Central Commercial) zone. Should the Commission concur, findings must be made to Justify the granting of a variance in accordance with the following (City Code Section 9292): The variance granted shall not constitute granting of special prtviledge inconsistent with tim limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated. That because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The following conditions of approval are recommended: Final building elevations, including color scheme and complete signing details shall be submitted for staff approval prior to issuance of any permits for this property. 2. Reconstruction of the subject building exterior shall be complete as proposed within one year from issuance of this variance or said variance will expire unless extended by the Planning Commission. Honorable Chairman & Commission Hembers June 27, [983 Page 3 3. The applicant shall purchase or lease a minin~n of five (5) surplus off-site parking spaces within 300' of this property or eliminate usage of the basement area. An agreement shall be signed by the property owner to identify and guarantee the availability of all nine (g) parting spaces for the life of this variance and use permit. DONALD D. LN~I DIRECTOR OF COIvl~UNITY DEYELOPMENT DOL:Jh Attachments: Development Review Sun,nar7 Plan Reductions Full-size Plans 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16, 17 18 19 20 21 9_4, 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2101 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE Cll~f OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, GI~ANTING AUTHORI~TION TO VARY WIlq~ THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF THE CENTRAL CO)44ERCIAL DISTRICT ON THE APPLICATION OF VARIANCE NO. 83-6 FOR 333 EL CAMINO REAL The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: a. That a proper application (Variance No. 83-6) has been Hled by Raymond Salmi to authorize the redevelopment and opera$ton of an office building at 333 E1 Camtno Real by granting a variance to the parking standards of the Central Commercial District. b. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. c. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact: ...... 1. T~at establishment, maintenance, and/or operation of the use applied for will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or morals of the persons residing or ~or~tng in the neighborhood of such proposed use, in that: a) the proposed activity is in com~lfance with the usa restrictions and application procedures of City Code; b) the project is in conformance with the intent of the development standards of the City. 2. The establishment, maintenance and/or operation of the use applied for will not be detrimental to the comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed usa in that the activity is proposed for the correct land use and zoning classtficatlon and shall be developed in a manner prescribed by the City's development and zoning provisions. 3. That the establishment, maintenance and/or operation of the use applied for will not be injurious or detrimental to prbperty, improvements in the neighborhood, or general welfare of the City in that the project will i~rove and enhance the site and structural features of the development as evidenced by the visual i~rovement of the structures and the repair and upgrading of su~oundtng features. 4. That the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act as specified in Section 15101, Title 14 of the State Administrative Code. 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. ~.u~ July 11, ig83. Page 2 II. S. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, relative to size, shape, topo- graphy, location or surroundings, a strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vtclnlty and under Identical zone classification, evidenced by the following findings: ~. The use ts in conformance wtt~ the land use element of the Tusttn Area General Plan. 2. The property was initially subdivided and developed prior to the enactment of current zoning code provisions. 6. That the granting of a variance as herein provided will not constitute a grant of special privilege in- consistent with the limitations upon other properties i~t~e-victntty and dt~th(ct in which the subject property is situated due to the constraints placed upon project by existing facilities and existing property lines. 7. l'net the granting of the variance as herein provided will not be contrary'to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or the public safety, health and welfare, and said variance should be granted as evidenced by the existence of the structure and its previous authorized uses. 8. Proposed development shall be in accordance with the development policies adopted by the City Council, Untfor~ Building Code as administered by the 8ui]dlng Officta], Fire Code as administered by the Orange County Fire Marshal, and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. 9. Final deve]opment plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Oevelopment Department. The Planning Commission grants authorization to vary with the Central Commercial parking provisions to redevelop and use the building at 333 E1 Camtno Real, as submitted, subject to the following conditions: A. Final building elevations, including color scheme and complete signing details shall be submitted for staff approval prior to issuance of any permits for this property. