HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 04-04-83REPORTS
NO. 1
4-4"83
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION AGENDA FOR REGULAR MEETING
March 28, 1983 7:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER at 7:32 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION
ROLL CALL All present
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MEETING HELD March 14, 1983 - Amended as
follows: Old Business item ~2-Motion made by Mr. White, not Mr.
Ainslie. Staff Concerns item #3-Mr. White's a~endment to the motion
to read: None of the parking spaces be reserved for the exclusive
use of any single tenant.
Amended minutes approved.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2. USE PERMIT 83-1
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Mr. & Mrs. James Lindsey
653 South "B" Street
Authorization to add 2,277 square feet of office space
to an existing office structure
Findings:
1. The site is near the end of a cul-de-sac street
which is primarily developed with professional and
industrial uses. Therefore, the site is not appropriate
for retail use.
2. The requested addition is for the expansion of an
existing business and the site can accommodate the
added area.
3. The face-lift of the 1950 architecture to a more
contemporary style will add aesthetically to this
section of the original Tustin.
ACTION
Approval of Use Permit 83-1 by the adoption of
Resolution 2081.
YOTE 5-0 AYES: Sharp, Ainslie, Puckett, Nell, White
NOES: None
Planning Commision Action Agenda
March 28, 1983
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. GENERAL
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Findings:
Action:
Vote:
PLAN AMENDMENT 83-1(B)
Aram Bassenian on behalf of the Louise S. Ralph Estate
and by motion of the City Council
1252 Irvine Boulevard and the adjacent undeveloped lot
(A.P. #103-633-26)
Amend General Plan from Residential Single-Family to
Professional (office)
1. At the Council meeting of March 7, 1983, the
Planning Commission was directed to reconsider GPA
B3-1(B) to include the easterly undeveloped lot as part
of the project.
2. At the Council meeting of March 7, 1983, it was
directed that another Public Hearing be noticed and that
the second lot be considered as part of the a~endment.
3. The addition of the subject lot in no way alters the
conclusions presented in the staff report of February
28, 1983.
Adopt Resolution 2084 recommending to the City Council
that General Plan Amendment 83-1(B), including the
undeveloped lot imediately to the east of 1252 Irvlne
Boulevard be approved with the added condition that a
recmmendation be made to the Council for the Planned
Cmmunity concept.
5-0 AYES: Sharp, Ainslie, Puckett, Well, White
NOES: None
PUBLIC CONCERNS:
None.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Use & Parking Survey of the Foster Arts Industrial Complex -
6th and "B" Street
Findings: That a problem exists with street parking at the Foster
Arts Industrial Cemplex.
Planning Commission Action Agenda
March 28, 1983
Page 3
Action:
2. That excess on-site parking is available.
3. That the problem stems from ~loyees and patrons
of the businesses preferring to park on the street
rather than use the spaces provided on-site.
That the City Engineer be directed to evaluate the
street parking and direct his response, with any
recommendations, to the City Council.
Vote: 5-0 AYES: Sharp, Ainslie, Puckett, Weil, White
MOES: None
2. Parking Lot Review of Tustin Heights Shopping Center
The ttem was continued at the request of the City Engineer.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Amendment to Airport Land Use Plan
The Cmmisston discussed the proposed amendments to the Airport
Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and noted: 'The Cowission (Airport
Land Use Cmisston) may consider the adoption of criteria for
protecting aircraft traffic patterns which may be more restrictive
than those contained in FAR 77 (Federal Aviation Regulations)' for
the lands surrounding the I~CAS(H) Tustin.
Action:
Vote:
Staff directed to advise the Land Use Comission that the
specific criteria of Federal Aviation Regulations was
preferred to more restrictive criteria that could be
imposed by the Commission.
The Comisstonnoted Section 21678 of the California Public
Utilities Code which creates immnity from liability for an
operator of an airport when a public agency overrides the
Land Use Con~ission's action or recommendation.
5-0 AYES: Sharp, Ainslie, Puckett, Well, White
NOES: None
Action:
Referred to the City Manager for evaluation of any aspect
this section may have upon the City of Tustin.
