HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 CUP 04-011 DR 04-009
ITEM #3
Report to the
Planning Commission
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY
OWNER:
lOCATION:
ZONING:
JANUARY 10, 2005
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 04-011 AND DESIGN REVIEW 04-009
ST. CECILIA CHURCH
ATTN: FR. TIMOTHY MACCARTHY
1301 SYCAMORE AVENUE
TUSTIN, CA 92780
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF ORANGE
2811 VillAREAL DRIVE
ORANGE, CA 92687
1301 SYCAMORE AVENUE
PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (P&I)
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICAllY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3) OF TITLE 14, CHAPTER 3 OF THE
CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (GUIDELINES FOR THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT)
TO AllOW A 2,490 SQUARE FOOT TEMPORARilY
PERMITTED MODULAR BUilDING TO REMAIN IN USE FOR
TWO (2) YEARS AS A CLASSROOM BUilDING AND TO
CONSTRUCT A 5,950 SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY, FREE-
STANDING OFFICE AND MEETING ROOM BUilDING FOR THE
CHURCH
REQUEST:
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 04-011 and Design
Review (DR) 04-009 by adopting Resolution No. 3935.
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
January 10, 2005
Page 2
BACKGROUND
On October 25, 2004, the Planning Commission considered a request by St. Cecilia
Church to use a 2,490 square foot temporarily permitted modular building as a
permanent classroom building and to construct a 5,950 square foot free-standing two-
story office and meeting room building at 1301 Sycamore Avenue (Attachment A -
Location Map). A copy of the October 25, 2004 staff report is in Attachment B. At the
October 25, 2004, meeting (Attachment C - Meeting Minutes), the Planning Commission
continued the proposal to December 13, 2004, to allow the applicant to address issues
raised by the Planning Commission.
At the December 13, 2004, meeting (Attachment 0 - Meeting Minutes) the applicant
proposed the temporary use of the modular building for two (2) years, identified three (3)
alternative locations and configurations for the proposed 5,950 square foot office/meeting
room building, provided shade/shadow studies for each alternative, and identified a
previously incorrectly shown Edison easement on the site plan. A copy of the December
13, 2004 staff report is in Attachment E. The Planning Commission directed staff to return
on January 10, 2005, with a staff report and resolution in support of Alternative No. Three
(3), which is a proposal to allow a modular building to be used for two (2) years and to
allow the construction of a one-story, 5,950 square foot, free-standing office and meeting
room.
Site and Surroundina Properties
The site is located on the northerly side of Sycamore Avenue between Newport and Red
Hill Avenues. Surrounding uses include two-story single-family residential dwellings to the
west, multiple-family residential dwellings to the north and east, and the AG. Currie Middle
School and Jeane Thorman Elementary School to the south across Sycamore Avenue.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Modular Building
The existing on-site modular building is proposed to be used as a classroom for two (2)
years. Condition 1.9 would require removal of the modular building by January 10, 2007.
The one-story, prefabricated, modular building is forty-one and one-half (41.5) by sixty
(60) feet for a total of 2,490 square feet. The building is approximately 11 feet tall and
would remain at its existing location forty (40) feet east of the Church and twenty (20)
feet south of the parish hall. This location is not readily visible from Sycamore Avenue
since it is located behind the Church building and to the side of a row of regularly
spaced dense trees. The building is not visible to the residences to the west because it
is obscured by the parish hall.
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
January 10, 2005
Page 3
The building is a flat-roof rectilinear structure constructed of cream color synthetic siding
that presents a rough trowel finish. The six windows are bronze glass in an aluminum
frame and the doors are brown within a bronze metal frame. A covered walkway exists
over the sidewalk connected to the building on the west elevation. The covered
walkway consists of wood support beams attached to a corrugated sheet metal cover.
A dense row of regularly spaces trees partially screens building on the north, south, and
west elevations.
The existing modular would have received approval from the State of California, Division of
the State Architect at the time it was placed on the property. The Building and Safety
Division will require disabled access if it does not already exist per Condition 2.2.
Proposed Building (Alternative 3 from the December 13, 2004, Meeting)
The proposed office and meeting room building would be 130 feet long, fifty-five (55)
feet wide, and approximately eighteen (18) feet tall. The building would be located
approximately ten (10) feet west of the parish hall, fifty-one (51) feet east of the
Sycamore Avenue right-of-way, sixteen (16) to twenty-three (23) feet north of the
Church, and ten and one-half (10.5) feet south of the north property line separating the
Church property from the single family residences.
The location of the building would displace from 2,000 to 3,000 square feet of
landscaping, a driveway, a curb cut, and four parking spaces. An existing driveway
would be removed and, pursuant to Condition Nos. 6.1 and 6.4, the applicant will be
responsible for obtaining an encroachment permit and eliminating the existing curb cut
and replacing it with sidewalk according to City standards. The elimination of the
parking spaces will not result in a parking deficit as identified in the parking section of
this report; however, pursuant to Condition Nos. 2.11 and 2.12 disabled person parking
spaces will need to be provided at alternate on-site locations to make up for displaced
spaces.
The OCFA has conducted a preliminary review of the proposal and did not identify any
significant issues with the project. However, Conditions 7.1 and 7.2 would require the
applicant to submit formal plans to the Orange County Fire Authority and the applicant
would be required to comply with all applicable requirements, which could modify the
project.
The building would be in the line of the rear yards of 14722 Charloma Drive (Church
rectory), 14702 Charloma Drive, and 14732 Charloma Drive. The shade and shadow
study for the building (Attachment F) is summarized as follows:
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
January 10,2005
Page 4
Square feet of single family parcels covered by shadow
Solar Angles 14702 Charloma Drive 14722 Charloma Drive 14732 Charloma Drive
(Church rectory)
December 22
9:00 a.m. 1872 s.f. - south half of 2559 s.f. - covers nearly the 221 s.f. - northeast corner
entire rear yard entire rear yard. of rear yard
12:00 p.m. 504 s.f. - covering the 404 s.f. - covering most of 0
first 8 feet of the rear the first 8 feet of the rear
yard yard
March 22 448 s.f. - first 13 feet of 910 s.f. - first 13 feet of 52 s.f. - northeast corner of
9:00 a.m. the south half of the entire rear yard. rear yard
rear yard
0 0 0
12:00 D.m.
June 21
9:00 a.m. 0 0 0
12:00 p.m. 0 0 0
* Shadow encroachment distances are provided without regard to trees on the property.
The architecture of the one-story building would be consistent with the architecture of
existing on-site buildings. The Church facing (south) elevation would consist of cream-
color rough plaster walls broken up by rows of orange brick that span from top to bottom of
the building and non-reflective bronze glass encased in bronze anodized mullions. The
north elevation that faces adjacent single family residences would consist of cream-color
rough plaster walls in the center of the building and orange brick in stack bond at the
building ends.
Non-reflective bronze tint windows in bronze anodized mullions would be evenly spaced
on the elevation and would not exceed nine (9) feet in height from grade. The east facing
elevation would consist of stack bond brick, cream-color rough stucco walls, non-reflective
bronze glass with bronze anodized mullions, and an orange brick wall with the upper
portion provided in a Flemish bond with a protruding header. The west elevation would
consist primarily of cream-color rough stucco walls, bronze windows, bronze mullions, and
some brick accents.
For the existing and proposed buildings, the total floor area ratio of the site will be twenty-
three (23) percent which is within the acceptable twenty (20) to sixty (60) percent range
established in the General Plan Land Use Element for the zoning district.
Parkina
The site currently provides 227 parking spaces but will lose four (4) parking spaces to
accommodate the new building and staff estimates that an additional two (2) parking
spaces would be lost to provide required on-site disabled parking spaces. Therefore, 221
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
January 10,2005
Page 5
on-site parking spaces would remain and the Church requires 219.67 parking spaces.
Based on previous entitlements, the existing parish hall and Church offices are considered
to be accessory uses to the Church because they operate at the same time as the Church.
A summary of parking needs for Group 1 uses (existing Church, parish hall, and Church
offices) is shown below:
Existin Church
Existing Parish Hall
With Offices
Existing Church
Offices
Total Re uired 219.67
Total Provided 221
Sur Ius 1.33
As identified in CUP 93-031, the existing school maintains 330 students and 18 instructors
and requires 59.25 parking spaces. The proposed 5,950 square foot Church office and
meeting room building would require 53.06 parking spaces. Together, these existing and
proposed uses would require 113 parking spaces. A summary of parking requirements for
Group 2 uses (proposed 5,950 square foot Church office and meeting room building in
conjunction with the existing school) is shown below:
Parkin
Re uired Parkin
GROUP 2 (School and Church Office/Meeting Room)
Ratio
Proposed Office
---~-------. ~-~. .._------~--~.~-- .__._--_._-----
Proposed Meeting
Room
Proposed Office
Support
Existing School
(including the
modular building)
1/250 square feet based on 2,423 9.69
square feet.
