The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 07-16-84TUSTIN PLANNING COI~ISSIO# AGENDA FOR REGULAR.MEETING July 9, 1984 7:30 p.m. REPORTS NO. 1 7-16-84 CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M., CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL AINSLIE, PUCKETT, WEIL, SHARP WHITE (joined the meeting at 7:35 p.m.) APPROVAL OF HINUTES For Meeting Held June 25, 1984 Approved, 4-0 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 None CONSENT CALENDAR ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION. 1. Final Tract Map No. 11649 1162 Sycamore - Barnett-Nowling Partnership Approved 4-0; moved by Puckett, second by Wetl CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-3b - OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN A combined and revised Open Space and Conservation Element that addresses the conservation, development and utilization of natural resources for the City of Tustin. Programs and plans are proposed that will conservate, · Planning Commission Agenda July 9, 1984 page two maintain and assure the continued availability of land for the production of food and fiber, for the enjoyment of scenic beauty, for recreation, and for the use of natural resources. An environmental assessment of the Open Space and Conservation Element is included and referenced within the document. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Continued to next regular meeting; moved by geil, second by Puckett 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-3c - RECREATION ELEMENT A new optional element of the General Plan indicating a comprehensive system of areas and public sites for recreation. Programs are proposed that address the community-wide needs and Kequirements for recreational areas. An environmental assessment of the Recreation Element is included and referenced within the document. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Continued to next regular meeting; moved by Wetl, second by Puckett Cmmtssioner White joined the meeting at 7:35 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 84-2 - SATELLITE RECEIVING DISH/ANTENNA An amendment to Zoning Ordinance to include development standards for the location and installation of Satellite Receiving Dish/Antenna. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development After discussion and two unsuccessful motions Comntsstoner White moved that Ordinance 84-2 be recommended to Council for adoption and that Item underground wiring, be deleted with the provision that the wtrtng of the antenna simply be screened from view and that reference to satellite receiving dish antennas amended to "any dish antenna exceeding 4 feet in dtamoter'. Wet1 second, 4-1 (Ainslte opposed) 2. ZONE CHANGE 84-3 Applicant: Location: Request: Barry Watkins on behalf of Tustln Properties. northeasterly corner of Seventeenth Street and Carroll Way authorization to change the zone from C-1 Retail Commercial to Commercial General (CG-PUD) Presentation: Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner Approved to recommend to City Council change from C-1 to CG-PUD, 6-0 vote Planning Commiss' q Agenda July 9, 1984 page three Applicant: Locati on: Request: USE PERMIT 84-12 Garrison Management, Inc., on behalf of P.D.F. (a general partnership) 1122-1192 Laguna Road authorization to develop a 10,000 square foot automotive service center with a freeway identification sign Presentation: Alan Warren, Senior Planner Comtsston conducted an extensive public hearing in which four people Including the property offner and project proponent spoke tn favor of thts application. Majortty of discussion concerned staff's allegation that parking was inadequate and that project would be denied as parking is not increased. Follwtng discussion moved by White and second by Atnslte to conttnue to next regular moetlng on duly 23rd and directing project applicant to meet with Staff to resolve parking problem, 5-0 vote N)MINISll~ATIVE I~ITERS A. Old Business None. B. New Business Large Family Day Care Home Permit 14692 Cheshire Place Presentation: Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner Co~sston requested public input in favor or a~postng their day care permtt for which there was neither. Staff Indicated only one anonymous phone call tn o~posttton but refused to formerly protest. Following discussion by Commission, Wet1 moved and White second and on 5-0 vote granted permit. 2. Relief from Compliance with Condition I. of Variance 83-1. Presentation: Ed Knight, Associate Planner After discussion Con~sstoner White moved and Puckett second to relieve, 5-0 vote. STAFF CONCERNS 1. Report on Council Actions - July 2, 1984 Oral Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development. Mr. Lamm summarized the past City Council agenda. Planntng Commission Agenda Ju]y 9, 1984 pa§e four COM#ISSION CONCERNS None. ADJOURNMENT: l~eettng was adjourned to 6:30 p.m. on duly 23, 1984 for a publlc meeting to dtscuss posstble changes to the zoning ordinance concerning a business wtth alcoholic beverage ]1cerise. TUSTIN PLANNING COI~ZSSIOM AGENDA FOR REGULAR MEETING July g, 1984 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M., CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL AINSLIE, PUCKETI', WEIL, WHITE, SHARP APPROVAL OF MINUTES PUBLIC CONCERNS For Meeting Held June 25, 1984 (limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD CONSENT CALENDAR ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION. 1. Final Tract Map No. 11649 1162 Sycamore - Barnett-Nowling Partnership CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARZNGS: 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-3b - OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN A combined and revised Open Space and Conservation Element that addresses the conservation, development and utilization of natural resources for the City of Tustin. Programs and plans are proposed that will conservate, maintain and assure the continued availability of land for the production of food and fiber, for the enjoyment of scenic beauty, for recreation, and for the use of natural resources. An environmental assessment of the Open Space and Conservation Element is included and referenced within the document. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Planning Commission Agenda July 9, 1984 page two 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-3c - RECREATION ELEMENT A new optional element of the General Plan indicating a comprehensive system of areas and public sites for recreation. Programs are proposed that address the community-wide needs and requtremen:s for recreational areas. An environmental assessment of the Recreation Element is included and referenced within the document. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 84-2 - SATELLITE RECEIVING DISH/ANTENNA An amendment to Zoning Ordinance to include development standards for the location and installation of Satellite Receiving Dish/Antenna. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development 2. ZONE CHANGE 84-3 Applicant: Location: Request: Barry Watkins on behalf of Tustin Properties northeasterly corner of Seventeenth Street and Carroll Way authorization to change the zone from C-1 Retail Commercial to Commercial General (CG-PUD) Presentation: Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner 3. USE PERMIT 84-12 Applicant: Location: Request: Garrison Management, Inc., on behalf of P.D.F. (a general partnership) 1122-1192 Laguna Road authorization to develop a 10,000 square foot automotive service center with a freeway identification sign Presentation: Alan Warren, Senior Planner AOMI#ISll~ATIVE I~I'~ERS A. Old Business None. B. New Business Large Family Day Care Home Permit 14692 Cheshire Place Presentation: Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner Planning Commission Agenda July 9, 1984 page three ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (CONTINUED) B. New Business (continued) 2. Relief from Compliance with Condition I. of Variance 83-1 Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development STAFF CONCERNS 1. Report on Council Actions - July 2, 1984 Oral Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development COle~ISSlON CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT: To next regular meeting on July 23, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. MINUTES OF A REGULAR OF THE PLANNZNG CO~ZSSTON OF THE C%TY OF llJSTZN, CALIFORNIA June 25, 1984 called to order by The meeting was Council Chamber, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, Allegiance was led by Commissioner Well and Commissioner Puckett. ROLL CALL Chairman Sharp at 7:35 p.m. in the California. The Pledge of the Invocation was