Vote: 5-0 AYES: Sharp, Ainslie, Puckett, Well, White
NOES: None
Planning Commission Action Agenda
March 28, 1983
Page 4
2. South/Central Redevelopment Project
Dr. Fleagle explained that the Commission must revte~ the
Redevelopment Plan and report to the City Council regarding the
plan's conformity to the Seneral Plan.
After s~aff and Conmission discussion concerning the provisions to
provide lo~ and muderate income housing, the following action ~as
taken:
Action:
The Cmmisslon directed st~ff to prepare a report to the
City Council for consideration and adoption at the meeting
scheduled for April 11, 1983.
Vote: 5-0 AYES: Sharp, Ainslie, Puckett, I/eil, White
gOES: gone
STAFF CONCERNS:
1. Trash Enclosure Condition - 175 South "C" Street
Findings:
1. On September 20, 1982 the Planning Agency approved
Variance 82-4, authorizing the development of an office
building at 175 "C" Street. One of the conditions of
approval required the location of the trash area in
the front setback to facilitate trash pick up.
2. The developer has worked out an agreement, at his
cost, with the refuse service to pick up the trash
receptacle at the rear of the site and therefore the
need for locating the trash enclosure in the front
area is no longer evident.
Action:
Adoption of Resolution go. 2085, approving the revised
trash location with the condition that the agreement to
provide ptck-up service to the rear of the site remains
in effect with the City's franchise refuse service.
Vote:
5-0 AYES: Sharp, Atnslie, Puckett, Weil, White
NOES: gone
2. Use Permit 83-2
Findings:
1. At the February 28, 1983 meeting, the Planning
Cmmission approved the subject application. As a
condition of approval, a t~o-foot-high brick wall was to
be placed at the base of the perimeter fence as a
security measure for the boat display yard at 676 E1
Camino Real.
Planning Commission Action Agenda
March 28, lg83
Page 5
2. This condition presents a draingage problem to the
site.
3. The alternative proposed by the applicant is to
construct a 1-5/8" metal rail along the outside of the
fence, 2' feet above grade level.
4. The alternative has been approved by the Police and
Building Departments.
Action:
Approval of the revised fence design as a condition of
the use pemit in lieu of the wall requirement with the
condition that the rail be painted and maintained.
Vote: 5-0 AYES: Sharp, Ainslie, Puckett, Well, White
NOES: None
COMMISSION CONCERNS:
Request for Workshop - Dr. Fqeagle informed the Cou~ission that
a request had been made to the Mayor for a Comission/Council
workshop.
ADJOURNMENT: At 9:30 p.m. to next rt~ular meeting.
DATE:
March 28, 1983
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1
Inter-Com
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Chairman & PlanninglCommission Members
Alan Warren, Senior Planner, Community Development Department
Use Permit 83-1
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Mr. & Mrs. James Lindsey
653 S "B" Street (C-2 District)
Authorization to add 2,277 square feet of office space to an
existing professional office building
RECOI~ENDED AC'rIO#
Approval of Use Permit 83-1, by the adoption of Resolution No. 2081 per
recommendations contained in this report and in the staff report of
February 28, 1983.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
This item was scheduled to be heard on February 28, 1983. At the request
of the applicant, the matter was continued to the present meeting. The
hearing was opened on February 28, 1983, continued through the March 14
meeting and at each meeting, no one spoke in favor or opposition.
Since the initial submittal the designer has been working to revise the
proposal to bring down anticipated construction costs. The only change
proposed is the use of painted exterior stucco walls with plant-on
architectural features in lieu of the originally planned brick facade.
While staff would have preferred the brick design, the alternative being
proposed still represents a vast improvement to the existing structure and
should therefore be approved. Staff would only recommend that a two-tone
paint scheme be employed to highlight the architectural features.
The staff conclusions contained in the report of February 29 remain the
s am e.
