Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.C. MINUTES 07-08-80 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular and Continued Meetings June 16, 1980 The Planning Agency held a regular and continued meeting Monday, June 16, 1980, in the Council Chambers of the Tusfin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Salfarelli at 3:05 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Edgar and the invocation was given by Mrs. Kennedy. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also present: Chairman Saltaretli; Agency Members; Edgar~ Kennedy. MINUTE5 Hoesterey and Sharp Mike Brofemarkle, Community DVelopmenf Director Alan Warren, Senior Planner Dan Blankenship, City Administrator James Rourke, City Attorney Midge Mehl, Recording Secretary The minutes of the meeting held June 2, 1980 were approved as written, with the waiving of reading same. PUBLIC HEARINGS Use Permit 80-12 (continued) Applicant: Location: Request: American Display Inc. 1382 Valencia Avenue Authorization for a heliport to be located in the parking lot. Chairman Salfarelli said if was staff's recommendation to continue this matter again, as there is approximately a two week period other agencies have in which fo respond to the request for information on the Negative Declaration. Mr. Brotemarkle indicated that staff believed some mixed signals had been re- ceived from other agencies involved. Af the May 15 meeting of the Airport Land Use Commission, the Marine Corp expressed their concern regarding interference with air space reserved for the helicopter station. Mr. Wandrick, Chief of the John Wayne Airport control tower indicated the site is directly under the fligh path and that there is a potential for major aircraft accident. 'If was moved and seconded, af fhaf meefin9, fo continue this.i~em until Thursday, June 19 meefin9 offhe Airport Land Use Commission. However, the applicant is in receipt of letters from some of the individuals involved which he believes gives a favorable connotation. It is hoped the ALUC meeting on June 19 will clarify the issue as staff would not want fo recommend a project that could possibly involve potential major aircraft accidents. Chairman Saltarelli asked if there was anyone in the audience ~ho wished fo speak on this issue. Mr. Ken Richards, representing American Display, said he had the three letters in question and would like to submit them to the Agency at this time. Mr. Brotemarkle said that perhaps American Display and staff could have an ex- change of correspondence, since they do not have a copy of the minutes which staff received this date. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Edgar, to continue Use Permit 80-12 until the regular meeting fo be held July 21. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Edgar, Kennedy, and Saltarelli None Hoesferey and Sharp Planning Agency Minutes - June 16, 1980 page 2. Variance 80-10 Applicant: Location: Request: use. Mike Zee 640 West First Street Authorization fo vary with the signing requirements for a professional Mr. Brofemarkle said this sign is for the residential structure converted fo an office building. It is not a proposed sign, but has been constructed. The primary concern of the applicant is that the property is zoned commercial, however, our sign code specifies fhaf the signing will be based upon the use of the property, which would limit them to 12 square feet identification sign and a 6 square foot wall sign per tenant. This is a 31.5 square Foot monument sign located in front of the structure. Staff has no latitude but fo recommend nega- tive consideration on the application due fo the ordinance and the failure fo find a hardship. Mr. Saltarelli asked if if was out of code since additionally there is tenant identification on the sign. Mr. Brofemarkle said if is multi-purpose as if identifies the function, the occupants, and al;so the address. M~. Edgar asked if the supporting brick posts were considered Jn the measurement of the sign. .. Mr. Brofemarkle said no. Chairman Salfarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition to Variance 80-~0. Mr. Mike Zee showed photos of the overall appearance of the sign. He said the present sign regulations allowed them a 6 square foot sign for each of the four tenants in the building. We are working with a converted house which has only one entrance and four 6 square foot signs around fhe door would detract from the appearance of the building. He hoped the Agency would find their proposal more functional as well as enhancing. Chairman Saltarelli indicated, it was difficult to find in favor when it's con- strucfed before the fact. Mr. Norman Schmelfzer, one of the occupants, said Mr. Zee was the sign contractor and if was included in the contract.that a permit would be obtained for the sign. If was after the sign was constructed fhaf he learned that a permit had not been obtained, but was told one would be obtained. He said Mr. Zee had contacted the City and checked commercial sign standards, unaware that there were Separate regulations governing a professional sign as compared to a commercial' sign.