HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 4 USE PERMIT 83-5 07-18-83DATE:
July 5, 1983
PUBLIC HEARING
No. 4
7-18-837-5-83 (no meeti ng)
Inter-Corn
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor & City Council Members
Community Development Department
Appeal of Use Permit 83-5
1162 Sycamore Avenue
OI~USSION
The City Council, at its meeting on June 6, 1983, expressed concerns
regarding Planning Co,r,~lssion approval of the subject Use Permit which
would allow construction of eight (8) residential condominium homes at 1162
Sycamore Avenue. The Council unanimously voted to appeal the Planning
Commission decision and requested the Director of Community Development to
research Council concerns.
Attached to this transmittal for Council's review are copies of previous
staff reports and current building plans. Additionally, at staff's
direction, a graphic cross-section has been included indicating the revised
building height of this project in relation to the adjoining residential
property. The project developer, Mr. Richard Nowling, has been very
cooperative with staff by responding with all information requested.
Generally, it appears this project has been extensively reviewed by the
City. After expiration of the original Use Permit 81-27, this present Use
Permit 83-5 was submitted and approved by the Planning Commission.
However, to specifically answer concerns raised by the Council, the
following responses are presented:
1. Question: Why did the original Use Permit 81-27 expire?
Response: Mr. Nowling indicates he was unaware of the specific
expiration date and unfortunately did not file the request for extension
within the time limits permitted.
2. Question: Is this project, as proposed, exceeding the R-3 zoning
denstty?
Response: No, the R-3 zone permits a density of 34.8 units per acre
which equates to one unit per 1,250 square feet of land. This parcel,
totaling 11,110 square feet in area is therefore statistically permitted
a maximum 8.8 units.
Honorable Mayor & City Council
July 5, lg83
Page 2
3. Question: Why was the floor level of the garage raised from five (5)
feet to four (4) feet below grade?
Response: It appears that subsequent to Council's previous project
approval in October, 1981, the applicant's civil engineer determined the
additional ten feet of public right-of-way would result in an increased
driveway slope angle rendering the garage entrance unusable. While the
widening of Sycamore Avenue is not planned in the immediate future,
future widening could result in reduction of the front yard setback.
Even though the garage floor has been raised, the overall building
height has been maintained at the maximum twenty-six feet previously
required by Council. (Note: Only the rear building meets the
twenty-six-foot height limit.)
After reviewing this most recent Use Permit request, it appears the
applicant has satisfied applicable zoning regulations. Both staff and the
applicant will be prepared at the meeting to answer the Council's
questions.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DDL:jh
Attachment:
Use Permit 83-5, Appeal
Packet to Planning Commission
Grading & Plot Plans
Elevations
DATE:
June 22, 1983
Inter-Corn
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development
Ed Knight, Associate Planner
Use Permit 83-5, Appeal
Applicant:
Location:
Zoning:
Request:
J.P. Kapp on behalf of Barnett-Nowling Development
1162 Sycamore
R-3
Authorization to Construct Eight Residential Condominium Units
BACKGROUNO
At the June 6th meeting of the City Council, Use Permit 83-5 was appealed
by a vote of 5 ayes to zero noes. The project had been approved by the
Planning Commission at the regularly scheduled meeting of May 23, 1983, by
a vote of 5 ayes to zero noes.
Enclosed is the staff report to the Planning Commission for the May 23,
1983 meeting.
DISCUSSIO#
In response to concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, the applicant
has made certain changes to the proposed grading plan. The original
grading plan sloped from the southerly property line towards Sycamore
Avenue and in order to facilitate drainage, a three-foot (3') retaining
wall was required along the southern property line. Along with a 6'-8"
solid wall, the overall height of the wall would be over nine (9) feet.
The owner's engineer redesigned the grading to maintain the site at the
natural grade, eliminating the need for the three-foot (3') retaining wall
and reducing the finished grade elevation by three (3) feet. The applicant
will be presenting sections drawn from the grading plan to illustrate his
concept.