AGW:jh
DATE:
TO:
F ROM:
S UBJ ECT:
February 28, 1983
Inter-Corn
Honorable Chairman & Commission Members
Community Development Department
Use Permit No. 83-1
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Mr. & Mrs. James Lindsey
653 S. "B" Street (C-2 District)
Authorization to add 2,277 square feet of office space to an
existing professional office.
RECOI~dIDED
Approval of Use Permit 83-1 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2081
substantially as drafted.
BACKGROUND
O~ November 15, 1982, the Tustin City Council ~enacted an interim urgency
ordinance (No. 882) which requires use permit approval for all development
projects designed for office uses in the C-1, C-2 (Central Commercial), CG
and PC-Commercial Districts. A copy of this ordinance is included with
·his report. The applicant has submitted this proposal for Planning
Commission review pursuant to City requlations governing use permits.
The application calls for the development of a 2,277 square foot office
addition to an existing 3,856 square foot office building located near the
South "B" Street cul-de-sac. In conjunction with the floor area addition,
the applicant is proposing a major revision to the site features (parking,
landscaping) and considerable face-lift for the architectural elevations.
The building is to have building walls of tan-colored brick and an employee
"picnic area" is planned for a rear corner of the site.
The building has been used as an office since 1957 and is currently being
used by California Dental Health Plan, Inc. Mr. Lindsey is'the owner of
this firm and the expansion is intended for use by the company.
The land uses in the immediate area are as follows:
North:
East:
South:
West:
Tustin News facility (C-2)
E1Camino Plaza Shopping Center (C-2)
Offices for clothing store chain (C-2)
Multiple tenant industrial complex (PM)
Chairman & Commission Members
February 28, 1983
Page 2
The site plan satisfies all of the zoning and the intent of the development
guidelines. The City Engineer has recommended a twenty-seven (27) foot
driveway in lieu of the proposed twenty-five (25) feet. This alteration
could be accomplished by a slight reduction in the landscaped areas.
Standard conditions are contained in the attached draft resolution.
CONCLUSIONS
The site is near the end of a cul-de-sac street which is developed
primarily with professional and industrial related uses. The site
therefore is not appropriate for retail use.
2. The building addition is requested for the expansion of an existing
business and the site can accommodate the added building area.
3. The face-lift of the 1950 architecture to a more contemporary style
will add aesthetically to this section of the original Tustin town.
AGW:Jh
I)EYELOP~[#T RE~/IEW
Project: ~ ~ ~-FF.F~'I
Location/District:
Action: {)~ F~_J(2A41~
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
Uses: ):~"PA~L t ~_ teMPI. C~-l:~c~_
Number of Public Notifications (Owners): I~z- (-~1 ~
* No Standard
R 3 .C2P "
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. 2081
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZNG THE ADDITION OF 2,277
SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AREA TO THE EXISTING OFFICE
BUILDING AT 653 SOUTH "B" STREET
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application, (Use Permit 83-1), has
been filed by Mr. & Mrs. James Lindsey to authorize the
addition of 2,277 square feet of office area to the
building at 654 South "B" Street pursuant to the
regulations of Ordinance No. 882.
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:
The proposed use is in conformance wi~h the Land Use
Element of the Tustin Area General Plan and. the.
Central Commercial District of the Zoning Code.
That the site is near the end of a cul-de-sac street
which is developed primarily for industrial and
professional use and the site therefore is not
appropriate for retail use.
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 project, 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.
F. This project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
G. Final development plans shall require the review and
approval of the Community Development Director.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution N~. 2081
March 28, 1983
Page 2
II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use
Permit No. 83-1, to authorize the expansion of the office
building at 653 South "B" Street, as submitted, subject to
the following conditions:
The final site plan shall be standardized and
reflect all apropriate City standard drawing
numbers. The developer shall construct all missing
or damaged street improvements to said development
per the City of Tustin "Minimum Design Standards of
Public Works" and "Street Improvement Standards".
This work shall consist of, but is not limited to:
curbs and gutters, sidewalks, drive aprons, and
street pavement.