1/3 persons based on occupancy 35.67
maximum of 107
1/250 sq uare feet based on 1,924 7.70
square feet
Subtotal 53.06
1/1 instructor and 1/8 students 59.25
based on 18 instructors and 330
students
Total Reauired 112.31 (113)
Total Provided 221
Surolus 108.69
Pursuant to Condition 5.6, the uses indicated in Groups 1 and 2 may not occur at the
same time so that the parking demand of Group 1 and 2 uses can be met. However,
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
January 10, 2005
Page 6
Condition 5.6 has been added to allow the applicant an opportunity to submit a parking
study and, if necessary, a traffic study, to demonstrate that sufficient parking and/or traffic
capacity would be available if Group 1 and 2 uses are proposed to occur at the same time.
The Engineering Division reviewed the project and determined that there will be no
additional weekday and weekend peak trip hours for the proposed permanent use of the
modular classroom. The proposed office/meeting room would generate 55 daily weekday
trips, four (4) of which would occur during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. On Sunday the
office/meeting room would generate an additional 220 daily trips and 60 peak hour trips if it
were in use. However, as previously discussed, the office/meeting room may not be used
at the same time as the Church so no additional Sunday trips should result.
As such, the Engineering Division found that the net increase in traffic at the project site
during the weekday a.m. or p.m. peak hours and/or Sunday peak hour is not anticipated to
generate significant traffic impacts and there is sufficient roadway capacity to
accommodate the proposed project. If in the future the City determines that a parking or
traffic problem exists, Condition 5.4 would require the applicant to provide mitigation
measures approved by the Community Development Department.
ANAL YSIS
In determining whether to approve the Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission
must determine whether or not the proposed use will be detrimental to the health, safety,
morals, comfort, and general welfare of the persons residing in or working in the
neighborhood or whether it will be injurious or detrimental to property or improvements in
the vicinity or to the welfare of the City.
A decision to approve Alternative 2, including the construction of a 5,950 square foot
office and meeting room for the Church and the temporary use of a modular building for
classroom instruction two (2) years, can be supported by the following findings:
a)
The proposal is consistent with the Public and Institutional Zoning District standards
in that religious assembly, schools, and school administrative offices require a
conditional use permit and the development standards are determined through the
conditional use permit and design review process by the plans approved by the
Planning Commission. The uses are appropriate under General Plan Land Use
Element Public/lnstitutional designation in that the school and Church function as
quasi-public uses.
b)
The project maintains all legal non-conforming rights (establishment of the
Church and school without a CUP prior to annexation) and is consistent with prior
conditions of approval for the parish hall under CUP 75-18. While additional
square footage is being proposed, no new uses are being added to the site in
that a school currently exists on the property and the use of the modular
h)
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
January 10, 2005
Page 7
classroom will be temporary for two (2) years for the school. Church offices and
meeting rooms currently exist in the parish hall, and the proposed Church offices
and meeting rooms will continue to support the Church.
c)
As conditioned and described in section (h), the permanent building would be
compatible with existing on-site and adjacent uses and meet design review
criteria, the modular classroom building would be temporary for two (2) years,
and all uses under the subject entitlements would occur inside their respective
buildings.
d)
Sufficient parking would be available for the 5,950 square foot Church office and
meeting room use since, pursuant to Condition 5.6, Church assembly in the
worship or parish hall would not be operating at the same time as the school,
Church offices, and Church meeting room.
e)
The two (2) year temporary use of the modular classroom would not increase
parking/traffic demand because required parking spaces are currently provided on-
site, and no increase in students or teachers is requested or approved under CUP
04-011 and DR 04-009.
f)
As determined by the Public Works Engineering Division, the net increase in traffic
at the project site during the weekday a.m. or p.m. peak hours and/or Sunday peak
hour is not anticipated to generate significant traffic impacts, and there is sufficient
roadway capacity to accommodate the proposed project.
g)
Increased pedestrian activity to the site as a result of the project will be
accommodated in that the applicant and/or property owner would be required to
provide sidewalk and drive aprons along Sycamore Avenue in front of the project
property that are constructed to meet current Federal Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) requirements.
The location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the proposal
will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present
or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole, as follows:
1.
Height, bulk, and area of buildings: The eighteen (18) foot height of the
new building is twelve (12) feet less than the thirty (30) foot maximum
height allowed for a single family dwelling on an adjacent property and the
modular classroom would remain at under twelve (12) feet. The Church
and parish hall are approximately ten (10) feet taller than the new building
but the new building will provide an appropriate transition by reducing
height between the existing on-site buildings and the adjacent single
family dwellings to the north. The shade and shadow that would be
projected onto adjacent properties would occur primarily during the
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
January 10, 2005
Page 8
2.
morning hours of winter months into the rear yards of two adjacent single
family dwellings, one of which is currently owned by the Church (rectory).
The size of the buildings is less than existing on-site buildings and the
overall floor area ratio is twenty-three (23) percent which is within the
range allowed by the General Plan.
Setbacks and site planning: Setbacks are adequate for the project in that
the new office/meeting room building is setback in excess of fifty (50) feet
from Sycamore Avenue, is setback ten (10) feet six (6) inches from the
side property line, maintains approximately the same setback as the single
story portion of the existing parish hall, and no windows are located above
eight (8) feet on the north elevation which faces adjacent residences. The
single story height of the building setback to the side property line results
in minimal shade and shadow effects during the morning hours in winter
months on primarily one residence adjacent the Church rectory. The
modular classroom is buffered from view from Sycamore Avenue since it
is behind the existing Church and the south elevation is screened by a
dense cluster of regularly spaced trees.
Exterior materials and colors: The project colors and materials would be
consistent with existing on-site development as described in Item No.7.
Type and pitch of roofs: Both buildings exhibit flat roofs, which will
architecturally integrate with on-site buildings.
Size and spacing of windows, doors, and other openings: The windows
and doors of the proposed and existing buildings are appropriate for the
style of architecture proposed and would be constructed in compliance
with City building code standards.
Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the
neighborhood: The structures are located on the property to address the
need for privacy and minimal shade impacts on adjacent properties as
described in Item Nos. 1 and 2.
Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing
structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public
thoroughfares: Design of the new building includes orange brick, cream-
colored rough plaster, bronze tint windows, and brown anodized window
frames, all of which are consistent with the building materials existing on
the Church and parish hall. The modular classroom building exhibits
cream-color synthetic siding with a faux rough trowel finish. The building
color matches the stucco on the proposed building, accents on the parish
hall, and the existing school classroom buildings. The modular building's
bronze tint windows, brown framing, and brown doors are also consistent
with trim colors on the existing buildings.
Development guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council:
Pursuant to the zoning district standards, the project approval would
establish the setbacks and height limitations for the buildings on the
subject property.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
9.
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
January 10, 2005
Page 9
~~k
Chad rtlieb -
ssociate Planner
Attachments:
A
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
,Þ{a \¿ ~. 13 f l vv---
Karen Peterson
Senior Planner
Location Map
October 25,2004 Staff Report
October 25,2004 Minutes
December 13, 2004 Minutes
December 13, 2004 Staff Report
Plans and Shade/Shadow Study
Resolution No. 3935
S:ICddIPCREPORTì20O4ICUP 04-011 and DR 04-009 continued(2nd).doc
ATTACHMENT A
Location Map
ffi
lID .....
TUSTIN
CITY
MAP
LEGEND
-.-..- TUS~NcnvUMm¡
-'--. CITYUMI"(OTtER
ATTACHMENT B
October 25, 2004 Staff Report
ITEM #2
~(5 x_~o~
':~<~~\
~'I
. !
\~ ~
,,~~
Report to the
Planning Commission
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY
OWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
OCTOBER 25, 2004
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-011 AND DESIGN REVIEW 04-
009
ST. CECILIA CHURCH
ATTN: FR. TIMOTHY MACCARTHY
1301 SYCAMORE AVENUE
TUSTIN, CA 92780
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF ORANGE
2811 VILLAREAL DRIVE
ORANGE, CA 92687
1301 SYCAMORE AVENUE
PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (P&I)
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3) OF TITLE 14, CHAPTER 3 OF THE
CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (GUIDELINES FOR THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT)
TO USE A 2,490 SQUARE FOOT TEMPORARILY PERMITTED
MODULAR BUILDING AS A PERMANENT CLASSROOM
BUILDING AND TO CONSTRUCT A 5,950 SQUARE FOOT
FREE-STANDING TWO-STORY OFFICE AND MEETING ROOM
BUILDING FOR THE CHURCH
REQUEST:
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 04-011 and Design
Review (DR) 04-009 by adopting Resolution No. 3935.
Planning Commission ReporL
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
October 25,2004
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The earliest City records indicate that the following buildings and uses existed on the 4.77
acre parcel at 1301 Sycamore Avenue on January 7, 1964 when the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 245 and annexed the property to the City:
. A 12,169 square foot St. Cecilia Church building and associated assembly use; .
. An 18,874 square foot preschool to eighth grade school building for instructional
use; and,
. A 7,481 square foot preschool to eighth grade school building for instructional use.
On August 25, 1975, the Planning Commission-adopted Resolution No. 1462 approving
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 75-18 for the construction of a 7,664 square foot parish hall.
On December 13, 1993, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3211
approving CUP 93-031 for the temporary placement and use of a 2,490 square foot
modular classroom building on the property until December 13, 2000. The modular
classroom remains on the property, and the applicant is requesting that it be allowed to
remain permanently.
The property is located in the Public and Institutional Zoning District where churches and
schools are conditionally permitted uses. The Public and Institutional Zoning District
states "the development standards and requirements for development and changes in
use shall be those contained in the general section of the zoning ordinance and as
specified and approved by the Planning Commission as conditions of the use permit."