given by Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Also present: James Sharp, Chairman Ronald White, Chairmen Pro Tem (arrived 7:38 p.m.) Mark Ainslie Charles Puckett Kathy Well None Donald O. Lamm, Director of Community Development Ed Knight, Associate Planner Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner Suzanne Atktns, Oeputy City Attorney Janet Hester, Recording Secretary MI#UTES Moved by Puckett, seconded by Wetl to approve the minutes of the meeting of June 11, lg84, with one correction: to reflect the testimony made by Steve Markel, Tusttn Homeowners Association, with regard to General Plan Amendment No. 84-2. Motion carried, 4-0, White absent. PUBLIC CONCERNS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Resolution No. 2162 - General Plan Amendment No. 84-3d 1262 Bryan Avenue - Goldrich, Kest and Associates Moved by Wetl, seconded by Puckett, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried, 4-0, White absent. Commissioner White arrived, 7:38 p.m. ~TI#UF.O PUBLIC HEARINGS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-2 Applicant: Location: Request: Matt Ntsson 14462 Red Hill Avenue Authorization to change the designation of the Land Use Element from Professional Office to Commercial Edward Knight presented staff's report and recommendations as contained in the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 25, 1984. Commissioner Well stepped down from the dias. Chairman Sharp opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. The following person spoke in opposition to General Plan Amendment No. 84-2: The Rosemery Rookers, address given as Copperfteld Drive, read into the record a petition signed by neighboring property owners opposed to the introduction of multiple-family and/or commercial uses into the area. The petitioners requested that the Commission allow the property be designated for single-family residential use. following person spoke in favor of General Plan Amendment No. 84-2: Matt Nisson, applicant requested the Commission's favorable consideration of his application. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, [984 Page 2 Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Sharp closed the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. It was moved by Ainsiie, seconded by Puckett, adoption of Resolution No. 2156, recommending to the City Council General Plan Amendment No. 84-2. Commissioner White stated he would find the motion difficult to support unless it included some provision for requiring the property to be developed under a specific plan. Don Lamm, in response to Chairmen Sharp, said it would be difficult~to condition the General Plan Amendment in such a manner. He suggested the Commission, after taking the vote on the amendment, initiate a zone change to the Commercial General-Planned Unit Development zone, which requires use permit approval. He also suggested the Commission institute a requirement that a specific plan be reqaire~on any' portion of the'~property prior to development. Motion carried, 4-0, Well abstaining. Moved by White, seconded by Puckett, to direct staff to fnttate a zone change to the Commercial General-Planned Unit Development zone, and require a specific plan. Motion carried, 4-0, Well abstaining. 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 83-4A - HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN Chairmen Sharp opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Chairman Sharp closed the public hearing at 7:5g p.m. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Well, adoption of Resolution No 2163, recommending adoption of the Housing Element to the City Council. Commissioner White requested the following amendments to the Housing Element: Section on energy conservation measures as relating to future development of the East Tustin area: That not only would developers be encouraged to utilize energy conservation measures, but that the Housing Element encourage retrofitting of existing residences. Commissioner Puckett extended his thanks to the Housing Element Advisory Committee for the time they gave to review and comment on the Element. The meker of the motion and the second agreed to the amendment to the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-3B - OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN A combined and revised Open Space and Conservation Element that addresses the conservation, development and utilization of the natural resources for the City of Tustin. Programs and plans are proposed that A revised Housing Element of the General Plan consisting of statistics and programs specifically designed for the improvement of housing and provision of adequate sites for housing. This element is designed to accommodate the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. An environmental assessment of the Housing Element proposal is included and referenced within the document. Edward Knight presented staff's report and recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 2[63, recommending adoption of the Housing Element to the City Council, as contained in the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 25, [984. Mr. Knight responded to Chairman Sharp's questions regarding what action's the State could take against the City if the State determined the Element was inadequate. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, [984 Page 3 E will conservate, maintain and assure the continued availability of land for the production of food and fiber, for the enjoyment of scenic beauty, for recreation and for the use of natural resources. An environmental assessment of the Open Space and Conservation Element is included and referenced within the document. Edward Knight presented staff's report and recommendation to continue as contained in the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 25, [984. Chairman Sharp opened the hearing at 7:59 p.m. Seeing no one.wishing to speak, it was moved by White, seconded by Well, to continue the hearing to the next regular meeting on July g, [984. Motion carried, 5-0. 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-3c - RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN Shows a co~rehensive system of areas and public sites for recreation. Pregrams are proposed that address the co,,wF~nity-wide needs and requirements for recreational areas. An environmental assessment of the Recreation Element is included and referenced within the document. Edward Knight presented staff's report and recommendation to continue as contained in the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 25, [984. Chairmen Sharp opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak, it was moved by White, seconded by Well to continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting on July g, [984. Motion carried, $-0. Don Lamm responded to Commissioner White regarding the relationship of the Element to the East Tustin Specific Plan. Motion carried, 5-0. pUBLIC HEARINGS None. ADMINISI~ATIYE MRlqq[RS A. Old Business 1. Land Use Study Concerning Sale of Alcoholic Beverages Donald Lamm presented staff's report as contained in the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 25, [984. The organization, Parents Who Care, made an oral presentation to the Planning Commission, expressing their views on the sale of alcoholic beverages in the City of Tusttn and their recommendations for dealing with the problems they perceived. After Commission and staff discussion with Parents Who Care representatives, the Commission directed staff to advertise · workshop July 23, 1984 at 6:30 p.m. for discussion on the land use related concerns of the sale of alcoholic beverages in the City of Tustin. B. New Business Parcel Map 83-1026 Southwest corner "B" Street and Sixth Street Donald Lamm presented staff's report and recommendation as contained in the staff report dated June 25, 1984. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, [984 Page 4 It was moved by White, seconded by Well, adoption of Resolution No. 2166, recommending approval of Flnal Parcel Map No. 83-1026 to the City Council, with the added condition that the easements and reciprocal parking agreements be recorded with the map. Motion carried, 5-0. After discussion regarding review of final parcel maps, it was ~ White,' seconded by Puckett, that approval of final maps be accomp~sne~ as a part of the consent calendar. Motion carried, 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS Report on Counctl Actions - June [8, 1984 Report by Donald Lamm received and filed. ~IPlqIS~ION CONCERMS Donald Law responded to Commission questions regarding submittal of applications for Planntng Commission appointment, the bullet train, and the widening of the Santa Ana freeway. ADdOURNIq~MT: At 9:28 to the next regular meeting on July 23, 1984. James B. Sharp, Chairman Janet Hester Recording Secretary Planning Commission DATE: SUB,.1ECT: OWNER/ APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: REQUEST: July 9, 1984 FINAL TRACT NO. 11649 t~. RICHARD KWOWLING BARNLrl-r-NOWLING PARTNERSHIP 14081Yorba Tusttn, CA 92680 1162 SYCAMORE NULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDE#TIAL (R-3) DISTRICT TO OETERMI#E THAT FINAL MAP 11649 IM CONFORMANCE WITH ITS TENTATIVE MAP AND RECO~ND THE CITY COUMCIL APPROVE FINAL MAP 11649 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: On January 18, 1982 the Planning Agency approved Tentative Tract Map No. 11649 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2015. This approval authorized a one-lot subdivision for'an eight unit condominium project at 1162 Sycamore. To date all conditions contained in Resolution 2015 have been met with the exception of II. 11, pertaining to the filing and recordation of the C.C.& R's. To fulfill this final condition, the Final Map must first be approved for recordation. The C.C.& R's have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's Office. The C.C.& R's will be submitted for concurrent recordation with the final map. RECOI~IENOED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2167 finding Final Tract Map No. 11649 in substantial conformance with its tentative map and recommending City Council approve Final Map No. 1164g. A~rstant Planner JD:do attachments: Staff Report of Jan. 18 to Planning Agency Resolution No. 2015 Resolution No. 2167 Full Size Tract Map Exhibit , Community Development Department [ DATE: January 18, 1982 ~ '~,.,--~01~ FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Chairman & Planning Agency Members Community Development Department Tentative Tract No. 11649 Locati on: Appl i cant: 1162 Sycamore Avenue Zenith Surveys, Inc. on Behalf of Barnett-Nowltng Background & Discussion Subject tentative tract map is a one-lot subdivision for condominium purposes on .225 acres with 8 residential units for this site. Subject property is zoned R-3 (multiple-family) and the City Code states that condominiums are allowed in the R-3 District subject to the standards of the PD (Planned Development) District. The subject map is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan. A use permit (81-27) to allow for the construction of 8 condominiums was denied by the Planning Agency on September 21, 1981. The project was appealed to the City Council on October 21, 1981 and subsequently approved with a design modification. All of the recommended conditions of approval are listed in Resolution No. 2015. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend approval of Tentative Tract No. 11649 to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2015. MAC:ih 1-13-82 TENT~, PIVE TRACT Ne1 16,-,9 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PAR(:EL I OF PARCEL ~ FIL.EI) IR BO(O( I02 PAGE 8 OF PARCEL ~$ Ill ~ CITY OF TU$IN, COUNTY OF O~AN6~, STATE ~ CALIFORNIA, SE~R NATER ................ TUSTIN WAllER WORKS C~AS ............ SO, CAL, GAS CO, ELECTRICITY ..... SO, CAt, EDISON. CO. ~LEPI~ONE--- -- PACIFIC TELEPHONE CABLE T.V. - ..... r~ONE (NOTE: ALL UT)LITIE$ WILL ~E uNgER~OUND) I TRACT N? 46~4 lq081 YOIIIA ST, TUS?tN, Oki. IF. ~i~l mmmb~ m'm 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 A RESOLUTION OF THE CIl~ COUNCIL OF THE CIl~( OF TUSTIN, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT NO 11649 LOCATED AT 1162 SYCAMORE AVENUE The Planning Agency of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Agency of the City of Tustin finds and determines as follows: That Tentative Tract Map No. 11649 was submitted to the Plan- ing Agency pursuant to Ordinance No. 847 as a one-lot sub- division for condominium purposes for an 8 (eight) unit sub- division for parcel known as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map filed in Book 102, Page 8 of miscellaneous maps of Orange County. B. That said map is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan. C. Said map is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qua)ity Act. II. The Planning Agency hereby recommends approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract No. 11649 subject to the following Conditions: Annexation of the subject parcel to the Orange County Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6. Proof of submittal of said annexation papers must be furnished the City prior to approval of said final maps. Installation of marbelite street lights and underground conduit as required by the City Engineer. Contact Ward Erickson of the Southern Calif. Edison Co. for layout. 3. Completion of all missing street improvements across the frontage of the property as required by the City Engineer. 4. Provision for an individual sanitary sewer and domestic water service to each dwelling unit. 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. 2015 Page 2 January 18,1982 5. Submission of a final grading plan for review and approval. 6. Payment of all required Orange County Sanitation District fees prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. Payment of all East Orange County Water District fees in the amount of $500/dwelling unit prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. Payment of parkland dedication fees in the amount of $2,000 prior to issuance of any building permits. g. Plans to be submitted for on-site and public fire hydrants as required. 10. The filing of a Final Tract Map. 11. The filing of C.C.&R's to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. These C.C.&R's shall be recorded concurrently with the Tract Map and a copy of this recorded document shall be returned to the Community Development Department to be kept on file. PASSED AND ADOP~E~D at held on the / ~K~ day ular meeting of the Tustin Planning Agency a Mu) ar me~ of~, 1982. M~ An~'chamberl Recording Secretary 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. 2167 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11649 LOCATED AT 1162 SYCAMORE AVENUE The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: That Tentative Tract Map No. 11649 was submitted to the Planning Commission pursuant to Ordinance No. 847 as a one-lot subdivision for condominium purposes for an 8 (eight) unit subdivision for parcel known as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map filed in Book 102, Page 8 of miscellaneous maps of Orange County. B. That said map is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan. Said map is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. D. That said map is in substantial compliance with the tentative map. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Final Tract No. 11649 subject to conditions contained in Resolution No. 2015 and final approval of the City Engineer. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 9th day of July, 1984. ATTEST: JAMES B. SHARP, CHAIRMAN DONNA ORR, RECORDING SECRETARY Report to the Planning Commission CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING NO. I DATE: SUBJECT: &uly 9, 1984 .CONT~NU£D CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AH£NDHENT NO. 84-~b - OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELF. J~NT OF THE TUSTI# AREA GENERAL PLAN DISCUSSION: Atthe last Planning Com,~lsston meeting, staff recommended the Commission open the public hearing and continue consideration of the subject element to the Commission's July 9, 1984 meettng. Thts continuation was at the request of The [rvtne Company to permtt them ample ttme to review the proposed element and submtt comments. Their comments have now been recetved which are rather extensive and wtll require considerable revtew and research on the part of City staff. Whtle the majority of the [rvtne Company concerns are minor and can be incorporated into the written text, some issues will require staff's recommendation as to dlspositfon. Therefore, staff requests an additional continuation to the Co,m~ission meeting on July 23, I984. RECOI~IENDATION: That the public hearing be again continued to the Planning Commission meeting on Monday, July 23, 1984. Director of Community Development DOL:do Community Development Department Report to the Planning Commission CONTINOED PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2 DATE: SUBJECT: July 9, 1984 CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN ~qENDNENT NO. 84-3c RECREATION ELF_gENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN DISCUSSION: At the last Planning Commission meeting, staff recommended the Commission open the public hearing and continue consideration of the subject element te