The common parking garage is still four feet below natural grade. Site
constraints prevent the engineer from designing a driveway ramp that drops
lower than four feet. After accounting for the ten-foot (10') right-of-way
dedication, there is only enough driveway length to permit a four (4) foot
depth. The use permit approved on October 21, 1981 (Use Permit 81-27)
calls for a five-foot (5') depth.
The architect did redesign the rear structure to keep the overall height
from natural grade at 26'-0'. This is the same height as called for in the
resolution for Use Permit 81-27.
Use Permit 83-5, Appeal
June 23, 1983
Page 2
RECO~#DED ACTION.
Pleasure of the Council.
EMK:jh
Attachments
Staff Report to the Planning Commission, May 23, 1983
Resolution No. 2095
Area Map
Grading P1 aris
Exhibits
Development Review Summary
Letter, May 14, 1983, Paul R. Brown
Response to Letter, May 19, 1983
DATE:
May 23, 1983
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1
Inter-Corn
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Chairman & Planning Commission Members
Ed Knight, Associate Planner
Use Permit 83-5
Applicant:
Location:
Zoning:
Request:
J.P. Kapp on behalf of Barnett-Nowling Development
1162 Sycamore Avenue
R-3
Authorization to construct eight residential condominium units
BACKGROUND
In October, 1981, the applicant applied for a use permit (UP 81-27)
requesting approval for an eight-unit condominium project. The project
would have a lower level parking garage, approximately four (4) feet below
natural grade. The overall height of the structures would have been
thirty-three (33) feet.
This project was denied by the Planning Agency on October 5, 1981. The
Planning Agency concluded that the project was not adequately mitigated to
waive the 150-foot setback requirement from an R-1 zoned property.
The applicant appealed this decision to the City Council and submitted a
revised plan. the revisions included reducing the height of the structure
adjacent to the R-1 zoned properties to a maximum of twenty-six (26) feet
along with lowering the parking garage to five (5) feet below natural
grade.
The City Council considered these alterations and approved the project on
October 21, 1981. The use permit was subject to verification that the
parking garage would have a depth of five feet below natural grade, and the
maximum height of the rear structure would be twenty-six feet.
Section 9292(b) of the Zoning Ordinance states that a use permit shall be
null and void if not commenced within one (1) year after approval. Due to
economic conditions, the approved use permit did not commence and expired
after one year. This use permit represents a new submittal.
DISCUSSION
This new use permit (83-5), as presented to the Planning Concision, is in
substantial conformance with the prior (UP 81-27) submittal. It is an
eight-unit condominium project on .26 acres. Each unit is two stories,
with a lower level common parking garage.
Chairman & Commission Members
May 23, 1983
Page 2
The lower level parking garage has been changed from a depth of five (5)
feet below natural grade to four (4) feet below natural grade. This change
was due to the fact that the driveway was long enough to permit only a four
foot drop to the parking garage.
Even though the parking garage is now one foot higher than previously
submitted, the applicant's architect was able to redesign the rear
structure and maintain the twenty-six (26) foot height limit. The visual
impact to the adjacent R-1 properties would be the same as the previous use
permit.
Section 9224(g) States that the height of a structure in a P.D~ zone cannot
exceed twenty (20) feet within 150 feet of an R-l-zoned property unless the
Planning Commission grants a conditional use permit to waive this
requirement. As a part of this use permit, the Planning Commission can
waive this requirement if the applicant can show that the proposed project
will be substantially compatible with the adjacent R-l-zoned properties.
To meet
1.
e
this requirement, the applicant is proposing:
Architectural screening on any window or balcony on the rear
structure facing the R-1 properties.
Keeping the height of the rear structure to a maximum of twenty-six
(26) feet.
To further reduce the height, constructing the common parking
garage at four (4) feet below natural grade.
ALTERNATIVES
Ae
No project - This alternative would leave the site as an
unmaintained orange grove.
