HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 06-06-83REPORTS
NO. 1
6-6-83
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION AGENDA FOR REGULAR MEETING
May 23, 1983 7:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER 7:32p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION
ROLL CALL All Present
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MEETING HELD May 9, 1983
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. USE PERMIT 83-5
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
FINI)II~S
Barnett-Nowllng
1162 Sycamore Avenue
Authorization to develop an eight (8) unit
condominium project.
The proposed project is in substantial conformance with the
requirements of the P.O. (Planned Development) district for
residential condominiums.
The mitigating :measures proposed by the applicant should be
sufficient to ensure'privacy and compatibility with adjacent
properties, and that the 1SO-foot setback requirement can be
waived.
e
'This project was previously approved by the City Council as Use
Permtt 81-27, with the exception of the depth of the parking
garage.
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.
The required $'-8" block wall, separating the project from the
adjacent R-1 properties to the rear, shall be constructed on top
of the 3' retaining wall.
ACTION:
ApprovalofUse Permit83-5 by the adoption of Resolution
No. 20gS, amended as noted above.
VOTE: 5-0 AYES: SHARP, AINSLIE, PUCKETT, WEIL, WHITE
NOES: None
Planning Commiss10n Action Agenda
May 23, 1983
Page 2
2. USE PERMIT 83-6
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
George Horvath on behalf of Mervyn's
18182 Irvine Boulevard (The Courtyard)
Authorization to construct a 2,375 square foot
stock room addition to the existing Mervyn's
department store.
FINDINGS
The parking requirements for the proposed addition can be
accommdated by restrlptng three sections of the parking lot to
compact spaces.
2. The proposed location of the addition will not change the design
of the center,and will still leave adequate loadlng area.
ACTION: Approval of Use Permit 83-6 by the adoption of Resolution
No. 2093.
VOTE: 5-0 AYES: SHARP, AI#SLI[, PUCKETT, WEIL, WHITE
NOES: None
3. USE PERMIT 83-7
Applicant:
Location:-
Request:
Trussco, Inc. on behalf'of Inland Lumber Company
1422 East Edinger Avenue {northwesterly corner of
Redhill and Edinger)
Authorization to operate a building materials
storage yard.
ACTION: Continue the Public Hearing to the next regular ~cting.
VOTE: 5-0 AYES: SHARP, AINSLIE, PUCKETT, WEIL, WHITE
NOES: None
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Office Developments in Commercial Districts
ACTION: Authorize staff to advertise a public hearing to ~end the
Zoning Ordinance.
VOTE: 5-0 AYES: SHARP, AINSLIE, PUCKETT, WEIL, WHITE
NOES: None
Planning Commission Action Agenda
May 23, 1983
Page 3
2. Conflict of Interest Code
ACTION: Adoption Of Resolution No. 2090 adopting the Conflict of
Interest Code as drafted by the City Attorney.
VOTE: 5-0 AYES: SHARP, AINSLIE, PUCKEll', WEIL, WHITE
ti(ES: IIone
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Final Tract MaP 11582
Applicant: Smitley & Associates on behalf of Investors Development
Location: 1082, 1092, 1102, 1112 San Juan
Commissioner Ainslie abstained from participation in discussion and
the vote to avoid a confiict of interest as the property owner.
ACTION: Reco~m~end to the City Council approval of Ftnal Tract)lap
#o. 115BZ by the adoption of Resolution no. 2092.
VOTE:
4-0 AVES: SHARP, PUCKETT, WEIL, WHITE
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: AIIISLIE
2. Second Residential Units in Single-Family & Multi-Family
Districts (SB1548)
ACTION:
Direct staff to advertise a imblic hearing to amend the
Zoning Ordinance to authorize second residential units
in the E-4 and R-30tstrtcts subject to criteria and use
permit.
VOTE:
5-0 AYES: SHARP, AINSLIE, PUCKETT, ~IL, WIIITE
NOES: None
STAFF CONCERNS:
1. Report on Council Actions May 16, 1983
Report received and filed.
