HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 03-07-83REPORTS
No. 1
3-7-83
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION AGENDA FOR REGULAR I~ETING
February 28, 1983 7:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER at 7:41 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION Mr. Ainslie
ROLL CALL Absent: Mr. Sharp, Hr. Puckett
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MEETING HELD February 14, 1983 approved as
submitted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83-1(A)
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Planning Agency
Certain properties bounded by Newport Avenue on the
west, Bonita on the south, Orange on the east and Main
Street on the north
Amend the General Plan from Residential Multiple-Family
to Commercial
Recommnded approval to City Council 3-0
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83-1(B)
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Aram Bassenian on behalf of Louise S. Ralph Estate
1252 Irvine Boulevard
Amend General Plan from Residential Single-Family to
Professional (office)
Recommended aPproval to City Council 3-0
2. REVISED .TENTATIVE TRACT.NO; 11582
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Smitley & Associates on behalf of Mark Ainslie et. al.
1082-1112 San Juan Street
Authorization to revise Tentative Tract No. 11582 from a
one-lot condominium to twenty-seven (27) numbered and
twenty-seven (27) numbered/lettered lots for a townhouse
development
Item continued to next meeting for lack of quorum
3. 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
Item continued at the request of applicant.
opened, no one spoke in opposition.
4. USE PERMIT 83-2
Public Hearing was
Applicant:
Locaion:
Request:
Daniel Angstadt on behalf of William Zappas
Area between I-5 and E1 Camino Plaza
Authorization to display boats in an outdoor storage
area. The use will be in conjunction with a retail
sales area at 674 E1 Camino Real.
Approved 3-0 with the condition that a security fence with a
minimum two foot block base be installed around the perimitor
of the boat storage area.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
February 28, 1983
Page 2
PUBLIC CONCERNS:
OLD BUSINESS:
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Staff Report Regarding Tattoo Establishments
Staff report received and filed. Minute action finding that under
current code tattoo estebltshments are not permitted in any zone.
2. Moratorium on Office Developments in Commercial Zoning Districts
Rec~mended to City Council 3 - 0 that the moratorium be extended
'for an additional 120 days. However, it was also recommended that a
joint session of the Commission be held in March to establish a
specific policy towards office development in co~nercial zones, and
to discuss possible code amendments according to that policy.
STAFF CONCERNS:
COMMISSION CONCERNS:
1. Mr. Atnslte tnquired about the potential use of 'incentive
zones" as a way to deal with various uses in Commercial Zones.
2. Mr. White requested that staff look tnto ~mendtng Security
Ordinance 672 to tnclude specific provisions for the security
requirements for open storage areas(i.e, boat, automobile sales lots*
etc.). Mr. White also requested that-a survey of the Industrial
area at Stxth and 'B' Streets be conducted ascertaining the uses
currently within the area as will as any parking problems associated
therewith.
Staff will respond to these items at the next regular meeting.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:13 p.m. to next regular meeting.
DATE:
February 28, 1983
PUB~zC HEARING NO. 1
Inter-Corn
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Chairman & Commission Members
Community Development Department
General Plan Amendment 83-1(A)
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
City of Tustin
Certain properties in the general vicinity bounded by Newport
Avenue and Orange Street between Bonita and Main Streets (see
Attachment A)
Amend the Tustin Area General Plan to change the land use
designation for the subject properties from Residential
Multiple-Family to Commercial
RECOI~ENDED ACTION
Adopt Resolution No. 2078, recommending to the City Council adoption of
General Plan Amendment 83-1(A) changing the land use designation for the
subject properties from Residential (Multiple-Family) to Commercial.
BACKGROUND
All of the subject properties were annexed into the City by 1978. A
summary of past actions concerning land use actions is as follows:
Novea~r 15, 1976 - General Plan Amendment 76-2(E) was approved, changing
the land use classification of the property on the southeast corner of
Newport and Andrews from Multiple Family to Commercial.