The site plan shall provide a minimum of twenty (20)
parking spaces for a total office building area of
6,133 square feet.
C. Handicapped parking stalls shall be posted in
accordance with City Standards.
D. All roof equipment and vents must be screened from
view.
Planting and irrigation Plans shall be submitted to
the City and all landscap work completed prior to
final release of the improvements.
Fe
The building elevations shall be improved as
presented in the application. "Exhibit A" and a
two-tone color scheme shall be presented to the
Community Development Director for review and
approval.
Installation of marbelite street lights and
underground conduit shall be provided by the
developer if required by the Master Lighting Plan of
Southern California Edison Company.
H. A grading plan shall.be submitted to the Building
Divsion for review and approved.
Additional County Sanitation District No. ? sewer
connection fees will be required based upon the
additional square footage of the floor area.
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 N.. 2081
March 28, 1983
Page 3
J. Pa3~nent of East Orange County Water District fees
will be required prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
K. Overhead electrical utilities shall be undergrounded
as required by City Ordinance.
L. An automatic fire detection system and fire hydrant
shall be provided by the applicant as required by the
Orange County Fire Marshal's office.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission held on the day of , 1983.
James B. Sharp, Chairman
Janet Hester
Recording Secretary
DATE:
March 28, 1983
PUB~..C HEARING NO. 1
! nter- Corn
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Chairman & Commission Members
Community Development Department
General Plan Amendment 83-1(B)
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Aram Bassenian on behalf of the Louise S. Ralph Estate and by
motion of the City Council
1252 Irvine Boulevard (A.P.#103-626-26 and 27)
Amend the Tustin Area General Plan to change the land use
designation from Residential (Single-Family) to Professional
(Office)
RECOI~I~ENDED ACTION
Adopt Resolution 2084 recommending to the City Council that General Plan
Amendment 83-1(B), including the undeveloped lot immediately to the east of
1252 Irvine Boulevard, be approved.
BACKGROUND '
On October 4, 1982, the City Council 'adopted Resolution 82-81 ordering the
annexation, of certain properties within Tustin's sphere of influence
including the subject property (Annexation 130). On October 14, 1982, the
certificate of completion was filed by the Local Agency Formation
Commission finalizing the annexation. The zone designation for the
property, while under County jurisdiction, was Single-Family (R-l) in
compliance with the Tustin General Plan. Therefore, no pre-zone
proceedings were necessary.
At the Council meeting of March 7, 1983, the Planning Commission was
directed to reconsider GPA 83-1(B) to include the easterly undeveloped lot
as part of the project.
At the Council meeting of March 7, 1983, it was directed that another'
Public Hearing be noticed and that the second lot be considered as part of
the amendment.
DISCUSSION
At the time of the original public hearing, the inclusion of the
undeveloped lot was discussed. However, because of notice requirements,
the additional parcel could not be considered and approval of GPA 83-1(B)
as submitted was recommended to Council. This was done with the consensus
that when consideration was next given to a General Plan Amendment, the
second parcel be included. The Council action of March 7 has eliminated
the delay and the matter may be considered at this time.
Chairman & Commission Members
March 28, 1983
Page 2
The addition of the subject lot in no way alters the conclusions presented
in the staff report of February 28, 1983 and approval is,recommended.
Since additional homes will now abutt the reclassified area, at the time of
the implementing zone change, it is recommended that the Planned Community
concept be utilized to ensure development compatible with the neighboring
residences.
JSD:jh
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
S UBJ ECT:
March 7, 1983
PUBLIC HEARING
No. 2
3-7-83
inter-Corn
Honorable Mayor & City Council Members
Community Development Department
General Plan Amendment 83-1(B)
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Aram Bassenian on behalf of the Louise S. Ralph Estate
1252 1trine Boulevard
Amend the Tustin Area General Plan to change the land use
designation from Residential (Single-Family) to Professional
(Office)
RECOI~tEIIDED ACTION
Adopt Resolution 83-19 approving General Plan Amendment 83-1(B)
BACKGROUND
'on October 4, 1982, the City Council ~dopted'Resolut{on.82-81 ordering the
annexation of certain properties within Tustin's sphere of influence .. '
including the subject ~roperty (Annexation 130). On October 14, 1982, the
certificate of completion was filed by the Local Agency Formation
Comission finalizing the annexation. The zone designation for the
property, while under County jurisdiction, was Single-Family (R-l) in
compliance with the Tustin General Plan. Therefore, no pre-zone
proceedings were necessary.
