Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 02-04-85 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMNISSION REGULAR FEiETI NG JANUARY 28, 1985 REPORTS NO'..1 2-4-85 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers P!FnGE OF ALLEGIA#CE/IlrfOCATIO# ROLL CALL: White, Weil, McCarthy, Puckett, Sharp PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting January 14, 1985 Moved by Commissioner Sharp, second by Puckett to approve with the change to Page 7, Paragraph 3 last line to read Walnut instead of Bryan. Motion carried 5-0. 2. Resolution No. 2208 Oenytng Conditional Use Permit 85-1, pole sign at 14460 Newport Avenue. Moved by Commissioner Sharp, second by Well to approve Resolution No. 2208 with amendment to Item II in the resolution to read deny tns:ead of approve. Motion carried 5-0. COI~FZ#UED PUBLXC HEJUtZ#GS 3. VARIANCE 84-4 Applicant: Location: Request: Presentatt on: Mr. William Brown 153 N. Yorba Authorization to vary from the minimum lot width, front yard setback and maximum lot coverage requirements of the Single Family (R-l) District. Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner Jeff Davis presented the applicant's request for an additional continuance due to his continuing health problem. Chairman White opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. and seeing no one wishing to speak closed it at 7:38 p.m. Moved by Commissioner Well, second by Sharp to table this matter to a date uncertain. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minu:es January 28, 1985 page two PUBLIC HEARZNGS 4. USE PERMIT 85-3 Applicant: Location: Request: Audrey Heredta McCharles House Tea Room, 325 S. "C" Street Authorization to obtain a beer and wine ltcense for on-site sales. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Chairman White opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak he closed it at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner McCarthy moved, Puckett second to approve Use Permit 85-3 as recommended in staff's Report to Planning Commission dated January 28, lg85. Motion carried 5-0. 5. AMENDMENT TO USE PERMITS 76-26 AND 77-23, LARWIN SQUARE MODIFICATIONS Applicant: Location: Request: Larwtn Square Ltd. shopping center at SO0 E. First Street Authorization to: 1) amend Use Permit 76-26 by enclosing the existing garden shop area; and 2) amend Use Permit 77-23 by converting the existing key shop to an automated bank teller machine Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Chairman White opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak he closed it at 7:46 p.m. Commissioner Puckett moved, Sharp second to approve amendments to Use Permit 76-26 and 77-23 as recommended in staff's Report to the Planning Commission dated January 28, 1985. Motion carried 5-0. AOMINISllU~TIYE MATTERS Old Business gone. New Business 6. Report Concerning Amending Ordinance No. 911 to permit Large Family Day Care Homes at sites with swimming pools. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Commissioner Sharp moved, Puckett second to approve the recommendation contained in staff's Report to Planning Commission dated January 28, 1985. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Mtnu:es January 28, 1985 page three 7. William Street Design Review Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Commissioner Sharp moved, Well second to receive and file staff's Report to Planning Commission dated January 28, 1985. Motion carried 5-0. Request for Study from Planning Commission regarding Commercial Parking Standards. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development The Commission agreed with the need for a parking study and decided to receive and file Mr. Lamm's report dated January 28, 1985. STAFF CO#C£R#S 9. Report on Council Actions January 21, 1985 Presentation: Donald O. Lamm, Director of Community Development Mr. Lamm additionally presented the commission with the following: 1) Information relative to the Annual League of Cities Conference for Planning Commissioners in Santa Clara, February 28th thru March 2, 1986. 2) Suggested a series of workshops to review Phase II of the East Tustln Development Plan. First, February 11, 1985 at 6:30 p.m.; second, Saturday, February 23, 1985 for a tour of existing similar projects in Irvine; third, Wednesday, February 27, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSION Chairman White read and presented Ed Knight with a letter from the Planning Commission congratulating him on his recent promotion to Senior Planner. Commissioner McCarthy commented on the map supplied by Caltrans denoting the proposed Jamboree interchange at I-5 and that it cleared up his questions concerning potential traffic impacts in the East Tustin area. ADJOUR#IqE#T Adjourn to February 11, 1985 at 6:30 p.m. for a workshop to study Phase II of the East Tustin Development Plan. RONALD H. WHITE, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNTNG COHMTSSTON REGULAR BI~:ETT NG JANUARY 28, 1985 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGZANCE/ZNVOCATZON White, Well, McCarthy, Puckett, Sharp ROLL CALL: PRESENTATZONS PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: (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. (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) Minutes from Planning Commission meeting January 14, 1985 Resolution No. 2208 Denying Conditional Use Permit 85-1, pole sign at 14460 Newport Avenue. CONTZNUED PUBLZC HEARINGS 3. VARIANCE 84-4 Applicant: Location: Request: Mr. William Brown 153 N. Yorba Authorization to vary from the minimum lot width, front yard setback and maximum lot coverage requirements of the Single Family (R-l) District. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner Planning Commission Agenda January 14, 1985 page two PUBLIC HEAR~#GS 4. USE PERMIT 85-3 Applicant: Location: Request: Audrey Heredia McCharles House Tea Room, 325 S. "C" Street Authorization to obtain a beer and wine license for on-site sales. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner 5. AMENDMENT TO USE PERMITS 76-26 AND 77-23, LARWIN SQUARE MODIFICATIONS Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: AI~I#ISll~ATIVE I~AITERS 01d Business None. New Business Larwin Square Ltd. shopping center at 500 E. First Street Authorization to: 1) amend Use Permit 76-26 by enclosing the existing garden shop area; and 2) amend Use Permit 77-23 by converting the existing key shop to an automated bank teller machine Jeff Davis, Associate Planner 6. Report Concerning Amending Ordinance No. 911 to permit Large Family Day Care Homes at sites with swimming pools. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner 7. William Street Design Review Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner 8. Request for Study from Planning Co,~ission regarding Commercial Parking Standards. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Planning Commission Agenda January 14, 1985 page three STAFF CONCERNS 9. Report on Council Actions January 21, 1985 Presentation: COI~ISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNI~NT Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Adjourn to February 11, 1985 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING ~ISSIO# REGULAR ~EETING JANUARY 14, 1985 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Counctl Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIAIICE/IEfOCATI011 ROLL CALL: White, Well, McCarthy, Puckett, Sharp PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting December 10, 1984. Commissioner Sharp moved, Well second to approve Item 1. Motion carried 5-0. Item 2 was removed from the Calendar for further discussion. 