- He said he believed the office is one of the oldest structures in Tusfin and everything done was with the intent of keeping the overall quality and aesthetic appearance of the building and he thought permitted sign standards would detract from the appearance of this unique building. Mrs. Kennedy said she felt the house had been beautifully restored. Chairman Salfarelli asked if there was anyone else who wished fo speak and hea~i~g no response he declared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. There followed a disucssion regarding sign dimensions, the limits on commercial and professional signs, zoning of the property and permitted uses, and the fact that this structure was a converted house. Mr. Brofemarkle said staff did consider the fact that this was a conversion of a very old residential structure, however, no hardship, in the classical sense of a variance, was discovered. Planning Agency Minutes - June 16, 1980 page 3. J MOTION by Saltarelli, SECONDED by Edgar, fo approve Variance 80-10 on the basis that a hardship exists to the extent that this is an historical preservation of an old building and it is not unlike similar signs in the area, therefore, the variance be granted on the basis that a hardship exists. Chairman Saltarelli said the sign is legal under zoning for commercial and if they sell or lease the building fo someone for retail the same sign would be permitted. If they put four more signs on the building, in my opinion, that would degrade the aesthetics of the area and the building. Mr. Edgar asked if he could add ,o ,he mo, ion that this action would have as a condition that there be "no signage on the building itself." Chairman Salfarelli agreed fo the amendment by the second fo the motion. He then asked staff if the applicant would have to pay a double permit fee for having constructed this sign.without first obtaining a permit. Mr. Brotemarkle said yes. Mrs. Kennedy said she would like fo be flexible, but since we have a lot of professional uses located in commercial zones, and under the current City ordinance protected from over-signing, she would speak against the motion. She said the house was lovely, but thought the reader board was out of place with the style of the house and uncomplimentary fo the building. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Edgar and Salfarelli Kennedy Hoesterey and Sharp Use Permit 80-1~ Applicant: Location: Request: William Zappas Southwesterly corner cf El Camino Real and Sixth Street Authorization to expand El Camino Plaza Shopping Center Mr. Brofemarkle said this request is part of the El Camlno Plaza Shopping Center and will be the seventh use permit application we have had on the Center since ifs rejuvenation. Since this will be the last major permit that would be re- quired staff looked at the Center as a whole. With the aid of a sketch he ex- plained the exact location of the proposed building and explained the parking. A discussion was held concerning building height, parkin~ and various uses in the Center. Chairman Salfarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wishbd fo speak in favor or opposition. Mr. Mike Zappas, representing El Camino Plaza, said he would be glad to answer any questions the Agency might have. Upon a question by Mr. Salfarelli, Mr. Zappas said future landscaping would conform fo existing open pattern when they re-do the landscaping within the Center. Mr. Paul Davis, architect, questioned the location of the trash enclosures. Mr. Brofemarkle said staff could work out alternatives with the applicant as opitons are available as fo location. Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. Planning Agency Minutes - June 16, 1980 page 4. MOTION by KennedT, SECONDED by Edgar, to approve Use Permit 80-14 in conformance with the conditions outlined by the staff, and fhaf the trash enclosures be intelligently accommodated as approved by the Community Development Director. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Variance 80-11 Edgar, Kennedy, and Saltarelli None Hoesferey and Sharp Applicant: Location: Request: Acacia Equities - 15851 Pasadena Avenue Authority fo vary with the code requirements for condominium conversion for the Tustin Arms II Apartments. Chairman Salfarelli said this public hearing had been advertised for the 7:30.p.m. meeting, however, if there was anyone present who wished to speak, the Agency. would hear them at this time. Hearing no response Chair~n Saltarell~i asked th'e pleasure of the Agency. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Edgar, ,o continue ,he public hearing for Variance 80-11 fo the 7:30 p.m. mee, ing to be held ,his date. AYES: Edgar, Kennedy, And Salfarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Hoestery and Sharp OLD BUSINESS Enderle Center Site Plan Mr. Brotemarkle said there had been concern of the Agency regarding driveway ingress/egress near the liquor store on the westerly side of Enderle Center Drive. He said the plot plan has not changed from what was originally pro- posed, except if has now been modified to reflect an adjustment of fhaf drive- way and of the median in Enderle Way, in accordance with the recommendation of the Public Works Department. There followed a discussion concerning the widening of the driveway and the purpose of the proposed median in restricting fuming movements. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Edgar, to approve the Enderle Center Site Plan as submitted. Salfarelli requested staff to talk to Mr. Ledendecker about the purpose of the median for a report back fo the Agency. AYES: Edgar, Kennedy, and Salfarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Hoesterey and Sharp . Mr. Brotemarkle said there was one other item under Old Business, which did not get on the Agenda, regarding a resolution for Tune-Up Masters. Resolution No. ~01 (Tune-Up Masters) Mr. Brofemarkle said this was the resolution of approval for the sign approved previously by the Agency. MOTION by Edgar, SECONDED by Saltarelli, to approve Resolution. No. 1901. AYES: Edgar, Kennedy, and Salfarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Hoesferey and Sharp Planning Agency Minutes - June 16, 1980 page.5. NEW BUSINESS Underground Wa ive_r_Reques.f (Ordinance No. 791) Chairman Saltarelli said this concerned a waiver for Six Star Cable TV fo permit overhead service in areas where presently wiring is overhead, subject to the requirement that it wilt be undergrounded af no cost fo the City when other utility wiring is undergrounded. MOTION by Kennedy, SECONDED by Edgar, fo approve the Underground Waiver Request (Ordinance No. 791). AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Edgar, Kennedy, and Saltarelli None Hoesferey and Sharp STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Brotemarkle'said today's mail brought a City of Irvine staff report on GPA7 concerning the annexation and annexation exchange between Irvine and Tusfin. In this staff report, a fiscal, ~nalyfic model was used for the areas 1) north of the freeway, 2) the industrial area, and 3) the Marine Base. The recc~- mendations fo the Planning Commission of Irvine are area ~% be approved for annexation by the City of Tusfin, however, such approval not be implemented until a firm commitment is made by the City of Tusfin on the alignment of the roadway north of the freewey. He said he had not discussed this with their staff, bbt if seems fo be difficult fo make a firm commitment for a road align- ment on property over which the City does not have jurisdiction. Further, the report excluded a fiscal analysis of the cost of fhaf future roadway fo Tustin, and it is a very major cost. On area ~2, the industrial area, it is recommended for denial of being detached from the city of Irvine and added fo the city of Tusfin. On Area #3, the Marine Base housing, they have recommended the city of Tusfin detach that fo the city of Irvine. I informed Irvine staff that our primary concern is the road alignment. The lrvine Plannin9 Commission meets this Thursday and he felt Tustin should present ifs position in this'regard. The area north of the Route 5 Freeway could move as soon as possible since the City of Tustin's EIR has been cerfifled and if LAFCO approves the sphere of influence,annexation may be accomplished in short order. Geffin9 all parties fo agree on a precise alignment might be counter productive fo getting the an- nexation accomplished. Tusfin staff had been functioning under the concept that a consensus between the two cities had already been achieved concerning the logic of the.concept to. . _ further the advent of the roadway and provide for logical future planning decisions. On a strictly Fiscal basis as used in the Irvine staff report, the City of Tusfin would have little fo gain and even negative incentives fo the proposed program. However, Mr. Brotemarkle believed that Tusfin had committed fo the proposal as in fha best interest of the public and the two communities. A discussion was held as to the City's pcsition. MOTION by Edgar, SECONDED by Kennedy, fo reaffirm past policy, that we expect the future alignment of the arterial highway to serve as the logical boundary between Irvine and Tusfin and annexations or annexation exchanges that achieve that purpose are lust ancillary steps towards the 9oal of having the road as the boundary. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Edgar, Kennedy, and Saltarelli None Hoesterey and Sharp AGENCY CONCERNS Mr. Edgar said he was not sure whether this matter was appropriate for the Plannin9 Agency, or whether if should be brought up under Council business, how- ever, he f~oughf there was merit in encouragin9 the City of Irvine, as well as the City of Tusfin, fo actively petition the Board of Supervisors fo put the arterial highway onto the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. He said Mr. Leden- deckeF had indicated that NEOCCS would be considered in the fall, but it would Planning Agency Minutes - June 16, 1980 page 6. happen at the County Board of Supervisor's as a general plan amendment. He thought it would be valuable for both cities to be on record, urging that this arterial highway be incorporated before they commence their decision making. He thought both cities should be outspoken in writing and urge the adoption of a precise plan and alignment for Myford extension. Mr. Brotemarkle said he thought the Agency might want to defer this to another future meeting so a resolution could be prepared and Mr. Ledendecker would be present. There being no further business to come before the Planning Agency at this time, Chairman Salfarelti declared the meefin9 adjourned af 4:04 p.m. fo meet agaln for a continued meefin9 at 7:30 p.m. this date. Chairman Saltarelli called the continued meeting to order af 7:30 p.m. All members were present except Mr. Sharp. Variance 80-11 (continued) Applicant: Location: Request: Acacia Equities 15851 Pasadena Avenue Authority fo vary with the code requirements for condominium conversion for the Tus[in Arms II Apartments. Mr. Brofemarkle stated that staff had viewed the most recent plans submitted by Acacia Equities and would indicate that by removal of fen units the project could meet the 50% open space requirement. 