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12: 15 14 15 16 17 2O 21 27 28 Resolution ~o. ~l july 11, Lg83 Page 3 B. Reconstruction of the subject.building exterior shall be complete as proposed within one year from issuance of this variance or said variance will expire unless extended by the Planning Commission. ¢. The applicant shall purchase or lease a minimum of five (5) surplus off-site par~fng spaces. An agreement shall be signed by the property owner to identify and guarantee the availability of all nine (9) parting spaces for the life of this variance and use permit. O. That the use of tim building is authorized to have retail cOnmmrctal on the first ~oor and office uses on the second ~loor and an improved basement level. PASSEO AI~) AOOPT~O at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission, ~1~.9~ the // day ~a~..~, 1983. Janet Hestar Recording Secretary 2 4 10 14 15 '~7 ~0 22 25 25 ~0 AM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CAlIFOrNIA, ~ENDING THE ZONING ORDIk~A~CE, ORDINANCE NO. 157, AS ~IENDED, ADOPTING THE EL CAMINO .R~AL OEV~LOP~!ENT PLAk: (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1) The City Council of the City of Tustin, does ordain as follows: The Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance 2;o. 157, as amended is hereby amended b,.f the addition thereto of Section 4.17. SECTION 4.17 E1 Camino Real - $~e~ific Plan ::o. a) In order to )romote the goals and objectives of General Plan and to encourage 5he orderly develonmeni and redevelopment of commercial and professional land uses in the Town Center area, =here is hereby esta]~lished by this Ordinance, The E1 Camlno Rea! Co~ercial Area ~ecific Plan No. 1. b) Plan Boundaries: The area.encompassed by Specific Plan No. ~, depicted by Figure 1, shall be bounded by a llne starting a= a 9oin= a= ~e center-line of the inter- Section of "C" S~rmet w~th Sixth S%ree~; easterly =mn=mrline of ~e intersection of Six~ Street and E1 C~ino Real; ~encm northerly on an alignment wi~ ~e easterly bounda~' of Prospect Avenue ~e centerline Of ~e in6ersec~ion of Avenue ~d Firet Street; thence westerly ~o ~oin= of beginning. c) Pe~C~d Uses: S~jec~ ~ ~e general provisions, exceptions and res~:ic~ons as' herein provided, all uses shall ~e pe~tad in ~e ~whtown Co~ercial Area as are au~o~ized in ~e Re,ail Co~rcial District (C-l). d) L~a~ions on ~e~i~ad Uses: Ail ~es in ~e El C~ino Real Co~ercial Area shall be s~jec: ~o ~e following limitations: 1) No s~c~urm o~e~ ~an motels and ho~els shall be ~md mixad residential and commercial 2) No merchandisa shall be displayed nor advertised fo~ sale on or ov~ p~lic rich,-of-way. This s~c~ion is no~ ~o beconstrued as restric:ing nor l~i:inq ~e outside display and sale of me~andism on private proper~y within ~he , 1 5 ? 8 9 10 11 17 $0 Authorized and Encouraged Uses: The following uses are authorized and encouraged for this area wit_~ the interest of creating a Commercial Village A~mosphere: Wine Tasting Rooms Candle Shops Boutique Coffee Shops E~hnic Restaurants (Spanish, Mexican, French, German) Hobby Shops Oelicatessens Lamp Shops Yardage Goods Knit Shops Ice-Cream Parlors Jewelry. Shops Wrought Iron i~are Art Galleries General Offices PhotograDhers's Studios Gift Sho~s China and Crystal The a~ove list of poten:ial uses is not all encompassing but typifies the character of uses that illustrate the desired image. Site Plan and Elevations .Required: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building, structure, or structural alteration, and prior to the improvement or modification of any parking Io2, a site plan and/or building elevation plan shall be approved by the 0evelo~ment Previa:: ComJaission as set forth by Ordinance No. 439. Site Development Standards and Exception[: In order to provide maximum flexibility in design and development for various lot sizes, consistent with a concep~ of village environment, the following criteria and exceptions shall become applicaDle: 1. Front building setbacks may be established at tba ~ropsrty line except for corner properties r~q. uiring · 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 tbs event tbs development extends to the naM= intervening street, the rear setback line shall be construed as t, he frontage on "C' or 3. As aA exception ~o the general sections of this chapter and ocher provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, when co~ercial and professional propez~ies are developed or converted to per- matted uses under the provisions of this Ordinanc on-site parki~g r~uirements may be modified under any one or a combine=ion of the following provisions. 4 § ? 9 10 11 15 17 27 h) (a) Property or properties that lie in within a Vshicle Perking Assessment District or Business Improvement Area shall be exempt from t. he requirement for on-site parking aoco~..odations, subject to the provisions of ~he perking or improvement district ordinance. (b) On-site parking requirements may be waived upon the presentation to the City of a long term lease, running ~i~-h and as a condition of the business license, for private off- site parking accommodations within 300 feet of t-he business or activity to be served. (o) Ail Or a portion of. required n=~ber of parking spaces may be satisfied by depos!zin~ wi~b. the City an amount, to be used for public parking accommodations within the area. equal to 4 times the assessed value as determined from t~e latest assessment roll of the Count%~ Assessor, of 200 sruar~ fee.t of land within ~he area, for eac~ required parking space not otherwise pro- vided. 4. Architectural styles shall be authorize~ ~': =he Devo!c=mmnt-Preview Co..-~ission upon a flni~ng that ·-rcposod developments are comoatible and co...-?lementa~; to the village m~t~ f. of existing Victorian and western style buildings and const&'uotion of o~hers of simila~ style and compatible Spanish motif are encouraged. 5. Landscaping plans for areas exposed ~o pu~iic view shall be required as an integral of site development 91ans. 6. Signs shall be of uniform., size, color and S~yle limited'to twenty (20%) percent of :he front wall area of any one single busines~ or office plus one free-standing complex or iden~.fioa~ion sign not to exceed 200 square feet wi~h permitted identification of the business or ~rofessions within t31e complex of =~en~! (20) square feet maximum for each such Public Improvpments: Public improvements contributing to the motif of the area and the intent of this ordinance are to consist of the following: 1) S~reet furniture for convenience of the pedestrian! shopper to consist of benches and trash recep- tacles. 