2. Resolution 2201, Use Permit 84-27, 6th Street Mini Warehouse. Commissioner Weil was concerned that the findings of hardship to allow the variance were not complete. Commissioner Puckett moved, Sharp second to approve Resolution 2201 with Exhibit "A". Motion carried 4-1, Wetl opposed. CONTINUED PUBLlC HEARINGS 3. VARIANCE 84-4 Applicant: Location: Request: Mr. William Brown 153 N. Yorba Authorization to vary from the minimum lot width, front yard setback and maximum lot coverage requirements of the Single Fan~ly (R-l) District. Presentatt on: Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner Don Lamm, Director of Community Development, informed the Commission that the applicant requested the item be continued once more due to the applicant's illness. Chairman White opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak he closed the hearing at 7:36. Commissioner Puckett moved, Weil second to continue Variance 84-4 to their next meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Planning 'Commission Htnutes ~anuary ~4, ~985 page two PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. DEIR Applicant: Location: Request: 84-2, GPA 84-1a, ZC 85-1 Poston Tanaka on behalf of The Irvine Company Bounded by I-5 freeway, proposed Jamboree Road, proposed Laguna Road and a line 192 feet west of the E1 Modena Channel. Actions regarding the East Tustin Planned Community/Tustin Auto Center Re Certification of Oreft Environmental Impact Report 84-2. Amendment of Tustin Area General Plan from Residential-Single Family to Planned Community Commercial, GPA 84-la. Change of zoning designation from Planned Community-Residential to Planned Community-Commercial, ZC 85-1 Don Lamm presented staff's report as contained in the Report to Planning Commission dated January 14, 1985. Commissioner Sharp questioned how many residents were mailed notices of the hearing. Chairman Nhite opened the public hearings on DEIR 84-2, GPA 84-1a, Zone Change 85-1 and Parcel Map 84-1032 at 7:44 p.m. The following people spoke: Coralee Newman, The Irvine Company, reviewed the original plan for the auto center on Browning and Bryan Streets and the meetings with the East Tusttn Homeowners Associations (approximately 10 associations). Per the meetings with the community groups The Company agreed to commit to the following: 1) the center would be smaller in size than originally proposed; 2) the center would be moved to the newly proposed location; 3) that the Company would bring a residential project adjacent to the auto center to serve as a buffer to the existing residents located along Browning between Browning and Jamboree; and, 4) the Company would plan to have an inward oriented auto center with attractive landscaped buffers and walls along the perimeters as well aS with the residential proposal. She further summarized that the residential Phase II project will be in front of the Commission hopefully in the spring. Bonnie Holms, The Irvine Company, answered questions. One, what is the value of the project or the significance to the City? The project has the potential to increase the City budget from 1/4 to 1/3. A year ago a market research analysis was commissioned to identify what market opportunities existed in East Tustin and what areas might be brought into this portion to supplement existing retail. The area identified with the greatest lack was automotive servicing, sales and supplies. The State Board of Equalization reports indicated that Tustin in 1983 was achieving less than 3~ of the revenues of the surrounding cities. The Irvine Auto Center generated in excess of 1.4 million dollars in 1983 for the City of Irvine. Planntng Commission ~tnutes January. ~4, ~985 page three Secondly, what has The Company done to rest the community's concerns on the original proposal? 1) The Company has now oriented the project inward to promote the development as a car shopping mall. They are proceeding on thts basic principal to being the shoppers inside the premtses ~o travel past vartous other business. This will give the dealers a marketing advantage and gives The Company the opportunity to concentrate the customer parking on the interior and prohtbtt it on the exterior. They can also concentrate the lighting and noise on the Interior. In the Planned Community ~egulations, it specifies that tntertor lighttng can occur only in the interior strip where the sales buildings and parking display areas will be allowed. They are stipulating that a "sharp cut-off" fixture be used. It has the capability of projecting display lighting forward 30 feet while throwing lighting to the rear of the standards only 8 feet. It illuminates the merchandise without imposing significant light onto the sidewalk or interior street. Therefore, no significant quantity of high intensity lighting can reach the perimeter. (Coralee presented the Commission with pictures displaying the lighting.) As an additional safeguard to the lighting concern, The Company is specifying that the service areas and inventory parking areas which are forced to the perimeter of the dealers parcels will have a maximum lighting intensity allowable which basically computes to security level lighting. By orienting inwardly, The Company will be able to achieve significant sound attenuation. The project will contain the noise within its boundaries principally by the creation of a perimeter of sound attenuation walls that also serve to aesthetically enhance the project by blocking the service areas from view. The walls will vary from 8-10 feet in height and occassionally will rise to 14 feet. They will have landscape and rolling berms to create a pleasant street scape. As indicated in the picture displayed in the Chambers, the wall changes both in height and in its horizontal line. Setbacks are being encouraged to break up the visual impact so as not to create tuqnel vision down Jamboree Road. Third, what traffic impacts will the project have? The beneficial aspects are: The Company plans to extend existing Laguna Road from Browning Avenue ultimately tying into Myford. They anticipate that most of the traffic coming to the project will travel along Laguna from the Myford or Redhtll interchange. The traffic engineer indicates that no significant traffic will travel down Browning to reach the project; She pointed out that Myford Road, Myford interchange at I-5 freeway is committed and on Caltrans schedule for lg88 completion, and the implementation of an interchange at Jamboree and I-5 is currently under consideration by the City Council. Fourth, what impact will this project have on the existing flood problem? This is a major problem. The Company proposes to construct an additional berm starting at the berm adjacent to Bryan Avenue running roughly parallel with Bryan Avenue along the northern edge of the auto center and over to E1Modena Channel. This will serve to direct any flood waters coming to that area, delivering them into the channel. Additionally, they will extend a berm along the eastern side of the center and return it along the southern side separating it from the freeway. The bottom line is they can't represent they are improving the flood situation on Browning because they have no direct impacts on it. They can say they are having no negative impacts. The whole flooding issue on this specific project site is separated from Browning Avenue residents. The Company will address further improvements to deal with the Browning Avenue residents at the hearing for the proposed residential site. Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 page four Finally, what will an auto center look like? The display areas will be on the interior of the internal.street. They are not stipulating a specific architectural style, it may limit them. The dealers Will probably have a better idea of what look might.best convey the type of business they are trying to establish in Tusttn. However, the Company does not want a hodge-podge of buildings. They are suggesting a range of materials and colors and are encouraging the use of color and ltteness to offset the structures and pavement. They will require the dealers to submit their plans at least three different times for the architectural review process. The interior street will_ contain m common landscape theme tree to tie into-the theme trees along the perimeter. Hubert Clark, 1942 San Juan, representing the San Juan Meadows Homeowners directly across the street from the proposed auto center, commented about the cooperation~ they have had from The Company and City. He expressed their concern over lou~ speakers and requested beepers be used. The flood situation is still a problem. Also, is concerned what the project would look like from Jamboree to the west until it reaches Browning. In the proposal there seems to be some conflicts, Page 24 item 3.1.2, first paragraph, "... if the homes are approved". He understood that the center and homes would be done concurrently. Page 82, Section 4.0, paragraph 3 says, "the residential project which, if approved..." He again understood it would be done at the same time. He thanked Don Lamm for his careful planning in notifying the residents because within 300 feet of the center there are no residents, yet staff was careful to notify many people who are concerned with the project. Chairman White asked Mr. Clark to clarify his concern with the improvements between Browning and Jamboree. Mr. Clark said that there has not been any clue what the residents might expect to be done in the area west of the Laguna area and east of Browning. That is within the home section, but he did think it was going to be in conjunction with the auto center plans. Chairman White asked for clartftcatin on the flooding issue. Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer, explained that the outline in the environmental document on the drainage as relates to Browning Avenue indicates it would not impact the area any worse than what exists today. As part of the project, there will be two constrictions removed within the channel that runs adjacent to Bryan Avenue that will permit more water to enter the channel at the intersection of Bryan and Browning. It should take water currently diverted down Browning Avenue and take it easterly along Bryan Avenue in the E1Modena/Irvine Channel. Commissioner McCarthy questioned if the two bridges restricting the E1Modena Channel on Bryan will be removed simultaneously with the project and if the culvert under Bryan will be built simultaneously. Mr. Ledendecker said yes, the railroad bridge has already been removed. The second restriction, the temporary wooden bridge into the residential unit on the north site of Bryan, will be removed. Thirdly, an enlargement of'the culvert that crosses under Bryan Avenue on the E1Modena Irvine Channel alignment. These three measures will allow additional flow through the channel at Bryan and Browning. Eventually, as the channel is improved to its ultimate as development occurs upstream in the watershed additional enlargement of the channel will have to take place. Planning Commission Minutes 'January [4, [985 page'five Commissioner Sharp asked how the berm works near Browning where it crosses Jamboree Road. Bob responded that the sheet flow is generally to the south and east. The roadway will be constructed at an elevation as high as the berm to hold the water back. The water will be passed through some type of a drainage device under Jamboree Road and along the berm; Commissioner McCarthy asked if Caltrans had committed tn wrtttng to the interchange at [-5 and jamboree. Bob said they have met with them on a preliminary basis and have initiated the environmental document for the interchange. Staff has not received a formal Indication from them. We have to go through a design project report whtch is being done concurrently wi'ch the environmental document for the interchange. All tnitial indications have indicated there would be no problem. The major problem is funding, and we have committed to a locally funded project rather than wait for Caltrans funding. Chairman White questioned if the city's review of ~he hydrology mport would ensure this project would not add any further water to the residents west of. Browning. Bob responded that we would In addition have to adhere to the Federal Insurance Act of whtch we are a party as a City. We would have to protect the development to a year storm. In addition, we c~nnot Impose any of the 100 year storm into an area that currently does not have any impact from it. Mr. Clark further addressed the issue of the channel, Exhibit 5 in the EIR. The berm proposed would come down the existing channel along Bryan to Browning with a break at proposed Jamboree. He recalled the rain storm last year that caused flooding in the school, down Browning and San Juan and was curb to curb and going over. It completely flooded the field with about 3 feet of water in the proposed section for the new housing. This was caused by the construction of the new drainage under the road at Browning and Bryan which caused the area to the southwest quandrant to be lower than the northeast quandrant. When the site and housing are completed, the channel will le widened, deepened, probably cemented and will probably carry a lot more water than presently. However, with the berm as indicated in the EIR, if it is carried to that point, he is concerned it would seem to channel more water into the school, down south on Browning onto San Juan and into the homes. Bob Kallenbaugh, civil engineer and consultant to The Irvine Company, concurred with Bob Ledendecker that there is no adverse impact on the existing residences due to the construction of the auto center project. The berm to be constructed along Bryan Avenue will direct the flows away from the auto center site but the removal of the actual constrictions in the channel due to the 90° turn under Bryan Avenue and one of the existing wooden bridges will have a beneficial effect as far as passing additional water through the Bryan/Browning intersection. Commissioner McCarthy questioned if these improvements would be prior to the development of the housing area. Mr. Kallenbough said these improvements are planned to be constructed as part of the Phase II residential project which would occur prior to the next rainy season. Commissioner McCarthy was then further concerned because Mr. Ledendecker said the improvements would be done simultaneously with the auto center. Planntng Commission Minutes 3anuary 14, 1985 page six Bonnie Holms clarified that they put forward proposals for both projects at the same time in the £IR to give the total picture. However, the improvements necessary for this project would not include improving the channel by removing the constrictions because of the fact that the existing flood water coming down Browning cannot get to the auto Center and visa versa; water coming to the auto center cannot get back to Browning. In essence there is already created a berm that separates the two projects. For that reason, they determined it would be advantageous to go ahead with the proposed bermtng procedure. They are committing to the improvement in the channel, removal of the constriction of the bridge and also the improvement of the channel passing under Bryan Avenue. They view these projects as coming through the residential project because the residential project will directly impact Browning Avenue. They have stated in the proposal and the consultant concurred, the improvements through this project will. actually improve the flooding condition on Browning Avenue by doing as Bob Ledendecker mentioned; allowing more water to pass down the channel, proportionately less water to overtop the channel and flood Browning Avenue. However, they felt for the purposes of this conversation they should confine their remarks to this project alone. The schedule for the residential project should fall very closely behind this project. They anticipate this project will come before the Commission within the next several months. The start of construction is anticipated mid-late summer. This would be one of the elements of construction that would start at the beginning of the project. Bonnie continued by responding to Mr. Clark's concern about the loud speaker system. The Company has not stipulated in the community regulations that beepers only be allowed because that concern is being addressed in another manner. The Company is working with an amplification system company to determine what muffling devices and muffling level would be reasonable to impose on the loud speaker system and the cost advantages to the dealers. They're stipulating maximum loud speaker height and they will review the locations to ensure there is some sort of screening for the noise. Further, they are stipulating the speakers should be directed toward the interior of the project. Chairman White asked for further clarification on the drainage problem on Browning and the improvements proposed. Mr. Ledendecker responded that the drainage projects within the channel on Bryan Avenue could be delayed with the residential project, but at the same time we have to have a date certain when these facilities would be completed. The construction of the new culvert under Bryan Avenue is more time consuming. We would have to have the work completed by October 15th of any upcoming wet year. Our staff would recommend we have a date certain tied to when this facility would be constructed. We could tie it to the completion of being out of the culvert under Bryan by October 15th. It would fall into the Category of working within a regional flood control facility. The County does not desire work to be performed between October 15th and April 15th. Chairman White wondered if it is possible to complete this type of construction in 10 months. Bob responded yes. Clarence Dalen, ~921 Burnt Mill Rd., echoed Mr. Clark's concerns. He feels there is nothing positive about the auto center except tax revenue. The traffic, flooding and noise are all negative factors. He recalled a flooding incident in his neighborhood w~ich included one loss of life and didn't see how the auto center or improvements at the intersection at Browning and Bryan could do anything but back up the water into his neighborhood. Planntng Commi.sston Minutes January [4, [985 page seven Alice Huber, owns property from 13881 thru 13995 Browning and lives at 13891 Dall Lane, expressed her deep concern and opposition to the project. She voiced her concern with flooding by rain and also the periodic release of water by the water department down their street. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chariman Whtto closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. He introduced a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Nemick directed to the .Commission. Commission discussion ensued concerning the traffic fnl~act and measures to alleviate the problems. McCarthy suggested widening Myford to four lanes from the I-5 to Bryan and also widening Bryan from Myford to Browning. Terry Austin reviewed the EIR graphs and drawings denoting cumulative and background volumes of traffic circulation. The residential project between Browning and Jamboree does not put any traffic on the neighboring section of Redhtll. The report addresses Redhill, Myford and Bryan and shows the diversion to Jamboree not actual volumes on Jamboree. If we assume we have the Jamboree interchange and the section to the north, before you put the project in, there could be something like about 5,000 vehicles per day. As you extend Jamboree to the south to meet with Bryan, it increases even more. As Jamboree is completed, it will divert more and more traffic from Redhtll. In further discussion concerning the parking requirements inside the center, Don Lamm explained that the requirements were proposed by The Irvine Con, any based on other auto centers throughout Orange County. As outlined in the site plan, Lot 5 is proposed to be a common parking area for all e~loyees of the auto center. Bonnie Holms elaborated that per acre an existing business might require 9 - 10 employee parking spaces. We have stipulated that at least 11 spaces per acre per business must be reserved for employee parking which can'be achieved on their site or in the common parking lot. In addttion,-we are requiring they provide employee parking on their site for any demonstrator cars which their salesmen will drive. The customer parking will be available.at curb side on the interior street. They will have on-site parking stalls for at least six customers plus handicap stalls. Commissioner Well further questioned loading and unloading. Bonnie said they are encouraging the dealers to provide facilities on their premises but are leaving as an option that in the middle lane of the interior street, the truck drivers could off-load there. Commissioner Well expressed concern with the landscape maintenance section in the Merchant's Association CC&R's. She would like to include replacement of dead plants. Don Lamm said this could be included into the document that goes to City Council. Don responded to Mr. White's concern over definition. We can require The Irvine Company to submit specific wording and definition of each of these. In particular, we have referred to the master landscape plan being returned tothe Commission for future review. We can require that the master landscape, sign and design criteria package be returned for Commission review as an agreed to condition of the zoning. Mr. White is in favor of this and would like to include walls and exterior speakers. He would also like to have an opportunity to review the hydrology report. Sharp would be in favor of including these conditions in the parcel map especially the hydrology report. McCarthy would like something in writing from Caltrans regarding the Jamboree interchange. Planntng Commission t4~nutes 3anuary 14, 1985 page eight' Mr. Lame pointed out that Resolution 2204 wtth the mitigation measures would be adequate to cover thetr concerns raised. The other conditions would be for you to review destgn criteria, landscape, stgnage, walls and performance standards concerning such thtngs as outstde loud speakers. These conditions can be incorporated into the planned community, zone regulations. White wondered if we could requtre another plan be processed that the planned community would requtre processing of a landscape and wall master plan. Lame continued that the other remetning conditions concerning the hydrology and Caltrans review would be preferred to be Incorporated tnto the parcel map conditions. Puckett moved, Wet1 second Resolution 2206 wtth amendments requiring prior to approval of building permtts a master landscape and wall plan be sub~tted to the Comnflss~on for approval consistent wtth the elevation drawings. Also the stgn plan wordtng In the zone change be clarified. And, that destgn crtterta also be processed through the Commission. These should be drafted and wrttten Into the planned comeuntty zone regulations. Exterior publlc address systems shall be prohibited unless a plan containing mitigation mesures ts processed through the Cometsslon and can demonstrate it wtll not be a problem to the adjacent residents. No vote was taken at this ttme. Com~ssioner Puckett moved, Well second to adopt Resolution No. 2204 to certify the draft environmental t~act report and forward to City Council for final adoption of the ftnal envtronment~l in~act report. Motion carried 4-1, McCar:hy opposed. Commissioner Sharp moved, Well second to adopt Resolution No. 2205 to change the general plan designation for the auto center area from stngle famtly residential to planned community commercial. Morton carrted 4-1, McCarthy opposed. Commissioner Puckett moved, Wet1 second to et_opt Resolution No. 2206 to change the zone from the planned comeunlty restdentJal to planned community commercial as amended above. Motion carrted 4-1, McCarthy opposed. Applicant: Location: Request: Presenta tt on: PARCEL MAP NO. 84-1032 Poston Tanaka on behalf of The Irvtne Conq~any Bounded by [-5 freeway, proposed Jan~oree Road, proposed Laguna Road and a 1the 192 feet east of the E1Modena Channel. To subdivide the property for the East Tustln Planned Community/Tusttn Auto Center. Donald Lame, Oirector of Community Development Don Lame presented mtnor changes to the conditions tnq3osed. CommtssJoner Sharp moved, Puckett second to approve ResolutJon No. 2207 to include the revised conditions as presented by Oon Lame. Motion carried 4-1, McCarthy opposed. RECESS Chatrman Whtte recessed the meeting at 9:20 p.m. to allow people at~end~ng the auto center public heartng ttme to leave. Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 page nine RECONYENE Chairman White reconvened the meeting at 9:34 p.m. PUBLZC HEARTNGS (Continued) 6. USE PERMIT NO. 85-1 Applicant: Location: Request: Leonard Construction Walnut Plaza Center, Walnut and Newport Avenues To install a pole sign of (50) fifty feet. Presentation: Jeff Davi s, Assistant Planner Jeff Davis presented staff's report as contained in Report to Planning Commission dated January 14, 1985. Chairman White opened the public hearing at 9:38 p.m. The following person spoke: Michael LePore, Leonard ConstruCtion, agreed with the staff report but felt a pole sign would be more readable than a monument sign. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chairman White closed the hearing at 9:45 p.m. Commission discussion ensued concerning the benefits of a pole sign versus a monument sign and the number of existing pole signs on Newport. Commissioner Puckett moved, Sharp second to approve Use Permit 85-1. Motion failed 3-2, McCarthy, Well, White opposed. Commissioner Well moved, McCarthy second staff recommendation to deny Use Permit . 85-1, and to approve a monument sign subject to review of the elevations at the next meeting. Motion carried 3-2, Puckett, Sharp opposed. ADMINISTRATIYE RATTERS Old Business 7. Continued consideration of Tentative Parcel Map 84-1033, Dow Avenue. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Commissioner Sharp moved, White second to approve Resolution No. 2202 and recommended staff send a letter to the applicant indicating that if they want to deviate they should address the City Council. Motion carried 5-0. New Business Report Concerning the Appropriate Zoning for Yorba Street from First Street to Irvine Boulevard. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Commissioner Well moved, Sharp second to direct staff to thoroughly research the subject and report back with the necessary information and demographics to formulate a recommendation to City Council. Motion carted 5-0. Planntng Commission Minu:es January 14, lg85 page ten STAFF COMC~R#S 9. Report on Council Acttons January 7, 1985. Presentation: Donald O. Lamm, Director of Community Development COHHISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Wetl questioned when the Specific Plan would be available and if the Planning Commmission could get a thorough progress report for the Santa Fe and East Tustin time frame. Commissioner Puckett suggested a letter be sent to Ed Knight congratulating him on his promotion. Commissioner Puckett questioned if the City is now allowing the sale and rental of adult video movies. Chairman White publicly commended Hal Krizan, Director of Orange County EMA Regulations, for his chairmanship of the County Subdivision Committee. Chairman White attended a meeting and was impressed with Mr. Krtzan's concern for the applicant, his knowledge of the process, and the manner in which he conducted the affairs of the Committee. He stands as an example how public meetings can be run in a non-adversary manner which makes it enjoyable rather than difficult. AO~OURI~IEIE Adjourn to January 28, 1985. Adjourned at 10:10 p.m. to their next regularly scheduled meeting. DONNA ORR Recording Secretary RONALD H. WHITE, . Chairmen 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. 2208_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 85-1 REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL A TENANT IDENTIFICATION, POLE TYPE SIGN AT 14460 NEWPORT 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, (Use Permit No. 85-1) has been filed on behalf of Leonard Construction requesting authorization to install a 50 square foot, tenant identification pole type sign, 20 feet high at 14460 Newport Avenue. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for would, 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 proximity to arterial highways of the structures to be served, does not justify the use of a pole type sign. 2. That a pole type sign is not compatible with the architectural quality of the structure to be served. e That approval of a new pole sign on the subject property would impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 85-1. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 RONALD H. WHITE, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary -Repor the Plannin Commission DATE: JANUARY 14, 1985 ITEM NO. 3 SUBJECT: VARIANCE NO. 84-4 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: REQUEST: HR. WILLIAM BRO#N 1001 St. Johns Place Santa Aha, CA 92705 153 YORBA SINGLE FAMILY (R-l) RESIDENTIAL AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING VARYING FROM THE FOLLOWING R-1 DISTRICT REQUIRF. MENTS: 1. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 2. FRONT YARD SETBACK 3. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The original public hearing on Variance 84-4 was held on December 10, 1984. At that time, .concern was voiced by the Commission pertaining to'the front setback variance and with the architectural style and features of the proposed structure. The matter was continued at ~he time and continued again on January 14, 1985. As of the writing of this report, revised elevations have not been submitted. However, this is a result of an illness to the applicant that has made communication between the owner, project contractor,and staff impossible. In fact, with the potential of a zone change on the property, staff is not certain if the applicant intends to proceed with the project as submitted. RECOI~qENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission receive any public testimony concerning this project and then table the matter to be readvertised for public hearing after the applicant submits revised plans addressing the concerns of the Commission. Associate Planner OD:do Corn munit~' Developmen~ Department ITEM NO. 4 '" ~ Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: REQUEST: JANUARY 28, 1985 USE PEP, FlIT 85-3 AUDREY AND CARLOS HEREDIA 335 S. 'C' STREET, TUSTIN C-2 CENTRAL COMIRERCIAL AUTHORIZATION FOR A BEER AND ¥INE' ON-SITE LICENSE FOR THE TEA ROON AT THE NCCHARLES HOUSE. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The McCharles House was built tn 1885 by D.L. McCharles, a carpenter who was later the Tusttn Townshtp Justice. Mrs. Mary Strader purchased the house in 1947 and ran a nursery school there unttl ft was purchased by the Heredla's tn 1979. The Heredla's then turned the nursery school Into a commercial structure whtch has had several retail and offtce uses since the conversion. The owners are no~ requesting authorization to serve beer and wtne In a'restaurant whose math emphasis will be on afternoon tea. The applicant has stated that the proposed hours of operation will be 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. offering breakfast, lunch and afternoon tea. The location of the proposed restaurant is not near any schools and therefore the liquor sales would not have any detrimental effect on children. However, it is located across the street from the Tustin Unified School Administrative Offices and the Tustin Presbyterian Church. Because of the remoteness of the location of the restaurant and the clientele it will attract, staff supports the issuance of a beer and wine license for on-site sales only. Adverse comments have not been received by the various city departments because the structure and parking lot areas were brought up to code in the 1979 conversion. RECOI~ENDED ACTION: Approve Use Permit 85-3 by the adoption of Resolution No. 220g. 'M)U)Y AN,~KCHAMBEf~LAI N, Assoctat~e Planner Community Development Department .I 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. 2209 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR ON-SITE SALES AT 335 S. "C" STREET The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application (Use Permit No. 85-3) has been filed by Ca61os and Audrey Heredia, requesting authorization for ABC license to sell beer and wine on-site at 335 S. "C" Street. B. 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 followi.ng findings: 1. The sale of beer and wine is on-site only. 2. No schools are located in the immediate area therefore the use should not have any detrimental effect on children. D. 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 genera! welfare of the City of Tusttn, and should be granted. E. 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. That this license is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Class 21. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Department. 1 2 -3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2209 page two II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use No. 85-3 to authorize the issuance of an on-site beer and wine license at 335 S. "C" Street. Permit PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meettffg of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 RONALD H. WHITE, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Report to the Planning Commission DATE: JANUARY 28, 1985 SUB~£CT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ITEM NO. ARENDlqENT NO. I TO USE PERHIT 76-26 AND AJqENDlqENT NO. I TO USE PERJqIT 77-23 RORREY FRIEDI4AN ON BEHALF OF LAR#IN SQUARE, LTl). P.O. BOX 6221 ANAUEIH, CA 92801 500 E. FIRST STREET (LARI~IN SQUARE' SHOPPING CENTER) CENTRAL COldHERCIAL (C-2) DISTRICT ENVIROBIENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CATEGORICALLY EXEIqPT (CLASS 1) 1. AHEND USE PER~qlT 76-23 TO AUTHORIZE THE ENCLOSURE OF THE GARDEN SHOP AREA ADdACENTTO THE FORlqER SS KRESGE STORE (5115 SQUARE FEET); AND 2. AHEND USE P£RIqZT 77-23 TO CONVERT THE EXISTING FREE STANDING KEY SHOP TO AN AUTOIqATED BANK TELLER. BACKGROUND: [n ]ate 1977, the remodel of Lar~tn Square authorized by Use Permit 76726 was completed. Subsequently, Use Permtt 77-23 was approved and the free standtng key shop and was Installed. Wtth the approval of Use Permit 76-26, 209,153 square feet of mtxed use floor area was authorJzed. However, as the project was submitted for structural plan check, only 200,069 square feet was utJl~zed. Uslng the approved parktng ratio of I space: 250 square feet, the center is requtred to have 808 parking stalls. On the s~te plan submitted showJng the proposed enclosure, 816 spaces are provided. An actual space count was made and a total of 814 usable spaces are on the stte. An analys~s of the center ~ndtcates that ex~stJng structures encompass slightly under 200,000 square feet. Further, tt appears as though the outdoor garden area was ~ncluded Jn square footage calculatJons used to determine parklng demand. . Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Larwin Square, Ltd. page two DISCUSSION: The subject application requests that authorization be granted ~to modify the architectural configuration of the garden shop area located near the southeast corner of First Street and Centennial Way. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to enclose the 5,115 square foot area and create a store front oriented towards First Street. Since the garden shop was previously included in determining the parking demand, the subject request should be considered essentially the same as an interior tenant improvement. However, because the construction would physically alter existing elevations, an amendment to Use Permit 77-26 is required. Additionally, eventhough the modifications would not increase the required number of spaces, the applicant is proposing to re-stripe portions of the lot to add approximately 10 spaces. The second portion of the application requests that the existing key shop be permitted to be converted 'to an automated bank teller machine. Again,. while merely a change in us~ that would normally be processed admintstratively, the alteration of a structure approved' by a use Permit, requires an amendment . to same. ANALYSIS: Staff considers both of the applicant's requests to be acceptable modifications to the center. Parking provided on the site plan attached to this report is in excess of what was required by Use Permit 77-26, and the change of use of the key shop should create only an incidental increase in patron activity. Accordingly, staf~ will recommend that the requested 'amendments be approved. However there are some conditions of .approval that should be imposed. Those conditions are attached in Exhibit "A". RECO#IqENDED ACTION: It is recommended that amendments to Use Permits 76-26 and 77-23 be approved subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A" attached to this report. Associate Planner JO:do Corn munity Development Department EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL USE PERMITS 76-26 AND 73-23 1. That prior to issuance of any building permits for proposed modifications, the parking lot must be striped to reflect the site plan reviewed with the application. 2. That the materials and architectural style of the enclosre and the coverted key shop match the existing structures in the center. 3. That roof-top equipment be screened from view. 4. That the Commission determine that the center is built to capacity using. the parking ratio established by Use Permit 76-26, and that any future additions to the center will require a complete renovation of the parking layout. cOrn munity Development Department Report to the Planning commission ITEM NO. § D~E: ~ANUARY 28, 1985 ORDINANCE NO. 911/LARGE FA#ILY DAY CARE HO~ES BACKGROUND: After several public hearings before the Commission and City Council, Ordinance No. gll regulating Large Family Day Care Homes was enacted on June 21, 1984. It will be recalled that a Large Family home provides day care services for up to 12 children in a single family dwelling. Among the criteria established by Ordinance No. 911 (City Code Section g223a6h) is a provision that a permit for a Large Family Home shall cannot be granted if the subject property has a swimming pool. This provision was included because the State did not have any formal regulations concerning pools or a day care site. In November 1984, Patrtcia Smith, 2352 Caper Tree Drive, submitted an application' to the Department of Social Services requesting to expand her exist!rig Small Family Home (maximum of six children) to a Large Family Home. Ms. Smith's application was denied because her property has a swimming pool. DISCUSSIOM: Since the adoption of Ordinance 911, the State has imposed regulations that require that any pool on a property serving as a day care facility, for any number of children either: 1) be enclosed by a 5 foot "see thru" fence with a self-closing/self latching gate; or 2) must be equipped with a cover secured to the pool, that will support the weight of an adult. Although the pool cover safety feature is an option, the State does not have any specific requirements on how the cover is to be secured to the pool. In a letter dated December 10, 1985, Ms. Smith requested that Planning Commission consider recommending to the City Council, that Ordinance No. 911 be amended to permit Large Family Homes on sites with pools provide certain safety precautions are employed. In considering the request of Ms. Smith, and with the event of updated State regulations, staff thinks that an amendment to Ordinance No. 911 is appropriate. Especially, when the "no pool" provision applies only to Large , CommunRy Development Department Planntng Commission Report January 28, [985 page 'cwo Family homes (the City has no jurisdiction in regulating Small Family Homes.) The potential hazard created by a pool is not necessarily increased simply because the maximum number of children is increased from 6 to 12. Staff understands the concerns of the Commission and Council pertaining to pools and therefore would recommend that both of the safety features outlined above be required for any Large Family Day Care facility. Additionally, the condition that the pool cover be of the type that is secured to the pool in a manner that requires a tool or key to release said cover should also be incorporated into any amendment to Ordinance No. 911. .RECO~E#DED ACTION: If the' Commission concurs with staff's opinion that it is appropriate to amend Ordinance No. 911 to permit Large Family Day Care Homes at sites that also have a swimming pool, subject to fencing and installation of a pool cover, then it is recommended that the Commission direct staff to advertise a public hearing for same. X~s s6ci ate Planner iD:do attachment: Ordinance No. 911 Community Development Department 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 The City follows: II. III. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE ALLOWING LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 84-1) Council of the City of Tustin does' hereby ORDAIN as Section 9221a of .the Tustin City Code is hereby amended by .adding the following: 6. Large Family Day Care Homes, caring fo~ seven to twelve children subject to the standards contained in the R-1 District regulations (Section 9223a.$.) Section g222a of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended by adding the following: 4. Large Family Day Care Homes, caring for seven to twelve children subject to the standards contained in the R-1 District Regulations (Section 9223a.6.). Section g223a of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended by adding the following: 6. Large Family Oay Care Homes, caring for seven to twelve children subject to the following regulations: a. Prior to commencement of operation of any Large Family Day Care Home, the applicant for a permit shall complete and submit an application to the Community Development Department. Information provided on the permit shall include: name of operator; address of the home; and a list of property owners within 100 feet of the proposed day care home. b. Large family day care homes shall be operated in a manner not exceeding the noise levels in the Tustin Noise Ordinance, nor shall such day care homes be allowed to operate in a manner that would constitute a nuisance to neighboring properties'. c. A permit shall not he granted for a large day care home that would be established within 300 feet of any existing licensed large family day care home. d. All property owners within 100 feet of a proposed large family day care home shall be notified of the intent to establish such a home. e. If any written protest against permit issuance is received from any .property owner within 100 feet 1 2 3 4 .5 6 7 :8 9 10 .11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. Page 2 I¥. VI. of the proposed home, a hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission. Based on testimony presented during the hearing pertaining to noise, traffic, parking, concentration .or spacing of such homes, the Planningl Commission shall approve or deny the request for: a large family day care home. f. AnY day care home must comply with all regulations adopted and enforced.by the State Fire Marshal and Orange County Fire Department. g. The rear yard of the home must be enclosed by a minimum six-foot (6') high fence. h. The Planning Commission shall not grant a permit for a Large Family Day Care Home for any location that has on the property a swimming pool as defined by Section. 