'That would include the two build- ings with four units each and two of the large end units with associated parking. Chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone fo speak in favor or opposition fo Variance 80-11, Mr, Henry Fredricks explained how many times they had been before the Agency, with various plans and he thought the one before the Agency af the present time was the best possible solution. He said there would be a parking structure on three sides of the complex. He said he could not agree to the removal of fen units, but the removal of the four units on either side of the pool area might be accomplished. This, however, would affect the indicated purchase price of the condominiums due to the demolition and loss of eight units. He said the Fire Department was also requesting roofing retrofit and that, too, would cause an additional increase in the purchase price. He said they had been back and forth with various options for the Agency to consider and this was the last one that they could come up with, and he felt if was the best plan. Chairman Salfarelli asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak and hearing no response he asked the pleasure of the Agency. MOTION by Hoesferey, SECONDED by Edgar, fo close the public hearing. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hoesterey~ Edgar, Kennedy, and Salfarelli None Sharp There followed a discussion concerning the type of roofing which should be required; cost factor of new fire retardanf roofs; demolition of eight units as opposed fo ten units; the percentage of open space which would remain with the removal of the eight units; and the installation of smoke defectors in each unit. MOTION by Hoesferey, SECONDED by Salfarelli, fo approve Variance 80-11 subject 1 Planning Agency Minutes- June 16, 1980 page 7. to the removal of eight units and to not require new fire retardant roofs. Mr. Saltarelli said he did not feel it was fair to the applicant, since it wa~ not'a required standard at this time, to require fire retardant roofs. Mr. Edgar said he would like to amend the motion to include the fire-proof roofing. Mrs. Kennedy said she would second the amendment to the motion. Mr. Edgar said he wished to go on record as being in favor of fire-proofing the roofs. He said he recognized that the code, at the present time, does not require fire refardant roofs, however, he believed it appropriate. Mrs. Kennedy asked the city attorney if such a condition could be required. Mr, Rourke answered in the affirmative. Mr. Saltarelli mentioned the additional cost fo the developer fo fire proof the roofs and the additional cost which would have to be added fo the purchase price of the condominiums. He said there would also be the problem of removin9 the existing roofs, while tenants were still in occupancy, in order to replace if with fire refardanf roofin9. Chairman Salfarelli then asked for a vote on the amendment to the original motion. AYES: Edgar and Kennedy NOES: Hoesterey and Saltarelli ABSENT: Sharp The motion fo amend failed. Chairman Saltarelli then requested the staff fo work with the developer to see if somefhin9 could be sprayed upon the roofs fo make them fire proof. Chairman Salfarelli asked Mr. Brofemarkle about the relocation and purchase plan. Mr. Brofemarkle said the relocation plan and letter fo prospective purchasers would need to be amended since the purchase price would be different than that originally submitted, due to the demoliflon of the eight units. Chairman Saltarelli asked for a vote on the original motion fo approve. AYES: Hoesferey, Edgar, Salfarelli NOES: Kennedy ABSENT: Sharp Mr. Edgar said he wanted the record to-show that he wanted a monthly progress report fo be submitted on the project, once they started converting. He said due fo some problems which had arisen in the past with a condo conversion, he thought this was the one way fo keep on fop of progress. There being no further business fo come before the Agency, Chairman Salfarelli declared the meefin9 adjourned at 7:55 p.m., fo meet again for a regular meeting fo be held July 8, 1980. Dona d J. Salfarelli Chairman M.I. Mehl Recording Secretary 1 2 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 15 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 ~4 25 26 27 28 29 50 52 RESOLUTION NO. 1899 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, GRANTING AUTHORITY TO VARY WITH THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNED DEVELOP- /~NT DISTRICT AND PERMITTING THE CONVERSION OF THE TUSTIN ARMS II ApARTt~NT PROJECT TO CONDO-- MINIUMS. The Planning Agency of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I . The A. Planning Agency finds and determines as follows: That a proper application IVariance No. 80-11) was filed on behalf of Acacia Equities , inc. to request authorization fo vary with the open space requirements of fha Planned Develop- ment (PD) District to convert the Tustin Arms ii Apartments, 15851 Pasadena Avenue, to residential condominiums. 8. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. That because of special circumstances applicable fo the subject 'property, relative to size, shap6, topography, location or surroundings, a strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found fo deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone c!assification, evidenced by the following findings: 1. The use is in conformance with the land use element of the Tustin Area General Plan. The site is impacted negatively by freeway noise causing a hardship on residents. The addition of a two-story parking structure will significantly reduce the impact. Ii. That the granting of a variance as herein provided will not consifitufe 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 fha California Environmental Qualify Act. That the granting of the variance as herein provided wilt not be contrary to the intent of fha Zoning Ordinance or the public safety, health and welfare, and said ~ariance should be granted. 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 fha Orange County Fire Marshal, and street improvement re- quirements as administered by the City Engineer. H. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of fha Community Development Director. The Planning Agency hereby grants a variance as applied for, to aufhorizethe conversion of the Tusfin Arms II to condominiums with 48% open space, subject fo fha following conditions: A. Compliance with the Subdivision Map Act by the submission of Tentative Tract Map, the recordation of a Final Map and of Covenants, 1 4 5 6 ? 8 9 lO 11 14 15 16 18 19 ~0 ~-4 9-5 Z8 Planning Agency Resolution No. 18'99 page 2. Ee Conditions, and Restrictions for the project prior fo the issuance of building permits. The construction of all missing or damaged street improvements adjacent fo the property is required to include, but not limited to, the following: 1. Curb and gutter 2. Sidewalk 3. Drive aprons 4. Street frees Final site plan shall indicate the appropriate City standard drawing numbers for any proposed work. Any revision to public improvements will require the street improvement plans (R-467) on file in the City Engineer's office to be revised. All overhead electrical and similar service wires or cables will require conversion fo underground services. Installation of Marbelife street lights and Underground conduit shall be required. G. A final grading plan shall be required for review and approval. H. Approval of the final garage and parking layout by the City's contract refuse collection service. Re County Sanitation District No. 7 sewer connection fees shall be paid as follows, prior fo permit issuance. 120 units - $30,000.00 The down ramp of the parking structure af the northerly end o¢ the project shall be switched to the south side fo provide better visibility for motorists exiting the lower level of the structure. Driveway openings must conform to City standards with respect to distance from adjacent property lines, x-section dimensions and must be 4' between drives as measured from top of x-section. The parking structure lane and driveway dimensions (clear) shall be 27'0" and 20'0" respectively. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall provide a park- ing allocation plan which reserves spaces for each unit. Compliance with all provisions of Conversion Ordinance No. 822. Conformance with the provisions of the relocation and purchase assistance plan as outlined in the "Application for Conversion" and letter of April 14, 1980 and amendments fo fhaf letter of June 18, 1980 from Henry A. Fredricks. A continuous 20' emergency access roadway, approved by the Fire Marshal's office, shall be provided through the center of the project. 1 4 § 6 ? 8 '9 10 14 16 17 18 19 20 Zl 50 51 Planning Agency Resolution No, 1899 page 3. Hydrants shall be provided as shown on application plan and water lines serving fire hydrants on north and south sides project are fo be fled together with additional line on west side of the same size piping. Illuminated address signs shall be placed at each stairway lead- in9 from upper level of parking structure, showing addresses those stairways serve. So The parking structure shall be designed fo accomrrodate fire de- partment apparatus and shall be sprinklered. T. That the two 4-unit structures shall be removed fo provide additional open space. PASSE6 AND ADOPTED afa regular meefin9 of the Tustin Planning Agency, held on the 8th day of July, 1980. Donald J. Salfarelli Chairman M.I, Mehl Recording Secretary ACACIA iNC. 270 LAGUNA RD., SUITE 110, FULLERTON, CA 92635 (714) 773-1666 June 18, 1980 City of Tustin .Community Development Department RE: Variance No. 80-11 Tustin Arms II Dear Sirs: In view of the action taken by the Planning Con~nission on June 16, 1980, we