2) S~reet lighting wi~h the use of stanchions and fixtures ~ha~ contribute to the development theme. 31 S~reet pot=als to create an identity of approach ~O ~he ar~a for vehicle and pedestrian traf3ic. 1 2 $ 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 27 4) The use of wishing %~ells as theme and area i den ti ty. 5) Street and traffic patterns that seqregate vehicle from pedestrian traffic by providing rear access to parking accommodations, delivery services, and through traffic, with frontage accommodations for pedestrians and short term convenience parking. PASSED A_ND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin, City Council, held on the 6th day of July , 1971. ,. /v ,~tAYOR' -- ATTEST: i ITI ! ! lr-I ARCHITECTS 3955 Birch Street, Suite 101 Newport Beach, California 92660 714/852-9171 November 14, 1986 Ms. Laura Cay Pickup City of Tustin Planning Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 RE: 333 E1Camino Real, Gerding Building Dear Laura, In reference to the above project, we have proposed 100% office use of the first and second floor, rather than the previous retail use on the first floor. In support of the proposed office use, we have~ made the following findings: An office use is allowed within the existing C-2 zoning where the building is located. The history of the area shows a high turnover rate for retail use, and a much lower turnover rate for office use, thus adding stability and consistancy to the Old Town area. Due to the poor showing of the past retail spaces and the high turnover, very little revenue is generated to the City from the retail sales. Office use should generate more revenue to the Citv. The probable occupant of the space will be an architectural office, and although it is not retail, it is part of the service industry rather than strict office use which does not usually permit access from the general public. Within this block, but on the Main Street side, exists a landscape architectural firm, along with several other office uses along E1 Camino Real. The occupants of the office space should provide income to the surrounding retail, and provide a well-balanced mixed use. It is our belief that office use in this area wilt be to the benefit of the Old Town. If you have any questions, 'please do not hesitate to contact my office. SiQcerely, R~ichard J.~R~ngel, AIA Principal, R~ngel+Co. Architects Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: NOVEMBER 24, 1986 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12763 THE IRVINE COMPANY AN AREA ROUGHLY BOUNDED BY BROWNING AVENUE, BRYAN AVENUE, JAMBOREE ROAD (FOR)~ERLY MYFORD) AND IRVINE BOULEVARD. SECTORS 10 AND 11 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXI~IATELY 215 ACRES OF LAND PROVIDING FOR DEVELOPHENT OF SPECIFIC LAND USES PURSUANT TO THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. RECOP~ENDED ACTION: [t is recommended that the Commission continue consideration of the subject map to its December 8, 1986 meettng. DISCUSSION: Information relating to conditions of approval requested by the Tustin Unified School District was not received until November 8, 1986. Even though the District's comments were received after the review period prescribed by state law, issues raised are none the less relevant to the subject map and should be considered. Additional staff time is required to properly review and address the District's comments. Accordingly staff with the concurrence of the Irvine Company is recommending that consideration of Tentative Tract Map 12763 be continued. Communi ty Devel opment ~)i rector JSD:jd L Community Development Department -Report to the Planning Commission ITEM NO. 5 DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER OF PROPERTY: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRON~NTAL STATUS: REQUEST: NOVENBER 24, 1986 USE PERNIT 86-33 · THE O.K. EARL CORPORATION OF BEHALF OF NERCURY SAVINGS AND LOAN NERCURY SAVINGS AND LOAN 1095 IR¥INE BOULEVARD 12911 ELIZABETH WAY R-1SINGLE-FANILY A NEGATXVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR TO CONFORH WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONNENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL A ~ARKING LOT AT 12911 ELZZABETH HAY AND DEHOLISH AN EXZSTING SINGLE FAHILY HONE. RECORRENDED ACTION: Approve Use Permit 86-33 by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2374 with conditions. Project Analysts: The applicant is requesting authorization to expand the present parking lot of the Mercury Savings and Loan Building. Parking demands for the building exceed the original required parking spaces provided on-site. Thus the need for the additional parking. The savings and loan parcel is zoned C-1, retail commerc!al. The parcel for the additional parking lot is zoned R-1. The zoning code allows parking lots for automobiles when adjacent to any "C" or "M" District, when properly landscaped and subject to a use permit. The surrounding land uses are as follows: Retail Commercial, C-1 to the west (Tustin Bowling Lanes); R-1 Single Family Residential to the north; and Planned Community Commercial to the southeast and R-1 Single Family Residential to the northeast. (Please see atached Exhibit "A"). The site plan shows 20 net new parking stalls. There are 46 existing parking stalls which would bring the total amount to 66 spaces. The original site plan submitted showed an additional driveway on Elizabeth Way. Staff was concerned that an additional driveway could have a traffic impact dn the single-family residences to the north and east. After meeting Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Page two with the applicant, the owners agreed to not add any additional driveways and to take interior access from the present parking lot. A 6 foot-8 inch block wall will be required for the northerly property line to buffer the noise of the parking lot from the adjacent single-family residence. A Negative Declaration was prepared for the project because of the mature specimen trees on-site. The owner has agreed to retain the tree in the front yard setback and one of the two existing trees in the sideyard. Staff recommends approval of this permit for the following reasons: 1. The parking lot is an allowable use in the R-1 single-Family District subject to a use permit. 