On February 28, 1983 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
subject general plan amendment and adopted Resolution No. 2079 recommending
to the City Council that GPA 83-1(B) be approved.
At that meeting the property owner(Stephanie Martin) of the parcel
immediately to the east of subject lot requested that her lot be included
in the general plan amendment. However, because of hearing notice
requirements the second property could not be considered as a part of GPA
83-1(B). The Commission did however feel that at such time in the future
when another general plan amendment is considered, Ms. Martin's property
should be incorporated.
DISCUSSION
An application has been filed by Aram Bessenian with the authorization of
the property owner requesting that the property located at 1252 Irvine be
reclassified from a Single-Family to a Professional land use designation.
Prior to the use of 'this property for professional offices, a zone change
will also be required.
Chairman & Commissioners
February 28, [983
Page 2
While staff has not received any formal development plans, the applicant
has indicated his desire to purchase the property, improve and convert the
existing home into an architect's office for his own use, pending General
Plan Amendment and zone change approval.
It is felt that the applicant's request is justifiable considering the
surrounding uses that front on Irvine Boulevard. Additionally, a
professional use has been a traditional buffer between single-family
dwellings and commercial uses. The professional zone will maintain this
buffer even if the existing structure is replaced. To further ensure that
adjacent homeowners are not adversely impacted by potential office
development, it is recommended that consideration be given to a Planned
Community-Professional zone designation at the time the zone change
application is filed.
CO#CLUSIOBS
1. That because of the nature of the surrounding uses, and because the
property.fronts on 1trine Boulevard, a professional, l~nd use designation
· is justifiable and more appropriate than single-family residential.
2. That' professional offices· have been traditional buffers betWeen
residential and commercial uses.
That the current proposal includes keeping intact an existing structure
with architectural style condusive to the area, as well as maintaining
several of the mature trees on-site.
That with a Planned Com,,~nity-Professional zoning classification,
neighboring residents will be protected from adverse impacts of
potential new development.
That approval of General Plan Amendment 83-1(B) has been recommended to
the City Council by the Planning Commission by the adoption of
Resolution No. 2079.
6. That approval of General Plan Amendment 83-1(B) should be granted by the
adoption of Resolution No. 83-19 as submitted.
That at such time in the future when any other general plan amendment(s)
are considered immediately to the east of the subject parcel lot should
be included.
JSD:jk
OATE:
TO:
FROH:
S UBJ ECT:
February 28, 1983
P% ~IC HEARING NO. 1
Inter-Corn
Honorable Chairman & Commission Members
Community Development Department
General Plan Amendment 83-1(B)
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Aram Bassenian on behalf of the Louise S. Ralph Estate
1252 Irvine Boulevard
Amend the Tustin Area General Plan to change the land use
designation from Residential (Single-Family) to Professional
(Office)
RECOIdllENDED ACTION
Adopt Resolution No. 2079, recommending to the City Council that General
Plan Amendment 83-1(B) be approved.
BACKGROUND
On October 4, 1982, the City Council adopted Resolution 82-81 ordering the
annexation of certain properties within Tustin's sphere of influence
including the subject property (Annexation 130). On October 14, 1982, the.
certificate of completion was .filed by the Local Agency Formation
Commission finalizing the annexation. The zone designation for the
property, v/nile under County jurisdiction, was Single-Family (R-l) in
compliance with the Tustin General Plan. Therefore, no pre-zone
proceedings were necessary.
DISCUSSION
An application has been filed by Aram Bessenian with the authorization of
the property owner requesting that the property located at 1252 Irvine be
reclassified from a Single-Family to a Professional land use designation.
