HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 02-07-83 Action Agenda
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA FOR REGULAR MEETING
January 24, 1983 7:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MEETING HELD
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. VARIANCE 83-3
Applicant: Glenn Riley
Location: 13681Redhill Avenue
Request: To vary with the Zoning Ordinance {No. 157, as amended)
for the front setback from an arterial highway and the
waiver of an irrevocable offer of dedication
ACTION: Authorization to vary with the front setback was granted,
authorization to waive the offer of dedication denied.
PUBLIC CONCERNS:
OLD BUSINESS:
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Extension of Use'Permit 82-3'
Applicant: Mark Kornwasser
Location: 730 E1 Camino Way
ACTION: Extension denied.
2. Information Item/New Industrial Building
Applicant: Boureston Development
Location: 2692 Dow Avenue, Irvine Industrial Complex
Project: 45,245 Square Foot Industrial Building
ACTION: Report received and filed.
3. Final Tract Map. No. 11746
Applicant: Engineers, Inc. on behalf of the Wellington Group
Location: 14351Redhill Avenue
ACTION: Commission recommended to the City Council approval of
Final Map No. 11746.
STAFF CONCERNS:
1. License & Permit Board Activities
ACTION: Report received and filed.
AGENCY CONCERNS:
ADJOURNMENT: To next regular meeting
I~TE:
TO:
FROH:
SUBJECT:
January 24, 1983
PUBLIC ~EARING NO. 1
Inter- Corn
Honorable Chairman & Planning Commission Members
Community Development Department
Variance No. 83-3
Applicant: Glenn Riley
Location: 13681 Redhill Avenue
General Plan: Multiple Family
Zoning: R-3 (1960)
Request: To vary with the front yard setback requirements for an
arterial highway and requirement of a ten-foot irrevocable
offer of dedication
RECOII~NDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of Variance 83-3 for a ten-foot front setback
from an arterial highway by the adoption of Resolution No. 20?5.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is on the west side of Redhill Avenue between San Juan
Street and Lance Drive. Surrounding land uses include a renovated office
to the south, with relatively new apartments and older single-family homes
in the area.
The current use of the site includes a vacant, partially demolished
single-family home and two concrete slabs. These slabs were constructed
several years ago when the property was still under County of Orange
jurisdiction and zoning regulations.
The project received a zone change from R-3 (2000) to R-3 (1960) in
February, 1982.
DISCUSSION
In order to thoroughly review the variance, staff will break down the
discussion accordingly:
1. a separate review of each variance request;
2. review of the arterial highway status of Redhill and ramifications
of an irrevocable offer of .dedication
3. conclusions, findings and alternatives
Chairman & Planning Commission
January 24, 1983
Page 2
The specific front setback for an R-3 zone along a major arterial is eighty
(80) feet from the center line of the road. Since a major highway has a
sixty (60) foot right-of-way from centerline (120-foot total right-of-way),
this setback translates to twenty (20) feet from the ultimate right-of-way
line. This applicant is proposing a ten-foot setback from the ultimate
right-of-way line.
Redhill Avenue is presently classified by the Master Plan of Arterial
Highways as a major arterial (120-foot right-of-way). At the present
time, it is developed to a primary arterial highway status (lO0-foot
right-of-way). Therefore, as a condition of approval, the applicant would
be required to dedicate or execute an irrevocable offer of dedication for
ten feet of right-of-way. The applicant is requesting a waiver of this
requirement.
The enclosed map (Exhibit A) indicates those properties that have come
before the City or County and been required to dedicate or been waived.
The property to the immediate south (Variance 81-4B) was required to
dedicate, two duplexes to the north dedicated, along with a townhome
and apartment project on the east side of Redhill Avenue dedicated. One
project, (Variance 82-2) was allowed to waive the dedication requirement.