April 4, 1977 - General Plan Amendment 77-1(C) was approved changing the
General Plan from Single-Family to Multiple-Family Residential. The
properties affected were all properties fifty feet easterly of Newport
Avenue along the southerly side of San Juan and both sides of Walnut to
Orange Street, as well as all properties easterly of Newport along the
northerly side of Bonita to Orange Street.
October 17, 1977 - Pre-Zone 77-4 was approved resulting in a zone change
from Orange County R-2 to Commercial General for the properties + 230 feet
easterly of the centerline of Newport Avenue between Bonita and ~ public
alley + 210 feet northerly from the centerline of Walnut. The zone change
was final when the properties were annexed into the City. However, the
General Plan was not amended to reflect a commercial designation.
October 20, 1982 - Resulting from a request from the property owner for
land use reclassification for the apartment complex at 18112-18138 Main
Street as well as the World Service Station from the present Multiple-
Chairman & Commission Members
February 28, lg83
Page 2
Family designation to Commercial, the issue was brought before the Planning
Agency. In reviewing the appropriateness of the request, staff was of the
opinion that not only a redesignation of the Main Street property was a
reasonable and desireable action, but in addition, several other properties
in the immediate area should be changed to promote more suitable
development potential. The Planning Agency agreed and directed staff to
initiate proceedings for the necessary General Plan Amendment.
DISCUSSION
The matter before the Commission is two-fold: first, as a response to a
specific request by a property owner to change the land use classification
from Multiple-Family Residential to Co~nercial thereby more appropriately
reflecting the highest and best use for his property; secondly~ as a
"house-keeping" item to bring the General Plan and current zoning into
conformance with each other as required by Section 65860 of the California
Government Code. As was pointed out, Pre-Zone 77-4 did not have a
corresponding general plan amendment.
As in the case of past land use actions, a basis for General Plan Amendment
83-1(A) is that the redevelopment of existing non-conforming structures and
uses will be more readily accommodated by the subject general plan
amendment. The size of the areas involved is more than adequate to promote
quality development of viable retail commercial uses along Newport.
It should be pointed out that future development of several of the
properties involved will require at least conditional use permit approval
and in some cases will require a zone change. Also, this department has
not received any specific development plans for the area bounded by
Andrews, Newport and Main. It is recommended that when the necessary zone
change is considered,~that a Planned Unit Development concept be utilized
for all development on the site. Additionally, it is recommended that all
properties that front on Newport not currently zoned CG be re-zoned as
such.
CONCLUSIONS-
1. That Commercial is a more appropriate land use classification for the
properties than Multiple-Family.
2. That in some cases the General Plan should be amended as a
"house-keeping" item to bring zoning and general plan designations into
conformance.
3. That it is recommended when future zone changes are required, a Planned
Unit Development concept should be utilized.
4. That approval of General Plan Amendment 83-1(A) be recommended to the
City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 2078.
JSD:jh
PC-C C
C
C
C
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 83-1(A)
~le Family .Residential to
.Commercial
;'8
~ t,,' ....:i:::i%:':' "'~ii:~ii~i::: ~ /
:. ~l,- ~ _~ ] J ! ~ '~ r
~. . ~ ~ ,..,..~:~=.=..~.. _, , -. ~ .-~ --. ~ · ,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~:...~ . ~ d~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ .
~ ~ ~'"~:~. ~ ~ .. ~ .....
' J ~:::~L~:~'~:;~ :~ - - - ' " m~z e e o o o o o
~ ,%~'~ "~1 ~' ~1 '~'~'"~ ~"
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2078
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 1021, 1031, 1041 BONITA STREET;
1012, 1021, 1022, 1032 WALNUT; 1021, 1031, 1033
SAN JUAN STREET; 1031-1034, 1045, 1047, 1051,
1053 ANDREWS; 13662 NEWPORT AVENUE AND 18112-18138
MAIN 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 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.
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(A) to reclassify
the parcels of land at 1021, 1031,1041, Bonita Street;
1012, 1021, 1022, 1032 Walnut, 1021, 1031, 1033 San Juan
Street, 1031-1034, 1045, 1047, 1051, 1053 Andrews,
13662 Newport Avenue and 18112-18138 Main Street from
the Multiple-Family classification to the Commercial
classification.