Be
Redesign as apartments - This would allow the owner to design a
project with 75% coverage, a ten (10) foot rear setback, a five (5)
foot sideyard setback and a fifteen (15) foot front setback, with a
maximum height of forty (40) feet, without needing a use permit.
The applicant is proposng a residential condominium project developed to
P.D. standards, with 51% open space, a required fifteen (15) foot rear yard
setback, a ten (10) foot sideyard setback, and a twenty (20) foot front
setback, a maximum height of twenty-six (26) feet for the rear structure
and 30'-6" feet for the front structure.
Chairman & Commission Members
May 23, 1983
Page 3
FINI)INGS
1. The proposed project is in substantial conformance with the requirements
of the P.D. (Planned Development) district for residential condominiums.
2. The mitigating measures proposed by the applicant should be sufficient
to ensure privacy and compatibility with adjacent properties, and that
the 150-foot setback requirement can be waived.
3. This project was previously approved by the City Council as Use Permit
81-27, with the exception of the depth of the parking garage.
4. Engineering constraints prevent the common parking garage from being
constructed at five (5) feet below natural grade, but a redesign of the
rear structure results in it not exceeding the limit set by Use Permit
81-27.
R£COI~IENDED ACTION
Staff recomends approval of Use Permit 83-S by the adoption of Resolution
No. 2095.
EMK:jh
1
3
4
5
6
7
8.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2~
25
26
27
RESOLUTION NO. 2095
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COt~4ISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF EIGHT (8) CONDOMINIUM UNITS
IN AN R-3 ZONE LOCATED AT 1162 SYCAMORE AVENUE
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California does
hereby resolve as follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
a. That a proper application (Conditional Use Permit
No. 83-5), has been filed by J.P. Kapp on behalf of
Barnett-Nowling to authorize the development of eight
'condominium units in one phase, at 1162 Sycamore Avenue
b.. That a public he~ring was duly called, noticed and
held on said application.
c. That the Planning Commission determines that the
establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use
applied for will not, under the circumstances of this
case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals,
comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, as
evidenced by the following findings:
1. The project i.s in substantial
Planned Development district.
The project is in conformance
General Plan.
conformance with the
with the Tustin Area
d. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of
the use applied for will not be injurious or detrimental
to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of
the subject property, nor to the general welfare of
the City of Tustin, and should be granted.
e. Proposed development shall be in accordance with the
development policies adopted by the City Council,
Uniform Building Codes as administered by the Building
Official, Fire Code as administered by the Orange County
Fire Marshal and street improvements as required by the
City Engineer.
f. That a Negative Declaration w~s prepared in
compliance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and is hereby approved.
3. That the proposed project is sufficiently mitigated
to waive the 150-foot setback requirement.
Resolution No. 2095
Hay 23, 1983
Page 2
6
7
$
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
2~
· 25
g. Final development plans shall require the ~evtew and
· approval of the Community Development Department.
II.
The Planning Commission hereby approves Use Per, it 83-5, to
authorize the construction of eight condominium units at 1162
Sycamore Avenue, subject to the f911owtng condttons:
o
A. The final site plan shall be standardized and ~eflect
all appeoprtate City Standard drawing numbers. The
developer shall construct all missing or damaged street
improvements to said development per the CtILV of Tusttn
"Minimum Design Standards of Public Works" and "Street
[mp~ovement Standards". This work shall consist of but
ts not 11mired to: curbs and gutters, sidewalks, drive
apron, and street pavement.
A grading plan shall be submitted for review and
approval, including detail ramp grades for the
underground parking.
C. A final landscape plan shall be submitted for review and
approval.
D. The filing of a tentative and final map shall be
requfred.
The establishment of an Owner's Association for all the
maintenance of all common areas and the submission of
CC&R's to the City Attorney for review and approval.
All utilities serving the proposed development shall be
undergrounded within the exterior boundary lines of the
property.
Payment of all required Orange County sanitation.
district fees and east Orange County Water District
fees.
He
Annexation of the subject parcel to the Tustin Lighting
District.. Proof of submittal of said annexation papers
must be furnished to the City prior to approval of final
map.