The Planning Commission has the authority to consider conditional use permits while
the Community Development Director has the authority to consider design review
applications. The Director has deferred the design review to the Planning Commission
for concurrent consideration with the conditional use permit.
Site and Surrounding Properties
The site is located on the northerly side of Sycamore Avenue between Newport and Red
Hill Avenues. Surrounding uses include two-story single-family residential dwellings to the
west, multiple-family residential dwellings to the north and east, and the AG. Currie Middle
School and Jeane Thorman Elementary School to the south across Sycamore Avenue.
Project Description
Proposed Building
The applicant is proposing to construct a 5,950 square foot two-story building to
accommodate administrative offices and meeting rooms to serve St. Cecilia Church. The
existing school will use the building. The proposed building will function with 1,603
square feet of meeting room area, 2,423 square feet of offices, and the remaining 1,924
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
October 25, 2004
Page 3
square feet dedicated to restrooms, corridors, and storage which is considered office
support space and calculated at the office rate for parking requirement purposes.
The building will be located twelve (12) feet west of the parish hall, 110 feet east of
Sycamore Avenue, ten and one half (10.5) feet south of the north property line abutting
the rear yards of single family dwellings, and approximately thirty (30) feet north of the
Church. The building would be placed in an area with existing landscaping and four (4)
disabled parking spaces. Some of the removed landscaping will be replaced around the
perimeter of the building and the four (4) parking spaces will be replaced west of the
proposed building adjacent to where they are currently located. Overall, the site will
continue to retain sixteen (16) percent landscaping.
The building will be rectangular with a flat roof and approximately thirty (30) feet tall, which
is consistent with the height of the existing parish hall and Church. The building would be
constructed primarily of orange brick which is consistent with brick on the existing
adjacent Church and parish hall buildings. The secondary exterior building material
would be a cream-color rough plaster. Windows would be framed in brown anodized
aluminum and the glass would contain a bronze non reflective tint.
The west building elevation that faces onto Sycamore Avenue would be broken by a
stucco step-like protrusion that encloses an interior stairwell. The east building
elevation that faces the parish hall would contain elevation relief by adding brick in
Flemish bond with a protruding header. The south building elevation that faces the
Church would be entirely brick. The north building elevation that faces the single family
residences would primarily be treated with rough plaster. To provide privacy for the
adjacent residences, Condition 4.1 would require the applicant to install a sufficient
amount of appropriate landscape screening between the building and the residences to
the north. In addition, Condition 3.1 would require the applicant to install translucent
second story windows on the north building elevation.
Modular Classroom
The applicant is also requesting to permanently use an existing forty-one and one-half
(41.5) by sixty (60) foot, 2,490 square foot, one-story, prefabricated, modular building
for classrooms. The building is approximately 11 feet tall. As indicated in the
background section of the report, this building was only allowed temporarily. The
modular building is proposed to remain at its existing location forty (40) feet east of the
Church and twenty (20) feet south of the parish hall. This location is not readily visible
from Sycamore Avenue since it is located behind the Church building and to the side of
a row of regularly spaced dense trees. The building is not visible to the residences to
the west because it is obscured by the parish hall.
The building is a flat-roof rectilinear structure constructed of cream color synthetic siding
that presents a rough trowel finish. The six windows are bronze glass in an aluminum
Planning Commission Reporl
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
October 25, 2004
Page 4
frame and the doors are brown within a bronze metal frame. A covered walkway exists
over the sidewalk connected to the building on the west elevation. The covered
walkway consists of wood support beams attached to a corrugated sheet metal cover.
A dense row of regularly spaces trees partially screens building on the north, south, and
west elevations.
Modular classroom buildings are regulated by the State of California, Division of the State
Architect, who provides certification of a modular classroom plan. Once the plan is
certified and a modular unit is constructed to plans, subsequent permitting is all that is
required from the state. The existing modular would have received approval from the state
at the time it was placed on the property. However, the Building and Safety Division will
require disabled access if it does not already exist per Condition 2.2.
For all existing and proposed buildings, the total floor area ratio of the site will be twenty
three (23) percent which is within the acceptable twenty (20) to sixty (60) percent range
established in the General Plan Land Use Element for the zoning district.
Parkina
The site will continue to maintain 227 parking spaces. The Church requires 219.67
parking spaces. Based on previous entitlements, the existing parish hall and Church
offices are considered to be accessory uses to the Church because they operate at the
same time as the Church and because sufficient on-site parking exists for the Church. A
summary of parking spaces for the existing Church, parish hall, and Church offices is
provided as follows: .
Existing Church
Offices
1/3 seats for 659 seats 219.67
Pursuant to previous entitlements, the parish hall is and has always
been considered an accessory use to the Church. No additional
parking spaces are required, but the parish hall may not operate at the
same time as the uses in Grou 2.
Pursuant to previous entitlements, the existing Church offices are and
have always been considered an accessory use to the Church. No
additional parking spaces are required, but the existing Church offices
may not operate at the same time as the uses in Group 2.
Total Re uired 219.67
Total Provided 227
Sur Ius 7.33
Existin Church
Existing Parish Hall
With Offices
As identified in CUP 93-031, the existing school maintains 330 students and 18 instructors
and requires 59.25 parking spaces. The proposed 5,950 square foot Church office and
meeting room building would require 53.06 parking spaces, which would be available on-
site when Church assembly is not occurring. A summary of parking required for the
Planning Commission Repon.
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
October 25, 2004
Page 5
proposed 5,950 square foot Church office and meeting room building in conjunction with
the existing school is provided as follows:
Proposed Office
1/250 square feet based on 2,423 9.69
square feet.
1/3 persons based on occupancy 35.67
maximum of 107
1/250 square feet based on 1,924 7.70
square feet
Proposed Meeting
Room
Proposed Office
Support
Existing School
Subtotal 53.06
1/1 instructor and 1/8 students 59.25
based on 18 instructors and 330
students
Total Re uired 112.31 113
Total Provided 227
Sur Ius 114.69
Pursuant to Condition 5.5, the uses indicated in Groups 1 and 2 may not occur at the
same time so that parking demand will not exceed that which is supplied. Therefore, the
proposed Church building and the existing school would require a total of 113 parking
spaces. When Group 2 uses are operating, the site would maintain a parking space
surplus of 114.69 parking spaces.
The Engineering Division reviewed the project and determined that there will be no
additional weekday and weekend peak trip hours for the proposed permanent use of the
modular classroom. The proposed office/meeting room would generate 55 daily weekday
trips, four (4) of which would occur during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. On Sunday the
office/meeting room would generate an additional 220 daily trips and 60 peak hour trips if it
were in use. However, as previously discussed, the office/meeting room may not be used
at the same time as the Church to ensure that parking supply does not exceed demand.
Therefore, no additional Sunday trips should result. The Engineering Division states that
the net increase in traffic at the project site during the weekday a.m. or p.m. peak hours
and/or Sunday peak hour is not anticipated to generate significant traffic impacts. Based
upon the projected traffic and the adjacent street system, it has been determined there is
sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate the proposed project. If in the future the City
determines that a parking or traffic problem exists, Condition 5.3 would require the
applicant to provide mitigation measures approved by the Community Development
Department.
Planning Commission Repon.
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
October 25, 2004
Page 6
ANAL YSIS
In determining whether to approve the Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission
must determine whether or not the proposed use will be detrimental to the health, safety,
morals, comfort, and general welfare of the persons residing in or working in the
neighborhood or whether it will be injurious or detrimental to property or improvements in
the vicinity or to the welfare of the City.
A decision to approve this request can be supported by the following findings:
1)
That operation of additional Church offices and meeting rooms and the continued
operation of a modular classroom, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental
to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to
the general welfare of the City of Tustin, as evidenced by the following findings:
a) The proposal is consistent with the Public and Institutional Zoning District
standards in that religious assembly, schools, and school administrative offices
require a conditional use permit and the development standards are determined
through the conditional use permit and design review process by the plans
approved by the Planning Commission. The uses are appropriate under
General Plan Land Use Element Public/lnstitutional designation in that the
school and Church function as quasi-public uses.
b) The project maintains all legal non-conforming rights (establishment of the
Church and school without a CUP prior to annexation) and is consistent with
prior conditions of approval for the parish hall under CUP 75-18. While
additional square footage is being proposed, no new uses are being added to
the site in that a school currently exists on the property and the use of the
modular classroom will be for the school. Church offices and meeting rooms
currently exist in the parish hall, and the proposed Church offices and
meeting rooms will continue to support the Church.
c) Sufficient parking would be available for the 5,950 square foot Church office and
meeting room use since, pursuant to Condition 5.5, Church assembly in the
worship or parish hall would not be operating at the same time as the school,
Church offices, and Church meeting room.
d) The continued use of the modular classroom would not increase parking/traffic
demand because required parking spaces are currently provided on-site, and
no increase in students or teachers is requested or approved under CUP 04-
011 and DR 04-009.