2. Preemption of City Control of Signs - SB 142
Dr. Fleagle explained that the bill would prohibit cities and
counties from requiring removal of non-conforming on-premise signs
unless the city pays cash compensation. Ne also noted that the
bill's sponsor (Senator Ellis) had agreed to an amendment which
would permit cities to amortize non-conforming signs over a period
of years. In spite of the amendment, Or. Fleagle felt the
Co,,,isston should join the League of California Cities in expressing
the desire to retain, control of stgnage at the local level.
Planning Commission Action Agenda
May 23, 1983
Page 4
A motion was made and carried unanimously to direct staff to prepare
several drafts of a letter expressing concern regarding the bill for
C~tsston review and signature.
3. Pump Island Redesign - NW Corner Redhill and Mitchell Avenues
FINDINGS:
1. In November, 1979, Use Permit No. 79-82 authorized the conversion
of a full-service gasoline station to a self-serve gasoline
mini-market.
2. Since the original site plan was viewed during the last use
permit approval, it is appropriate this modification be reviewed
for compllancewtth development standards by the Comtsston.
3. Since no modification of use or operations is proposed, it is
appropriate for this action to be reviewed as a minor
modification.
4. The modification would net negatively affect the on-site
circulation net existing design features.
ACTION:
Approval,-by Rinute Order, of the pump island enlargement
to 30' in length and the incorporation of 1~o additional
pumps per island.
VOTE: 5-0 AYES: SHARP, AINSLIE, PUCKETT, WEIL, WHITE
NOES: None
COMMISSION CONCERNS:
The Commission discussed the possibility of reviewing landscape
plans when a project comes for publtc heartng.
The Comtsston ~elco~l Don Lam as Community Development Director
and thanked Dr. Ken Fleagle for the services he provtded as Acttng
Director.
Chairman Sharp stated that consultants had been chosen for the
Peters Canyon Spectftc Plan.
ADJOURNMENT: At 9:02
DATE:
TO:
FROH:
SUBJECT:
Nay 23, [983
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1
Inter-Corn
Honorable Chairman & Planning Commission Members
Ed Knight, Associate Planner
Use Permit 83-5
Applicant:
Location:
Zoning:
Request:
J.P. Kapp on behalf of Barnett-Howling Development
1162 Sycamore Avenue
R-3
Authorization to construct eight residential condominium units
BACXGlU)UND
In October, 1981, the applicant applied for a use permit (UP 81-27)
requesting approvallfor 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 a~plicant 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
pa~ing 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 {I) 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.
D ISCUSSIO#
This new use permit (83-5), as presented to the Planning Commision, 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 nature1 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 g~rage 'is now one foot higher than previously
submitted, the applicant's architect was able to redesign the rear
structure and maintain the twentyTstx (Z6} foot helght llmtt. The visual
impact to the adjacent R-t properties would be the same as the previous use
permit.
Section g224(g) states that the height of a structure in a P.D. zone cannot
exceed twenty (20) feet within lSD feet of an R-t-zoned property unless the
Plannlng 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-t-zoned properties.
TO meet this requirement, the applicant is proposing:
Architectural screening on any window or balcony on the rear
structure facing the R-l.properties.
Keeping the, height of the rear structure to a maximum of twenty-six
(26) feet.
3. To further reduce the height, constructing the common parking
garage at four (4) feet below natural grade.
ALTERNATIVES
A. No project - This alternative would leave the site as an
unmaintatned orange grove.
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 fi fte&n (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.
Chat~an & Commission Members
May ~3, 1983
Page 3
1. The proposed project is in substantial conformance, with the requirements
of the P.D. (Planned Development) district for residential condominiums.
.The mitigating measures proposed by the appl~cant..should be sufficient
to ensure privacy and compatibility with adjacent properties, and that
the [50-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 par~ing garage.
Engineering constraints prevent the common parking garage from being ..
constructed at five ($) feet below natural grade, but a redesign of the
rear structure results in it not exceeding the limit set by Use Permit
81-27.
RECOI~:NDE]) ACT1011
Staff recommends approval O~ Use Permit 83-5 by the adoption of Resol.utton
No. 2095.