2. The proposed parking lot will meet the demand for extra parking spaces for special functions. 3. The parking lot will not increase the on-street traffic, but will encourage on-site parking. 4. A boundary wall on the north property line will help to mitigate the noise from the proposed parking lot. Associate Planner MAC:id attach: Site Plan Location and Zoning Map Resolution No. 2374 CHRISTINE SHINGLET~tf, . Community Development D~ rector Community Development Department 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 14 15 17 18 20 21 22 25 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2374 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PERMIT 86-33 WHICH ALLOWS A PARKING LOT AT 12991 ELIZABETH WAY. The Planning Commission' of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae That a proper application, (Use Permit No. 86-33) has been filed on behalf of Mercury Savings and Loan, to authorize an additional parking area at 12991 Elizabeth Way. 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: 1. The parking lot is an allowable use in the R-1 Single-Family District subject to a use permit. The proposed parking lot will meet the demand for extra parking spaces for special functions. The parking lot will not increase the on-street traffic, but will keep the traffic off of the local street. 4. A boundary wall on the north property line will help to mitigate the noise from the proposed parking lot. 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. Ee 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 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution t~o. 2374 page II. A Negative Declaration has been applied for to conform with the Calfornia 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. 86-33 to authorize an additional parking area for Mercury Savings and Loan at 12991 Elizabeth Way subject to the following conditions: Ae The final site plan shall be standardized and reflect all approprite 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 and street pavement. B. A lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of permits. This plan shall include but not be limited to: 1. 'Lighting fixtures and intensity of light. 2. Footings of light fixtures. 3. Shielding methods which will be arranged so that direct rays do not shine on adjacent property. C. A grading plan shall be submitted showing the grades and drainage of the site. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of permits. The plan shall not be limited to but include the following items: 1. List of plant names (common and botanical), sizes, quantities, spacing, soil preparation and planting notes and bermtng details. 2. A note that final quantities of all landscaping materials are subject to field inspection by the Department of Community Development. Additional landscaping deemed necessary shall be installed at applicant's expense. 3. Points of connection. 4. Back flow prevention device(s). 5. Location and types of valves. 6. Location and sizes of piping 7. Sprinklerhead types and locations. 8. Location of automatic timers. Site plan approval shall be null and void if construction of the project does not commence within one (1) year from the date of the approved Use Permit. 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. 2374 page three Dedication of street right-of-way across the Elizabeth Way frontage. All parcels used by Mercury Savings & Loan shall be held together by the recordation of a covenant. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 CHARLES E. PUCKETT, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary EXHIBIT A /. $0,4¢. tO2 ' C1 I&S.Z? '. '~ PC-C I&S' LOCATION MAP FOR USE PERMIT 86-33 Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: NOVEMBER 24, 1986 SITE PLAN/DESIGN REVIE# MC KELLAR/I'USTIN, 14272 FRANKLIN AVENUE (LOT 26, TRACT NO. 8590) GEHSLER & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF HCKELLAR DEVELOPMENT OF LA JOLLAo 14272 FRANKLIN AVENUE PLANNED COHHUNITY IRVINE INDUSTRIAL (PC IND) AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT gAS PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED FOR THE TUSTIN IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, EIR 73-1 COMMISSION APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF A PROPOSED 69,972 SQUARE FOOT R&D INOUSTRIAL/OFFICE BUILOING. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the site plan, landscaping and architectural design of the proposed project be approved by the adoption of Resolution No. 2372 with all conditions of approval contained therein. SUMMARY: The Community Development Department has co~leted a review of the site plan, landscaping and architectural design of the proposed industrial/office building. However, pursuant to adopted Planned Community Development Regulations for the area, the final site plan and project design is subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission. With the exception of conditions noted in the draft resolution of approval, staff considers the submittal to be complete and recommends that the Commission approve the project as presented. SITE PLAN REVIEW The applicant proposes to erect a multi-tenant research and development indUstrial/office complex consisting of three buildings totaling approximately 69,972 square feet. The project is located on a 166,867.5 square foot site, in The Irvine Industrial Complex, which is zoned Planned Community Industrial (PC Ind). Community Development Department Planntng Commission Report Stte Plan/Design Revtew, [4272 Frankltn Page two The subject property is currently vacant and is bounded to the north by a textured concrete building with vertical openings and white window trim. Landscape is well maintained and primary tree is the Eucalyptus. This complex is occupied by MAI - a computer manufacturer. To the west across the street and to the south adjacent to the site are three other industrial buildings of light stucco walls, red wood details and mature landscaping. Submitted plans propose three rectangular structures. The overall coverage is 27.5%. Front set back is 30 feet, side and rear stdeyard setbacks are 49.5 feet. A total of 210 parking stalls are required, and 220 are provided, 40 (lg~) of which are compact spaces with 5 (five) handicap, stalls. Proposed plans are the result of numerous negotiations between the applicant and staff which resulted in a revised and refined design of the project with emphasis on: vehicle circulation pattern parking layout and distribution of compact stalls screening of parking and service areas lighting and pedestrian circulation Architectural treatment of rear elevations The site plan as modified during the review process addresses the concerns of Fire, Police, Engineering and Planning staff. For instance, the frontage of the buildings was reset five (5) feet in order to allow for the enlargement and redesign of the entrance driveway, among other improvements. The proposed project will fit well on the site and enhance its immediate vicinity. ARCHITECTURAL OESIGM REVIEW Architectural Design of the butldfngs wtll have a streamlined "high tech" appearance (see attached elevations). Colored elavatfons will be available at the meeting. The architectural features of the complex are: - precast concrete walls, gray in color; - solargray glazing; ' - Different color mulllons and doors for each building; Color-scheme: gray and blue, gray and burgundy, and gray and green. (A materials board will be available at the meeting); Community Development Department 'Planning Commission Report Site Plan/Design Review, 14272 Franklin Page three 1" recessed concrete-face forming a frame panel on the rear elevation: - soffit lighting at first floor. Proposed architectural features are compatible with, and enhance the surrounding development. LANDSCAPING REVZEW: Conceptual landscaping plans' for requirements. Eucalyptus trees the proposed parking lot surpass minimum and a variety of climate resistant shrubs surround the property. Pepper Trees and a bermed turf area isolate the industrial site from the public right-of-way. Two large Jacaranda trees and a series of Queen Palms wil.1 mark the principal entrance driveway. Ficus Benjamina provide shade for the outside employees eating area. Sizes of trees (in gallons) surpass requirements as well. While concept landscaping plans appear adequate, review and approval by City staff of final detailed plans should be made a condition of project's approval. Proposed walkways, special paving and lighting will facilitate pedestrian circulation and enhance thq landscaping. Proposed lighting consists of wall mounted security fixtures for rear elevations, post light typical for landscaped areas and soffit lighting at first floor entry. CO#CLUSIO#S: Staff and the project architect have spent considerable amount of time refining the proposed project. As submitted, the site plan, landscaping and elevations address staff's-major concerns and it is recommended that the Commission approve the project design by the adoption of Resolution No. 2372 with the conditions of approval contained therein. PATRIZIA MATERASSI, Planner PM:jd:pef attach: Full size Site Plan/Elevations/Landscaping/Lighting Resolution No. 2372 Community Development Department 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. 2372 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF A 69,972 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT 14272 FRANKLIN AVENUE. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae That a proper application, Design Review No. 86-29 has been filed on behalf of McKellar Development of La Jolla, to request approval of a proposed 69,972 square foot industrial Research and Development project to be located at 14272 Franklin Avenue, within the Tustin Irvine Industrial Complex. B. An Environmental Impact Report was previously certified for the Tustin Irvine Industrial Complex (EIR 73-1). Ce That the Commission has reviewed the proposed project and determines that the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. De Proposed development shall be in accordance with the development policies adopted by te 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. E. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Department. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Design Review No. 86-29 to authorize construction of a 69,972 square foot industrial/Research & Development building to be located at 14272 Franklin Avenue, subject to the following conditions which are to be met prior for issuance of building permits: Proposed project shall substantially conform to submitted site plan, elevations, and landscape conceptual plans for the project, date stamped on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified in accordance with this resolution: B. Submittal and approval of: A final grading plan and specifications will be required and should be based on the Orange County Surveyor's bench mark datum to be prepared by a registered civil engineer. A separate street improvement plan will be required for all construction within the public right of way with all construction items referenced to the applicable city standard drawing numbers. Said construction items to include but not be limited to the following: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution 14o. 2372 page two Ce Ge Ke a. Curb and gutter. b. Ffve (5) foot stdewalk c. Drive aprons d. Street lights (If required) e. Oomesttc water/fire service f. Sanitary sewer laterals Submittal of a Soils Engineer Report prepared by a soils engineer. Submittal of all Structural Plans for the project including structural calculations and energy calculations. Payment of the Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 sewer connection fees at the time a building permit is issued. Payment of the required fees for the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program at the time a building permit is issued. Public and on-site fire hydrants will be required prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction. Also, fire lanes, minimum 20' wide, shall be located adjacen~ to the buildings. All utilities serving the site to be provided underground. All roof equipment and vents must be screened from view by parapet walls. Provide information regarding Architectural treatment of trash enclosure, which shall be consistent with main building treatments. Continuous 6" concrete curbs shall be provided between landscape planters, parking spaces and drive aisles. Entrance driveway shall be a minimum of 34' wide and provide two-way traffic. "Palm Trees" located at center of entrance driveways shall be planted at a minimum of 3S' apart and provide 13'6" of vertical clearance to permit fire trucks to pass through. Parking stalls located directly in front of a Palm Tree shall be replaced by a 3' by 17.5' planter area. Other alternatives may be proposed .by applicant and approved by staff. 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. 2372 Page three Qe Tenant improvement and Master Sign Plans shall be submitted for design review and approval prior to issuance of building, and related sign permits. Signs should be designed to be compatible with overall building design. A final landscaping plan shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any building permits. Landscaping plans shall include: A list of all plant names (common and botanical) sizes, quantities, spacing, soil preparation and planting notes and bermtng details. Proposed landscape as indicated on conceptual landscaping plans shall not be reduced, and one tree per each 30 lineal feet of perimeter landscape shall be provided. Specification of lighting fixtures and intensity of light proposed for security and aesthetic purposed. Specifications of pedestrian circulation specialty pathway paving. A five (5) foot wide landscape planter surrounding the property and 10 foot Wide landscaped area adjacent to the street. Note that final quantities of all landscaping materials are subject to field inspection by the Community Development Department. Additional lanscaptng deemed necessary shall be installed at applicants expense. A complete irrigation plan is required the following: Points of connection Backflow prevention device(s) Location and types of valves Location and sizes of piping Sprinklerhead types and location Location of automatic timers. which should indicate 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. 2372 Page four Site plan approval shall be null and void if construction of the project does not commence within one (1) year from the date of the approved site plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1986. CHARLES E. PUCKETT, Chairman Donna Orr, Recording Secretary ITEM NO. 7 Planning Commission DATE: SUB4ECT: LOCATION: REQUEST: NOVEMBER 24, 1986 FORRRL FINDING NO. 86-1 FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 10) TO AUTHORIZE PRE-SCHOOL AND NURSERY SCHOOL USES IN THE COI~ERCIAL DISTRICT ESTABLISHED BY SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 10 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Pleasure of the Commission. SUI~ARY: An application has been filed with staff requesting authorization to permit a pre-school to be located in the Tustin War Memorial at 150 E. First Street. The building is in the "Commercial as a primary use" zone 9f the First Street Specific Plan. Schools are not listed as an authorized use in this zone, however the previous zoning on this site allowed schools. Pursuant to Section III C.6 of the First Street Specific Plan (page III-56) the Planning Commission may authorize uses not specifically listed by the approval of a Formal Finding. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: On December 16, 1985, the First Street Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. This plan adopted certain use zones such as commercial {primary or secondary), office (primary or secondary), restaurant or hotel. Each of these zones is discussed in the plan and a list of uses is given for each one. Although pre-schools and nursery schools are not listed in the Commercial district of the First Street Specific Plan area, standard commercial districts defined by the Municipal Code do allow schools subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The "Commercial as a primary use" zone permits a variety of retail commercial and service oriented uses. Staff has compiled a list of findings that would be appropriate should the Commission approve this Formal Finding: 1. All commercially zoned properties as defined by the Municipal Code allow pre-schools and nursery schools as conditionally permitted uses. Community DeveloPment Deparlment Planning Commission Report Formal Finding No. 86-1 Page two Pre-school and nursery school uses are consistent with the intent of the Commercial zone of the First Street Specific Plan in that service oriented uses are listed permitted uses in this zone. Pre-school and nursery school uses are compatible with the other listed permitted uses of the Commercial zone in the'First Street Specific plan. e Pre-school and nursery schools may be authorized in the Commercial zone with a Conditional Use Permit in conformance with similar zoning in other areas in the City of Tustin. 