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
October 25, 2004
Page 7
e) As determined by the Public Works Engineering Division, the net increase in
traffic at the project site during the weekday a.m. or p.m. peak hours and/or
Sunday peak hour is not anticipated to generate significant traffic impacts, and
there is sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate the proposed project.
f) Pursuant to Condition 5.4, all activities associated with CUP 04-011 and DR
04-009 are required to take place within the buildings.
g) The project would be compatible with adjacent uses in that a block wall
surrounds the 4.77 acre property, the property would maintain a floor area
ratio of twenty-three (23) percent which is lower than the sixty (60) percent
maximum General Plan floor area ratio for the site, the proposed building will
be setback ten and one-half (10.5) feet from the residential property to the
north, will be setback in excess of fifty (50) feet from Sycamore Avenue, and
pursuant to Conditions 3.1 and 4.3, landscaping and window treatments on
the north elevation of the building shall mitigate intrusion to privacy into the
adjacent residential yards and shall obstruct direct views of the building. The
modular classroom building is surrounded by the Church to the west, the
parish hall to the north, existing school classroom buildings to the east, and a
row of trees to the south. As a result, the building is buffered from view to
uses off the property. As conditioned, all uses under the subject entitlements
must occur inside their respective buildings.
h) Increased pedestrian activity to the site as a result of the project will be
accommodated in that the applicant and/or property owner would be required
to provide sidewalk and drive aprons along Sycamore Avenue in front of the
project property that are constructed to meet current Federal Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
i) Pursuant to Section 9272(c) of the Tustin City Code, the Planning
Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features, and general
appearance of the proposal will not impair the orderly and harmonious
development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the
occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Planning Commission
finds that the mass and appearance of the project will not impair the orderly
and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development
therein, or the occupancy as a whole and has considered at least the
following items:
1.
Height, bulk, and area of buildings: The thirty (30) foot height of the
new building is consistent with the maximum height allowed for a
single family dwelling and the modular classroom shall remain at
under twelve (12) feet. Therefore, the height is appropriate for a
quasi-public building that is adjacent to residential buildings.
Planning Commission Reporl
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
October 25, 2004
Page 8
2.
Furthermore, the Church and parish hall are of corresponding
heights to the new building. The size of the buildings is less than
existing on-site buildings and the overall floor area ratio is twenty
three (23) percent which is within the range allowed by the General
Plan. -
Setbacks and site planning: Setbacks are adequate for the project in
that the new office/meeting room building is setback in excess of fifty
(50) feet from Sycamore Avenue, is setback ten and one-half (10.5)
feet from the side property line, maintains the same line as the existing
parish hall first story setback, and the proximity of the second story to
the property line shared with the single family residences is mitigated
with translucent windows and landscaping. The modular classroom
will remain in its existing location distanced thirty (30) feet behind the
Church and twenty (20) feet south of the parish hall toward the center
of the property. The modular building is buffered from view from
Sycamore Avenue because it is behind the Church and the south
elevation is screened by a dense cluster of regularly spaced trees.
Exterior materials and colors: The project colors and materials would
be consistent with existing on-site development as described in Item
No.8.
Type and pitch of roofs: Both buildings exhibit flat roofs which is
consistent with other on-site buildings.
Size and spacing of windows, doors, and other openings: The
windows and doors of the proposed and existing buildings are
consistent with those on buildings that exist on the property. All
windows and doors to be constructed shall be in compliance with City
building code standards.
Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flag poles, radio and television
antennae: None of these additions are proposed.
Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in
the neighborhood: The structures are adequately located on the
property and will provide for privacy on adjacent properties as
described in Item No.2.
Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing
structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and
public thoroughfares: Design of the new building includes orange
brick, cream-colored rough plaster, bronze tint windows, and brown
anodized window frames, all of which are consistent with the building
materials existing on the Church and parish hall. The modular
classroom building exhibits cream color synthetic siding with a faux
rough trowel finish. The building color matches the stucco on the
proposed building, accents on the parish hall, and the existing school
classroom buildings. The modular building's bronze tint windows,
brown framing, and brown doors are also consistent with trim colors on
the existing buildings.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
October 25, 2004
Page 9
9.
Development guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council:
Pursuant to the zoning district standards, the project approval would
establish the setbacks and height limitations for the buildings on the
subject property.
ar~
Associate Planner
1{'0lv- J~ h~J~
Karen Peterson
Senior Planner
Attachments:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Location Map
Submitted Plans
Parking Survey
Resolution No. 3935
S:ICddlPCREPORncup ()4..()11 and DR 04-009.doc
ATTACHMENT C
October 25, 2004 Minutes
7:03 p.m.
Given
All present
Staff present
None
Approved
Director
Continued to
December 13, 2004,
Planning Commission
meeting
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 25, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director
Greg Simonian, Deputy City Attorney
Doug Anderson, Senior Project Manager-Transportation
Karen Peterson, Senior Planner
Chat Ortlieb, Associate Planner
Justina Willkom, Associate Planner
Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC CONCERNS
CONSENT CALENDAR
1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 27, 2004,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Menard, to approve
the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0.
Introduced Greg Simonian, Deputy City Attorney, who attended
the meeting in Doug Holland's absence.
PUBLIC HEARING
2.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-011 AND DESIGN
REVIEW 04-009 REQUESTING USE OF A 2,490
SQUARE FOOT TEMPORARILY PERMITTED
MODULAR BUILDING AS A PERMANENT
CLASSROOM BUILDING AND TO CONSTRUCT A
5,950 SQUARE FOOT FREE-STANDING TWO-
STORY OFFICE AND MEETING ROOM BUILDING
FOR THE CHURCH. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED
AT 1301 SYCAMORE AVENUE IN THE PUBLIC AND
INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) ZONING DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission approve Conditional
Use Permit 04-011 and Design Review 04-009 by
adopting Resolution No. 3935.
Minutes -Planning Commission October 25, 2004 - Page 1
7:06 p.m.
Ortlieb
Nielsen
Director
Nielsen
Floyd
Ortlieb
Director
Nielsen
Aric Gless, of Gless
Architects, representing
the applicant
Nielsen
Mr. Gless
The Public Hearing opened.
Presented the staff report, pointing out certain revisions that
were provided at the dais.
Asked if staff wanted to make any comments pertinent to the
revisions.
Referred to the letter from Mary and Don Brockschmidt dated
May 27, 2004, which was not included in the report, but was
being provided to the Planning Commissioners and is
incorporated herein by reference; and, indicated she would
provide further comments after the Commissioners read the
letter.
Suggested that the Commissioners present their questions to
the staff.
Asked for the location of the property.
Pointed out the location on the PowerPoint slide.
Referred to issues raised in the letter; stated the two-story
proposal is 13% feet from the back fence and is actually
located 10 feet 6 inches from the property line and is 30 feet in
height; Condition 3.1 states the north face of the second story
windows would be sand-blasted glass with anti-framing and
would be opaque and not allow anyone inside to have a view
from the second story offices.
Indicted the airplane noise and property value items are difficult
issues to address.
Noted that Mr. Brockschmidt wished to make a presentation.
Invited the applicant to the podium.
Stated staff did a very good job describing the project, and he
was available to answer any questions the Planning
Commission might have.
Asked if there were any long-term plans to replace the modular
building with a permanent one.
Answered that the only plan for the modular is to keep it as it is
and continue its use; the modular has been very well
maintained, well landscaped, and looks much better than when
installed.
Minutes - October 25, 2004 Planning Commission - Page 2
Floyd
Mr. Gless
Nielsen
Mr. Gless
Menard
Mr. Gless
Nielsen
Mr. Gless
Nielsen
Don Brockschmidt,
14702 Charloma Drive
Director
Asked if the modular originally was intended to be a temporary
situation.
Stated that was the original intention, but the building has been
kept up so well that continuing it as permanent seemed the
logical thing to do.
Questioned whether or not the activities that take place in the
modular building could take place in the new building.
Answered that the numbers of people involved necessitate the
additional space; the ministries in the parish are growing and
require more places to meet; moving the office staff from the
current space into the new building also became necessary
due to the need for more meeting places.
Asked for information regarding the specific use of the modular.
Indicated that the modular is primarily a classroom building.
Asked if there was ever discussion of creating a one-story
rather than a two-story building.
Stated that the size was dictated by the space required; the
two-story building provides better land use; one story would
cause the loss of too many parking spaces.
Invited any other parties involved to come forward.
Indicated the home where he and his wife have lived for thirty
years is next to the priests' house; noted his wife is a
parishioner of St. Cecelia's and active in the Church; noted he
opposes this project which would be very close to his back
yard; presented a photo showing an existing office building that
is 20 feet from his property line and not in back of the priests'
house; showed a view that was not presented in the staff slide
show of the existing two-story gymnasium building and how it
looks from his neighbor's home; suggested that no one would
appreciate such a building in one's "back yard"; asked where
the utility easement begins and whether or not the Tustin Code
provides buffer zones between residential and non-residential
buildings; indicated this structure will diminish his property
values; and, requested that the Planning Commission deny this
application.