EMK:jh
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
23
24
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2095
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF £IGHT (8) CONDOMINIUM UNITS
IN AN R-3 ZONE LOCATEI)'AT 1162 SYCAMORE AVENUE
~e Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn, California does
hereby resolve as follows:
I. The Plannlng Commission finds and determines as follows:
a. That a proper application (Conditional Use Permtt
No. !83-5), has been ftled by J.P. Kapp on behalf of
Barnett-Nowllng to authorize the development of etght
condominium units in one phase, at ll&2 Sycamore Avenue
b. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and
held on said a~pllcatton.
c. That the Planntng Commission determines that the
estebllshment, maintenance, and operation of the use
applled 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 is in substantial conformance with the
P1 anned Oevelol~ent dt strict.
Z. The project is .in conformance 'with the Tustfn Area
General Plan.
3;'That the proposed project is sufficiently mitigated
to waive the 150-foot setback requirement.
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. In accordance with Section 1B103 of the California
Environmental .Quality Act, the project is categorically
exempt from the provisions of the Environmental Quality
Act of 1970.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.9
10
11
15
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
26
27
28
Resolution No. zog5
Hay 23, 1983
Page 2
II.
g. Final development plans shall require the review and
approval of the Communtty Oevelopment Department.
The Planning Commission hereby approves Use Permit 83-5, to
authorize the construction of eight condominium units at 1162
SycumoreAvenue, subject to the following conditons:
The final site plan shall be standardized and reflect
all appropriate City Stsnda~d drawing numbers, l~e
developer shall construct all ~ssing or damaged street
i~rovements to said development per the City of Tustin
"Minimum Design Standards of Public Works" and "Street
I~rovement Standards". This wor~ shall consist of but
is net limited to: curbs and gutters, sidewalks, drive
apron, and street pavement.
A grading'plan shall be submt'tted for review and
approval, including detail ramp grades for the
underground parking.
C. A final landscape plan shall be submitted for review and
approval.
O. The filing of a tentative and final map shall be
requ i red.
E. 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
p~pe~cy.
payment of all required Orange County Sanitation
district fees and east Orange County Water District
fees.
He '
Annexation of the subject parcel to the Tusttn Lighting
District. Proof of submittal of said annexation papers
must be furofshed to the City prior to approval of final
map ·
The installation *of marbelite street lights and
underground conduit shall be required by the City
Enigineer.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
27
28
Resolution No. Z095
May g3, 1983
Page 3
A 6'-8' block wall ts eequtred along the southern
boundary a~acent .to the R-Z dts:r~ct.
That pennanent architectural screening shall be employed
on any w~ndow
district. Satd screening shall be deslgned to satJsfy
all ~Ight, ate and emergency access requirements of the
Untfor~ 8ut]dfng Code.
That the ~ear structure shall not exceed t~ent¥-stx (26)
feet~ In hetght above grade and that the lower level
park;lng garage shall be a mtn~mum of four (4) feet below
the curb grade.
PASSEO. AH ADOPTED at a ~egular meettng of the Planntng
Co~a~ss~on, held on the day of , ~.g83.
James ~. Sharp, Chatrman
Janet Hester
Recording Secretary"
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
May 23, 1983
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2
Intee-Com
Honorable Chairman & Planning Commission Members
Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
Use Permit 83-6
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
George Horvath on behalf of Mervyn's
18182 Irvine Boulevard
Authorization to construct a two-story, 2,375 square foot stock
room addition to the existing Mervyn's department store.
BACI~GROUND & DISCUSS/ON
In July, 1976, the COurtyard Center was approved by Use Permit 76-14. In
the approval, it was determined that 700 parking spaces were required and
725 spaces were subsequently provided ('none were compact). The applicant
is now requesting a Stock room addition of 2,375 square feet to the
existing Mer-vyn's department store. This addition will be of the same
material and design as the exist-lng buildiog.
The proposed location of the stock area is at the rear (westerly side) of
Mervyn's and will replace one of the existing loading areas. In order to
meet the parking requirements, Mervyn's has agreed to restripe three
sections of the parking lot to compact spaces, which will provide an
additional nine spaces and thus fulfill their parking requirement for the
center (one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area).
