HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 05-07-84TUSTIN PLANNING COMNISSIC
ACTION .AGENDA FOR REGULAR MEETING
April 23, 1984 7:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION
ROLL CALL
REPORTS
NO. !
5-7-84
7:30 P.M., CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AINSLIE, PUCKETT, WEIL, WHITE, SHARP
Ainslie absent
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approved as submitted
PUBLIC CONCERNS
For Meeting Held April 9, 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
None
CONSENT CALENOAR
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. Resolution No. 2140 - Amendment No. 84-1 to the Zoning Ordinance - Large
Family Day Care Homes
Adopted, 4-0, Ainslie absent
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. USE PERMIT 84-8
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Daugherty & Hart Architecture on behalf of James S. Beauchamp
13181-13195 Gwyneth Drive
Authorization to add three (3) two-story buildings (a total of
eighteen (18) units) to the existing complex
At the request of the applicant, continued to next regular meeting on Nay 14,
1984.
Planning Commission Action Agenda
April 23, 1984
Page 2
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
A. Old Business
1. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop 'Topic Discussion
By unanimous informl consent, the Commission determined to delay workshop
until selection of new Commission in July, 1984.
B. New Business
1. Final Tract Map No. 12138
2681, 2685 and 2691 Dow Avenue - Stuard & Hamala
4-0, Ainslie absent, adopted Resolution No. 2152, recommending approval of
Final Tract Map No. 12138 to the City Council.
STAFF CONCERNS
1. Report on Council Actions - April 16, 1984
Received and filed
2. Under,rounding of Utilities
Alan Warren presented staff's report regarding a waiver of the condition
requiring undergrounding of utilities for all new or upgraded services. The
request came from a new tenant at the Tustin Heights Shopping Center. All
other tenants, with the exception of the recently remodeled Ralph's
supermarket, are served by overhead electrical lines. The tenant had stated
that the cost and delay involved in undergrounding utilities for the one store
would present a hardship. Mr. Warren explained that the Commission had the
authority to waive the requirement. Staff's recommendation was to waive the
requirement and direct staff to work with the center owner to develop a
comprehensive plan for undergrounding all utilities.
After Commission discussion, it was moved by Puckett, seconded by Well, to
approve by Minute Order, waiver of the requirement of the undergrounding of
utilities for the tenant to be located at 1106 Irvine Boulevard, and direct
staff to work with the center owner to develop a plan for undergrounding of
all utilities. Motion carried, 4-0, Ainslie absent.
COI~IISSION CONCERNS
ADJOURNMENT: At 8:13 p.m. to next regular meeting on May 14, 1984
TUSTIN PLAN#IHG COHMISSION
AGENDA FOR REGULAR MEETING
April 23, 1984 7:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
7:30 P.M., CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION
ROLL CALL
AINSLIE, PUCKETT, WEIL, WHITE, SHARP
APPROVAL OF HINLrrEs
PUBLIC CONCERNS
For Meeting Held April 9, 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. Resolution No. 2i40 - Amendment No. 84-1 to the Zoning Ordinance - Large
Family Day Care Homes
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
USE PERMIT 84-8
Daugherty & Hart Architecture on behalf of James S. Beauchamp
13181-13195 Gwyneth Drive
Authorization to add three (3) two-story buildings {a total of
eighteen (18) units) to the existing complex
Presentation:
Recommendation:
Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development
Continue to next regular meeting on May 14, 1984.
Planning Commissio,, Agenda
April 23, 1984
Page 2
ADMINISllATIVE HAI'~ERS
A. Old Business
1. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop Topic Discussion.
Oral Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development
B. New Business
1. Final Tract Map No. 12138
2681, 2685 and 2691 Dow Avenue - Stuard & Hamala
Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
STAFF CONCERNS
1. Report on Council Actions - April 16, 1984
Oral Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development
COHNISSIOM CONCERNS
ADJOURNHE#?: To next regular meeting on May 14, 1984
HINU'I'ES OF A P, EGU~ I,[L"rING
OF Tile PLANNING COIlIISSION
OF 'iii[ CII'Y OF IIJSTIN, CALIFORNIA
April 9, 1984
The meeting Was called to order by Chairman Sharp at '7.'130 p.m. i6 the
Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California.. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Co,,.,lssioner White and the Invocation was given by
Commissioner Puckett.
ROLL CALL
Commi ssi oners
Present:
Commissioners
Absent:
Also present:
James B. Sharp, Chairman
Ronald White, Chairman Pro Tem
Mark Atnslie
Charles Puckett
Kathy Weil
None
Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development
Alan Warren, Senior Planner
Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner
Suzanne Atkins, Deputy City Attorney
Janet Nester, Recording Secretary
MI#UTES
Minutes for the meeting of March 26, 1984 were approved as submitted.