the Commission's July 9, 1984 meeting. This continuation was at the request of The [rvtne Company ~o permit them ample time to review the proposed element and submit comments. Their comments have no~ been received which are rather extensive and will require considerable review and research on the part of City staff. While the majority of The [rvine Company concerns are minor and can be incorporated into the written text, some issues will require staff's recommendation as to disposition. Therefore, staff requests an additional continuation to the Commission meeting on July 23, 1984. RECOMMENDATION: That the public hearing be again continued to the Planning Commission meeting on Monday, July 23, 1984. Dt)NALD D LAMM, Director of Community Development DOL:do Community Development Department Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: REQUEST: JULY 9, 1984 ZONING ORDINANCE ~IENDMENT NO. 84-2 - SATELLITE RECEIVING DISH/ANTENNA INITIATED BY THE CITY OF TUSTIN ~U~END THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH CONDITIONS AND CRITERIA FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SATELLITE ANTENNAS Background A publlc hearing was duly advertised to amend the Zontng Ordinance (Ord. No. 157, as amended) to establish criteria and standards for the locatton and installation of Satellite Dish Receiving Antennas. No correspondence or comments have been received. The installation of satellite dish antennas can be a matter of concern to residents of a community due to the increased popularity of use and their adverse visual impact. The City of Cypress conducted a survey of cities and determined that the issue is of concern to most cities. Both Cypress and La Palma have adopted controlling regulations which serve as guidelines for the adoption of regulations by the City of Tustin. Discussion Since satellite dish antennas are accessory to all land use districts, it is recommended that a use permit be required and cri tera adopted for their installation and use. The following amendments to the Municipal Code are recommended: 9270 Regulations b. Uses Permitted Subject to Use Permit (1) Damage or nuisance from noise, smoke, odor, dust, vibrations, or visual pollution. (2) (3) The uses referred to herein are as follows: (f) Satellite dish antennas. Community Development Department Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 84-2 3uly 9, 1984 page Z 9271 Specific Provisions y. Criteria for Satellite Receiving Dtsh Antenna Installation and Use 1. Definition. A Satellite Receiving Dish Antenna is defined as any dish-shaped antenna designed to receive communication signals from a satellite. 2. Location. (a) Residential zones: Dish antennas shall be installed at ground level in the rear yard of the property and completely obscured from view from any public right-of-way. (b) All other zones: Dish antennas which are installed at ground' level must be obscured from view 'from any public right-of-way. Roof-mounted antennas shall be architecturally screened whenever feasible and screening shall match the existing exterior building materials and shall maintain harmony and proportion with the elements of the structure. The antennas shall be obscured from view from any public right-of-way. Antennas installed on sloped roofs shall not protrude above the highest ridgeline of the roof. 3. Permits: Upon approval of a use permit, a building permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of a satellite dish antenna 4. Height: A dish antenna shall not exceed the maximum height limit permitted in the zone in which it is located. Underground Wiring: All cable or electrical wiring serving a ground level antenna shall be installed underground. Recomendatton That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2169, recommending to the Ct ty Council initiation of Zontng Ordinance Amendment No. 84-2 to establish conditions and criteria for the installation of satellite antennas. Director of Community Development RKF:DDL:jh Attachments: Resolution No. 2169 Community Development Department RESOLUTION NO. 2169 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS 9270 AND 9271 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE BY REQUIRING A USE PERMIT AND ESTABLISHING STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: II. I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. Satellite Receiving Dish Antennas are becoming a popular mechanism for the receiving of distant broadcast signals for commercial, industrial use and home entertainment. B. The subject antennas have the potential of adding visual pollution, obscuring vistas, reducing open space and adversely impacting community amenities. C. The review of proposed antenna installations by the Planning Commission, and the opportunity for adjoining property owners to express their comments and concerns, warrants the application for a use permit for the preservation of community amenities. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that Sections 9270 and 9271 of the Tustin City Code be amended to read as follows: Section 9270b (1) Damage or nuisance from noise, or visual pollution. (f) satellite dish antennas smoke, odor, vibration, Section 9271 y. Cri teri a for installation satellite receiving dish antenna (1) Definitions. A Satellite Receiving Dish Antenna is defined as any dish-shaped antenna designed to receive communication signals from a satellite. (2) Location. (a) Residential zones: Dish antennas shall be installed at ground level in the rear yard of the property and completely obscured from view from any public right-of-way. 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 No. 2169 Page 2 (b) All other zones: Dish antennas which are installed at ground level must be obscured from view from any public right-of-way. Roof-mounted antennas shall be architecturally screened whenever feasible and screening shall match the existing exterior building materials and shall maintain harmony and proportion with the elements of the structure, The antennas shall be obscured from view from any public right-of- way. Antennas installed on sloped roofs shall not protrude above the highest ridgeline of the roof. (3) Permits. Upon approval of a use permit, a building permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of a satellite dish antenna. (4) Height Limitations. A dish antenna shall not exceed the maximum height limit permitted in the zone in which it is located. ($) Underground Wiring. All cable or electrical wiring serving a ground level antenna shall be installed underground. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tusttn Planning Commission held on the day of , 1984. James B. Sharp, Chairman Donna Orr Recording Secretary Report to the Planning Commission PUBLIC HEARING NO., 2 DATE: ,July 9, 1984 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 84-3 APPLICANT/OHNER: TUSTIN PROPERTIES 1914 ORANGEWOOD, ~102 ORANGE, CA 92668 LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF 17th STREET AND CARROLL NAY EXISTING ZONING: C-1 RETAIL COIg4ERCIAL DISTRICT PROPOSED ZONING: CG-PUD COlg~tERCIAL GENERAL - PLANNING UNIT DEYELOPHENT DISTRICT ENYIRONRENTAL STATUS: A NEGATIVE DCCLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONFOPJ4ANCE.WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENYIRONFENTAL QUALITY ACT. BACKGROUND: On May 4, 1960 the zoning for the subject property was established as Retail Commercial (C-1) and the Ralph's Center was developed according to the C-1 standards. In 1975-76 the City established the Commercial General (C-G) District with the intent of creating a uniform commercial district that would allow more flexibility of development while providing an element of control by requiring conditional use permits for certain land uses (i.e. bowling alleys, large shopping centers). Additionally, the ordinance implementing the CG classification provided that a suffix of "PUD" could be attached to the CG zone requiring a Conditional Use Permit for all development within a district with such a suffix. DISCUSSION: The applicant is the representative of the new property owner of the shopping center. It is the intention of the new owner to completely renovate and expand the existing center. As a part of this renovation, the applicant is considering the possibility of including uses that may require outside display of merchandise or outdoor activities such as a florist shop or restaurant with outside patio seating. Under current zoning, such uses would not be permitted. , Community Development Department Planning Commission Public Hearing No. 2 July 9, 1984 page two ANALYSIS: As proposed, the zone change from C-1 to CG-PUD is a logical and appropriate change in land use classification, particularly since a Conditional Use Permit will be required for any future development. With an apartment co, lex immediately adjacent to the easterly property line of the site, and single family residenttals to the north and northwest of the center, the Use Permit process will insure maximum public review and input. In terms' of the center's development, the in, acts of the zone change will be as follows: 1. The minimum side yard setback will be increased from five feet (5') to ten feet (10'). Parking requirements for the CG district are more specific and applicable to particular uses than in the C-1 District. For example, in the C-1 zone parking for restaurants is one space for every three (3) seats in the establishment. Whereas, in the CG zone the requirement is one space for each three (3) seats, plus one space for each 300 square feet of the area used for kitchen, storage, or food preparation. Also, the developer will receive a benefit in that non-useable floor area is excluded from consideration in terms of parking requirements. For example, assembly or processing portions of buildings are parked at a 1:500 square foot ratio rather than 1:300 as in the C-1. 