For this one project, Councilman Edgar stated at the meeting that he "felt
the Agency could not justify the requirement of an irrevocable offer of
dedication for an existing structure. In the case of a new structure , it
would be a reasonable request". The applicant's project would be a newly
constructed apartment complex.
What are the implications of an irrevocable offer of dedication? The
dedicated land would be still owned by the present property owner, but the
City would have the right, at any future date, to develop and own the strip
of land without having to condemn the property and purchase it at fair
market value. In the event the irrevocable offer is not required, it can
be quit-claimed back to the property owner.
The basis for granting a variance includes: "That because of special
circumstances applicable to the subject property including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning
Ordinance is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by
other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications".
Chairman & Planning Commission
January 24, 1983
Page 3
It is staff's contention that a hardship does exist only for the front
setback from an arterial, due to the following findings:
1. The location of the property. The enactment of subsequent zoning
ordinance regulations have restricted the feasible development of this
property. Some surrounding properties do not suffer from this
regulation and can develop with lesser setbacks than the one required
for this property.
2. The Planning Agency has previously approved two variances (81-4B, 82-2)
for front yard setbacks along an arterial highway.
Staff does not recommend that the ten-foot dedication be waived and cannot
determine any plausible hardship to support that waiver.
Staff does submit two alternatives to the development of the property.
These include:
1. Allow the applicant to develop the project as submitted with a ten-foot
dedication. In this alternative, the applicant could utilize the
existing concrete slabs but because of this site constraint, two open
parking spaces would be located within the ten-foot dedication. The
.project would conform to the zone's parking requirements until the
dedication is improved.
2. Have the applicant redesign the project to include the ten-foot
dedication strip as landscape area. Staff has determined that it is
possible to do this redesign and still retain four units and eight
parking spaces. The applicant would have to demolish the existing
concrete slabs and move the units toward the rear of the site. By
having the ten-foot landscape strip, the project would be in conformance
with current development standards along with parking and after
improvement of the strip, still be in conformance with parking
requirements.
duplex
single family
DEDI~.ATED
)
EXHIBIT
f~
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
The Planning
follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 2075
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, GRANTING AUTHORITY
TO VARY WITH THE FRONT SETBACK FROM AN
ARTERIAL HIGHWAY, REDUCING THE REQUIRED
TWENTY (20) FEET TO TEN (10) FEET FOR
13681 REDHILL AVENUE
Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application, (Variance No. 83-3), was
filed by Glenn Riley requesting authorization to vary
with the front setback requirements from at arterial
highway.
B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and
held on said application.
C. That because of special circumstances applicable to
the subject property, relative to size, shape, topo-
graphy, location or surroundings, a strict application
of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive subject
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties
in the vicinity and under identical zone classification,
evidenced by the following findings:
1. The use is in conformance with the land use
element of the Tustin Area General Plan.
2. The enactment of subsequent zoning ordinance
requlations have restricted the feasible development
of the property.
D. That the granting of a variance as herein provided
will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties
in the vicinity and district in which the subject
property is situated.
E. That this project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
F. That the granting of the variance as herein provided
will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance or the public safety, health and welfare,
and said variance should be granted.
G. 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 Codes as administered by the Orange
County Fire Marshal; and street improvement
requirements as administered by the City Engineer.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Resolution No. ~075
January 24, 1983
Page 2
H. Final development plans shall require the review
and approval of the Community Development Director.
II. Planning Commission hereby grants a variance as applied
for, to authorize the reduction of the required twenty foot
front setback from an arterial highway to ten feet, subject
to the following conditions:
A. The final site plan shall be standardized and
reflect all aproprtate City standard drawing numbers.
The developer shall construct all missing or damaged
street i~rovements 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.
B. Prior to building permit issuance, a landscape plan
shall be required for review and approval.
C. East Orange County Water District fees shall be
required prior to issuance of building permits.
D. A final grading plan shall be required for review
and approval.
E. Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 connection
fees shall be required at the time a building permit is
issued.