B. That a Negative Declaration has been applied for to
comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.
C. That the change in classification 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:
That the appropriate land use classification should
be Commerical rather than Residental because of the
Newport Avenue frontage, as well as current land
uses.
That the amendment will establish a conformance
between the General Plan and current zoning as
required by Section 65860 of the Government Code of
the State of California.
II.
The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment 83-1(A) to
reclassify subject parcels as identified herein from the
Multiple-Family Residential to the Commercial
Classification.
28
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2078
February 28, 1983
Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission held on the~day of , 1983.
Janet Hester
Recording Secretary
James ~. Edgar, Chairman
DATE:
TO:
FROH:
SUBJECT:
February 28, 1983
Pb~LIC 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)
RECOI~IENDED 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, while 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 1trine 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, 1983
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.
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.
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.
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 General Plan Amendment 83-1(B) be recommended to the
City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2079.
JSD:jh
- I_"-"-1111
! c~c
', ~ C' C
I;
C
C
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 83-1(A)
~le Family Residential to
· Couu.ercial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2079
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
PROPERTY AT 1252 IRVIN£ BOULEVARD
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.
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.
B. That a Negative Declaration has been applied for to
comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.
C. That the change in classification 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:
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.
That the Professional classification will minimize
the impacts of potential future development as it
would affect residents of the adjacent single-family
homes.
II.
The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment 83-1(B) to
reclassify subject parcel as identified herein (in
Exhibit "A") 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. Edgar, Chairman
DATE:
February 28, 1983
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2
Inter-Corn
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Chairman & Commission Members
Community Development Department
"Second" Revised Tentative Tract 11582~
Applicant:
Owner:
Location:
Request:
Smitley & Associates on behalf of Investors Development
Mark Ainslie, et. al.
1082, 1092, 1102 and 1112 San Juan
To subdivide 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 also 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 allowed twenty-six (26) condominiums.
A new developer is now requesting authorization to amend the map from a
one-lot condominium project to twenty-six townhouses (27 numbered and
lettered lots). The proposed project is in conformance with the Tustin
Area General Plan (multiple-family). The proposed map is also in
conformance with the approved site plan which was adopted by Resolution
No. 2048 under Variance 82-8.
All of the conditions of approval are listed in Resolution No. 2080.
RECOPI~NDED ACTION
Recommend approval of "Second" Revised Tentative Tract 11582 to the City
Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2080.
MAC:ih
~_~I.:~D T£AIT,~ lIVE OF
'~ACT NO. 1158Z
WALNUT
1
2
3
4
RESOLUTION NO. 2080
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF SECOND REVISED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11582
5-he Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
6'ollows:
7 I.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 II.
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application was filed by Smitely and
Associates on behalf of Mark Ainslie et. al. pursuant 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 map is in conformance with the Tustin Area
General Plan.
C. A Negative Declaration was previously approved to
conform with the California Environmental Quality Act.
The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of
Second Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 11582, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Submission of CC&R's to the City Attorney's office
for review and approval prior to any Council action on
the final tract map.
2. Provision for an individual sanitary~sewer and
domestic water service to each residential lot and a
separate water meter for the common area.
3. Submission of a final grading plan for review and
approval.
4. Preparation of improvement plans for and construction
of, but not limited to, the following public works
improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer:
a. Street paving
b. Curb and gutter
c. Sidewalk
d. Street trees
e. Street lights
f. Water mains
g. Cable television conduit
h. Alley pavement as need adjacent to this development
i. Cross gutter and spandrel
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution Nu. 2046
August 2, 1982
Page 2
5. Payment of the following fees:
a. Orange County Sanitation District no. 7 in the
amount of $250/dwelling unit.
b. East Orange County Water District in the amount of
$500/dwelling unit.
6. The existing right-of-way on San Juan is 33 feet from
the centerline. The proposed street improvements to be
constructed along San Juan with this development will
require only 30 feet of right-of-way. Consequently, it
is recommended that the City abandon the southerly three
feet of the street right-of-way. The tentative map
should be revised to show the right-of-way as 33 feet
and the potential for the three-foot abandonment.