3. With the CG-PUD designation a Conditional Use Permit will be required for all development in the Center. 4. More flexibility in development will be available with the CG-PUD classification (additional uses, outside activities, etc.) RECOmmENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council that the zoning on the property located on the northeast corner of 17th Street and Carroll Way be changed from the Retail Commercial (C-1) District to the-Commercial General Planned Unit Development (CG-PUD) District by the adoption of Resolution No. 2168. E~s[YA?I S, rant Planner JO:do attachment: Resolution No. 2168 Location Map Community Development Department 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2168 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING REZONING OF THE PROPERTY ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SEVENTEENTH STREET AND CARROLL WAY (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 395-142-05 THROUGH 395-142-09) FROM RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-1) DISTRICT TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL-PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CG'PUD) DISTRICT The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: II. I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: That a proper application, (Zone Change 84-3) has been filed by Barry Watktns on behalf of Tusttn Properties, to change the zone for the property on the northeast corner of Seventeenth Street and Carroll Way (Assessors Parcel Numbers 395-142-05 through 395-142-09). The request is to change the zone designation from Retail Commercial {C-1) District to Commercial General-Planned Unit DevelOpment {CG-PUD) District. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. C. That a zone change should be granted for the following reasons: 1. The proposed zone designation is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the Tustin Area General Plan. The proposed zone designation will allow greater develoment flexibility while providing for maximum public review and input. D. A Negative Declaration has been filed in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Zone Change No. 84-2 to designate the Commercial General - Planned Unit Development (CG-PUD) District for the property located on the northeast corner of Seventeenth Street and Carroll Way (Assessors Parcel Numbers 395-142-05 through 395-142-09). PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the gth day of July, lg84. James B. Sharp, Chairman Donna Orr, Recording Secretary LAURIE DR.¸ LIMETREE WY CHANGE NO. 84-3 VAND£NBERI LOCATION MAP Zone Change No. 84-3 Commercial General-Planned Unit Development from the Retail Commercial District ~,,z~. ~,.... ~ ~~.~1~,"'~ -' I~t,L~II/#'ZT/I I.FI 5\' [ FIES1 / Planning Commission DATE: ,luly 9, 1984 SUBJECT: USE PERMIT 84-12 APPLICANT: GARRISON MANAGEMENT, INC. 161 FASHION LANE, ~116 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 LOCATION: 1122-1192 LAGUNA ROAD ONNER: P.P.F. (A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP) 1602 NORTH GRAND AVENUE SANTA AliA, CA. 92701 ZONING: RETAIL COII~RCIAL (C-1), APPLICATION UNDER COI~qERCIAL GENERAL - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN ANTICIPATION OF APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 84-2. ENVIRONMENTAL: REQUEST FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The site is located between the I-5 Freeway and Laguna Road, south of Newport Avenue and across the street from Tustin High School. The proposal will include the development of a 10,030 square foot automobile repair facility with a total of 22 service bays. The project is a speculative venture which will provide a business location for any number of specialty repair services. Also, the development has been planned to conform to the Commercial General District regulations. The zone change to this district is currently being reviewed by the City Council and therefore any approval for this project must be conditioned upon final enactment of the zone change. Staff has the following concerns: Visibility of the work and parking area should be limited so as not to negatively impact the area. The design does mitigate this concern by orienting all the service bay doors inward toward a central parking area. This concept should keep the visibility of the work area from the street to a minimum. e Insufficient parking for inoperative vehicles and for those awaiting service and owner pickup would be a problem to the surrounding area. The proposal calls for a little over one space per service bay which staff feels is not adequate to handle anticipated parking demands. With one employee per bay, nearly all of the open spaces could be used by employees, with little or none left for temporary storage. Community Development Department USE P£RIqIT 84-12 ,)uly 9, 1984 Page 2 A survey of nearby cities resulted in a low of one space per bay (Garden Grove) to a high of 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (Anaheim) which would result in 55 spaces for this project. If the City's retail parking standards of one space per 200 square feet of floor area were applied, the parking allocation would be 50 spaces. A service station is required to have only six spaces. This project's parking demand should fall somewhere within these figures. From a design standpoint, the layout appears to meet all the city's standards with exception of the space in the southwest corner which does not have adequate back-up area. Staff has no problems with t~e conceptual landscape plan. The architectural elevations appear to be compatible with the surrounding structures, but the parapet wall may not be high enough to adequately screen anticipated roof-top equipment. The proposal includes a master sign plan which includes the following: One (1) 120 square foot freeway identification pole sign {27' in height, double face); One (1) 32 square foot monument sign (double face) along the Laguna frontage; and Four (4) 50 square foot tenant identification wall signs to be used by all the tenants. The signs are to exhibit brown and ivory colors. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. The physical design layout of the project would visually enhance the area and the view of the work area should be minimal. 2. The parking accommodations for a major repair facility does not appear to be adequate. Sufficient parking should be provided for all employees and all vehicles in temporary storage. Staff believes two spaces per bay should be the minimum considered in addition to the bays themselves. This figure would provide for one space per bay employee and nearly one space per bay for vehicle storage. 3. The building design should include a higher parapet wall for adequate screening of mechanical equipment. 4. A shopping center identification pole sign is limited to 50 square feet but the Sign Code allows for the consideration of large freeway identification signs for automotive service (Section 9481f). The pole sign as proposed would appear to be justified but slightly too large for the area. Staff would recommend a sign area of no more than 100 square feet per face. Also, the pole sign should be visible from Laguna Road and therefore the monument sign would not be needed. Approval for the pole Mgn should be authorized in lieu of any monument sign. Community Development Department USE PEPJ4ZT 84-12 ,.luly 9, 1984 Page 3 RECOI,~IF.