Prior to the use of this property for professional offices, a zone change
will also be required.
While staff has' not received any formal development plans, the applicant
has indicated his desire to purchase the property, improve and convert the
existing home into an architect's office for his own use, pending General
Plan Amendment and zone change approval.
It is felt that the applicant's request is justifiable considering the
surrounding uses that front on Irvine Boulevard. Additionally, a
professional use has been a traditional buffer between single-family
dwellings and commercial uses. The professional zone will maintain this
buffer even if the existing structure is replaced. To further ensure that
adjacent homeowners are not adversely impacted by potoential office
Chairman & Commissioners
February 28, lg83
Page 2
development, it is recommended that consideration be given to a Planned
Community-Professional zone designation at the time the zone change
application is filed.
COI~LUSIONS
That because of the nature of the surrounding uses, and because the
property fronts on Irvine Boulevard, a professional land use designation
is justifiable and more appropriate than single-family residential.
2. That professional offices have been traditional buffers between
residential and commercial uses.
e
That the current proposal includes keeping intact an existing structure
with architectural style condusive to the area, as well as maintaining
several of the mature trees on-site.
4. That with a Planned Community-Professional zoning classification,
neighboring residents will be protected from adverse impacts of
potential new development.
5. That approval of Genenal Plan Amendment'83-1(B) be recommended to the
City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2079.
JSD:jh
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2084
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE
PROPERTIES AT 1252 IRVINE BOULEVARD
(ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 103-626-26 & 103-626-27)
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That Section 65356.1 of the Government Code of the
State of California provides that when it is deemed to
be in the public interest, the legislative body may
amend a part of the General Plan.
B. That in accordance with Section 65356 of the
Government Code of the State of California, a public
hearing was duly advertised and held on February 28,
1983 to consider General Plan Amendment 83-1(B) to
reclassify the parcel of land at 1252 Irvine Boulevard
from the Single-Family classification to the
Professional (office) classification.
C. That the Planning Commission did by the adoption of
Resolution No. 2079 recommend to the City Council that
General Plan Amendment 83-1(B) be approved.
D. That the City Counci'l, at a duly advertised public
hearing, ~eferred the matter back to the Planning
Commission to consider the addition of the undeveloped
parcel immediately east of the lot that was considered
in Resolution No. 207g.
E. That a second public hearing before the Planning
Commission was duly advertised and held on March 28,
lg83 to reconsider General Plan Amendment 83-1(B) to
include both parcels of land located at what is commonly
known at 1252 Irvine Boulevard.
F. That a Negative Declaration has been applied for to
comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.
G. That the change in classification of the additional
lot would be in the public interest and not detrimental
to the welfare of the public or the surrounding property
owners based on the following findings:
1. That because of the nature of the surrounding uses,
and because the property fronts along Irvine
Boulevard, a professional land use designation is
justifiable and more appropriate than single-family
residential.
28
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution N 2084
March 28, 1983
Page 2
2. That the Professional classification will minimize
the impacts of potential future development as it
would affect residents of the adjacent single-family
homes.
H. That the adoption of this resolution supercedes and
replaces Resolution No. 2079.
II.
The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment 83-1(B) to
reclassify subject parcels (A.P. #103-626-26 &
#103-626-27) from the Single-Family Residential to the
Professional (office) Classification.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission held on the day of , 1983.
Janet Hester
Recording Secretary
James B. Sharp, Chairman
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 28, 1983
OLD BUSINESS NO, 1
Inter-Corn
Honorable Chairman & Planning Commission Members
Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department
Use & Parking Survey/Industrial Area at 6th and "B" Streets
DISCUSSION
At the March 14, 1983 meeting, the Commission was presented with a brief
staff report outlining the business located in the Planned Industrial
complex at 6th & "B" Streets. The following is a more complete analysis of
the site, particularly in terms of on-site parking.