must modify our commitment to the City of Tustin contained in our letter to you of April 14, 1980 as follows: The sale price of each unit sold to the general public must be increased by $4,000 as shown below: 1 Bedroom units @ 830 sq. ft. 2 Bedroom units @ 1,067 sq. ft. 2 Bedroom units @ 1,161 sq. ft. 3 Bedroom units @ 1,516 sq. ft. $62,000 $73,000 $77,000 $95,000 The total increase is (112 units x $4,000) $448,000. This is necessary because our original prices were based on not demol- ishing any of the 120 units. The eight units to be demolished had an original sales value as follows: 4 - 2 Bedroom units @ 1,161 sq. ft. x $73,000 = $292,000 4 - 3 Bedroom units @ 1,516 sq. ft. x $91,000 = 364,000 $656,000 The new price structure to tenants living on the premises on the date of final approval will of course also increase $4,000. The new tenant discount prices for an as is unit will be: 1 Bedroom units @ 830 sq. ft. 2 Bedroom units @ 1,067 sq. ft. 2 Bedroom units @ 1,161 sq. ft. 3 Bedroom units @ 1,516 sq. ft. $53,700 $62,330 $65,390 $79,840 All other provisions of our letter of April 14, 1980 are unchanged. The parking structure will be reduced in size to provide more open space in line with the new reduced parking requirements. HAF/sls Yours very truly, OLD BUSINESS NO. 2 / 1 4 5 ? 8 9 10 11 14 16 17 18 19 ~0 24 Z7 28 50 51 52 RESOLUTION NO. 1903 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, GRANTING A SIGN CODE VARIANCE ON APPLICATION NO. 80-10 FOR 640 WEST FIRST STREET The Planning Agency of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Agency finds and determines as follows: ao That a proper application for Variance 80-9 was filed on behalf of Pinto & Schmeltzer for a variance from the size provisions of Sign Code No. 684. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, relative to size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, a strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification, evidenced by the following findings: (1) This project was a historical preservation of an old home which does not lend itself to wall signs. (2) The Sign is not unlike similar signs in the area. Do That the granting of a variance as herein provided will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties within the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated. 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 general welfare, and said variance should be granted. Proposed development shall be in accordance with the development policies adopted by the City'Council, Uniform Building Codes as administered by the Building Official, and the Fire Code as administered by the Orange County Fire Marshal. G. That the development is categorically exempt from the re- quirements of the California Environmental Quality At. H. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Department. II. The Planning Agency hereby grants a variance applied for, to permit a monument sign to include the tenants identification subject to the following conditions: A. All construction documents shall comply with all applicable City building regulations and the Sign Code No. 684. B. No signage is to be allowed on the building itself. RESOLUTION NO. 1903 PAGE TWO 2 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 24 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 C. A double fee will be collected for applicable permits. PASSED .AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Agency held on the day of July, 1980. CHAIRMAN RECORDING SECRETARY DATE: July 8, 1980 NEW BUSINESS NO. 1 Inter-Corn TO: Honorable Chairm~n & Planning Agency Members FROM: Community Development Department SUB JEt?: Tentative Tract Map No. 10875 APPLICANT: Acacia Equities Inc. LOCATION: 15851 Pasadena Avenue BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The subject map of 5.1 acres has been submitted to create a one (1) lot subdivision for the purpose of converting 112 apartments into condominiums. These apartments are known as the Tustin Arms II Apartments and the zoning on the project is R-3 (multiple-family residential). The map is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan. On June 16, 1980, the Planning Agency approved Variance 80-11 which authorized the conversion with 48% open space'for 112 units. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map No. 10875 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1904. MAC TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10875 IN 'THE CITY OF "I'U'~TINe COUI'~'TY OF ORANQm', S'rATE OF SEPTEIaBE~ . t97~ ~IUBDIVI DER VICINITY MAP I 1 4 ? 8 9 10 11 lZ 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O Zl 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 51 RESOLUTION NO. 1904 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10875 The Planning~%gency of the City of Tustin.does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Agency of the City of Tustin finds and determines as follows: That Tentative Tract No. 1095 was submitted pursuant to Ordinance No. 651 (as amended) by Terra Civil Engineers Inc., for the purpose of creating a one lot subdivision for condominium purposes at 15851 Pasadena Avenue. B. That said map is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan. That this map is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. II. The Planning Agency hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract No. 10875 subject to the following conditions: A. Submission of C.C.