Stated there is no buffer zone in the Public and Institutional
zone; there are no set standards regarding buffer zones for this
district; those standards are established by the Planning
Commission and subject to the Commission's discretion; staff
is unaware of the utility easement, but it may be on the
Minutes - October 25, 2004 Planning Commission - Page 3
Nielsen
Mr. Gless
Nielsen
Mr. Gless
Don Studebaker,
1363 Sycamore
Mr. Brockschmidt
Nielsen
Lee
Ortlieb
Mr. Brockschmidt
adjacent property; there would be no setback requirement
imposed on the church; property values are an unknown factor;
an appraiser would be required to determine any effect the
proposed development may have on the surrounding property
values; the letter received from Mr. and Mrs. Brockschmidt in
May was taken into consideration through the planning process
and was discussed with the architect; staff recommended to
the architect that the building be either relocated on the
property or setback, that a single story be provided closer to
the residences and the two-story structure closer to the interior
portion of the church property; this is a discretionary review
before the Planning Commission; the Planning Commission
may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposal.
Asked if the applicant would like to address any of the issues.
Stated that the building will straddle part of the parish rectory
property; the view shown by Mr. Brockschmidt did not show the
mature trees along the back of the residential properties which
would partially screen the view from the building; the glazing on
the windows would inhibit any view into the residential area; the
parking lot cannot be used for this building due to the loss of
required parking spaces; the location chosen seemed the best
one for new construction; the setbacks, heights, and use
comply with the City's zoning ordinance and the California
Building Code.
Asked if the second story use will be all office and meeting
rooms.
I.ndicated the second story primarily consists of meeting rooms.
Stated he had no problem with the building; his concern is the
parking, which already creates a problem for access into and
out of his driveway on Sundays between 8:00 a.m. and 1 :00
p.m.
Asked if there is an easement and where it is located.
Suggested that staff will provide that information.
Asked for clarification of the height limit.
Answered the height limit would be established by the Planning
Commission; and, added there is a 10 foot easement along the
Church's property line.
Asked if that 10 foot easement complies with the Code; and, if
so, could a building actually be built within half a foot of that
easement.
Minutes - October 25, 2004 Planning Commission - Page 4
Ortlieb
7:43 p.m.
Pontious
Director
Commissioners
Mr. Gless
Pontious
Floyd
Mr. Gless
Director
Menard
Director
Nielsen
Floyd
Answered in the affirmative.
The Public Hearing closed.
Stated the issues that were brought up require more
information; suggested that a light and shadow study would be
appropriate; and, asked that this item be continued in order for
staff to consider the impacts of the project.
Asked if such a continuance was the consensus of the
Commission; and, suggested the applicant would probably
need at least a month to fulfill the requests placed before him.
Answered in the affirmative; and, asked that the item be placed
on the agenda for the first meeting in December.
Asked for clarification regarding exactly what the Commission
is asking him to do.
Answered that the architect should provide a light and shadow
study and also provide alternative sites for the building
indicating the constraints involved in such sites.
Asked if the structure could be placed at the parking lot location
behind the priests' home and make the building longer.
Stated the walkway from the parking lot would be accented
with trees and shrubs and keep the building as close as
possible to that access; having the cars closer to the street
would be preferable to having cars between the buildings.
Asked that the Planning Commission provide general direction
for the applicant.
Stated the modular building was proposed as a temporary
building to be removed in December 2000; he cannot support
allowing that building as a permanent structure; the applicant is
in violation of the original conditional use permit; allowing this
building to remain will set a precedent for other churches to
come back to the Planning Commission with similar requests.
Asked that the Commission go through their comments before
any rebuttal from the applicant's representative.
Asked the Commissioners if they agreed with Commissioner
Menard's position regarding the modular structure.
Stated he is on record regarding setting such a precedent.
Minutes - October 25, 2004 Planning Commission - Page 5
Pontious
Lee
Nielsen
Pontious
Director
Nielsen
Pontious
Adopted Resolution
No. 3936
Willkom
Indicated that setting a precedent is something the
Commission needs to consider.
Suggested that perhaps there is a way to integrate the existing
building with the proposed structure, which could possibly be
accomplished by moving the location nearer to the existing
building.
Asked if the modular building could be permitted as temporary
with a plan to remove it sometime in the future.
Indicated the only way would be to accept the temporary use
with a time certain when the use would be discontinued.
Stated that a re-inspection may be required; the facility was to
be discontinued about four years ago; staff does not know if the
structure has been modified or re-inspected by the State or
whether or not it currently meets the appropriate safety
standards; the use was to be discontinued as of this date.
Recapped the Commission's concerns as follows:
. The light and shadow study.
. The easement concern.
. Alternate placement of the new building and
with modular building becoming permanent.
concern
Moved that this item be continued to the Planning
Commission's first meeting in December, seconded by Floyd.
Motion carried 5-0.
3.
2003-04 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT.
California State Law requires each City to adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical
development and any land outside its boundaries which
bears a relationship to its planning activities. As a
blueprint for the future, the plan contains policies and
programs designed to provide decision makers with a
solid basis for land use related decisions.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No.
3936 recommending that the City Council adopt the
2003-04 Annual Report on the Status of the Tustin
General Plan.
Presented the staff report.
Minutes - October 25, 2004 Planning Commission - Page 6
Menard
Willkom
Nielsen
Willkom
Continued to a date
to be determined
Director
Peterson
Floyd
Asked how many residents are participating in the Mills Act.
Responded there are six properties currently involved in the
Mills Act program.
Asked regarding Goal 12 what is meant by "maintain a semi-
rural low density character of North Tustin."
Indicated that North Tustin is part of the City's sphere of
influence but not part of the City's jurisdiction.
It was moved by Floyd, seconded by Pontious, to adopt
Resolution No. 3936. Motion carried 5-0.
4.
DENSITY BONUS WORKSHOP.
The workshop is intended to provide the Planning
Commission with an overview of how the incentives for
the development of affordable housing and the density
bonus law applies to the City of Tustin. Staff will
provide a PowerPoint presentation at the meeting.
Stated the workshop needed to be continued due to recent
State legislation that will modify the operation of density
bonuses in the State of California; the local ordinance also may
need modification to be consistent with State law; the City
Attorney and staff will be investigating how the new legislation
will impact the local ordinance and report back to the Planning
Commission.
5.
PROJECT SUMMARY.
The summary focuses on the status of projects that
the Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, or
Community Development Director approved, major
improvement projects, and other items of interest.
Noted there are a number of projects in the grading stage (Le.
Heritage Plaza on First Street and the Barn site at Edinger and
Newport Avenue); pointed out the Gateway Business Park,
which is the second half of the Steelcase site and is in the
framing stage-265,000 square foot office and industrial
development; showed the progress on the Tustin Ranch Golf
course, a 6,000 square foot banquet facility extension, and the
completed Pacific Business Center on Woodlawn at Edinger;
and, indicated that construction will begin November 1st on the
widening project at Newport and Irvine Boulevard.
Asked what is happening with Trader Joe's.
Minutes - October 25, 2004 Planning Commission - Page 7
Peterson
Nielsen
Anderson
Nielsen
Anderson
Director
Director reported
Answered that Trader Joe's is doing their tenant improvements.
Referred to flyers on the City's Web site regarding the Irvine
and Newport expansion and the Red Hill expansion; noted
there was an Open House at the Senior Center on October 20th
for the Irvine and Newport expansion; and, asked if there was
also an Open House for the Red Hill expansion.
Indicated the contract for the Red Hill expansion was awarded
in August 2003; there was an Open House at that time.
Asked if Mr. Anderson attended the most recent Open House.
Answered in the negative but offered to provide information
from that event; indicated that mostly business owners
attended; and, noted concerns were heard from the owners of
Tustin Brewery regarding the loss of the temporary parking on
the street that serves the facility.
Stated the commercial development for Prospect Village has
been received into plan check; that portion should begin during
the first quarter of 2005; the residential portion of the project
will follow.
STAFF CONCERNS
6.
REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE OCTOBER 4
AND OCTOBER 18, 2004, CITY COUNCIL
MEETINGS.
The City Council approved the Disposition and Development
Agreement for a Town Center Redevelopment project,
consolidating two parcels on which Makena Great American
Newport Company proposes to construct a 7,400 square foot
one-story retail commercial building at the southwest corner of
Newport Avenue and EI Camino Real; this is the former Tustin
Transmission and Caltrans property; this proposal will be
brought to the Planning Commission in the near future.
Noted there had been interest expressed in a County island
located in the vicinity of 1 ih Street and Tustin Avenue; the
Planning Commission asked that the item be placed on a
future agenda; members of the public also presented this item
of interest before the City Council; the item was continued to
the Council's second meeting in November; when staff reports
back to the City Council, a report will be provided to the
Planning Commission.
Minutes - October 25, 2004 Planning Commission - Page 8
Floyd
Pontious
Director
Commissioners
Menard
Lee
Nielsen
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Thanked staff for tonight's presentations.
Reminded everyone to vote next Tuesday.
Reminded everyone that the Dino Dash takes place November
7; and, encouraged everyone to attend.
Noted he recently saw a line around the corner at CompUSA
and was glad to see the location is open and doing good
business.
Stated that Best Buy will be opening November 10, 2004, and
encouraged community support of that location.
Thanked staff for the'summary of projects.
Requested timelines for the development of The Legacy similar
to those provided during the buildout of Tustin Ranch.
Indicated the Redevelopment Agency has been preparing
monthly reports; as the negotiations for the business plan with
the master developer progress, those reports can be provided
to the Commission.
Asked if the Planning Commissioners were aware of the
workshop scheduled at 4:30 p.m. before the Council meeting
on November 1, 2004.