7. Pa)qnent o~ Parkland Dedication Fees.
8. The map shows 26 condominium lots and 27 garage
lots. Each of the garage lots should be designated with
a different letter only. Also, lot 27 should be a
lettered lot and indicated as not a separate building
site.
9. The existing water main size and location in San Juan
is not shown correctly.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Agency of
the City of Tusitn held on the day of , 1982.
Richard B. Edgar, Chairman
Janet Hester
Recording Secretary
DATE:
February 28, 1983
PUbliC HEARING NO. 3
Inter-Corn
TO:
FROM:
SUBdECT:
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.
RECOIIqENDED A~TION
Approval of Use Permit 83-1 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2081
substantially as drafted.
BACKGROUND
On 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
this 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.
COLLUSIONS
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.
The building addition is requested for the expansion of an existing
business and the site can accommodate the added building area.
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
DEVELOPRENT REVIEW SUFt~,RY
Project:
Location/District:
Action:
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:
Number of Public Notifications (Owners):
* No Standard
~"~ R1 .R1 . C2P CO
r '~ ~ Office Addition
~D 1.. ~ ....... ,,
.
R3 1750
ORDINANCE NO. 882
AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING
ORDINANCE NO. 881 AND DECLARING A MORATORIUM ON
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS DESIGNED FOR OFFICE USE IN
THE C-1, C-2, CG, M AND PC-COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
FOR A PERIOD OF ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY DAYS.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does ordain as
follows:
1. A moratorium is hereby declared on issuance of per-
mits or approvals of any kind for development projects designed
for office uses in the C-I, C-2, CG, M and PC-Commercial Dis-
tricts without first obtaining a use permit therefor in order
that the City Council may study the need for an ordinance regu-
10 lating or prohibiting such development and uses.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
11 2. The moratorium declared hereby shall extend for a
period of four (4) months from date of adoption of this ordi-
12
nance, unless duly extended or appealed.
131 3. This ordinance is adopted to protect the public
I health, safety and welfare and is adopted as an urgency measure
14 by a four-fifths (4/5) vote, pursuant to the provisions of Sec-
tion 65858 .of the California Gqvernment Code and shall take
15! effect immediately. The urgency is based on the fact that the
i City Council hereby finds that the construction use of said uses
16 may have adverse effect on other development and uses in the City
and therefore further study is warranted.
4. Testimony at the regular meeting of the City Coun-
cil on November 1, 1982, and the comments of the City Council in
reference to that item are incorporated herein by this reference.
5. Ordinance No. 881 is hereby repealed.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Council of
the City of Tustin, California, held on the 15th 'day of
November , 1982.
/
MAYOR
ATTEST:
28 JGR:se:D:11/8/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 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 with the Land Use
Element of the Tustin Area General Plan and the
Central Commercial District of the Zoning Code.
e
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.
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
Resolution No..081
February 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:
Ae
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.
F. The architectural elevations shall be improved as
presented in the application, "Exhibit A".
G. The building elevations shall be improved as
presented in the application.
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.
I. A grading plan shall be submitted to the Building
Divsion for review and approved.
Oe
Additional County Sanitation District No. 7 sewer
connection fees will be required based upon the
additional square footage of the floor area.
28
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. _081
February 28, 1983
Page 3
K. Payment of East Orange County Water District fees
will be required prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
L. Overhead electrical utilities shall be undergrounded
as required by City Ordinance.
M. 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
OATE:
February 28, 1983
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 4
Inter-Corn
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Chairman & Commission Members
Community Development Department
Use Permit No. 83-2
Zoning:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
C-2 (Central Commercial)
Daniel Angstadt
674 E1Camino Real/E1Camino Plaza
Authorization to display boats in an outdoor storage area in
conjunction with a sales office at 674 E1Camino Real.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
In 1976 a use permit was approved for the renovation of Tustin Square which
is now known as E1 Camino Plaza. At that time the renovation was only for
the existing buildings and parking lot and did not include the parcel in
question for this request. This parcel at the present time is unimproved
and it is located adjacent to the I-5 freeway imbankment.