&R's for review and approval by the City Attorney. Execution of subdivision agreement and submission of all required bonds for all required public improvements, monumentation and warranty. C. Payment of County Sanitation District No. 7 sewer connection fees in the amount of 30,000.00. D. Conversion of all overhead electrical and telephone services (if any) to underground systems. Installation of marbelite street lights and underground conduit as required by the City Engineer. F. Construction of all missing or damaged street improvements as adjacent to the subject property. G. Submission of a final tract map. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Agency, held on the day of 1980. CHAIRMAN RECORDING sEcRETARY MAC:jb 7/1/80 DATE: July 8, 1980 NEW BUSINESS NO. 2 - Inter-eom TO: Honorable Chairman & Planning Agency Members FROH: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map No. 80-1026 APPLICANT: Williamson and Schmid on behalf of Cuff & Link Investment Ltd. LOCATION: South side of 17th Street between Enderle Center and Safeway center (Pine Tree Plaza). DESCRIPTION: The subject property is a vacant parcel of land containing 8.74 acres on the southerly side of 17th Street having 622 feet of frontage on 17th Street and 660 feet of frontage on Vandenberg Lane. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: This parcel is zoned Planned Community Commercial and is in conformance with the Tustin area General Plan. There have been no recent actions on this property by either the City Council or Planning Agency. The applicant is proposing to divide this property into two parcels: Parcel 1 having an area of 3.40 acres with 249 feet of frontage on 17th Street; and Parcel 2 with an area of 3.99 acres with 373 feet of frontage on 17th Street. Preliminary plans have been reviewed for office uses with an insurance' headquarters howeve~ no formal submission has been made for public hearing. The recommended conditions of approval from the various departments are listed in the resolution. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend approval to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 1902. MAC TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1 2 3 4 § 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 RESOLUTION NO. 1902 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMmeNDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL ~LAP APPLICATION NO. 80-1026 The Planning Agency of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 1. The Planning Agency finds and determines as follows: That a Tentative Parcel Map (PM 80-1026)has been submitted by Williamson and Schmid on behalf of Cuff and Link Investment Ltd; pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance No. 651, to create two parcels from one 7.39 acre lot located on the south side of 17th Street known as Parcel 1, as shown on the'ma~ filed in book 55, page 22 of parcel maps recorded of Orange County, California. That the proposed map is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. That the proposed division is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan. The Planning Agency hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 80-1026 subject to the following conditions: Prior to recordation of the map, install one standard fire hydrant to be located at the proposed easement for ingress and egress off of 17th Street, or post financial security to guarantee such installation prior to the application for (granding permits) or (building permits) on either parcel. Water plans to be approved by Fire Marshal prior to installation To comply with the Subdivision Map Act, a Final Map will be required.to be filed. The construction of all missing or damaged street improvement adjacent to the property will be required, including, but not limited to the following: A. Curb and Gutter B. Sidewalk C. Drive Aprons D. Street Pavement E. Street Trees F. Street Lights A-1 1 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 18 20 Zl 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 ee Pavement of Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 fees in the amount of (connection to sewer in Vandenberg Lane): Parcel 1 Parcel 2 TOTAL $2,125.00 $2,500.00 $4,625.00 It is suggested that if possible both lots when developed should connect to the 8" V.C.P. sewer in Vandenberg Lane. Execution of all required subdivision agreements and bonds for said development. Final approved by the City Engineer. Ail utilities constructed in conjunction with this development'sha~be installed underground with no poles being set on or adjacent to the subject property. Installation of marbelite street lights and underground conduit as required by the City Engineer and the Edison Company "Master Plan Layout." Prior to recordation of the final parcel map a reciprocal access agreement shall be provided between parcel 1 and parcel 2. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Agency held on the day of July, 1980. CHAI ~AN RECORDING SECRETARY