CONCLUSIONS
1. The parking requirements for the proposed addition can be accommodated
by restriping three sections of the parking lot to compact spaces.
2. The proposed location of the addition will not change the design of the
center and will still leave adequate loading area.
RECO~NDED ACTION
Approve Use Permit 83-6 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2093.
MAC:ih
RESOLUTION NO. 2093
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
The P1 anntng
fol 1 ows:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CIl~f OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT ON THE APPLICATION OF GEORGE HORVATH
(MERVYN'S) TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY STOCK ROOM
ADDITION
Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
I. The Planning Con~nission finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application (Use Permit No. 83-6), has
been filed by George Horvath, on behalf of Mervyn's
to authorize the construction of a two-story, 2,375
square foot stock room addition at 18182 Irvine
Boulevard.
B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and
held on said application.
C. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of
the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of
this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals,
comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of such proposed use,
evidenced by the following findings:
1. -That the parking requirements for the addition can
be accommodated by restriping the parking lot to compac.t
spaces.
2. The addition of the storage area will not change the
design of the center or alter the exterior of the
existing store.
D. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation
of the use applied for will not be injurious or detri-
mental to the property and improvements in the neighbor-
hood 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 improvement requirements as
administered by the City Engineer.
V. his project is categorically exempt'from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act, Class 1: Existing Facilities.
G. Final development plans shall require the review and
approval of the Community Development Department.
28
Resolution No. 2093
May 23, 1983
Page 2
2
3
4
5
II.
The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use
Permit No. 83-6 to authorize the development of a
two-story, 2,375 square foot stock room addition subject
to the following conditions:
A. The proposed addition will be the same material and
design as the existing building.
7
8
9
10
B.: The additional parking requirements will be
accommodated by the restriping of three sections of the
parking lot to compact spaces as detailed on the site
plan.
C. All ~ooftop equipment must be screened from view.
O. The building plans shall contain a revised parking
tabulation for the entire Courtyard Shopping Center.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting .of the Tustln Planning
Commission, held on the day of , 1983.
14
James B. Sharp, Chairman .'
15
16
17
Janet Hester
Recording Secr!etary
18
19
2O
21
22
23
25
26
28
DATE:
FROH:
SUBJECT:
May 23, 1983
PUBLIC HEARING HO. 3
Inter-Corn
Honorable Chairman & Planning Commission Members
Alan Warren, Senior Planner
Use Permit 83-7
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Trussco, Inc. on behalf of Inland Lumber Company.
1422 Edinger (northwest corner of Redhtll & Edinger-M District)
Authorization to develop and operate a building materials
storage Yard
BAQCBROUND a O*[SCUSSION
An application has been submitted by Trussco, Inc. to operate a building
materials storage yard at the above addmess. Trussco, Inc., which supplies
prefabricated architectural trusses to the building industry, currently
occupies a site a few hundred feet westerly of this site on the south side
of Edinger Street.
For many years the sjite was used by Mullen Lumber Company (current owner)
and then by Inland Lumber (current lessee). The property has not been used
· as a lumber yard for, over a year. As a result, the continuation of
right-of-use for a building materials yard has lapsed (City Code Section
9273(a)). The use permit application has therefore been submitted pursuant
to City Code Section g2¢2(b).
Mr. Tom Thompson, representative of the applicant, has stated that Truscco,
Inc. is interested in occupying the site for a two-year period only and
therefore the c~any is looking at the project as a temPorary use of the
property. The Zoning Code allows the Planning Con~nisston to consider
temporary.uses up tO a six-month period, therefore this request would not
comply with that section.
The following concerns were noted during staff review of the proposal.
PLAHHING
Development standards call for the paving of parking areas and previous
City actions have included the requirement to pave storage yards.
Recognizing thatithe use may only last two years, staff and the
applicant agreed that only a partial paving of the area may be
necessary. The paved area around the existing structure will provide
adequate vehicle maneuvering, loading and parking areas for the trucks,
and employee vehicle traffic. This area will mitigate the Engineering
department's concerns over gravel being carried out into the street by
vehicles.