Answered in the affirmative.
Stated that Dino Dash is a very good cause.
Suggested the recreational trail currently going through Tustin
Legacy between Harvard Park and Barranca be connected
from Portola all the way to the Back Bay; and, asked that this
item be added to the timeline.
Announced that Thursday, October 28, at 7:00 p.m., the Tustin
Unified School District Coordinating Council and the Tustin
PT A Council will host a School Board candidates' forum at
Columbus Tustin Middle School.
Stated he had nothing to add to the other Commissioners'
comments.
Noted that Tiller Days was a success and a good time was had
by all.
Minutes - October 25, 2004 Planning Commission - Page 9
Nielsen continued
Thanked staff for the summary of projects.
Noted the passing of Stephen Whitehill who was a prominent
Tustin High School supporter; he died last Sunday at the age of
47; he was a benefit to the community and will be missed.
Thanked Greg Simonian for sitting in for Doug Holland who is
on vacation; and, thanked staff for the presentations.
8:17 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
It was moved by Floyd, seconded by Menard, to adjourn the
meeting. Motion carried 5-0.
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is
scheduled for Monday, November 8, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Clifton Miller Community Center at 300 Centennial Way.
John Nielsen
Chairperson
Elizabeth A Binsack
Planning Commission Secretary
Minutes - October 25, 2004 Planning Commission - Page 10
A TT ACHMENT D
December 13, 2004 Minutes
7:05 p.m.
Given
All present
Staff present
None
Approved
Continued to the
January 10, 2005
Planning Commission
meeting
ITEM #1
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 13, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director
Doug Holland, Assistant City Attorney
Doug Anderson, Senior Project Manager-Transportation
Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer
Chad Ortlieb, Associate Planner
Matt West, Associated Planner
Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC CONCERNS
CONSENT CALENDAR
1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 22, 2004,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Menard, to approve the
Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.
CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-011 AND
DESIGN REVIEW 04-009 TO ALLOW A 2,490 SQUARE
FOOT TEMPORARILY PERMITTED MODULAR
BUILDING TO REMAIN IN USE FOR TWO (2) YEARS
AS A CLASSROOM BUILDING AND TO CONSTRUCT
FOR A 5,950 SQUARE FOOT FREE STANDING
OFFICE AND MEETING ROOM BUILDING FOR THE
CHURCH. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE
PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) ZONING
DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission approve Alternative 2 for
Conditional Use Permit 04-011 and Design Review 04-
009 by adopting Resolution No. 3935.
Minutes - Planning Commission December 13, 2004 - Page 1
7:07
Ortlieb
Director
Nielsen
Aric Gless, architect,
representing St.
Cecilia Church
Menard
Don Brockschmidt,
14702 Charloma Drive,
Tustin
The Public Hearing opened.
Presented the staff report.
Added that the applicant has expressed a preference for
Alternative 3; since the resolution does not address this
alternative, it may be necessary to continue this item to the next
meeting in order for staff to present a revised resolution and
conditions of approval.
Invited the applicant to the lectern.
Stated that the planning staff was very helpful is assisting the
applicant with the issues raised at the earlier Planning
Commission meeting; Father MacCarthy, St. Cecilia's pastor has
stated the one-story design presented in Alternative 3 is now the
preferred solution; Mr. Brockschmidt did not return telephone
calls made by the applicant; Alternative 3 would eliminate the
concerns expressed by Mr. Brockschmidt at a prior Planning
Commission meeting; the four parking stalls that will be lost to
the one-story design would not be a factor because there are
more spaces than required; the shading of the one-story building
would not affect Mr. Brockschmitdt's yard because the mature
trees in his yard cast more shade than the building would; the
easement is on the residential side and not an issue on the
Church property; the temporary buildings on the various schools
in Tustin are clearly temporary buildings that still have the
plywood skirt at the bottom and are sitting on jacks with ramps
going up to them; the modular building on the St. Cecelia site is
at the ground, is seismically anchor bolted to a concrete
foundation in the ground; landscaping includes mature trees
surrounding the structure; the structure is as permanent as
anything in the City; since the temporary structure is in constant
use, the applicant is requesting at least a two-year extension of
the building.
Commented that the Planning Commission received a copy of
Fr. MacCarthy's letter pleading that the modular building be
allowed as a permanent structure; the City has no jurisdiction
over schools; the conditional use permit expired in 2000; nothing
has been done; the Planning Commission is not trying to prove
anything, but only to assure that no precedent is set.
Stated he is a neighbor of Fr. MacCarthy; of the three
alternatives, he favors Alternative 2; the third alternative would
be intrusive to two other homes; if Alternative 3 is allowed, the
distance between the building and the wall should be 19 feet
rather than 10 feet; the Church seems to be manipulating the
Minutes - Planning Commission December 13, 2004 - Page 2
Sheila Fiorenza, 178
North A Street, Tustin
Thomas Collins,
18622 Hillhaven Drive,
Tustin
Eric Lenning, 17966
Irvine Boulevard,
Tustin
7:32 p.m.
Pontious
Floyd
City into continuing the two-year extensions that allow the
temporary building to remain on the site.
Stated she was the parish representative for St. Cecelia's
Cursillo, a group that uses the Salmon Center; meetings are
difficult to schedule because the facility is always booked by
various community groups; the fact that the building is temporary
does not mean that it is right to tear down a perfectly good
building that is used by the Church but also serves the
community; allowing the extension will not set a precedent of
allowing similar buildings at other locations; the crowding and
strain that has been put on Tustin from the ongoing development
should allow for exceptions in cases such as this.
Stated he is a member of St. Cecilia's parish; all the Church
facilities are booked throughout the day; if the modular building
were to be lost at this time, it might be necessary to impose on
the City to provide meeting rooms.
Stated he has been a St. Cecelia parishioner for about five
years; during that time, the modular section has been used to its
fullest capacity by 4,000 families; Monsignor Salmon is very near
and dear to the parish because he was the first pastor of St.
Cecelia's and also started their Knights of Columbus chapter; the
modular structure is a part of history; it seems as though the
distinction between modular and permanent is a fine line; there
should be a better alternative to the impasse than removing this
structure.
The Public Hearing closed.
Indicated that she would be in support of Alternative 2; if the
applicant prefers Alternative 3, it will be necessary to have staff
look at the proposal again; perhaps the Planning Commission
should allow the two-year extension for the modular building and
additional extensions with inspections, without returning to the
Planning Commission for the whole process again.
Stated that he agrees with Commissioner Pontious regarding the
design of Alternative 2 or Alternative 3, with staff review and
return to the Planning Commission; the fact that the modular
buildings are in use seven days a week is not a factor; the
precedent-setting of modular buildings is the issue; while these
may be nicer than the School District's, the City does not have
the ability to require the District to comply; the two-year extension
should be allowed, but automatic renewal every two years
should not be allowed; the Church should have a plan to replace
the modular buildings; while building space is limited in the City
Minutes - Planning Commission December 13, 2004 - Page 3
and the costs are high, modular buildings are not the answer to
this problem.
Lee
Stated he agreed with Commissioners Floyd and Pontious; he
did not study Alternative 3 as well as he did Alternative 2, which
seemed like a good compromise of the issues presented at the
prior meeting; the two-year extension would be acceptable, but
the Church should make a good faith effort to replace that
building.
Menard
Indicated he has no preference between Alternatives 2 or 3; it is
up to the Church which option to pursue; the shadow studies
were helpful; while he understands the argument to keep the
modular building, he firmly believes the building must go.
Nielsen
Noted that it seemed to be the Commission consensus to allow
the modular for the two-year extension; the surety bond
(Condition 1.9) should be eliminated.
Director
Stated that approval of Alternative 2 would allow adoption of the
resolution, and the surety bond could be eliminated
Nielsen
Suggested that, if the applicant chooses Alternative 3, the staff
will need to work out the details and the item should be
continued to a later meeting.
Director
Noted the continuance would be the only item for the December
2ih meeting.
Pontious
Suggested a continuance to the first meeting in January.
Director
Indicated that would allow staff enough time and the next
meeting would be January 10, 2005.
Mr. Gless
Stated a continuance to January 10, 2005, would be preferable
to the applicant.
Menard
Referred to page 6, Item D.d. of Resolution No. 3935 and
suggested that an exemption for holy days of obligation should
be included.
It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Floyd, to continue this
item to the first meeting in January and that staff should come
back with an analysis of Alternative 3 and also eliminating the
surety bond. Motion carried 5-0.
Minutes - Planning Commission December 13, 2004 - Page 4
Voted 3-2 to allow the
drive-through; staff
is to bring a revised
resolution to the
January 10, 2005
Planning Commission
meeting; this resolution
will be a Consent
Calendar item
7:43 p.m.
West
Nielsen
Kenny Dewan,
applicant, owner and
operator of the Tustin
Farmer Boys
Nielsen
Mr. Dewan
Floyd
Mr. Dewan
Floyd
3.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-026 AUTHORIZING
CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVE-THROUGH LANE IN
CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING 2,983 SQUARE
FOOT FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT ON THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND
FIRST STREET. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE
DESIGNATED "COMMERCIAL" WITHIN THE FIRST
STREET SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3940
denying Conditional Use Permit 04-026 to construct a
drive-through lane in conjunction with an existing 2,983
square foot fast-food restaurant, on the northwest corner
of Prospect Avenue and First Street or take other action
as deemed appropriate.