#DED ACT~O#: If the Planning Commission belteves that the use is acceptable at the location proposed, it ts recommended that this subject be continued-to the next Planning Commission meeting so staff can work with the developer to resolve the parking problem. However, tf the applicant feels additional parking is not possible based upon the design and building constraints, s:aff recommends denial of the application due to insufficient parking. Senior Planner A GW: do Enclosures: Development Review Summary Site Plan, Architectural Exhibits Plans Community Development Department DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY Project: -Auto Repair Center Location/District: 1122-1192 Laguna Road/CG-PUD (tentative) Action: Use Permit No. 84-12 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 Parking: Number of Spaces Ratio (space/square footage) Percent of Compact Spaces Type Uses: Number of Public Notifications (Owners): Environmental .Status * No Standard District Requirement Proposed 1.5'{arterial) 15' O' O' * 10,030 35' 22' 3 max. 1 split face block by Comm. review tile mansard 3,000 sq. ft. 34,195.7 sq. ft. 100% less required 29.3% parking & landscaping 29 plus 22 service to be determined bans to be determined 1/346(not including Days) 20% 3% * open, at grade commercial auto repair 23 Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been applied for Planning Commission DATE: SUBdECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: duly 9, 1984 PERMIT TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME NARY ANN LYNCH 14692 Cheshire Place Tusttn, CA 92680 14692 CHESHIRE PLACE PLANNED COI~UNITY RESIDENTIAL (TUSTIN MEADOWS) BACKGROUND: Ordinance No~ 911 establishing requirements and standards for the operation of Large Family Day Care Homes (caring for 7 to 12 children) went Into effect on June 21, 1984. Pursuant to the provisions of the ordinance, Mrs. Mary Ann Lynch has submitted the documents required prlor to the Commission granttng a permtt to operate a Large Famtly Day Care Home. Inspections have been made at the subject address by the Planning and Fire Departments, and the site complies with Ordinance No. 911 and has passed State Fire Marshal's inspection. DISCUSSION: Since this is the first action before the Commission under the new ordinance some discussion concerning procedure is appropriate. First, it must be clear that the State of California has mandated that permits for Large Family Day Care Homes must be granted by the City unless a formal protest is made by a property owner within 100 feet of a - proposed home. This protest must be based on one or more of the following adverse impacts: noise, traffic, parking, concentration or spacing of such homes. Staff did have contact with one concerned resident within the 100 foot radius, however, no formal protest has been filed. This is not an open public hearing; however, it is recommended that the Chairman inquire if any person in the audience wishes to submit a formal protest. All such protests should then be received as part of the public record. i Community Development Department LARGE DAY CARE HOME July 9, 1984 page 'cwo RECOIIIENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Chairman inquire if any person in the audience wishes to submit a protest, and then accept any protests submitted. If a protest is lodged, the matter should be continued to the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting. If a protest is not filed, the Commission, by Minute Order, must approve the subject application. DAVIS, rant Planner JD:do Attachment: Location Map Community Development Department LOCATION MAP PERMIT TO OPERATE A LARGE DAY CARE HOME 14692 Cheshire Place Planning Commission DATE: July 9, 1984 SUBdECT: RELIEF FRO# COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION NO. I OF VARIANCE t83-1 APPLICAIIT/OWNER: !~. dAN VAIL LOCATION: 181, 183 AND 185 EL CARINO REAL REQUEST: TO PERMIT THE PROPERTY OIINER TO LEASE A VACANT SUITE FOR Ag OFFICE USE, INSTEAO OF A RETAIL USE, AS REQUIRED BY VARIANCE 83-1 FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BACKGROUND: Staff has received a request by Jan Vail, owner of 185 E1Camino Real seeking permission to lease space at 183 E1Camino Real for office use rather than retail as required by Variance No. 83-1. At the time the project was approved, a condition was attached designating suites shown as retail commercial to be leased as such. Any uses other than retail require approval by the Planning Commission. Suite 183 was shown as retail commercial along with Suite 181. Suite 185 was designated as office. Both Suite 181 and 185 have been leased to a retail and office use respectively, while 183 remains vacant after one year. Mr. Vail has addressed a letter to staff indicating the reasons why the suite has not been leased, and requests a ruling by the Planning Commission permitting him to lease to an office use. According to Mr. Vail, he has refused three potential office uses in an attempt to lease the suite as retail. Further, he feels that the suite does not have retail potential now or in the near future. It should be noted the suite nearest the street, the most desirable for a retail business, was leased first to an interior design firm. Staff feels the street frontage unit should have been reserved for retail uses and the rear units leased to office uses. The resolution of approval (2072), Planning Agency minutes and site plan indicating Suite 183 are attached for your consideration. RECOI~qENDED ACTION: Pleasure of the Commission. EDWARD KNIGHT, Associate Planner LAEK:do ttachments: Community Development Department EL PASEO P~AZA VAI.. KLAleEI~ ~ ~vA~TB~ P~ · ~ 210 GMIIB(~d~All~N · ~ VAIL, KLAGES AI~.~ARTER PARTNERS 3198 M AIRPORT LOOP 714-641-0620 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 Hay 15, 1964 Hr. Donald La..., Planning Director City of Tustln 300 Centennial Nay Tustin, California 92680 SubJect: 181, 183 and 185 El Cemino Real Tustin, California Hr. Lamm, Please revlew minutes of the January. 17, 1983 ptanning meeting wherein we, the O~ners of the property at 181, 18) and 185 El Camlno Real, were granted a variance based on our commitment to lease Units 181 and 18) for retai, l c=mmerclal use only. Although we approached your commission In good faith, accepted the cond. ttion and have made ever~ effort to conform with the City of Tustinfs wishes, we find ourselves facing extreme linen- cieE hardship brought on by an Inability to lease space 18) as commercial. You will note by the enclosed let-ret that Lee and Associates, Realtors, extended every effort for · period of one year and could not procure a commercial lease. Durlng that same. period, we had three opportunities to lease the space for pro- fessional use but felt compelled to decllne. Ne again, as of thls date, have an opportunity to lease the space to · professional and feel the use would be moat appropriate and compatible with our existing tenants. We request admlnlstratlve' relief in this matter and ask that consideration be given to the manner in which we have attempted to enhance and ul~rade the Immediate area. It is our Intent to continue to do so through leasing to quality tenants. D CARTER PARTNERS I g. Veil ~,~ar~ner wm Enclosure Aee . ssoclates COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES April 10, 1984 MR. JAN VAIL Vail, Klages and Carter Partners 3198-M Airport Loop Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Mr. Vail: We are in receipt of your letter dated April 3, 1984 and have 'issued a sign removal request for the Lee & Associates sign. We would like to thank you for the opportunity of working with your company. Our marketing efforts included foot canvassing and cold calling in the Tustin, Santa Ana area. In addition, the Orange County brokerage community received our monthly broker mailing which describes, in detail, the terms and conditions of your property. Although we did not receive many calls from the sign, we, were able to Generate activitv and show the property nu_~s~ occasions, we ~la prov~ae conscientious ma~=c'lng =££~ =o s~ll or lease the building. Unfortunately, we were unable to generate a lease or sale proposal during our allotted listing time. We suggest you consider marketing the building at $1.00 to $1.10 FSG, based on market conditions, this rate would be more appropriate. If we can be of any assistance in the future, please give us a call. Thank you. Sincerely, LEE & ASSOCIATES MICHAEL S. MARTIN Partner CAROL WHITE MM/CW:scf 2200 West Orangewood, Suite 150 / Orange, California 92668 / 71,~/978-1000 um. c ,zx z,s 1 DATE: January 3, 1983 Inter-Corn FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Chairman & Planning Agency Members Community Development Department Variance 83-1 Applicant: Location: Zoning: General Plan: Request: Jan Vail on behalf of the Two-Ten Corporation 185 E1Camino Real C-2P, subject to Ordinance 510, the Old Town Specific Plan No. 1 Commercial To vary with the rear-yard setback requirement of Ordinance No. 510 for a combination retail commercial and office development . RECOI~ENDED A~TION Approval of Variance 83-1 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2072. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the eastern side of E1 Camino Real, between First Street and Second Street. The site currently has two structures, one of which is a shack at the rear of the property and has no discernible use. The other structure fronts E1 Camino and contains two businesses, a shutter sales shop and a TV repair shop. The site is non-conforming for required on-site parking and rear set-back for the shack in the rear of the property. DISCUSSION The proposal calls for the demolition of the two existings structures and the addition of two new structures. The structure fronting E1 Camino Real will be a move-on structure and will contain 1,080 square feet of retail commercial. The structure immediately to the rear will be new construction and contain 1,006 square feet of retail and 1,335 square feet of office. There will be enough on-site parking to accommodate 2,086 square feet of retail commercial or 61% of the total square footage. The remaining 3g% will be professional office. Chairman & Planning Agency January 3, 1983 Page 2 The enclosed perspective shows the eastern and northern sides of the building. The use of heavy timber and wood siding along with utilizing design elements that project an older style of architecture. The building will be an enhancement to this site and to the surrounding area and is compatible with the intent of Ordinance No. 510. The structure facing E1 Camino Real is one story with the other structure being one story with a 1 oft. The basis for granting a variance includes: "...that because of special circumstances applicable to the 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 classifications." It is staff's contention that a hardship does exist due to the following findings: 1. The shape of the property. The irregular shape of the property makes the design of a feasible site plan difficult. It should also be noted that only a portion of the rear property line is developed to zero feet. 2. The applicant is reducing the non-conformity of the site by demolishing a non-conforming dilapidated structure and providing adequate on-site parking. 3. The project represents a positive contribution to the ongoing revitalization of the downtown. 4. One other variance (75-1) had been filed for rear setback at 301 E1 Camino Real and this was approved by the Planning Commission in April, 1975. EMK:jh 12-28-82 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular Meeting January 17, 1983 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, January 17, 1983, at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Edgar at 3:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Saltarelli and the invocation was given by Mr. Hoesterey. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also present: Edgar, Gretnke, Kennedy, Hoesterey, Saltarelli None Michael Brotemarkle, Community Development Director William Huston, City Manager James Rourke, City Attorney Janet Hestar, Recordng Secretary MINd. S The minutes of the regular meeting held January 3, lg83, were approved as submitted. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. VARIANCE 83-1 Applicant: Location: Request: To vary with the rear-yard setback reqbirement of Ordinance No. 510 for a coe~inatton retail commercial and office development After presentation of the staff report, Chairman Edgar opened the Public Hearing at 3:03 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Chairman Edgar closed the Public Hearing at 3:03 p.m. Mrs. Kennedy inquired what assurance could be provided that the space would be used for retail. Mr. Hoesterey asked if use of a certain amount of space for retail could be a condition of approval? Mr. Brotemarkle responded affirmatively. Mrs. Kennedy moved, seconded by Mr. Hoesterey, to approve Variance 83-1 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2072. Mr. Saltarelli expressed concern over the possibility of the space not being used for retail and asked if the motion could be amended to include a condition that the portion of the building set aside for retail be used as such, unless prior approval from the Agency was received. Mrs. Kennedy and Mr. Hoesterey agreed to amend the motion. Motion carried: 5-0 AYES: EDGAR, GREINKE, HOESTEREY, KENNEDY, SALTARELLI NOES: None ABSENT: None P1 anntng Agency Minutes 3anuar~ 17, ~.983 Page 2 PUBLIC CONCERNS :. Mr. Nalter Anderson, expressed concern about the parking practices of Tusttn Garage. He said he had counted twenty-six cars parked on the street on a weekend evening. He had observed e~loyees of Tusttn Garage Pushing cars tnto the middle of the street, regardless of traffic conditions, working on the cars in the street, and running stop signs. He Celt the conditions were hazardous to the neighborhood, besides leaving, the dirt and oil on the street. After Agency discussion with the Police Chief regarding ability of the City to cite offenders, Mr. Saltarellt mOved, seconded by Kennedy, to direct staff and the City Attorney to prepare a report on the Tustin Garage. The report would be used to determine what action the City could take. MOtion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None STAFF CONCERNS: None AGENCY CONCERNS: Mr. Gretnke Stated he attended a meeting sponsored by Cal Trens to discuss the future widening of the I-5/I-55 interchange. He presented a brief timetable and cost estimate and stated he had acquired a co~y of posstble mOdifications. AO~OURNEMENT: At 3:36 I~ECORDING SECI~%RY 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 The Planning follows: RESOLUTION NO. 2072 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, GRANTING AUTHORITY TO VARY WITH THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 510 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 185 EL CAMINO REAL Agency of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as The Planning Agency finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application, (Variance No. 83-1), was filed by Jan Vail on behalf of Two-Ten Corporation requesting authorization to vary with the rear setback requirements of Ordinance No. 510, reducing the required fifteen (15) feet to zero (0) feet. B. That a public 'hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. C. 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 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 shape of ~he property restricts the feasible development of the site. 3. The existing non-conformity is being reduced by demolishing a non-conforming structure and providing adequate on-site parking. D. That 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. E. That this project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. F. 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Resolution No. gl~/--~ aanuary 17, 1983 Page 2 G. 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 i~rovement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. H. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. Planning Agency hereby grants a variance as applied for, to authorize the required fifteen (15) foot setback for Ordinance No. 510 be reduced to zero feet for 185 E1Camino Real subject to the following conditions: A. The completion of all missing or damaged street improvements, ~ich includes, but is not limited to: curbs and gutters, sidewalks, drive aprons, and street trees. Any replacement of public t~rovements shall be done in a manner so as to match existing improvements. B. Written evidence indicating that the subject property has a reciprocal easement for ingress and egress with the adjacent property to the north. C. A final grading plan shall be required for review and approval. D. Prior to building permit issuance, a landscape plan shall be required for review and approval. E. East Orange County Water District fees shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. F. Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 connection fees shall be required at the time a building permit is issued. G. A design review of the southern and western elevation shall be required. 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2§ 26 27 28 Reso]ution No. gu/2 January 17, 1983 Page 3 H. A master sign plan shall be required per Ordinance No. 684. I. All those areas designated as retail commercial on the approved site plan shall be leased as such. Any uses other than retail shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. PASSED AND ADOPTED at .a, regular mectlng of the Tustin Planning Agency held on the /~day offS,, 1983. ~ichard B. 