F. A ten foot irrevocable offer of dedication shall be
required along the Redhill Avenue frontage.
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:
January 24, 1983
NE~ BUSINESS NO. 1
Inter -Corn
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Chairman & Planning Commission Members
Community Development Department
Extension of Use Permit 82-3
Applicant:
Location:
Zoning:
Request:
Mark Kornwasser
730 E1 Camino Way
Central Commercial (C-2) District
To Extend Use Permit 82-3
RECOI~r~DED ACTIO#
It is recommended the Commission deny the request for extension of Use
Permit 82-3.
BACICGROUND
In August, 1980, the Planning Agency approved Use Permit 80-16.authorizing
the construction of a three-story office structure at 730. E1 Camino Way.
The Use Permit Was required since the project was to be developed as
condominiums, otherwise the complex me~ all code requirements and could
have been constructed without a public hearing.
As of August, 1981, the project had not commenced construction and
therefore Use Permit 80-16 expired.
On February 16, 1982, the Planning Agency held a public hearing on the
re-submittal of the proposal (Use Permit 82-3) and again granted approval.
This second Use Permit is due to expire on February 16, 1983.
Additional actions taken with respect to the projects include the approval
of Tentative Tract Map No. 11185, which has since expired, and the issuance
of the building permit for structure, also which has expired.
DI~USSION
As has been pointed out, original approval for this project dates back more
than two years. Several changes have taken place since then in terms of
Planning Agency policy. For example, at-grade parking under two stories of
office has become, from a design standpoint, a concern of the Agency. More
Chairman & Planning Commission
January 24, 1983
Page 2
importantly, on November 15, 1982, the City Council imposed a 120-day
moratorium on the issuance of all building permits for professional office
buildings in retail/commercial zones pending Use Permit approval.
Therefore, the situation surrounding the project before the commission has
somewhat changed since initial approval in that a Use Permit is required
regardless of the method used to market the project (i.e, condo vs.
leasable space). Further, recent Agency approval of an office project to
be located in the Commercial General (CG) District imposed two
restrictions:
a. reduction in project density
b. available on'site parking in excess of the standard office ratio
of one space per 300 square feet.
It is felt that a comprehensive review of the project is in order.
CONCLUSIONS
Staff feels that because this is essentially a two-year old project, the
tentative map and the building permit have expired, and there may be a
concern over the design and use of commercial property for office space,
the recommendation to the Commission should be to deny the request for an
extension of Use Permit 82-3.
JSD:jh
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
S UBJ ECT:
January 24, 1983
NE,, BUSINESS NO. 2
Inter-Corn
Honorable Chairman & Planning Commission Members
Community Development Department
Information Item/New Industrial Building
Applicant:
Location:
Zoning:
Project:
Boureston Development
2692 Dow Avenue, Irvine Industrial Complex
Planned Community (PC) District
45,245 Square Foot Industrial Building
R£COIIdlENDED ACTZON
Receive and file. This is an information item only, no Conmnission action
is needed.
BACY, GROUND
As a matter of policy, the Planning Agency in recent months has reviewed
all large development prbposals prior to the issuance of building permits.
In this manner, the agency was able to obtain a more comprehensive
knowledge of the overall development pattern within the City.
Additionally, should a concern over building design or land use have
arisen, the Agency could then have directed staff to further review the
projects.
Until directed otherwise, staff will continue to advise the Commission of
all large development proposals submitted to the Community Development
Department.
DISCUSSION
The item before the Commission today is basically a speculative type
industrial building which, as submitted, meets all code requirements of the
PC Industrial zone and staff has no concerns in terms of the construction
of the building. However, it should be mentioned at the outset that
maximum office use allowable for this site is equal to 50% of the total
square footage. Even though, the parking provided would accommodate almost
100% office use.
At such time the tenant improvement plans are submitted for building
permits the Commission will again be advised of the situation if it is felt
a proposed use may be in conflict with the governing zoning restrictions.