The Public Hearing opened.
Presented the staff report.
Invited the applicant to the lectern.
Thanked staff for their assistance and support of this project,
which started in March 2002; indicated he had a written
statement that he wished to read and which is included herein by
reference.
Asked for an estimate of how much the business would increase
with the installation of a drive-through window.
Answered that the average Farmer Boys does about 20 percent
of their total business in the drive-through lane; the estimate for
this location is a 15 percent increase.
Questioned whether the proposed change in the hours of
operation would be for the restaurant or the drive-through.
Indicated that he was open to both; it is the neighbors who feel
that the restaurant should be closed an hour earlier with the
addition of the drive-through; he is willing to compromise.
Stated his understanding that certain restaurants close the drive-
through windows earlier but may keep the inside operation open
later; the interior hours should be allowed to be later; and, asked
what the removal the patio dining area would accomplish.
Minutes - Planning Commission December 13, 2004 - Page 5
Mr. Dewan
Menard
West
Patrick Stroupe, 185
Lockwood, Tustin
Don Melcher, 14072
Windsor Place,
Tustin
John Beck, 1072
Triumphal, Santa Ana
Answered that the original concerns were the patio dining and
the drive-though lane; if it must be one or the other, he would
rather have the drive-through lane; this location cannot survive
without a drive-through lane.
Asked staff for the McDonald's hours.
Stated McDonald's is open until 1 0:30 p.m.
Stated he opposes the drive-though just as he did on the original
application; he did not appreciate Mr. Dewan's repeated
attempts to contact him and his wife by telephone to set up
meetings to talk about the project; one of the promises the City
made was no construction activity after dark; just before
Thanksgiving, the company hired to do the job poured concrete
from 6 p.m. until 11 p.m.; the police would not shut down
operation of the generators and the lights and remove the
contractor from the property; only a chain link fence separated
his back yard from the Farmer Boys property; the noise, exhaust,
pollution, and traffic are ongoing concerns for his neighborhood;
it will be impossible for a full-sized car to make an 180-degree
turn in the parking area; raw sewage recently flowed into the
parking lot, requiring his family to leave their house for four hours
because the smell was so nauseating; power-washing was
required to clean the parking lot; the approval of a drive-through
would require more construction; given the past incidents, the
neighborhood should not be subjected to this again; the staff
report states the noise level for residential properties to be 55
decibels from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 50 decibels from
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., but the highest noise level to be allowed
would be 62 decibels-a distinct contradiction; the report also
states the speaker board would not exceed 90 decibels; the
City's promises regarding noise, light, traffic, pollution have not
been kept; the smell of fried food permeates the neighborhood
2417; this drive-through should not be allowed.
Wished everyone happy holidays; he is a manufacturer's
representative by trade and has called on small businesses all
his life; he supports the drive-through because it will make Mr.
Dewan competitive in the current environment.
Stated he is a friend of Brian McGinnis who lives at 165
Lockwood which is two houses down from Patrick; Mr. McGinnis
could not be at tonight's meeting and wanted his comments
heard; all the comments made by Patrick regarding the
inconveniences to the neighborhood are also concerns of Mr.
McGinnis; the increased hours and the drive-through will change
the makeup of the restaurant's patrons; it is now a family dining
Minutes - Planning Commission December 13, 2004 - Page 6
Tiffany Stroupe, 185
Lockwood, Tustin
Leslie Pena, 165
Lockwood, Tustin
Alicia Watkins, 195
Lockwood, Tustin
Mr. Dewan
restaurant; a drive-through may bring undesirable elements to
the area, which is a major concern given the number of families
in the neighborhood.
Stated this proposal is the same one the neighbors objected to
before; the picture of the Farmer Boys property that was shown
in the staff report provides the illusion of a much larger space
than actually exists at the site; the space will be very congested,
making a 180-degree turn difficult; putting the neighborhood
through more of the same is inappropriate; there is no business
at this restaurant at nine o'clock at night, so closing earlier would
be more cost-effective; closing earlier as a "concession" makes
no sense; she wrote letters on a number of occasions to staff
and members of the Planning Commission before earlier
meetings; calls from Mr. Dewan were unwelcome; since her
father suffered a head injury and passed away today, it should
be clear how important this issue is for her to attend the meeting
this evening.
Indicated she is new to the community and resides adjacent to
Farmer Boys; the traffic is a serious issue; several accidents
have occurred at First and Prospect; more cars going in and out
will increase the risks; cars turn left onto Prospect all the time;
her children are allowed to walk to the restaurant and that
driveway is a constant worry; young families are moving into the
neighborhood and should not have to be concerned for the
safety of their children; this is primarily a residential
neighborhood that does not generate a lot of business for this
type of restaurant.
Stated she is new to the neighborhood and agreed with the
comments made by her neighbors; Mr. Dewan stated he is losing
money but finds a way to give back to the community; trying to
win over the community to get votes to allow the drive-through is
not appreciated; the trash in the yards is already unbelievable;
traffic is a nightmare; no one is in the restaurant after eight
o'clock at night; it seems a drive-through would make little
difference; it was a bad business move to put that business in
that location.
Responded that:
. The construction complaint was true; the City fined the
general contractor, and Farmer Boys wrote a letter of
apology to the City and the residents.
Minutes - Planning Commission December 13, 2004 - Page 7
. The sewage spill was the result of the ongoing Orange
County sewage project along Prospect; it was the
County's obligation to correct the problem.
. The purpose for calling the residents was that other
community members encouraged him to do so; the
intention was to find a comfortable approach to solving
the issues.
. The residents bought their homes next to a commercial
street and understood this at the time of purchase; the site
was formerly a Mobil gas station; there is a car repair
shop nearby; there are a McDonald's and Der
Wienerschnitzel nearby.
. As a conscientious business owner, he proposed
compromises; the next tenant might not be as
accommodating.
. As a restaurant owner, it is important to reach out to the
customers in the community to create good will and show
the restaurant is there.
Floyd
Asked for further definition of the menu board noise level.
Mr. Dewan
Answered this would be a drive-through video confirmation that
was developed by Delphi Systems in Costa Mesa; it has been
placed in other cities with similar concerns when the commercial
use is close to a residential use; the plan was to eliminate noise
between the order taker and the customer; the customer places
the order through the menu board, but the order taker does not
repeat the order; a video display eliminates about 70 percent of
the noise.
8:20 p.m.
The Public Hearing closed.
Pontious
Stated she understood the neighbors' concerns; having only one
alternative available makes this a difficult decision; Mr. Dewan
has been an involved business owner; she was torn about what
to do.
Lee
Noted that he was not on the Commission when this matter
originally came before the Commission; the situation does not
seem conducive to another driveway off Prospect; the only
entrance that seems logical would be off First Street; people will
still go in off Prospect and create problems; congestion at the
corner of First and Prospect would continue; while he
appreciates Mr. Dewan's attempts to please everyone, it does
Minutes - Planning Commission December 13, 2004 - Page 8
not seem the current design will be conducive to a drive-through;
unless there is another alternative, he is against project.
Menard
Indicated this is a tough decision; he was surprised the drive-
through was not allowed on the original proposal; it is hard for a
fast-food restaurant to operate without a drive-through; the
turning radius does look tight; staff may need to study that a bit to
see if there is anything in the radius that could be adjusted for the
larger SUV vehicles; this is a land use issue within the First
Street Specific Plan; the property owner has a right to apply for a
drive-through; the applicant is willing to compromise to make the
residents happy; the existing facility was built with a drive-
through in mind; all the mitigation measures are in place; the wall
is there; it meets or exceeds the noise ordinance; this applicant
should be allowed to have the drive-through.
Floyd
Stated the food smells will not change with a drive-through; the
left-hand turn onto Prospect remains a concern and the City
should be enforcing that no left turn; the suggestion that Farmer
Boys was buying votes in support of this drive-through is
offensive; this owner has been a very good tenant of Tustin and
a smart business owner who understands the outreach
mechanisms of the charities he supports; it is surprising the
drive-through was not approved with the initial application; staff's
recommendation should be reversed and the drive-through
allowed with the compromises proposed by the applicant.
Nielsen
Stated he was on the Planning Commission when this proposal
was first presented; as Commissioner Menard stated, this is a
land use issue; traffic was an issue with the proposed drive-
through due to the U-turn feature and the left turns onto
Prospect; these issues remain; staff's recommendation should
be upheld; the neighbors should be aware that any new owner
might be worse.
Pontious
Agreed with the concerns regarding traffic but supported the
application approving the drive-through; and, suggested that staff
bring a revised resolution back to the Planning Commission as a
Consent item.
Director
Stated the applicant desired a decision be made tonight; if the
consensus of the Commission is to approve the application, staff
recommends the item be continued; staff generally understand
what the Commission's concerns are and can incorporate them
in a revised resolution.
Menard
Asked if a barrier could be erected on Prospect to 'prevent the
left-hand turns.
Minutes - Planning Commission December 13, 2004 - Page 9
Director
Answered the traffic engineer should look at those types of
improvements independently.
Menard
Added that he hopes the patio will remain.
Floyd, Pontious
Agreed that the patio should stay.