5. The First Street Specific plan authorizes the Planning Commission to make formal findings to allow uses not specifically listed. Parking requirements applicable to school uses are listed in the current Municipal Code. These requirements would also be appropriate for the First Street Specific Plan commercial areas. These requirements are as follows: a. One (1) loading space for every eight (8) students. b. One parking space f'or each school employee. CONCLUSIONS: Should the Commission find that pre-school and .nursery school uses are compatible uses in the Commercial Zone of the First Street Specific Plan, the previously listed findings meet the intent of the Municipal Code and Specific Plan No. 10. Staff has prepared a draft resolution of approval for Formal Finding No. 86-1 which includes these findings. This Resolution has been attached for review. LAU~RA CAY P UF Asststan ~t ~anne~-~ LCP:jd:pef attach: Resolution No. 2371 ~lopment Community Dov~lopment Department 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2371 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING FORMAL FINDING NO. 86-1 WHICH AUTHORIZES PRE-SCHOOL AND NURSERY SCHOOL USES IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONE OF THE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 10) AREA WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae That a request was filed and findings were made and presented to the Commission regarding nursery or pre-school uses in the commercial zone of the First Street Specific Plan. 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: 1. All commercially zoned properties, as defined by the Municipal Code, presently allow schools as conditionally permitted uses. Pre-school and nursery school uses are consistent with the intent of the Commercial zone of the First Street Specific Plan in that service oriented uses are listed permitted uses in this zone. o Pre-school and nursery .school uses are compatible with the other listed permitted uses of the Commercial zone in the First Street Specific Plan. e Pre-school and nursery schools may be authorized in the Commercial zone with a Conditional Use Permit in conformance with similar zoning in other areas in the City of Tustin. 5. 'The First Street Specific Plan allows the Commission to make formal findings to allow uses not specifically listed. 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. 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 28 Resolution No. 237l page two This finding is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15301). II. The Planning' Commission hereby approves Formal Finding No. 86-1 to authorize pre-school and nursery school uses in the commercial zone of the First Street Specific Plan area with a Conditional Use Permit subject to the following conditions: The final site plan of any proposed school 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 Tusttn "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. All pre-schools or schools'proposed in the Commercial Zone of the First Street Specific Plan shall be subject to a Conditional Use Permit. C. Parking requirements for schools shall be as follows: a.) One (1) loading space for every eight students. b.) One (1) parking space for each school employee. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1986. CHARLES E. PUCKETT, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary ~ugtulJed;o ~ug~udolg^;Q Xl!untu u. Jo'D 986! : ~d ' uo 14c~uasaad L*gJO 986T 'LT aG(:ImGAON - SNOZ.L~V ~Z3NflO'J NO laOd3U 986T '~Z Jaq~OAON UO!SS!U.~LUOE) ~U!UUelcI 9e-ZI-II I ~Vd VON]gV NOIiOV ]IDN~OD iIID ($NOIIVDIJIOOH ]VNgI$ DIJJV~i '3A¥ iBOd~3N) NOIl3]d~OD JO 3DIlON 50 NOIiVO~OD3~ 9NIZI~OHI~V ONV iN3~3AOBdHI JO $~0~ 9NIId3DDV NI£$~i ~0 iiIJ ~Nl ~0 ]IDNflOD ilID ~Hl ~0 NOIlfl]O$~ ¥ - ~I-98 'ON NOI£~305~ S~I-98 'ON '8 HOIJJqlOS3~ E3£dOO~ $£N3W3AOBdWI ~NIAYd N¥IQ3W 3£383 -NOD Q35508W3 BOJ SNOIIYDIJID3dS QNV ~NVqd 9NIAOBddV 'VINBO3IgY3 'NI£S~I JO AIID 3HI JO 9IDN~OD AIID 3HI ~0 NOI£~90S3~ V - ~I-98 'ON NOI£~90S3~ ~tI-98 'ON 'Z NOII~IOS3~ OgldOOV 'uo~sL^LO 6uLJaauL6u3/3uam3Jedao s4do~ 3btqnd ~q3 £q papuamuJooad se aALJo eUaLeW 2~ZEI 3e ~uam~se~ 33a?qns do~ Le^no 'r eLpne[D pue -¥ ~ua6n3 o~ p~ao m~ek~3bnO a3no~x~ 03 ~JaL3 ~L3 pue do~ew aq3 azLdoq3nv ±N3W3SV3 ~0 WIVqD£I~b - (IAVS) ANVdW03 NOI£VgIaaI A3qqVA VNV VINV$ 'uo~s~^LO 6uLueeuLBu3/3uem3dedeo s~JoM 3Ltqnd eq2 ~q pepuetutuooeu se E~I-9B 'ON uoL3nLose~ 3dopy QVO~ H3NV~ NIISfll/qV3~ ONIWV3 q3 tSdWVB ~IVHDq33H~ /)lV~3OIS ~0~ SNOI±VDI3ID3dS QN¥ SN¥1d 9NIAO~ddV '¥IN~OJIIV3 'NIIS~I JO AIID 3Hi. JO II3NROD AIID 3H1 ~0 NOIIRIO$3B V - ttI-98 'ON NOIIDIOS3~ · £~uJo)3¥ £2~3 aq3 £q papuammo3~J se m~eL3 23a~qns 98/EI/8 :ilI3 HIIM Q39I~ 3i¥Q :SS09 ~0 31¥0 :NVgVBBV8 39B03S :INYWI¥ID :6£-98 'ON WIV93 30 N01133~38 98/8/0I :A£I3 H£IM Q39I~ 31VO :98/II/Z :$$09 JO 31¥0:3980N 1~3893Q :INVWI¥gD :g~-gB 'ON wIVg3 JO NOII33D3B Bb'EOI'B~I$ 30 £NDOW~ 3H1 NI 990BAVd 30 NOI£¥313I£¥B ~8'~80'62~$ JO £NDOWV 3HI NI ~ONYW30 JO 9¥AOBddY 9NI±33W B¥9N938 '986I 'E B38W3AON - $31NNIW 30 9VAOBdd¥ NOII¥ON3K~033B '9 33VJS O3AOBddV EEI-gB 'g NOIJ~llOS]~ 031dO~ NOII¥ON3mO23B ~VJ.S 03AOBddV BVQN39YD £N35N03 NOIJ.VON31~033B '~ :I.-IVJS O3A~ddV O3AOUddV O3A~ddV 'IA 'dl~ 3~ B04 Bill:) SINN4N 3HI Ol ~NI~OO9 38 99IM 3N W3£I 1~ OBVROI 13~flB 3HI NI O00'g$ SI 383H1 /~LL 030NOdS3B 31IHM N331AOB '03O~gdfl 38 ~BYd VIl(~9~ NI S/BflO0 $[NNql 3HI IV ~11~9[9 AlX3 3~LL I~BLL O3/S3flO3B 8fl93 SI#Nql NI/SRI 3H1 30 mndNI 3IgBnd 'A Nlm?dB3X3¥ 'aUON - $gNIBV3H 3IgBfld 986I 'gI-B B38W333Q - ,,~33~ SIHeIB 30 9918. 