Chairman & Commission Hembers
May 23, [983
Page 2
If new electrical ~service is to be provided, all wiring must be
underground as required in Section 8402 of the City's ~ectrical code.
The Planning Commission does have the authority to waive, modify or
delay such installation upon request by the site owner.
3. Other site improvements should include:
a. Aesthetic improvements of the two existing structures by repair and
re-painting;i ·
b. Repair and refinishing of the perimeter fencing;
c. Trimming and refurbishing of existing plantings in and around the
site, as well as perimeter landscaping.
Either dedlcationi of street right-of-way or' an irrevocable offer for
same should be required along both the Red Hill Ave.' and Edinger St.
frontages of the parcel as follows:
a. Ten (10') feet along Red Hill Ave.;
b. Ten (10'.) feet along Edinger St.;
c. Appropriate ,Corner cutoff at corner £or 35' curb return radius..
The subject parcel will require annexation to the Orange County Street
Lighting and Maintenance District No. 6. ThSs action must be initiated
prior to the issuance of any permits.
Installation of marbelite street lights with underground conduit should
be required across both street frontages,
Payment of Orange County Sanitation District No, 7 fees in the amount of
$625/acre will be required at the time any permits are issued and
payment of East Orange County Water District fees will be required prior
to the installation or turn-on of any water meter. These fees are
required by eachldistrict.
5. Any work within the public right-of-way should be shown on the final
site plan and/or;grading plan.
FZRE
Fire Department concerns are relatively minor and the applicant has been
given an opportunity to review these and he had no objections.
Chairman & Commission Members
May 23, 1983
Page 3
The applicant has stated that he wishes to begin operation with as little
improvement requirements as possible. In staff's review of the proposal,
we took into account that the activity may very well last for only ~wo
years. Planning concerns and ~ecommendations could be modified by the
Commission. However, temporary uses have a tendency to go into
perpetuity. Engineering reconmtendations are based on City policy and
should be incorporated in any approval. The City Council does have review
authority over the ac%ions of the Commission and may modify
recommendations, subject to necessary assurances.
FINDINGS & CONCLU$1:ONS
1. The application has been appropriately filed .pursuant to City Code
provfsions as outlined in the M District.
2. The use which is proposed for a two-year period should be viewed as a
pemanen% facility as- requllred by Section 92¢2(b).
3. The highest and best use Of the property at a pivotal intersection is
not .a building materials yard and therefore it should be expected to be
,redeveloped at so~e future date. ~
The site being at the southerly entrance to the residential and
commercial portions of the:City should be improved to present a more
attractive feature to the intersection.
RECOM~NDED ACT[ON
If the applicant agrees to p~ovide the items listed in the report, staff
would recommend approval of the request by the adoption of draft 'Resolution
No. 2094.
t
s
hat
is
AGW:jh
ADDENDUM TO USE PERMIT
~.7 ACRE PARCEL
RED HILL & EDINGER, TU~TIN
'We feel that in evaluating the attributes of a 2q month use permit for the
subject property, you would appreciate knowing the scope of the business to be
performed there.
Trussco, Inc. employs approximately 25 persons in the assembling of roof and
floor trusses for home construction. Lumber is delivered directly by railroad
from :he Pacific Northwest, and assembled for shipment. Two fork lifts are
used to distribute various component parts of the wooden truss within the
yard. The fork lifts do not leave the yard. Trussco owns a bob:ail truck
which is parked on the pavement and loaded for delivery. At peak performance,
about three loads per week are made to customers, servicing the construction of
20 homes. Perhaps three deliveries from outside venders are made to the yard
in an average week.
Again, we ask your help in utilizing this property for this temporary uae so
that we night put forth our full efforts to develop ~he site in its highest and
best use in the near future. Trussco will olean up the property and maintain
it as an asset to the community during this interim period.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tom W. Thomson
INLAND LUMBER COMPANY
TWT/dc
RESOLUTION NO. 2094
A RESOLUTION .OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT ON THE APPLICATION OF USE PERMIT 83-7
TO AUTHORIZE THE DEVELOPME)~ AND USE OF A
BUILDING MATERIALS STORAGE YARD AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF EDINGER STREET AND REDHILL AVENUE
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California does
hereby resolve as follows:
I. The Planning CommissiOn finds and determines ~s follows:
a. That a proper application (Conditional Use Permit
No. 83-7), has been filed on behalf of Trussco, Inc.
to authorize the development and operation of a building
materials, storage yard at the northwest corner-of
Edtnger Street and Red Hill Avenue.
b. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and
held on said application.