PUBLIC CONCERNS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. AMENDMENT NO. 84-1 TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Applicant: Initiated by the Tustin Planning Commission
Request: Allow large family day care homes for up to twelve (12)
children subject to a special permit in the single-family
residential districts
Donald Lamm presented staff's report, reviewing Co,,~ission concerns
expressed at the last regular meeting and staff's response in the form of a
revised draft ordinance. Mr. Lamm explained that State law excludes the
home owners children, over the age of twelve (12) when considering a day
care home application.
Commissioner Well asked how many large family day care homes were currently
licensed in the City. Jeff Davis responded that six (6) homes currently
held licenses, four of which are in Tustin Meadows.
Commissioner White asked if homes caring for one to six children required
licensing. Mr. Lamm responded State law overruled local jurisdiction and
therefore the City did not have any licensing authority. Commissioner
White asked what State law required for homes caring for seven to twelve
children. Mr. Lamm stated that the City was required to issue a permit but
could impose minimal regulations. Commissioner White asked what
requirements homes caring for mere than twelve children had to meet. Mr.
Lamm replied that homes of that size would be considered nursery schools
and subject to zoning restrictions.
Chairman Sharp asked if the hours of operation were limited. Mr. Lamm
stated the only restriction was that children were not allowed to stay at
the home overnight.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 9, 1984
Page 2
Chairman Sharp opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. The following
persons spoke on the matter:
Mrs. Jean Sudbeck, stated she had been a large family day care
home operator for 13 years. She expressed opposition to the
conditions regarding parking, and use of the garage, feeling they
were too restrictive.
Mr. Greg Lynch, also expressed opposition to the conditions
regarding parking and use of the garage. He stated Condition (d.)
should be changed to consider spacing of the homes in addition to
noise, traffic, parking and concentration.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Sharp closed the public
hearing at 8:0? p.m.
Moved by Ainslie, adoption of Resolution No. 2140, with the following
amendments:
Condition (b.) be amended to read:
a large day care home...."
"A permit shall not be granted for
"The rear yard of the home, and any
Condition (h.) be amended to read:
pool area, must be enclosed .... "
Seconded by Well for purposes of discussion. Commissioner Well requested
the motion be'l"lamended by amending Condition (f.) to allow on street
parking by any employed' assistants. The maker of the motion agreed to the
amendment.
Commissioner Weil asked that the restriction against use of the garage be
removed. Mr. Ainslie objected stating that possible safety and fire
hazards could be encouraged if children were allowed to occupy a 'structure
meant for storage. Chairman Sharp suggested that perhaps conditions could
be added requiring conformance to the Uniform Building Code which would
require alterations to a garage to make it safe for occupancy.
After discussion with staff, the Commission agreed to delete the conditions
regarding parking, with the understanding they would be too diffcult to
enforce and staff could respond effectively on a complaint basis. The
Commission also'agreed to delete the condition regarding use of the garage
with the understanding the homes would have to comply with applicable
State, Fire and Building codes, releasing the City's burden to enforce the
regulations. The maker of the motion and the second .agreed to the
amendments.
Commissioner White expressed concern regarding the absence of a physical
permit. After discussion with the Deputy City Attorney, the maker of the
motion and the second agreed to an amendment creating a new Condition {a.)
(with subsequent relettering of following conditions), making provision for
the issuance of a physical permit. Wording of the condition was left to
the discretion of the Deputy City Attorney, to be reviewed by the
Commission at the next regular meeting.
Commissioner White requested clarification of Commissioner Ainslie's
amendment of Condition {h.) regarding fencing around the pool area. After
Commission discussion and input from Mrs. Jean Sudbeck, Mr. Ainslie stated
it was his intention to require that the pool area be .separated from the
children's play area by a fence.
After Commission and staff discussion, the maker of the motion and the
second agreed to amend Condition (i.) concerning number of children
allowed. It was determined that any of the operator's children, over the
age of 12, would not be counted as any of the 12 children cared for.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 9, 1984
Page 3
Chairman Sharp expressed concern regarding the. City not issuing permits to
existing homes. Mr. Lamm explained that two homes presently in operation
were within 300' feet of one another and to make all existing homes comply
with the proposed regulations would mean shutting one of them down. The
maker of the motion and the second agreed to an amendment which would
require that existing homes comply with only the health and safety
conditions. Motion carried, 5-0.