The installation of marbelite street lights and
underground conduit shall be required by the City
Engineer.
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10.
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2095
May 23, [983
Page 3
A 6'-8" block wall ts requtred along the southern
boundary adjacent to the R-[ dtstrlct and the block wal~
shall be measured f~om ftntshed grade.
That permanent a~chitectural screening shall be employed
on any w~ndow that ts in~ed~ately adjacent to an
district. Said screening shall be desfgned to sattsfy
all 112ht, air and emergency access ~equtrements of the
Uniform ButldJng Code.
That the rear structum shall not exceed twenty-six (26)
feet tn height above curb grade and that the lower level
parktng garage shall be a mtntmum of four (4) feet below
the curb grade.
PASSED AND AOOPTED at a ~egular.me~Rtfng of the Planntng
Commission, held on the ,.~ day of"~/~..,~c~ , 1983.
Oames 8. Sharp, Chaff'man
Recording Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF TUSTIN
I, JANET HESTER, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the
'Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Tusttn, C~lifornia; that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed
and adopted at a regular meeting of the T9sttn Planning
Commission, held on thea~__~ day of~~/ , lg~
Tusttn Planning Agency
IP&l
MHP
P&l
~ MHP
R3
l~,o;.^. 2700
PC R 3 1750
R3
R3
R1
PM
R3
R3 R4
1500 PD
R 3 ~--.__~ ~i MHP R3
· - 2000
1750 ~ n" _l- ~ '" r ~i'-.;
"R3 ; '~ "; '
R3 '~ L
'~:'" !'l Cl "' '"
USE PERMIT 83-5
PO 'b
; C 2P
R3 C2P
t C2P ? C2
P
!!ll!l :Iii{II
I [ il,Ill [li:l
. I|' ,,~
] l ~iIIIII
II1i Ii !
/-
mr,
t
DEVELOPI~NT PI¥IEX SU~RY
LoEation/District:
District Requirement Proposed
Building:
Front Setback
Side 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
~. mil4.
Uses:
Number of Public Notifications (Owners):
* No Standard
PAUL R. I~IrlNSER OrlNSTI~LICTIIIN, INB.
Nay 14, 1883
Tustin Pla~n~r~ Commission
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, Calif.
RE: Use Permit 83-5
Gentelmen,
Please be advised that I own the property that
is located directly behind the property to be developed
at 1162 Sycamore Ave. ( Use permit 83-5).
In the event this property is developed I do not
want the dra~ege water to be drained into or toward my
property. In the event the developers of this property
has to install a retaining wall and build up there
property to drain to Sycamore Ave. it should be required
that they install at least a six foot fence on there land
to protect my property as I have a swiming pool. Ny
complete yard is now enclosed with a six foot wall to keep
children out of our yard.
I would have liked to be at your meeting to
object to all of this project but due to prior apointments
I will not be able to attend.
If you have any questions regarding my objections
to this project please phone me at 544-8561.
May 19, 1983
Department of Community Development
Paul R. Bonser Construction
1151Mear Lane
Tustln, California 92680
Dear Mr,.'Bonser:
Thank you for your letter regarding the proposed project at 1162
Sycamore Avenue. Your concerns are genuine and I feel they can
be adequately addressed.
In all new construction, run off must drain to a public
right-of-way. In the case of 1162 Sycamore, a 3'-3" retaining
wall will be constructed at the rear property line in order to
satisfy a required 1% swale to Sycamore Avenue. There are no
plans to drain water toward the southern properties.
With regard to requiring a six-foot fence, the Zoning Code
requires a 6'-8" masonry wall between an R-3 zone and an R-1
zone. The owner will be required to construct a 6'-8" masonry
wall on top of the 3'-3" retaining wall.
If you have any additional quettions or concerns, please contact
the Community Development Department at 544-8890.
Sincerely,
Edward M. Knight
Associate Planner
EMK:.ih
300 Centennial Way * Tusti~l, California 92680 * (714) 544-8890