102 of the Uniform Swimming Pool Code, as adopted. t. Nothing contained in the provisions of this amendment shall preclude the revocation for cause of any permit granted for a large family day care home following proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission to determine if said use is operated in a manner detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the community or surrounding property. Section gg24b of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended by adding the following: 12. Large Family Day Care Homes, caring for seven to twelve children subject to the standards contained in the R-~ District regulations (Section 9223a.6.). Section g228a of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended by adding the following: 6. Large Family Day Care Homes, caring for seven to twelve children subject.to the standards Contained in the R-1 District regulations (Section g223a.6.). Section g244d of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended by adding the following: 5. Large Family Day Care Homes, caring for seven to twelve children shall be allowed as permitted uses in those areas designated for single-family residential land uses, subject to the standards contained in the R-1 District regulations (Section g223a.6.). 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ordinance No. 911 Page 3 VII. VIII. Section 9297 Definitions of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended by adding the following: "Large Fa~flly Day Care Home" means a family dwelling unit, non-institutional in character, properly licensed by the County of Orange, which provides day care only, for a maximum of twelve ([2) children ages [8 years or younger, including the licensee's own children under the age of 12. A Negative Declaration for Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 84-1 is hereby approved in conformance with the requirements of the CalifOrnia Environmental Quality Act. PASSED AND ADOP~D at a regular meeting Council held on the 21st day of May of the Tustin City , [984. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CITkS CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) § CITY OF TUSTIN ) MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the me.ers of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. g[! was duly and regularly introduced and read at an adjourned regular meetln~"~ of the City Council held on the 7th day of May, 1984, and was given its second reading and duly passed and a~ed at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of tla~. 1984, by the following vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: COUNCILPERSONS: COUNCILPERSONS: COUNCILPERSONS: Edgar, Hoesterey, Saltarelli None Greinke, Kennedy E. WYNN; City CrerK. City of Tustin, California SUt~ARY PUBLISHED IN TUSTIN NEWS: May 31, 1984 Report to the Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: JANUARY 28, 1985 ITEM NO. 7 DESIGN RE¥IEW MCHALE/MOODS ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF SAND DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT 15582 WILLIAMS STREET (R-3) MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISCUSSION: HcHale/Woods has submitted plans for a 12 twelve unit apartment project for the property located at 15582 Williams Street. The code requires 24 covered parking spaces with 3 9uest spaces which have been provided as shown on the attached site plan. The code also requires that 35% open space be provided on the site. The architect has provided 35.48% open space landscapin9 and will install a barbeque pit with tables in the recreation area located at the south easterly corner of the project site. The two apartment buildings are approximately 26 feet tall', constructed of plaster with wood siding. As the attached development review summary indicates, all code requirements for the R-3 zone have been met by the proposed development. The surrounding land uses include apartments, condominiums and the Heideman Elementary School, directly across the street. This proposed project will replace a Spanish home, therefore, parkland dedication fees will be required on 11 units. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Since this project is subject only to staff approval, it is presented as an information item to be received and fi]ed by the Commission. y 'AN~/CHAMB£RLAIN, Associate Planner MAC:do attach:. Plans Design Review Summary · Corn rnunity Development Department DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY Project: · 12 Unit Apartment (Sand Dollar Dev. Location/District: 15582 Williams Action: Design Review Building: Front Setback Si.de Setback Rear Setback Gross Square Footage Net Floor Square Footage Height Number'of Stories Materials/Colors Lot Size Lot Coverage (o~en space) Parking: Number of Spaces Ratio (space/square footage) Percent of Compact Spaces Type Uses: Number of Public Notifications (Owners): Environmental-Status * No Standard District Reguirement Proposed 15.' 15 ' 5 ' 13 ' 10 ' 10 ' N/A 11,347 N/A N/A 35 ' 26 ' * 2 TO be presented at meeti~q 7,000 22f512 35% 35.48% 27 N/A 20% Apartments N/A N/A 27 N/A 0 At grade Report to the Planning Commission DATE: ,JANUARY 28, 1985 SUBJECT: COfg[RCIAL PARKZNG STANDARDS ITEM NO. 8 DISCUSSION: The City Council at its meeting on December 18, 1984 directed staff to seek Planning Commission input and study present Ct.ty parking requirements for commercial zones in the City. Specifically, Mayor Kennedy wished the Planning Commission to recommend changes as necessary to the required number of spaces for commercial office projects. Presently, the City's zoning code requires a parking ratio of one space for each 300 square feet of gross building floor area in the PR (Professional Office) zone. A recent trend tn the development industry has been towards providing more parking than our City Code normally requires. A parktng ratio of one space for each 250 square feet of floor area might better suit Tustin's needs for off-street parking. Last fall, staff forwarded to Commission and Council a survey of city parking space requtKements. The parking ratio survey indicated a range in Orange County from one space for each 200 square feet to one per 400. At this time, staff is not seeking a final decision by the Commission but is just informing you of our intentions to proceed with an in depth study and report back to you at a later date. Should you wish to provide your opinions at this time, please do, so that staff may incorporate them into our research. DONALD D. LAMM,- Director of Community Devel opment DDLdo Community Development Department Planning Commission ,January 28, 1985 SUB.]ECT: REPORT 011 COUNC]L ACTIONS - January 21, 1985 Oral presentation to be given by Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development do Attachments: City Council Action Agenda - January 21, 1985 im Community Development Department ACTION AGEIi)A OF ~ TuSTiN CIl~ COUNCIL January 21, 1985 7:00 P.M. 7:02 I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ALL PR~E)r~ II. ROLL CALL III. INTRODUCED ORDINANCE NO. 925 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ORDINANCE NO. 926 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING SECTIONS 9270 AND 9271 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE BY REQUIRING A USE PERMIT AND ESTABLISHING STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR THE INSTALLATION OF DISH ANTENNAE M. O. - That Ordinance No. 926 have first reading by title only. M. O. - That Ordinance No. 926 be introduced. ~P~V~ ~AFF 2. RECOI~4E~I~ APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT 84-27 (550 W. Sixth Street) Continue the Public Hearing to the February 4, 1985, Council meeting when full analysis of the water easement issue will be presented as recommended by the Community Deve]opment Department. ADOPTED RESOLUTION 3. NO. 85-10 RESOLUTION NO. 85-10 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT {EIR) ~-2 FOR THE TUSTIN AUTO CENTER Adoption of Resolution No. 85-10 as recommended by the Community Development Department. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 85-9 RESOLUTION NO. 85-9 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR AN AREA BOUNDED BY THE I-5 FREEWAY, PROPOSED JAMBOREE ROAD, PROPOSED LAGUNA ROAD, AND A LINE 192 FEET WEST OF THE EL MODENA CHANNEL, AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "A" Adoption of Resolution No. 85-9 as recommended by the Community Development Department. IIITROi)UC~D ORDINANCE NO. 927 ORDINANCE NO. 927 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin REZONING AN AREA BOUNDED BY THE I-5 FREEWAY, PROPOSED JAMBOREE ROAD, PROPOSED LAGUFLA ROAD, AND A LINE 192 FEET WEST OF THE EL MODENA CHANNEL, FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY TO PLANNED COMMUNITY/COMMERCIAL AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "A" AND INCLUDING THE INCORPORATION OF PLANNED COMMUNITY. REGULATIONS FOR THE EAST TUSTIN AUTO CENTER M. O. - That Ordinance No. 927 have first reading by title only. M. O. - That Ordinance No. 927 be introduced. CONTINUEbTO 2'19 MEETINB ¢. WINDSOR GARDENS (1651 MITCHELL) Pleasure of the City Council. ~EP~L IV. PUBLIC INPUT ~EOPtZ VOICED (For City of Tustin Residents and Businesspersons on any matter, and for THEIR COMPttINTS Water Service Customers having a concern unresolved by Administrative proce- ABOUT THE dures.) C~IFORNIN4 APARTMENTS. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 1 1-21-85 Ye APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED STAFF RECOI~IENDATION ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 85-5 APPROVED STAFF RECOI~ENDATIOII ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 85-12 APPROVED STAFF RECOI~ENDATIOll ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 85-8 VI. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under Consent Calendar are Considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Council, staff or public request specific items to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 7, 1985 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $558,353.33 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL in the amount of $233,553.74 3. REJECTION OF CLAIM OF CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH (BERAN); DATE OF LOSS: 2-20-84; DATE FILED W/CITY: 12-21-84; CLAIM NO. 84-12 Rejection of subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 85-5 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, APPROVING THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE REDEYELOPMENT AGENCY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 Adoption of Resolution No. 85-5 as recon~nended by the City Manager. ® RELEASE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS - TRACT NO. 11330 (NE CORNER OF REDHILL AND SAN JUAN) Authorize the release of the following bonds: Faithful Per- formance No. L05-068745 in the amount of $8,500.00; Labor and Materials No. L05-068745 in the amount of $4,250.00; and Monumentation No. L05-068747 in the amount of $2,500.00 as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. RESOLUTION NO. 85-12 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, CAlifornia, APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 85-1 (GYLAH [.ANE) Adoption 'of Resolution No. 85-12 as recommended by the Direc- tor of Public Works/City Engineer. e AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF SANTA ANA TO PROVIDE FOR THE RESURFACING OF MCFADDEN S'~REET Authorize the Mayor to execute subject agreement as recom- mended by the Engineering Department. Be RESOLUTION NO. 85-8 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, CONFIRMING THE APPLICATION OF THE MASTER PRO- PERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT TO THE PROPOSED MEDFORD-GROVESITE ANNEXATION NO. 105 Adoption of Resolution No. 85-8 as recommended by the City Manager. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION - None CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 2 1-21-85 APPROVED STAFF P"~OI~IEROATIOR WXTH SIX MONTHS '~ _.~ LIMIT VIII. OLD BUSINESS PARKING RESTRICTIONS AT CENTENNIAL PARK Authorize the installation of signing to restrict on-street parking to four hours between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on both Devonshire Avenue and Roanoke Avenue adjacent to Centennial Park as recon~nended by the Director of .Public Works/City Engineer. IX. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 85-11 NEW BUSINESS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 88-11 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 84-1032 LOCATED IN AN AREA BOUNDED BY THE I-5 FREEWAY, PROPOSED JAI4BOREE ROAD, PRO- POSED LAGUNA ROAD AND A LINE 192 FEET WEST OF THE EL MODENA CHANNEL Adoption of Resolution No. 85-11 as recommended by the Direc- tor of Community Development. APPROVED STAFF 2. RECOM~ENDATIOR AND ltE APPROPRIATION TO. BE FROM THE GENERAL FUll) AWARD OF CONSULTANT SERVICES CONTRACT - LAGUNA ROAD Approve the selection of Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates to perform the consultant civil engineering ser- vices for the easterly extension of Laguna Road between the Auto Center development and Myford Road and authorize a sup- plemental budget appropriation in the amount of $34,500.00 for said work as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Xo REPORTS EIVED ~ FILED PLANNING CO~ISSION ACTIONS - January 14, 1985 All actions of the Planning Commission appealed by the City Council. are final unless APPROVED STAFF RECOI~ENDATION 2. CONSIDERATION OF SIGN CODE A31ENDMENTS REGARDING THE REGULATION OF POLITICAL SIGNS Direct staff to initiate proceedings and direct the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing for consideration of the proposed political sign ordinance as recommended by the Community Development Department. DON LAI~I TI) D[VELOP A PLAJI 3. INSTALLATION OF CITY ENTRANCE SIGNS FOR ENlRY SIGNS Pleasure of the City Council. STAFF TO COMI'ACT SOIOOL 4. REDHILL AVENUE AND BRYAN AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNING DISTRI~ ~OUT WHEN OIILDREN Pleasure of the City Council. WOULD BE CROSSING AND THEN CHANGE SIGNS ACCORDINGLY FOR 'NO RIGHT TURN'. HUSTON ASKED XI. OTHER BUSINESS FOR CLOSED SESSION FOR PERSONNEL R¥1TERS AND POSSIBLE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AT IRVINE BLVO. AND BEgPORT AVENUE STAFF TO BRING BACK AT A SPECIAL I~ETING BEFORE JANUARY 30, 1985, A BRAFT POLICY OF OUR POSITION ON EXPANSION OF THE JOHN WRYNE AIRPORT 11:06 XII. ADJOURNMENT - Recess to a Closed Session for Personnel matters and instructions for negotiations with Burnette Ehline and FEBF concerning sale of property at Irvine and Newport Avenues and thence adjourn to the next regular meeting on February 4, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 3 1-21-85 ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR ~ETIN6 OF THE TUSTIN REDEVELOfZt~NT AGENCY January 21, 1985 7:00 P.~. 11:06 1. CALL TO ORDER ALL 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT APPROVED 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of January 7, 1985 APPROVED 4. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $47,748.38 APPROVED 5. AWARD OF BID - COLUMBUS I'USTIN WELLHEAD PROJECT STAFF RECOI~EROATION Award the contract for subject project to the low bidder, Caliagua, Inc. of Anaheim, California, in the amount of $162,542.00 which includes the accelerated construction schedule of 100 consecutive calendar day~ in lieu of 150 consecutive calendar days as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. CONTINUED 6. CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR GRANT TO MARK FERGUSON Defer consideration of the draft funding agreement to the next agency meeting permitting the City Attorney's office adequate time to prepare the document as recommended by the Director of Community Development. NONE 7. OTHER BUSINESS 11:08 8. ADJOURNMENT - To the n~xt regular meeting on February .4, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA Page i 1-21-85