PUBLIC HEJ~RINGS:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
USE PERMIT 84-8
Daugherty & Hart Architecture on behalf of James S. Beauchamp
13181-1319S Gwyneth Drive
Authorization to add three (3) two-story buildings {a total of
eighteen (18) units) to the existing complex
Donald Lamm presented staff's report stating that several phone calls and
letters had been received expressing opposition to the project. In order
for staff to review design changes, staff was recommending continuance of
the hearing to the next regular meeting on April 23, 1984.
Chairman Sharp opened the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. The following person
spoke in opposition to the matter:
Mr. Robert Michado stated he felt the project was too dense and
did not allow sufficient parking.
Moved by Well, seconded by White, to continue the h~aring to the next
regular meeting on April 23, 1984. Motion carried, 5-0.
ADMINISTRATIVE MAT[ERS
A. Old Business
~one.
B. New Business
1. Consideration of Initiating an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Limiting Specific Uses Within Proximity to Public Schools
Donald Lamm presented staff's report. Chairman Sharp asked if any
protection for private schools existed. Mr. Lamm stated the only
protection provided was by the use permit process. Commissioner White
suggested staff seek opinions from the Police Department and school
district personnel.
By unanimous informal consent, the Commission directed that staff re-affirm
Council's interest in initiating such an amendment and report back to the
Commission.
STAFF CONCERNS
1. Departmental Status Report
Report received and filed.
2. Report on Council Actions - April 2, 1984
Report received and filed.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 9, 1984
Page 4
3. Joint City Council/Plannin~ Commission Workshop
Commissioner White requested the Commission meet prior :o the workshop and
establish Commission opinion before meeting with Council.
Report received and filed.
4. Status of General Plan Revisions
Report received and filed.
COMIiISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Atnslte requested
information regarding traffic
staff provide the Commission With
circulation within the City. After
discussion, the Commission directed staff to prepare a presentation
regarding major circulation projects within the City to be given prior to a
Commi ssi on meeting.
Commissioner Well expressed concern regarding a law. suit against Laguna
Beach resulting from land slides in that area. She asked Deputy City
Attorney, Suzanne Atkins, to prepare a report on the subject.
ADJOURNMENT: At-9:23 to the next regular meeting on April 23, 1984.
James B. Sharp, Chairman
Janet Hester
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
CONSENT CALENDAR
RESOLUTION NO. 2140
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF
SECTION 9221a, 9222a, 9223a, 9224b, 9228a AND 9244d
OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE BY REQUIRING A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES IN THE. SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND SECTION 9297 OF THE CITY
CODE TO INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF LARGE FAMILY DAY
CARE HOMES
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That there is a growing need for properly licensed
care facilities withi~ the Community.
B. That as an alternative by which to provide such day
care facilities, the State of California has authorized
local jurisdictions to permit day care facilities for a
~aximum of twelve (12) children in Single-Family
Residential zones. Such homes shall be approved upon
findings that such facilities comply with all local
ordinances presribtng reasonable standards, restrictions
and requirements concerning spacing and concentration,
traffic control, parking and noise control relating to
such facilities.
C. That to ensure that the integrity of the Single-
Family Residential zone is maintained, and to determine
if each application for a large family day care home
(defined as a home for seven to twelve children) is in
compliance with all applicable standards for spacing and
concentration, traffic control, parking and noise
control, Section 9223a of the. Tustin City Code shall be
amended to include as a permitted use subject to a
permit issued by the Community Development Department:
Large Family Day Care Homes for up to a maximum of
twelve (12) children.
D. A Negative Declaration has been filed in conformance
with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City
Council of the City of Tustin, that Sections 9221a,
9222a, 9223a, 2224b, 9228a and 9244d of the Tustin City
Code be amended to include the following:
Resolution
Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
27
28
Section 9221a
6. Large Family Day Care Homes, caring for seven to
~welve children subject to the standards contained in
the R-1 District regulations (Section 9223a.6.)
Section 9222a
4. Large Family- Day Care Homes, caring for seven ~o
~elve children subject to the standards contained in
the R-1 District Regulations (Section 9223a.6.).
Section 9223a
6. Large Family Day Care Homes, caring for seven tm
~welve children subject to the following regulations:-
a. Prior ~o 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 [00 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 be 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
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 Planning 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 and any pool area must
be enclosed by a minimum six-foot ($') high
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
19.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
9.9.
9.6
9~7
28
Resolution tto. ~¢0
Page 3
fence. Additionally, swimming pools must be
separated from all play areas by a'five-foot (5')
high fence.
Hothing contained in the provisions of this
amendment shall preclude the revocation for cause
of any permit granted for a large famtly day care
home following proceedings conducted by the
Planning Commission to determine if said use is
operated tn a manner detrimental to the health,
safety or welfare of the community or surrounding
property.