With information provided by Foster Art Service, it has been determined
that the complex consists of 179,301 square feet of building area and there
are 208 on-site parking spaces available (including 32 underground). Per
the Planned Industrial District this complex would have only had to provide
89 spaces at a ratio of I space for every 2,000 square feet. However, it
was realized at the time of development that for the project considered, 89
spaces were unrealistic and the 208 spaces were provided.
Of the 179,301 square feet, 53,255 have been identified as office space.
Based on this figure, if required parking were to be calculated with the
standard 1:300 ratio for office and 1:2000 for the remaining square
footage, the on-site parking requirement would be 239 spaces, 31 more than
currently provided.
As a result of random spot counts of vacant spaces, staff is of the opinion
that even though the 1:300 standard for office was not used, the actual
demand of the-complex (all but 1,700 square feet is currently being
leased), is below the 239 space figure. The attached survey indicates that
on each inspection there were at least 50 vacant spaces on-site. Even with
this number of open spaces, there was very little street parking available
on either 6th or "B" Streets.
It is apparent that any complaints regarding on-street parking may be
valid; however, the "problem" is not a result of an excessive parking
demand. Instead it seems that employees or customers of the complex prefer
to park on the street, closer to business entrances. This assumption is
further supported by the fact that even though the underground parking area
is available to tenants wishing to use it, only six (6) spaces are
utilized.
Chairman & Planning Commission
March 28, 1983
Page 2
As far as proper land use is concerned, all current uses in the complex are
permissible; however, there is the possibility that some of the businesses
should have obtained use permits prior to commencing business. The next
step is for staff to evaluate each of the borderline businesses and
determine if a use permit is in fact required. Even with the use permit
process, it is presumed that all current uses in the complex would receive
approval. The advantage of the use permit would be the inclusion of
conditions that could perhaps require all employees of the affected
businesses to park on-site,, or limit hours of operation so as to eliminate
any potential parking problems.
The Commission will be brought up to date as soon as the individual
business evaluations are complete, when the need, or lack thereof, for use
permits is demonstrated.
JSD:jh
Parking Survey
Foster Arts
Total available spaces 208
March 21, 1983 - 2:45 p.m.
26 vacant underground spaces
25 vacant open spaces
6 vehicles not parked in designated stalls
March 21, 1983 - 7:30 p.m.
59 cars parked on entire site
March 22, 1983 - 4:30 p.m.
26 vacant underground spaces
65 vacant open spaces
7 vehicles not parked in designated stalls
March 23, 1983 - 11:30 p.m.
26 vacant underground spaces
30 vacant open spaces
3 vehicles not parked in designated stalls
CFoste 'e. rt ervice, q Lc.
430 WEST SIXTH STREET, TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA
February 2~, 19S~
Dear Tenant$
I wanted to bring to your attention that
we do have under~-ound parking spaces available
for you and you~ employees. ~ using the tmder-
ground parking area, more spaces are available
for visitors smxd customers. Youx' car will also
be protected from the weather and will stay
clever.
You can obtain cards for the underground
parking gate by contacting me at 5~-?~10 or
dropping by the office. Please feel free to
t~ke advantage of this opportunity.
Sincerely,
FOSTER ART SERVICE
Property N-nager
Phone 714-544-75.10
Telex 277731
FSTR UR /
OLD BUSINESS NO. 2
Parking Lot Review for Tustin Heights Shopping Center
The report will be presented at the meeting Monday Evening.
DATE:
TO:
FROH:
S UBJ ECT:
March 17, 1983
COMMISSION CONCERN
Inter-Corn
Richard B. Edgar, Mayor
Planning Commission
Request for Workshop Session
On March 14, 1983, the Planning Commission directed that a request be made
for a joint Council'Commission workshop at the convenience of the City
Council.
The purpose of the workshop would be to discuss the moratorium on
professional office development, planning and zoning philosophies and
critique Planning Comission activities.
In the past, workshop sessions have been held on the 5th Monday of the
month when no other meetings are scheduled; however, the next 5th Monday is
May 30th, which is a holiday.
R.K. Fleagle, D.d.A.
Acting Co,,,,i~unity Development Director