It should also be pointed out that The Irvine Company has reviewed the
plans as required by deed restriction and no concerns were noted.
Development Review Summary
Luilding:
Front Setback
silo S~ac~
2ear ~etba~k
~ ~ ~:~
"' c'~'~'~S
.......~...;ri ~i:q, CO1
~,:~:~er of Spaces
Ratio (space/sq.
· =~p~,ct Spaces
ft.)
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
January 24, 1983
NEW BUSINESS NO. 3
Honorable Chairman & Planning Commission Members
Community Development Department
Final Tract Map No. 11746
Applicant:
Location:
Zoning:
Wel 11 ngton Properties
14351 Redhill Avenue
R-3
BACICGROUND & DISCUSSION
The subject map is a one (1) lot subdivision consisting of 0.23 acres and
is located on the westerly side of Redhill Avenue between Walnut and
Mitchell Avenues. This property is being subdivided by Wellington
Properties for condominium purposes into five (5)-units.
On February 1, 1982, the Planning Agency and City Council approved the
Tentative Map by the adoption of Resolutions 2018 and 82-10. On that same
date, the Planning Agency approved Use Permit 82-1 which gave them
authority to build office condominiums.
The map is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan.
RECOI~I~ENDED ACTION
Recommend approval of this Final Map to' the City Council by the adoption of
Resolution Ho. 2074.
MAC:ih
I
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. 2074
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 11746
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That Final Tract Map No. 11746 was submitted
to the Planning Commission pursuant to Ordinance No. 847
by Engineers, Inc., on behalf of the Wellington Group to
create a one lot subdivision for proposed condominiums
on part of Lot 47 in Block 11 of Irvine Subdivision as
per map recorded in Book 1, page 88 of Miscellaneous
Maps of Orange County. (14351Redhill Avenue.)
B. That said map is in conformance with the Tustin Area
General Plan.
C. That said map is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
ti.
The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City
Council approval of Final 'Tract Map No. 11746 subject
to final approval of the City Engineer.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission
held on the. day of , 1983.
James B. Sharp, Chairman
Janet Hester, Recording Secretary
28
OATE:
January 24, 1983
STAFf' CONCERN
Inter -Cam
TO:
F ROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Chairman & Planning Commission Members
Community Development Department
Information Item/License & Permit Board Activities
DISCUSSION
The Community Development Department has recently been approached by a
representative of a non-profit motorcycle organization requesting
permission to hold a one-day rally activity which will start from Tustin
Honda. Approval by Tustin Honda will be required. Vendors are to be
allowed to sell products at Tustin Honda parking lot during the day's
activities and approximately 2,000 people might be expected on February 27,
1983.
The Tustin City Code (Section 3230) requires License & Permit Board
approval for large gatherings of people (over 500). The Board has reviewed
various one- or .two-day events such as Tustin Tiller Days and church
carnivals.
However, the Zoning Code also authorizes the Planning Commission (Section
9270b(3)) to review large gatherings of people which may cause hazards by
unusual volumns of traffic. This provision has been used for permanent
on-going facilities such as auditoriums, churches, etc.
In some instances, both bodies, License & Permit Board and the Planning
Commission are required to review the same oroposal. Generally, the
Commission reviews the appropriateness of the site and development
proposal, and the Board reviews the background of the applicants and
operators as required by City business regulations.
Staff has submitted this for future consideration of the Planning
Commission to see if more definite guidelines might be developed for
streamlining the permit procedure. We envision the following possible
alternatives:
a. Eliminate duplication review by both bodies; and/or
b. Allowing some of the approving authority with a Business License
Coordinator or the Zoning Administrator; or
c. Continuing as is with definite policy guidelines to determine which
activities the Planning Commission wishes to review in addition to
the License & Permit Board.
Any recommendation the Commission may have for changes, must be reviewed by
the City Council prior to enactment.
AGW:jh