11
12
13
14
15
16
c. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following
findings of fact:
1. That establishment, maintenance, and/or operation
of the use applied for will not be detrimental t~ the
health, safety, o? morals of the persons residing or
w6rktng in the neighborhood of such p~o.pos~d use, in
that: a) the proposed activity is in compliance with the
use restrictions and application procedures of City Code
Section 9273(a); b) the project is in conformance with
the intent of the development standards of the City.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. The establishment, maintenance and/or operation
of the use applied for will not be detrimental to the ·
comfort and general welfare of persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of the proposed use in that
the activity is proposed for the correct land use and
zoning classification and'shall be developed in a manner
prescribed by the City's development and zoning
provisions.
3. That the establishment, maintenance and/or
operation of the use applied for will not be injurious
or detrimental to property, improvements in the
neighborhood, or general welfare of the City in that the
project will improve and enhance the site and structural
features of the development as evidenced by the visual
improvement of the structures and the repair and
upgrading of surrounding features.
4. That the project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
as specified in Section 15101, Title 14 of the State
Administrative Code.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Resolution 14o. 209[
May 23, [983
Page 2
d. Proposed development shall be in accordance with the
development policies adopted by the City Council, Uniform
Building Code as administered by the Building Official, Fire
Code as administered by the Orange County Fire Marshal, and
street improvement requirements as administered by the City
Engi herr.
II. The Planning Commission hereby grants a Conditional Use
Permit as app)ied for to permit the operation of a building
materials storage yard, subject to the following, conditions:
1. The existing structures shall be enhanced by repair and
refurbishing in a manner consistent with the City's
development standards.
2. The perimeter fencing will be re~atred and refurbished in
a. similar manner.
3. Trimming and refurbishing of the existing plantings in
and around the site, as well as perimeter landscaping.
4. Electrical service shall be'undergrounded if new service
is to be provided.
5. Final development plans, which shall indicate the type
and extent of improvementS, shall r~quire the review and
approval of the Community Development Oepartment.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
6. Either dedication of street right-of-way or an
irrevocable offer for same shall be required along both Red
Hill Ave. and Edtnger St. frontages of the .parcel as follows:
a. Ten (10') feet along Red Hill Ave.;
b. Ten (10') feet along Edlnger St.;
c. Appropriate corner cutoff at corner for 35' curb
return radius.
7. The subject parcel will require annexation to the Orange
County Street Lighting and Maintenance District No. 6. This
actionlmust be initiated prior to the issuance of any
permits.
23
24
25
26
27
8. Installation of marbelite street lights with underground
conduit shall be required across both street frontages.
g. Payment of Orange C~unty Sanitation District No~ 7 fees
in the amount of $625/acre will be required when permits are
issued and payment of East Orange County Water District fees
will be required prior to the installation or turn-on of any
water meter.
28
Resolution No. Z094
Hay 23, [983
Page 3
10. Any work within the public right-of-way shall be shown on
the final site and/or grading plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Tustin, California held on the
day of , 19
5
6
7
8'
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
2i
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James B. Sharp, Chairman
Janet Hester, Recording Secretary
DATE:
TO:
FROH:
SUBJECT:
May 16, 1983
OLD BUSINESS NO,
nter- Corn
Honorable Mayor & Council/Chairman and Planning Commisson Members
R.X. Fleagle, Acting Community Development Director
Professional Office Building Development in Commercial Districts
It is my understanding that the City Council and Commission are concerned
that office building developments may absorb the available
commercially-zoned ;land thereby precluding the development of retail
establishments needled to serve the community.
In some instances, commercial establishments are dependent upon office
buildings which generate business clients. In other instances, office
buildings serve as desirable intermediates between intense commercial and
residential land uses. Office buildings that are a part of commercial
centers are desirable adjuncts providing for joint use of parking
accommodations as well as creating a commercial market.