The applicant has submitted two(2) site plan proposals for the boat display
area. One plan indicates the site to be graded and paved, and another,
which is the applicant's preference, indicates the ease of a gravel surface
in the storage yard.
Under Section 9297 of the zoning ordinance it states: Parking not
otherwise required to be in a garage or carport must be located in a paved
are on the same lot or parcel of land or contiguous thereto.
The land uses in the immediate area are as follows:
North:
East:
South:
E1Camino Plaza(C-2)
Vacant land (C-2)
1-5 Freeway
The following are comments from various departments.
Engineering Department:
1. The parcel as plotted on the site plan is not consistent with the
parcel identified as AP#401-631-04 in the assessors map book. The
dimensions between the two plots do not agree and will have to be
rectified and dimensioned to properly show the parcel.
2. If the parcel is to be graded and paved as indicated, a grading plan
shall be prepared to insure that drainage is not directed in a concentrated
form to the parcel located to the east.
Chairman & Commission Members
February 28, 1983
Page 2
Fire Department:
1. Provide 4A4OBC extinguisher on site.
2. Fire Department access shall be provided through gate only to be locked
with County padlock or non case hardened lock.
Police Department:
The Crime Prevention section stated that they felt security was
questionable the way it was suggested on the submitted plans(chain link).
It would only take a few moments to use wire cutters on the fence, remove a
boat and trailer, and be on the freeway on-ramp. They suggested a block
wall with an alarmed gate for needed security.
FIIiI)INGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The location of the proposed boat storage yard will not be visible from
the public right-of-way and therefore should not pose as a visual impact to
the area.
2. The remoteness of the storage area will., however lend itself to
possible burglary and vandalism problems without some crime prevention
measures being instituted.
3. The use of gravel rather than a paved area could cause debris problems
in the nearby streets as trailers travel from the site.
RECOI~ENDED ACTION:
Approve Use Permit 83-2 by the adoption of Resolution 2082.
MAC:jk
2-28-83
'l
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The Planning
fol 1 ows:
RESOLUTION NO. 2082
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AGENC~ OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING THE DISPLAY OF
BOATS IN AN OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA IN CONJUNCTION
WITH A SALES OFFICE AT 674 EL CAMINO REAL.
Agency of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application (Use Permit No. 83-2), has
been filed by Daniel Angstadt, requesting authorization
to display boats in an outdoor storage area in
conjunction with a sales office at 674 E1Camino Real.
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 g~neral welfare of the persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of such proposed use,
evidenced by the following findings:
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the Land Use
Element of the Tustin Area General Plan and the Central
Commercial District of the Zoning Code.
2. The site is near the freeway and to the rear of the
shopping center and is therefore a desirable site for
outdoor storage.
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 wel fare
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 Department.
28
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. 2082
Date 2-28-83
Page 2
II.
The Planning Agency hereby approves Conditional Use
Permit No. 83-2 to authorize the display of boats in an
outdoor storage area in conjunction with a sales office
at 674 E1Camino Real subject to the following
conditions:
A. Dimension the site plan to reflect the size of
parcel AP#401-631-04 in the assessors map book.
B. Prepare a grading plan to ensure that drainage is
not directed in a concentrated form to the parcel
located to the east.
C. Provide 4A4OBC extinguisher on site.
D. Provide security gate to the satisfaction of the
Fire Marshal.
E. Pave parking area.to City Standards.
F. Provide security around the perimeter of the storage
yard..
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tusitn Planning
Agency, held on 28 day of February, 1983.
James B. Sharp
Chairman
Janet Hester
Recording Secretary
MAC:jk
2r28-83
28
BATE:
February 28, 1983
NEW bdSINESS NO. 1
Inter-Corn
TO:
FROH:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Chairman & Commission Members
Community. Development Department
Request for Formal Finding, Tattooing Establishments
BACKGROUND
Section 9270.a of the Tustin City Code states that if any ambiguity arises
concerning the appropriate classification of a particular use within the
meaning and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission shall
ascertain pertinent facts, and by resolution set forth its findings and
interpretations and thereafter such interpretations shall govern.