Section 9224b
[2. Large Family Day Care Homes, caring for seven to
twelve children subject to the standards contained in
the R-1Dtst~tct regulations (Section 9223a.6.),
Section 9228a
6. 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.).
III.
Section 9244d
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 9223a.6.).
The Planning .Commission further recommends to the City
Council that Section 9297 be amended to include the
following:
Section 9297 Definitions
"Large Family 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 (12) children ages 18 years or
younger, including the licensee's own children under the
age of 12.
Commission held on the
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
day of , 1984.
Janet Hester
Recording Secretary
James B. Sharp, Chairman
Report to the
Planning Commission
CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING NO. i
APRIL 23, 1984
SUBJECT: Use Permit 84-8
APPLICANT:
Daugherty and Hart Architecture
1180 N. Coast Highway
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
OWNER:
James S. Beauchamp
LOCATION: 13181-13195 Gwyneth Drive
ZONING: Planned Development (PD)
ENVIRONI,~ENTAL STATUS:
A Negative Declaration has been filed in compliance
with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act
REQUEST:
Authorization to construct three (3) two-story apartment
buildings, adding a total of eighteen (18) units to the
existing apartment complex of 30 units
Discussion
The applicant and owner are still working on alternative designs in response to
concerns voiced by neighboring residents. Additional site constraints have also
surfaced with may dictate additional design conditions. Planning staff has met
with the applicant and neighboring residents to discuss possible alternatives to
mitigate design concerns. As a result, the solution has not been finalized as
of the writing of this report. The applicant has requested a continuance.
Recommendation
The public hearing be continued to the next regular meeting on May 14, 1984.
i JAlan G. Warren
Senior Planner
AGW:jh
Community Development Department
Report to the
Planning Commission
OLD BUSINESS NO. 1
APRIL 23, 1984
SUBJECT: Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop Topic Discussion
Oral presentation to be given by Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community
Development
/ih
· Community Development Depart ment -~
Planning Commission
April 23, 1984
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
Final Tract Map No. 12138
Stuard & Hamala on behalf of Shearson/American Express Corp.
2681-2685,2691 Dow Avenue (Tustin/Irvine Industrial Complex)
Planned Community Industrial
Background & Discussion
The subject Final Tract is a re-subdivision of Tract 10887 which was created as
a one-lot subdivision for industrial condominium purposes. The developer is now
proposing to split the one lot of 7.34 acres into two lots. Lot 1 is for the
existing industrial condominium and covers 3.85 acres. Lot 2 will'be a single
lot for a large industrial user and covers 3.49 acres. The map is in
conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan and the Planned Community District
Regulations for the Tustin/Irvine Industrial District.
On February 27, 1984, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Tentative
Tract 12138 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2146. On March 19, 1984, the City
Council approved Tentative Tract Map No. 12138 by the adoption of Resolution
No. 84-28.
The final map is in substantial compl, iance with the tentative map.
Recommendation
Recommend approval of Final Tract Map No. 12138 to the City Council by the
adoption of Resolution No. 2152.
~4~ry Ann,//ChamDer/a n'
Associ at~e Planner
MAC:ih
Attachments:
Map
Resolution No. 2152
Community Development Department
f.rtz ~z m.,.., kn? 1 FOR CONDOI"I[#IUM PURPOSES
~'~'-~---- TR4CT NO. 1 21:38.
· r.~4i~ms- ' !11 THE CITY OIr TUll'Ill. Muil'r~ Bt' allAll~.
m ~ ~ ~ m~ ~m ~ m m ~m m ~i~ lm ~m~
~~m~
I
__. ~, ~ I1,~1 :~,
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. 2152
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
FINAL TRACT NO. 12138
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That Final Tract No. 12138 was submitted pursuant
to Ordinance No. 84? (as amended) by Stuard and Hamala
on behalf of Shearson/American Express Development
Company for the purpose of creating a two-lot
subdivision from Tract 10887.
'B. That said map is in conformance with .the Tustin Area
General Plan.
C. That an Environmental Impact Report was previously
certified for the Tustin/Irvine Industrial Complex to
comply with the regulations of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
D. That the final map is in substantial compliance with
the tentative map.
II.
The Planning' Commission hereby recommends to the City
Council approval of Final Tract No. 12138 subject to the
conditions of Resoution No. 2146 and final approval of
the City Engineer.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission held on the day of , 1984
james B. Sharp, Chairman
Janet Hester
Recording Secretary
Report to the ~
Planning Commission
STAFF CONCERNS NO. I
APRIL 23, 1984
SUBOECT: Report on Council Actions - April 16, 1984
Oral presentation to be given by Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community
Development
/ih
Community Development Department