It is assumed that the City Council does not desire to entirely prohibit
the development of office buildings in commercial districts but wishes to
assure that such uses are the highest and best use of the land.
The assumed objective of the City Council may be achieved by adopting an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance substantially as follows:
"Adding to Commercial Districts the following language:
b. Conditionally Permitted Uses
General Offices for:
1. Accountants
2. Advertising agency
3. Contractors, builders and consultants
4. Drafting
5. Economic consultants
6. Escrow
7. Insurance
8. Public utility office, excluding corporate yards
Council/Commission
Professional Office Development in Commercial Districts
Page 2
b. Professional offices for:
1. Architect
2. Attorney
3. Chiropractor
· 4. Dentist
5. Doctor
6. Oculist
7. Optome[rist
8. Others licensed by the State of California to practice the
healing arts, including clinics for outpatients only'
9. Engineer
10. Land planner
11. Surveyor
d. iJse Criteria - Office Development
Office devel'opments within the C-1 District shall conform to
parking standards for retail comnercial uses for first floor
area.
2. Findings shall be made by the Planning ~ommission that:
a. A demand does not exist at the present time for retail uses
for subject property, or
b. Office use would be more compatible with the surrqunding
uses within the area than other permitted uses.
3. Mixed uses are exempt from the .criteria of paragraph d. (Use
Criteria) when retail sales area exceeds S0% of the total ~oor
area of mixed uses of retail sales and other permi.tted uses."
If the proposed code amendments satisfy the o~jectives of the Comntssion
and Council, staff should be directed to advertise a public hearing to
amend the Zoning Ordinance.
RKF:jh
OATE: May 23, 1983
Continued from May g, 1983
OLD BUSINESS NO. 2
Inter-Corn
TO:
Honorable Chairman & Planning Commission Members
FROM:
Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Conflict of Interest Code
RECOI~NDED ACTION
It is recommended that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 2090 adopting
the Conflict of Interest Code as drafted by the City Attorney.
BACICROUND & DISCUSSION
Section 87300 of the Government Code states that every agency shall adopt
and promulgate a Conflict of Interest Code. Therefore, the attached draft
is submitted for Commission review and adoption. Once the Commission
adopts the Code, the matter, will be referred to the City Council as the
code-reviewing body for' approval.
'JSD:jh
RESOLUTION NO. 2090
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustln does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The Planntng Commtsslon finds and determines as follows:
A. That pursuant to Goverment Code Sections 87300 et.
seq., the Planning Commission is required to adopt a
Conflict of Interest Code.
B. That the Planning Commission hereby approves the
Conflict of Interest Code as wrttten in Exhibit "A",
attached.
C. That the Conflict of Interest Code as adopted by the
!Planning Commission prior to its implementation must be
.approved by the City Council .of the City of Tustin.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the day of , 1983.
15
16
James B. Sharp, Chairman
17
18
19
Janet Hester
Recording Secretary
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
DATE:
TO:
FRO/q:
SUBJECT:
May 23, 1983
BUSINESS NO. 1
Inter-Corn
Honorable Chairman & Planning Commission Members
Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner, Community Development
Department
Final Tract Map 11S82
Applicant:
Owner:
Location:
Request:
Smitley & Associates on behalf of Investors Development
Investors Development
1082, 1092, 1102 and 1112 San Juan
To subdi~vide approximately 1.038 acres into twenty-seven (27)
numbered lots and twenty-seven (27) numbered/lettered lots for
a townhome project
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
On September 8, 1981, the Planning Agency and City Council approved
Tentative Tract No. 11582 by the adoption of Resolutions 1999 and 81-100.
This map was .83 acres which was being subdivided into seventeen (17)
.townhouse lots and one common lot. The project al,so had use permit
approval.
On August 2, 1982, the Planning Agency and City Council approved the
"first" revised Tentative Tract 11582 by the adoption of Resolutions 2046
and 82-62. This map was 1.038 acres which was being subdivided into only
one (1) lot for condominium purposes, A variance had been approved for the
project which =l lowed twenty-six (26) condominiums.