The Planning staff has received a letter from a businessman, Mr. David R.
Spellman, interested in locating a tattooing establishment in the City.
This type of use is not mentioned in the Zoning Code, nor in any business
regulations as being permitted or prohibited. It is stated in the Zoning
Code, that only the listed 'uses of each district are permitted.
Mr. Spellman's objective is to serve the military community from the two
nearby Marine stations. A copy of his letter is included with this
report.
Personal service businesses are authorized in City areas as follows:
Professional:
C-1, C-2, CG:
M District
Medical offices (doctors, dentists, chiropractors)
Barber shops
Beauty salons
Health clubs (use permit)
Figure modeling studio (use permit)
Massage establishment (use permit)
All uses authorized in C-1 and C-2
Planning staff conducted a phone survey of neighboring cities regarding
their regulations. A few communities allow the use as a matter of right in
all commercial districts. Others authorize it in commercial areas by use
permit and some communities place tattooing establishments in the adult
business category with accompanying minimum distance requirements from
possible sensitive uses (schools, churches, etc.). Traditionally,
tattooing establishments have caused concern in port cities, such as Long
Beach, and military communities where the market for the service readily
exists. Those communities generally have had laws enacted for a number of
years regulating the activity.
Chairman & Commission Members
February 28, 1983
Page 2
The matter before the Commission is three-fold and the following items
should be considered in any decision:
1. The question of appropriate zoning districts and accompanying
development guidelines.
2. The enactment of health and safety provisions regulating the
operations of the establishments.
3. The enforcement activities needed to ensure compliance with health
and safety matters.
There are many government agencies with health and safety regulations which
would form the basis for a City'ordinance. Such regulation should be
enforced by the Orange.County Heal th Department. Our current contract with
the County would have to he re-negotiated to provide tattooing
establishments health inspections.
The Planning Commission may make one of the following decisions:
1. Tattooing establishments are not allowed in commercial/industrial
. districts, except when specifically mentioned and authorized by the
Zoning Ordinance.
2. Tattooing establishments are authorized in co~nercial/industrial
districts (or specific districts) subject to a use permit.
3. Tattooing establishments are authorized in commercial districts (or
specific districts) as a matter of right without Commission review.
RECOIldENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission find that tattooing
establishments are not authorized in any zoning district. This decision
would still allow Mr. Spellman to formally request, at his cost, an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for his business. With the current
financial concerns of all cities, the decision to allow tattooing
establishments should not be made without a detailed fiscal impact analysis
of a re-negotiated health contact with the County.
AGW:jh
Members of the City Council
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
2128 Orange Ave. #D
Costa Mesa, CA 92627~
January 22, 1983 ~~
Dear Hon. Members of the City Council of the City of Tustin,
Recently~ I approached the Senior Planner, Community
Development Dept. requesting information about obtaining a business
license. We looked through the 'Big Book' of the zoning ordinance,
and were unable to locate any listing of the type of business I
would like to open.
The Planner suggested I write to the City Council to determine
if my business would be allowed to operate in the City of Tustin.
I am engaged in probably the oldest art form known to man.
The aesthetic decoration of the human body, known as tattooing. For
centuries man has used this form of decoration to express his innermost
se~f. The artistry of~permenently altering our appearance has been
universal among all pegple since~the dawn of mankind.
For the past sixyears I have been employed as manager of the
tattoo studio in Santa Ana. Now, I am ready to go out on my own and
establish my ow~ studio.
The reason I would'like to open my studio in the Tustin area,
is it's close proximity to two marine bases. Although people from
all walks of life choose to decorate their bodies, it has been my
experience, in the past twenty years of tattooing, that the Marine Corps.
has been my best and most preffered customers. They are quiet, clean,
respectful and appreciative of my art.