'AI N~lflO~ 3NN~3C Ol O31N3S3Ud NOIlYWV930Bd 'III 99¥3 990B 'II ~M3S3ad 9'r~ B3QBO Ol 99¥3 'I '~Z 'W'd O0:Z 986I 'ZI B38W3AON II3NA(X) AII3 NIIS{ll 3HI 30 ~I13~ B~lflg]B ¥ ~0 VON3~ NOIIOV 98-ZI-II 2 39Vd VON39¥ NOIID¥ 9IDNflO3 AIID '33NV~I~NI A£I~IB~I~ Ali3 9NIOB~3~ dOHSN~(14 V BOJ #OOa 33N3a3JN03 33~M iii3 NI 'N'd 0~:9 IV 33NVBflSNI illglSVI~ A£I3 9NIOB¥g3~ dOHS~OM ¥ BOJ 3£¥0 V 9NIHSI98¥±S3 'E 'I B39N333b ~..-1S '~IISlll JO ~113 31-LL 9NI3IA~]S £3IBISI0 33#VN3.[NI'elQ 9NIIDIglq £3]BIS Il. Nfl{X) JO NOI£d#flSSV NI£Sfll JO 1113 3HI 9NI3IA~3S 13I~£SI0 ~IIZIBOH.I. II¥ tgI-9~ 'ON 33NYN31NI~W 9NIiHgI] 133BIS ilNflO3 3HI 30 NOIIBOd IYHI JO NOIIdNflSSV 'g NOII~qO~3B 031o4)OV 'UOLS~^~O 6u~Jeeu~6u3/3uem3Jedeo s4JoM 3~[qnd eq3 £q p~pueu~uooeJ se Og'6E~'g~t$ ~o 3unome eq3 u~ 'euv e3ues 'uo~33nJ3s -uo3 '~ 'B o3 33e?oJd 3oe~qns do~ ¢3eJ3uoo eq~ pJe~¥ :uo~3epueu~uo3BB SiN3W3AOBdNI NI~ BJ£VM 133~1S ,,3,, ~ 133B±S ,,B,, BOJ ±3V~INO3 JO OBVMV NOII¥ONJWWO33B JJVIS 03AOBdd¥ SS3NISflB M3N 'X 'L~Juno3 X3~3 eq3 jo @dnse~[d :uo~jepu~mmoJ~B SNB33NOD 3IJJYal 3AIBO O93IJB3HI~3H - 3flN3A¥ 993HDIIN ISI B3BN3330 'I Ill 03flNIINO0 SS3NISflB 090 'XI 'eUON - NOIldO~ BOJ S33NVNIOBO 'Ilia SgNIOglflB 03NMO-XII3 NI S3dld ON¥ SB¥913 JO 9NI~OWS 3HI Oi 9NIi¥13B ~I~ NOI£33S 9NION3W¥ AB 3003 9VdlOlNflW NIISfll 3HI JO I ~3£dVH3 'Al 393I.IBV 9NIQN3NV NIISfll JO AlI3 3H~. JO 33NYNIOBO NY - 6Z6 'ON 33NVNIOBO 6Z6 'ON 33NVNIOBO - 33NVNIOBO 9NI~OWS O± £N3WON3W¥ 'I 6Z6 'ON 33N)h,_~QO 033flO01illlI NOIIOflOOBINI BOJ 33NVNIOBO 'IIA · ¢u~m3Jedeo 3uam -doL~A~O £3~unu~uoo ~q3 Xq pzpuetmuooBJ se ~EI-9B 'ON uo~3nLos~B 3dopv I6 'ON NOIIVZINVgBoJB 03SOdOBd 3HI BO3 B35SN¥~U. X¥1 Al~3dOBd ¥ 9NIAOBddV 'VINBOJIgY3 'NI£Sfll JO AlI3 3H1 JO 9IDN~OD AlI3 3HI JO NOI£flgos3B V - ~I-98 'ON NOI£~9OS3B ZEI-98 NOIlfllOS)~ O31~(MIV 'uo~s6^~O 6u~JoBU~6U3/3uem3Jed~o s4JoM 3~Lqnd ~q3 Xq p~pu~tmuooeJ S~ eme$ e3nDexe 03 ~Je[3 £3~3 pue JO£gN eq) ez~Joq3ne pue i~3e?oJd ~§ueqoJ~3u~ 35B?qns Joj 3ueaaaJ§¥ s,3ue3knsuo3 u§~s~o aq3 jo uo~3 -~J3S~u~ape 33eJ3UO3 JO~ Xuedaoo BU~AJI Bq~ q3~ Cu~aeaJ§e ~^oJdd¥ 39NYHDB31NI AVM33BJ VN¥ ¥£N¥$/O¥OB HDNVB NI£gfll NOIIVON3k~033~ 'II JJVlS 03AOaddV · luam3Jedao eO~LOd eq3 ~q papuemmooaJ se IE~-gB 'ON uo~3nLoseB 3dopy YIN~OJIgY3 JO 31VIS 3HI JO 3003 IN3WNB3A09 3HI JO Z'O60~g ONV S'O60~E '060~g SNOIID3S AB 031NVB9 AIIBOHI~V 3H~ Ol INVflS -Bfld SS3NISfl8 klI3 JO £3flONO3 3HI BOJ Q3BIflO3B B39N09 ON NIISfll dO A£I3 3HI JO £N3WIBYd3Q 33190d 3HI JO NOISS3SSOd 3HI NI SB3dYd ONV 'S£N3N~OOQ 'SOBOD3B klI3 NIV£B33 JO NOIID~B£S30 3HI 9NIZIBOHI~V 'VINBOJIgV3 'NI£Sfll JO A±ID 3H1 JO 913N~03 AII3 3HI JO NOI£flgOS3B V ' IEI-gB 'ON NOI£flgos3B I~I-gB NOIIfllO~B 'OI 031d~ 'uo~s~^~O 6u~JeeU~6U3/luem3Jedeo $)dOM 3~lqnd eq3 £q p~pueummoDeJ se 9tI-gB 'ON uo~3nLoseB 3dopy (3NV9 B309¥ QNV '3AY 3BOWYDAS) SNglS dOiS NIVIB33 JO IN3W33Vgd 9NIIVNglS30 'VINBOJIqV3 'NIIgfll JO AlI3 3HI JO 913N~0~ J£IO 3HI JO NOII~9OS3B V - 9EI-g8 'ON NOI±flgos3B 9EI-gB '6 NOIIfllOS~B Q31d~. 9B-LI-II ~ 3~Vd YON]BY NOIID¥ ~IgNflOg iiIg 03 £3uaq3 pue 'W'd OE:S 3e '9B6~ '~ aeqmeoeo uo doqs4Jo~ '~'V 00:! 1¥ NIl$~l a3AO J30 9NI3VI 3BV S3#vgd lVlLL O3lBOd3a AO3NN3~ 'ON.OS 3HL BO£INON OL 3#03NOS 3BIN 09~00 3~ £VHI fl3£S3~flS BY,Q3 'V3BV NRO1 090 3HI RI 3SION 3AVH Ol B3J_L39-V ON3S 3~ 03£S3~3B ONV SB31dOOIq3H ONV 13VBDBI¥ #OB3 3SION 3HL dfl IH~flOBB A993~ 'IN3A3 3~LL BO3 N011¥~3930 ¥ BIVHO Ol 3~NI3B9 13BV~B~ 03~SV OVH 3H ONV 'ZB6! 'Ig B3BN31d3S NO NOIZVBOdBODNI 30 ABVSB3AINNV H.Log S£I ~NI£VBB393~ 3B OlflO~ kLIg 3H~ IVlU. 1ilo O3lNIOd BV~03 '3~VO V HLIH JS! B3BN3D3O NO 3£¥BB3930 3R £VHl 03~$3~3B ~I 30 NVNIIDNBO0 NIJ~fll ¥ SV 3WI£ 3AIZ~D3SNO~ ISa~N09 3KL 'N3HL 30 OR/ 03HOlVd ~lNO 0~14 A3HI lVHl ONV 33B1 VNV NO £33BJS 3HL NI $390H 33B~LL 30~1d OVH $3IlIgILfl 3HI 30 3NO £VHL 03£BOd3B A3B3£$30H '133B£S HILt NO SB31BVflO H3N3B3 3HI NI LNVBflV£S3B 3HI 30 SS3BgOBd 3H~ NO 3£VOdfl NV O3~S3flO3B X3B3/S30H 'SIHgI9 133~1S 9NIJS3flO3B SI HOBflHO N¥IB3LXB$3Bd 3H~ £VKL Q3£BOd3B AQ3NN3~ '3flN3A¥ IBOdR3N NO Hs~qq BVO 3HI 1¥ SNOILIONO~ OrB ONV $Q33~ 3H~ ~flOBV $~NIVgd~D O~H OVH 3HS £VKL Q3~BOd3B XQ3NN3~ 'B3BN3030 BO3 O39flO3H~S SI 9NIJ33N B3HLONV ONV NOIIVX3NNV ~NIOBV93B 9N]£3~ ¥ 0~14 913R QNV 'NOl$flH 'BVg03 '3HS l~LL OIVS ONV NIl$fll HLBON #0~3 B3Q3OBH~S ¥~$30 030flOOBJ~! I993BVIgVS '$B311MQ 9V939 BO3 NOI$S3S O3S090 ¥ O31S3flb3B NOlSflH 'BO£O3~IQ IN3NdO93A30 $S3NISflB B3H£O 'IIX NOISflH 'eL&~ pue e^~eoaB :uo~epuaLuuJooaB gB6~ '[~ B3BOIO0 JO SV 39flG3HOS ±H3H±S3AN! 'Z O3913 ONV Q3AI303B 'o~Lqnd Xq p~Leedde ss~[un Leu~ amoo~q uo~ss~mmoo §u~uueLd a4~ ~o suo~oe LL¥ 986I 'Ol B3BW3AON - SNOIIOV NOIS$IWWOD ~NINN¥gd 'I O3IdIIVB $£BOd3B 'IX . 98-ZI-II I abed VON3~V NOIIDV ADN39V IN3WdO93A303~ · m'd O0:Z 3e '986I 'I aaqmaoaO '£epuow uo 6u~3aaW ue[n6au 3xau aq30l £N3WN~OPOV Sg3NI$fl8 B3HIO '9 3NON · ~mes a3n3ex~ o3 ~Je~eJOB$ §u~pJO3B~ pue uemd~eqo ~q~ Bz~doq3ne pue ~33e?oJd ~Bueqod~u~ ~oa?qns do~ ~uama~d§¥ s,~ue~nsuo3 u§~s~o ~q~ ~o uo~ed~s~u~mpe ~3eJ3UOO do~ £uedmo3 ~U~AJI a41 4~ 3UBm~BJ§e Bq3 BAoJdd¥ :uo~3epu~mmoo~B 3~NYHOB31NI AYM33B~ YNV ¥1N¥S/O¥OB HDNYB NIISRI NOI£¥ON3NNO33B 'g Q3AL ~ · uo~ss~mmo3 Bu~uueLd aq3 Xq pa^oadde pue 3uam3Jed~0 lu~mdola^aO £3~unmmo3 aq3 £q pBpu~u~uo3~J se ~I-98 ¥OB 'oN uo~3n[os~B 3dop¥ (3±13AV3¥9 YZVgd) OBYA39~O8 3NIABI ONV 3~N3AV ±BOdM3N ~0 B3NBOO I$3~HIBON 3HI 1¥ 031VD09 B3£N3O 9NIddOH$ 3H1 BOX N~I$ 3dA1 390d NOI£¥DI~IIN30I ~31N32 ¥ 50 N~I~30 3H1 ~NIAOBddV NII$~I ~0 AIID 3HI ~0 ADN39¥ IN3WdO93A303B AIINAWWOD 3HI JO NOIIflgos3B ¥ - ~I-98 VOB 'ON NOIIflgo$3B ~I'98 ¥0B 'ON NOIIflgos3B - 31£3AYJV9 vZVgd ~I-9B rOB 'ON NOIlfllOS3B '~ 031dOOr 'aAOddd¥ :uo[3epuammooaB 9NI±33W ~vgR93~ '9B6T 'E B3BW3AON - S31flNIW JO 9VAOBddV 99¥0 990B 'E O3AOBdd¥ IN3S3Bd llV B3QBO O± 99V0 'I Z~:L 'W'd 00:~ 986I 'ti B38W3AON AON3~ IN3NdOI3A303B NIISIIL 3HI JO 9NI13~ b~lflg]B V ~0 VON3~ NOIL3V