On March 21, 1983, the "Second" Revised Tentative Tract map was approved by
the Planning Commission and City Council. The proposed final map is in
substantial compliance with the tentative map noting that garages 3G and 4G
now have a 22-foot separation. All of the conditions of Resolution No.
2080 have been met.
RECOI,~NDED ACTION
Recon~nend to the City Council approval of Final Tract Map No. '11582 by the
adoption of Resolution No. 2092.
MAC:ih
RESOLUTION NO. 2092
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
TOT HE CITY COUNCIL OF FINAL TRACT MAP
NO. 11582
4 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
5 I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
6 A. That a proper application was filed by Smitley and
Associates on behalf of Investors Development pursuant
7 to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance No. 847
for the purpose of creating a one lot subdivision for 26
condominium units from lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in Block A
of Martin's addition as recorded in Book 19, Page 79 of
Miscellaneous Records of Los Angeles County.
B. That said ~ap is in conformance with the Tustin Area
General Plan.
C. A ;Negative Declaration was-previously approved to
conform with the California Environmental Quality Act.
D. The Final Map is in substantial conformance with the
Tentative Map.
II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of
Final Tract Map No. 11582, subject to final approval of
16 the City Engineer.
'17 )ASSED AND ADOPTED at ah regular meeting of the Planning Commission
3f the City of Tustin held on the day of , 1983.
18
19
2O
21
~es B. Sharp, Chairman
22
23 Janet Hester
lecordtng Secretary
24
25
26
27
28
OATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
May 23, ~983
inter_Com
Honorable Chairman & Planning Commtsstoner~
R.K. Fleagle, Acting Community Development Director
Second Units in Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential Zones
RECO~I~NOEO ACTION
Direct staff to advertise a publtc hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
authorize second residential units in the'E-4 and R-3 Districts subject to
criteria and use permit.
BACICGROUND
Section 65852.2 of the Planning and Zoning Law authorizes cities to adopt
an ordinance that provides for the creation of second units in
single-family and multi-family residential zones.
If the city does not adopt an ordinance prior to July 1, 1983, or within
120 days after an. application· has been submitted, a permit must be issued
in compliance with the criteria of the state law.
DISCUSSION
The assumption andinterpretation of the law is made that all Single-family
areas of the city need not be permitted a second dwelling unit as long as
areas are designated where second units are permitted in single-family and
multi-family zones.
It is not possible to totally exclude second units within the city unless
certain findings are made that would be subject to challenge;
Designating areas where second units are authorized will assure the least
adverse impact upon the public health, safety and welfare of the
community. The [-4 District provides 10,000 square foot lots with 80 foot
frontage. The second unit could-be permitted in this district without
increasing density beyond that which is authorized in R-1 areas and Planned
.Development districts. The lots are large, enough to accommodate a 30'x24'
detached structure and an attached unit could be added within the buildable
area of most lots.
By requiring owner occupancy, the amenities of the district would be
preserved and protected against the conversion of the district to income
properties. It is assumed that there will be limited requests for this
right of development and no adverse impact will result.
Chairman & Commission Members
May 23, 1983
Page 2
Permitting an additional unit in the R-3 district would have no adverse
impact since densitywould be less than that permitted within the district.
The designation of areas for second units eliminates the need to make
findings of exclusion. However, it is suggested that a resolution of the
Planning Commission recommending the amendment to the Zoning Ordinace would
contain findings as to the reasons for authorizing a second unit within the
E-4 and R-3 Districts and the findings that preclude these developments in
areas that have a density greater than 4 dwelling units per acre. These
findings would relate to street frontage, parking accommodations and
community amenities related to open space, public health and welfare.
The City Attorney concurs that the City Council and Commission should
address the potential in~act of SB 1534 'and tak~ appropriate action. A
copy of the report oif William C. Marsh, City Attorney of Monterey,
presented to the League's City Attorneys Spring Meeting and copy of SB 1534
are attached.
RKF:jh
Encl:
ora'fi Ordinance Change
Marsh's ~uide to Granny Housing
SB 1534