The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPH 1 USE PERMIT 81-27 10-21-81___ AU_ : " ___ . U DATE: October 13, 1981 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Appeal of Use Permit No. 81-27 7:30 PUBLIC HEARING No. 1 1G ,21,8.1 Inter -Coto RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval of the appeal with reconsideration of design modification. G:�I0Lftllum On October 5, 1981 the Planning Agency denied a use permit application request- ing approval of an eight (8) unit condominium project at 1161 Sycamore Avenue. The finding on which the Planning Agency based its denial, as contained in Resolution No. 2000, is as follows: "The proposed project does not conform to the Specific Standards of the Planned Development Distrit which requires that two story struc- tures maintain a 150' setback from R-1 zoned properties." DISCUSSION: With the appeal, the applicant has submitted plans to reduce the overall height of the rear structure. One proposal (Section B) modified the height to roof peak to 26'-0" above existing grade, with the parking level being 5'-0" below grade. A second alternative (Section A) reduces the total height to 22'-0" by using a flat roof design. The line of sight detail indicates a similar view from the R-1 lots of each design from a point 20'-0" from the property line. In order to preserve the privacy of the single family property, a proposal was recommended by the staff to include permanent architectural screening on any window or balcony of the second level that is immediately adjacent to a R-1 district. Subsequent dicussions with the City's Plan Checker indicate that there may be difficulties in satisfying the Building Code requirements with such a condition. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The reduction in roof height as proposed will reduce the visual impact of the structures. Use Permit 81-27 Page 2 2. The height of either design (A or B) is within height restrictions of R-1 Districts. The height of many single family homes in -the City are equal to 22'-0" and 26'-0". The bulk of this structure at those heights is, - however, greater. 3. The flat roof design is not consistent with the gable and hip roofs in the area. A possible alternative would be to add a small mansard around the structure to tie in with the sloping roof characteristics of existing structures. - 4. In order to satisfy both privacy concerns of nearby R-1 property and building code requirements, a redesign of the unit interiors may be needed. Due to the height of the first floor (5') above existing grade, it is recommended that all windows in the south elevation of the rear building be screened or consructed to 6'-8" height, above floor lines. 5. A resolution of approval has been drafted for consideration, as well as a resolution of denial. AGW/l1h w 15 36 k VNl ALL A= ALM a1.K5 rR7b1 y. A04 13WT QWVWN JIAPWOa L 11 9 I I I �I I I I 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. 81-118 (A) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF EIGHT (8) CONDOMINIUM UNITS IN AN R-3 ZONE LOCATED AT 1162 SYCAMORE AVENUE ON APPEAL OF PLANNING AGENCY USE PERMIT ACTION The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application, Use Permit No. 81-27, was filed on behalf of Barnett-Nowling to authorize the development of eight condomimium units in one phase, at 1162 Sycamore Avenue. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application and that the Planning Agency denied Use Permit No. 81-27 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2000. C. That a proper appeal application of the Planning Agency action has been filed on behalf of Barnett-Nowling to request recon- sideration of the final determination of said application. D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said appeal. E. That the City Council determines that the establishment, main- tenance, and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings: 1. The project is in substantial conformance with the planned development district. 2. The project is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan. F. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not be injurious or detrimental to the proper- ty and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject proper- ty, nor to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, and should be granted. G. Proposed development shall be in accordance with the develop- ment 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 261 27 281 H. The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. I. Final development plans shall require the review and approvl of the Community Development Department. II. The City Council hereby overrules the findings of the Planning Agency, as contained in Resolution No. 1934, and hereby approves Use Permit 81-27, subject to the following conditions: A. The final site plan shall be standardized and reflect all appro- priate City Standard drawing numbers. The developer shall con- struct all missing or damaged street improvements to said develop- ment per the City of Tustin "Minimum Design Standards of Public Works" and "Street Improvements Standards." This work shall con- sist of but is not limited to: curbs and gutters, sidewalks, drive apron, and street pavement. B. A grading plan shall be submitted for review and approval, includ- ing detail ramp grades for the underground parking. C. A final landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval. D. The filing of a tentative and final map shall be required. E. The establishment of an Owner's Association for all the mainte- nance of all common areas and the submission of CC&R's to the City Attorney for review and approval. F. All utilities serving the proposed development shall be under - grounded within the exterior boundary lines of the property. G. Payment of all required Orange County sanitation district fees and east Orange County Water District fees. H. Annexation of the subject parcel to the Tustin Lighting District. Proof of submittal of said annexation papers must be furnished to the City prior to approval of final map. I. The installation of marbelite street lights and underground con- duit shall be required by the City Engineer. J. A 6'-8" block wall is required along the southern boundary adja- cent to the R-1 district. K. That permanent architectural screening shall be employed on any window that is immediately adjacent to a R-1 district. Said screening shall be designed to satisfy all light, air and emergency access requirements of the Uniform Building Code. L. That the structures shall not exceed feet in height above grade. 1'I PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the day of , 1981. 2, 3 41 I' i -- 51, ATTEST: 6 7 8 Mary E. Wynn City Clerk 9 10 11 12i I 13 14 15 I 16 I 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JamesB.-Sharp Mayor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ill 11I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION 81-118 (B) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN UPHOLDING USE PERMIT 81-27 DENIAL BY THE TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application, Use Permit No. 81-27, was filed on behalf of Barnett-Nowling to authorize the development of eight condomimium units in one phase, at 1162 Sycamore Avenue. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application and that the Planning Agency denied Use Permit No. 81-27 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2000. C. That a proper appeal application of the Planning Agency action has been filed on behalf of Barnett-Nowling to request recon- sideration of the final determination of said application. D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said appeal. E. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the_ use applied for will under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or. general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings: 1. The proposed project does not conform to the Specific Stan- dards of the Planned Development District which requiresthat two story structures maintain a 150' setback from R-1 zoned properties. F. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, and to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, and should not be granted. II. The City Council hereby denies the appeal of the Planning Agency denial of Use Permit No. 81-27. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the day of , 1981. I ATTEST: Mary E. Wynn City Clerk James B. Sharp Mayor n LLI Ul c 9 0 This -is --a petition against the continued poorly planned development of R3 lots adjacent to R1 single story homes on Sycamore between Carfax and Newport Ave., South Tustin. We the undersigned feel current development of these R3 lots do not conform with the intent of the City Code. Such continued development will impact adversely upon R1 property values, safe traffic conditions and the general well being and privacy of those residents and homeowners in the immediate vicinity. r PI NAME VIA ADDRESS /20 ;71 44-Lle 11 92 //�FH'^ .z.9Ne // (o -2- 77UM,) !/ � Z I ��L .�i�� 9 0 %% ✓y.P i 476,t /IW Mil,* Al/I,d -- --- /<8z-A�IE,��,�-- ---- - (/ loy 822 17 A�1�4x c-�-f -ce- - y ia,,Z, a.e4�,ta� -7-16Tkill � J!.: Cv�✓� "T 1 C�� / J � J lid � r., �, �V \-t6r. w,v • 0 IF/ .�i:� l'1Pi'1_ i;i C1Cei v,Ut '••-_. _. F;?. ]."'.'E`E .j 1 Ir; R OBJECTIVEs Col.lectiv2 G.4 .1.. 0..^G o 'j)lace a !'luil..0in`, moratorium Oi'i new construction of ,.r;D trtmentj olid;nor cOndorliniixms gjaceiit to RI prope_ties. The lots, aft-i,er he first three no.mes from C:arfax west, are oned R3. One r unit- CCeido is now being er-octed. An 8 unit apartment Is under consideration icor the remaining undeveloped lots west. PARTICIPANTS: You, your s;-";cuse and all of your neighbors should get involved. REASONS: TiOr 3'riatti.2ig ; taltipla.: :1 u:R.1-1 ?.A1:s Is S.:_ South Tustin area. 3.. Won•-eca;pa %i} : li tyr c _e,ct- (;.o called 2 Rory ) :1i n_G- ':c tilt ` i'_ _i.e story 131 homes. 2. Reratilting Jm i-nvasi.on of ;r*'.vacy of Itl tioine omners. 3. InefeascA auto trcaffic on already over -loaded local tram c 24 ---namely Sycamore which uas nevar�d sinned tc) be a_i jor tho--roughfoire. - 4. Increased Crime 5• Existing u -balance between apartments and condos Jin relation to Rl Mousing --due to poor prior planning. Lets stop this illogical ,planning P'09:i 6. Last blit not least, whsle develope•s are J.'_^'.ki:sv. profits --- we loge. 1131 Property valves Faill dive—rather than even hold�againot inflation. VOIGE YOUR OPINIONS TO OUR ELF..C`.(EDREPRESENTA_TI;VES �.�iT L 1�s3Eigp--ax+-210 ai?d �.eave a mesf-�age for each council member Mayor Jim ShaZ'p--Ursula ii2'tLi�0y--1JloIC L:(J�iT--N,Oi1 S�ae3 F:_Cy-_.1011 Sa1ta3'eIl1 also unite yortt' ob ject'i cn to them at: Tustin City Center 300 Centenalial Way Tustin, California 92680 NEXT COUNCIL FfMIDXIt October 5Mt2r--3:00 pin --City ?tail RE `THEP1E op T' rL C; o!.Jt kk. 61V--- affort to }71.8 c a bu11di.no monma toy I -,.r on ri_:'.'i (oil_f'. i-uc ;'7 of apartment. ano/or condonin a?.s ajacent to R! The '_oi•s, after the first three hones from. Cavfax vres`�, &i_- s•:ned Rj Cn.e, 6 Llnic condo is now being erected. An 3 unit Ureear cor_, . '' r cion .for the remaining undeveloped io't.s PA. RY'iC"irAN71S: YoLy yC'V' 3:Jouse an(, all of Your neipe!bvr8 should get inlioi'Jt;d. REASOM,;: For at2tt5.nz mLii'i.7_pl:' family 'lini.ts iii South Tustin arca. 1. !?oi1-COiu�a' u:l_1 tj of h1F 1":_".38 ,r'7je_`Ls "so Cai.iad � s"trz wittl �.Li$'LinC' _.iwiiF'1E �'GC:Y'•7�R1._.IlOiuBS. 2. Reuv.lting In invasion of privacy of Rl home oviners. A. increased auto traffic on already aver '.coded local traffic s`crc_ ts--namely Sycamore which was 'c �z i_ 17eri to be. a im'Jol =t'noroocrhfare, 4 Tncreascd crime 5. Existing unbalance between apartments and condo, 9.n relation to Rl housing --due to poor prior planning. lets stop this illogical planning NOW! ! 6. Tas } but not least, while developers are iriik3_ng profi. cs --- we .,_o'se. Rl property values will dive --rather than even hold against inflation. VOICE YOUR OP dN_O_TT=_TO OUIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES CAII 544 -8690 -ext 210 and : 4P 0 This is a petition against the continued poorly planned development of R3 lots adjacent to R1 single story homes on Sycamore between Carfax and Newport Ave., South Tustin. We the undersigned feel current development of these R3 lots do not conform with the intent of the City Code. Such continued development will impact adversely upon R1 property values, safe traffic conditions and the general well being and privacy of those residents and homeowners in-the.immediate vicinity. NAME - J a ADDRESS - 1442 1478 a ca•, 6 aix _ lLJe�6Z 4% lY—�SI C.h�-e�rnu- - 1442 lLJe�6Z 4% n j -11 0 • , A AM ' /y76. 7L(s4 l;.L/ J