'Edgar, C~a~an 3anet Heste~ Recordtng Secretary Report to the Planning Commission STAFF CONCERNS NO. 1 JULY 9, 1984 SUBJECT: Report an Counctl Acttofls - ~uly 2, 1984 Oral presentation to be given by Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development /ih Attachments: City Council Action Agenda - July 2, 1984 Community Development Department ACTION AGENDA OF A R~GULAR PEL~I~ OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL July 2, 1984 7:00 P.M. 7:01 I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION SALTARELLI-PLEO~/GREI#KE-I#VOCATION ALL II. ROLL CALL PRESENT NOllE III. PUBLIC INPUT CONTINUED lO 7-16 CONTINUED lO 7-16 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 84-49 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City'of Tustin, California, AOOPTING THE REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN Adoption of Resolution No. 84-49 as reconmmnded by the Com- munity Development Department. 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-3B - OPEN SPACE AMD CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN Open the Public Hearing and continue consideration of General Plan Amendment No. 84-3b to July 16, 1984, as recommended by the Con~unity Development Department. 3. GENERAL PLAM AMENOMENT N--O. 84-3C - RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN Open the Public Hearing and continue consideration of General Plan Amendment No. 84-3c to July 16, 1984, as recommended by the Community Development Department. CONTINUED lO 7-16 1ST RZADING & INTROOUCZD ORD. 914 4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-3D RESOLUTION NO. 84-52 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tusttn, California, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO RESIOENTIAL MULTIPLE-FAMILY RELATIVE TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1262 BRYAM AVENUE Adoption of Resolution No. 84-52 as recommended by the Planning Commission. 5. ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-2 - 1122-1192 LAGUNA ROAD ORDINANCE NO. 914 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON LAGUNA ROAD (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 401-064-01 AND 401-064-02) FROM THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-1) DISTRICT TO THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT {CG-PUO) DISTRICT M. O. - That Ordinance No. 914 have first reading by title only. M. O. - That Ordinance No. 914 be introduced. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 1 7-2-84 COIfTINUED PUBLIC 6. 1984-85 ,.._LIMINARY BUDGET NF.~II~ ~ 6 & 7 TO Recommended that following closure of the public hearing, the BUI~'T WORKS~P 0ll 7-9-84 City Council adopt the 1984-85 budget as submitted or amended AT ~0 PI4 Ill CIl~f ~ by the City Council. CORm-. ROOM & AU'n4ORIZED OPERATIN6 EXPEROIllJRES AT FY 1983-84 LEVEL 7. ALLOCATION OF 1984-85 REVENUE SHARING FUNDS Recommended that following closure of the public hearing, $40,000 in revenue sharing funds be allocated for co,,,nunity groups subject to recomnendations from the Revenue Sharing Review Committee and flnal review and approval of the City Counct 1. CtlERRILL WEB8 DISPLAYED ~ LOGO FOR TUSTIll TILLER DAYS & PROVIDED IJPOATE REPORT FOR 1984 EVENT V. CONSENT CALENDAR ~ROVED W/OHE COI~CTIOll APPROVED 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 18, 1984 2. RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL in the amount of $112,761.39 APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $886,742.03 APPROVED THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, ET AL. V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.; USDC NO. DIST. MASTER CONSOLIDATED CASE NO. C 81 4365 SW Authorize the County Counsel of the County of Orange to defend the City of Tustln in the subject action pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5149 as recommended by the City Attorney. -- 4. RESOLUTION NO. 84-51 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, GRANTING EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO CDMPLY WITH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CATV FRANCHISE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS Adoption of Resolution No. 84-51 as directed by the City Council. REJECTED REJECTED 5. REJECTION OF CLAIM OF GLENN ROBERT BALDWIN; 2-15-84; DATE FILED: 5-25-84; CLAIM NO.: 84-10 Rejection of subject claim as recommended Attorney. 6. REJECTION OF CLAIM OF KRISTIE FILLIPPINI: DATE OF 3-15-84; DATE FILED: 5-29-84; CLAIM NO.: 84-11 Rejection of subject claim as recommended by Attorney. DATE OF LOSS: by the City LOSS: the City ADOPTED 7. RESOLUTION NO. 84-50 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustln, California, APPOINTING LOIS E. JEFFREY AS DEPUTY CITY ATCORNEY Adoption of Resolution No. 84-50 as recon~ended by the City Attorney. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 2 7-2-84 ® APPROVED 9. COMTI~UED FOR 10. FURTllER STAFF REVIEW S'.B. 821 .,CYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PRO..T APPLICATION Approval of subject application for S.B. 821 funds to construct a sidewalk along the northerly side of McFadden Avenue from 200+ ft. easterly of Tustin Village Way to Pasadena Avenue aT directed by the City Council. 1984-85 FIRE CONTRACT Approval of the subject agreement between the City and the County of Orange for fi re suppression, prevention and paramedic services through June 30, 1985 subject to the City and County reaching an agreement on the rental rate, as recommnded by the City Manager. AGREEMENT BETWEEN BOYS CLUB OF TUSTIN AND FOSTER ART SERVICE Approval of subject agreement as suggested by the City Manager. RESOLUTION NO. 84-48 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 83-1026 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SIXTH STREET AND "B" STREET Adoption of Resolution No. 84-48 as recommended by the Community Development Department, VI. ORDIMANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - (See Public Hearing No. 5) VII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION - None VIII. OLD BUSINESS ADOPTED STAFF 1. REPORT ON LIQUOR MORATOR-f~ REPORT JUSTIFYII~ IIiED 11) EXTEND S~JECT leORATORIUM & SET PUBLIC )f. ARII~ gll 7-16.-84 TO ~ RESOLUTION EXTEI~ll~ SUI~ECT I~)EATORIUM FOE Ai)OITIOR~. FlOR )I~TI4S FEOI~ 7-1g-84 IX. NEW BUSINESS (WALK-ON ITEM) ABOFII~ R~S. 84-54 1. HISTORICAL DESIGNATION OF RALPH RESIDENCE, 1252 IRVINE BLVD. ESTABLISHII~ RALPH RESIDENa[ AS HISTORIC BUILi)II~ X. REPORTS RATIFIED 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - June 25, 1984 All actions of the Planning Commission appealed by the City Council. are final RE~EIVEI) & FLIED 2. COLUMBUS TUSTIN WELL PROJECT STATUS REPORT Oral report will be given at the meeting. APPROVED TIlwE'rABIE 3. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS IN STAFF REPORT Pleasure of the Council. REFERRED BAOC TO 4. REVIEW OF POLITICAL SIGN ORDINANCE REGULATIONS STAFF FOR FORTMER REVIEW Pleasure of the Council. OF EARS OF CONTROLLII~ SIGII VNIDN. ISM& IIICEIlTIVE TO RI~tOVE SIGNS AFTL:R ELECTION unless ~ITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 3 7-2-84 XI. OTHER BUSINESS SALT~RELLI NOTED OLYlqPIC TORCH RUN THROUGlt TUSTIM ON 7-26-84; G)UNCIL REQUESTED PR( UNATION BE PRESENTED TO EACH OF THE ~ TORCH RUNNERS SALTAREU. I (~]I~[NDED STAFF OR BUOGET PREPARATION GREINKE REPORTED 011 STATE LEAG~ TRANSPORTATIOR CO~qITTEE I~ETINGS GREINKE REQUESTED CLOSED SE~SZOR FOR OI$CUSSIOR OF LE6AL MATTERS APPROVED MOTION TO i~SIORATE GREIIIKE AS I~TING DELEGATE & EDG~ AS ALTERNATE FOR LEAGUE EDGAR REPORTED II~ORIqATIOR TO BE PROVIDED OR SANTA ARA FREEWAY NODIFICATIORS APPROVED MOTION TO RE. FIRM TUSTIN'S SPHERE OF II~LUENCE FINANCE DIRECTOR RESPONDED TO EDGAR'S qUESTIOI~ RE PARK & CIVIC CENTER BOND REDENPTION PURCHASE * HOESTEREY REQUESTED ~ DIRECTOR REVIE1J LETTER FROM RESIDENT OR ARGLIN RE []RAINAGE DITCH BEHIND THEIR HOME 8:64 XTI. ADJOURNMENT - To budget workshop on 7-9-84 at 4:00 p.m. and thence to the next regular meeting on July 16, 1984. ~ION AG~NOA OF A REGUI.,MR ~'EI'IN6 OF ~ IUSTIN REDEYELOPI~NT AGENCY Jul?--2, ~984 7:00 P.M. 8:54 1. CALL TO ORDER ALL 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT APPROVED 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of June 18, 1984 APPROVED 4. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $27,554.48 & AUTHORIZED OPERATING EXPENDITURES AT FY 1983-84 LEVEL PENOING BUI)GET ADOPTION NONE 5. 8:56 6. OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT - To the next regular meeting on July 16, lg84. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 4 7-2-84