I intend to maintain and operate my business as a "hospital-clean"
studio, offering complete Autoclave sterilization of all materials
and proceedures for the protection and peace of mind of my customers
and myself.
I would like to maintain a 12 hour working day, operating
from about 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. I expect by busyest days to be aroung the
first and fifteenth of the month, when the servicemen get paid, although
I wish to be open on a 5 or 6 day schedule.
I am therefor, asking for the approval of the City Council so
that I may open a small studio in the City of Tustin, and if approved,
an appropriate location where I may operate.
have enclosed a self addressed envelope for your reply.
a~vi~ ~rs, ver~ruly~,
~. S-~llman
DATE:
February 28, 1983
Nm,~ BUSINESS NO. 2
Inter - C om
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Chairman & Commission Members
Community Development Department
Moratorium on Office Development in Commercial Zoning Districts
BACKGROUND
Because of Council concerns about commitments of commercial lands to solely
or predominantly office use with a loss of potential retail sales uses, and
a concern over height and design of office structures (+45 feet in height
with two stories over at-grade barking), the moratorium-was adopted
November 15, 1982. In. addition it was felt that such office complexes were
deficient in parking at the standard of one space per each 300 square feet
of gross floor area as provided by Tustin's Development Standards. The
four-month time limit expires March 15, lg83. All such uses are currently
subject to Planning Commission action on a use permit. Without the
moratorium, some uses would be subject to no discretionary action and uses
conforming to code would be granted building permits.
DISCUSSION
There was a lack of consensus on specifics of regulatory changes to be
proposed at the Council level and the first project reviewed under the
moratorium was granted 100 percent office usage with increased parking,
while the second was approved at regular parking standards with a percent
(61) conditioned as retail sales only. It would appear from discussion and
these actions that set percentanges, parking or other standards, are
neither formulated nor resolute.
Historically, commercial zoning has included numerous non-retail uses not
only in Tustin but in the preponderance of communities; no aberration to
this general condition has yet been identified by staff. Throughout our
commercial shopping centers and districts, we find not only general
offices, but other non-retail sales uses such as banks, cleaners, savings
and loans, barber shops, travel agents, real estate, dog grooming, shoe
repair, beauty salons, insurance agents, optometrists, employment agencies
and the like. Any general restriction of specific commercial zones as
retail only would immediately created an abundant supply of non-conforming
uses throughout the City. This would appear an undesireable circumstance.
It would appear best that the issue be retained as discretionary for
initial consideration of new developments under a use permit procedure.
Chairman & Commission Members
February 28, 1983
Page 2
The question of building height in commercial districts was presented to
the City Council for a determination on changes to be made to the existing
requirements (especially C2, M and PC) which permits up to 50 feet and
three, or even four, stories. At a study session on December 7, 1981, an
extensive graphic presentation on commercial and residential building
heights and ordinance provisions was made to the Planning Agency. The
Council was unable to determine any changes necessary or felt suggested
amendments by staff were not yet appropriate. Council took the matter
under advisement with members to relate input to staff regarding such
changes. No input has yet been forthcoming. In light of the Council not
making code modifications in this regard, the only regulatory method
appearing acceptable is again review of all commercial projects via the use
permit process.
The concern about parking was more clearly defined at one of the hearings
under the moratorium and since no code amendment has yet been proposed,
that option may still be open fpr exploration. It was felt by staff, based
on statments of proponents for the Firemans Fund and Signal Development
office complexes, that a requirement of one space per 250 square feet may
be appropriate for offic~ use in lieu of the current 1/300 square feet.
Comparative information should be solicited and a proposed resolution
prepared to amend the development standards.
RECO~NDED ACTION
1. Recommend to the City Council, extension of Urgency Ordinance No. 882
for an additional 120 days, continuing the use permit process for new
construction.
2. Develop an amendment to the General Regulation section of the Tustin
Zoning Ordinance, making the use permit procedure permanent for such
uses and adopting "guidelines" for review.
3. Develop alternative amendments to parking provisions for office
complexes.
4. Modify definitions within the Zoning Ordinance to define the difference
between retail and service commercial uses.
MWB: jh