Holland
Stated it would be appropriate for the Commission to approve
the project and direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the
project with appropriate findings and conditions of approval to be
submitted back to the Commission at the next meeting.
Nielsen
Suggested ~hat a vote should be taken on the existing resolution.
It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Menard, to deny the
adoption of Resolution No. 3935 and direct staff to prepare a
new resolution allowing the drive-though. Motion carried 3-2.
None
REGULAR BUSINESS
STAFF CONCERNS
4.
REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE DECEMBER 6,
2004, CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.
Director reported
The City Council approved the Makena Tentative Parcel Map.
The Council took action on the Final Tract Map for John Laing
Homes (Tustin Field II).
The Council certified Supplement #1 to the Final EIS/EIR for the
extension of Tustin Ranch Road; the Public Works Department
was directed to move forward with the plans and specifications
for that project.
The Council had the first reading of the code amendment related
to massage regulations.
Doug Anderson, the Traffic Project Manager, was in the
audience to make a special introduction.
Anderson
Introduced Terry Lutz, the City's new Principal Traffic Engineer;
and, indicated Mr. Lutz may be attending future Planning
Commission meetings in Mr. Anderson's place.
Planning Commission
Welcomed Mr. Lutz.
Minutes - Planning Commission December 13, 2004 - Page 10
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Lee
Wished everyone happy holidays.
Menard
Asked staff if there is a timeline regarding Newport Avenue going
out to Edinger.
Director
Stated the project is moving forward; and, noted the City
Engineer will be presenting a seven-year CIP update
presentation before the Planning Commission in the near future.
Menard
Wished everyone happy holidays.
Thanked staff for their work on tonight's items.
Floyd
Echoed Commission Menard's comments regarding staff's hard
work.
Stated he empathizes with the residents who live near the
Farmer Boys site.
Offered his condolences to the Dick Edgar family; and, noted he
was a pillar of the Tustin community for many years.
Wished everyone happy holidays.
Pontious
Thanked staff for their work.
Added her holiday wishes.
Requested that tonight's meeting be adjourned in memory of
Dick Edgar, former Tustin mayor and dedicated volunteer for
many years, who was tragically injured in a traffic incident and
passed away in the hospital.
Nielsen
Asked if anything is planned for the old dairy property on
Newport near the freeway.
Director
Answered there is a retail proposal for which there is draft
approval.
Nielsen
Indicated the Shakey's Pizza sign is deteriorating and needs to
be repaired as soon as possible.
Stated we grieve the loss of Ms. Stroupe's father; and, added
that he understood how difficult it was for her to address the
Commission at this time.
Minutes - Planning Commission December 13, 2004 - Page 11
Nielsen continued
8:50 p.m.
I n Memory of
Richard "Dick" Edgar
Added his words of condolence to the Edgar family; stated his
death will be mourned by many; and, asked for a motion to
adjourn the meeting in Mr. Edgar's memory.
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is
scheduled for Monday, January 10, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Clifton Miller Community Center at 300 Centennial Way.
Minutes - Planning Commission December 13, 2004 - Page 12
A TT ACHMENT E
December 13, 2004 Staff Report
..L f E fI/I ;J-
.
~ S~YJ
'---~
Report to the
Planning Commission
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY
OWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
DECEMBER 13, 2004
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
04-011 AND DESIGN REVIEW 04-009
ST. CECILIA CHURCH
ATTN: FR. TIMOTHY MACCARTHY
1301 SYCAMORE AVENUE
TUSTIN, CA 92780
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF ORANGE
2811 VILLAREAL DRIVE
ORANGE, CA 92687
1301 SYCAMORE AVENUE
PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (P&I)
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3) OF TITLE 14, CHAPTER 3 OF THE
CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (GUIDELINES FOR THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT)
TO ALLOW A 2,490 SQUARE FOOT TEMPORARILY PERMITTED
MODULAR BUILDING TO REMAIN IN USE FOR TWO (2) YEARS
AS A CLASSROOM BUILDING AND TO CONSTRUCT A 5,950
SQUARE FOOT FREE-STANDING OFFICE AND MEETING
ROOM BUILDING FOR THE CHURCH
REQUEST:
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission approve Alternative 2 for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 04-
011 and Design Review (DR) 04-009 by adopting Resolution No. 3935.
BACKGROUND
On October 25, 2004, the Planning Commission considered a request by St. Cecilia
Church to use a 2,490 square foot temporarily permitted modular building as a
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
December 13, 2004
Page 2
permanent classroom building and to construct a 5,950 square foot free-standing two-
story office and meeting room building at 1301 Sycamore Avenue (Attachment A -
Location Map). A copy of the October 25, 2004 staff report is in Attachment Band
includes information pertaining to prior site history, site surroundings, architecture of the
proposed building, architecture of the modular building, and parking demand. At the
October 25, 2004 meeting, the Planning Commission continued the proposal to the
December 13, 2004, (Attachment C - Meeting Minutes) to allow the applicant to address
the following issues raised and information requested by the Planning Commission:
.
Concern with the permanent use of the modular building;
Request for alternative on-site locations for the proposed office/meeting room
building given proximity to adjacent single family residences, including
shade/shadow studies for the proposed buildings; and,
Clarification of the proximity of proposed buildings in relation to a SCE Edison
easement adjacent to the north property line.
.
.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In response to the Planning Commissions concerns, the applicant submitted a letter
(Attachment D) and provided a proposal for discontinued use of the modular building,
identified three (3) alternative locations and configurations for the proposed 5,950 square
foot office/meeting room building, has provided shade/shadow studies for each alternative,
and has correctly identified an previously incorrectly shown Edison easement on the site
plan. A discussion of each follows.
Modular Building
With each of the alternatives for the proposed office/meeting room building, the applicant
is requesting that the Planning Commission allow the existing on-site modular building
(Attachment E) that is attached to a foundation to be used temporarily as a classroom for
two (2) years. The prior approval was from December 13, 1993 to December 13, 2000; no
extension was ever granted. Staff recommends that this request be granted. Condition
1.9 would require the applicant to post a bond for removal of the modular building by
December 13, 2006.
Proposed Building
The alternatives for the 5,950 square foot office/meeting room building are outlined in
order of preference by the applicant.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 involves no change to the original proposal with the exception of the
temporary rather than permanent use of the modular building (Attachment F). The
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
December 13, 2004
Page 3
approximately thirty (30) foot tall building would be located twelve (12) feet west of the
parish hall, 110 feet east of Sycamore Avenue, ten and one half (10.5) feet south of the
north property line abutting the rear yards of single family dwellings, and approximately
thirty (30) feet north of the Church. The building would be placed in an area with existing
landscaping and four (4) disabled parking spaces. Some of the removed landscaping
will be replaced around the perimeter of the building and the four (4) parking spaces will
be replaced west of the proposed building adjacent to where they are currently located,
leaving an overall surplus of seven (7) parking spaces. Overall, the site will continue to
retain sixteen (16) percent landscaping. The building would be a 5,950 square feet,
would consist of 1,603 square feet of meeting room area, 2,423 square feet of offices,
and the remaining 1,924 square feet would be dedicated to restrooms, corridors, and
storage.
The shade and shadow study for the building in Alternative 1 (Attachment F) is
summarized as follows:
Square feet of single family parcels covered by shadow
Solar Angles 14702 Charloma Drive 14722 Charloma Drive Other properties
(Church rectory)
December 22
9:00 a.m. 2450 s.f. - most of rear 725 s.f. - in north side yard 0
yard covered 90 s.f. - northeast corner of
12:00 p.m. 1685 s.f. - first 25 feet yard 0
of rear yard covered
March 22
9:00 a.m. 894 s.f. - southeast 771 s.f. - northeast corner of 0
corner of rear yard rear yard covered
covered 0
12:00 p.m. 0 0
June 21
9:00 a.m. 371 s.f. - southeast 588 s.f. - northeast corner of 0
corner of rear yard rear yard covered
covered
12:00 p.m. 0 0 0
* Shadow encroachment distances are provided without regard to trees on the property.
Alternative 2
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Alternative 2 (Attachment G)
which does not vary from Alternative 1 with respect to building size, height, floor plan, or
architecture but does involve a relocation of the building so that it is aligned behind the
residence at 14722 Charloma Drive (St. Cecilia Church Rectory) and is set back
eighteen feet ten inches (18'10") from the north property line separating the Church
property from the single family residence, which is approximately nine (9) feet further
away from the residence than Alternative One (1). The building would be approximately
65 feet west of the parish hall, 67 feet east of the Sycamore Avenue right-of-way, and
20 feet north of the Church. The location of the building would displace a minimal
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
December 13, 2004
Page 4
amount of landscaping, a portion of a driveway, and with the provision of disabled
access spaces, would reduce parking by two (2) spaces, leaving an overall surplus of
five (5) spaces. While Alternative 2 has not been formally reviewed by the Orange
County Fire Authority (OCFA), the City's Building Division has reviewed the plans and
does not foresee any significant fire access issues that cannot be addressed at plan
check. However, Condition 7.1 is included to require OCFA review and approval prior to
issuance of permits and allows the Director of Community Development to approve
minor changes to the building or site plan that may be necessary to meet OCFA
requirements.
The building proposed in Alternative 2 would be comparable to the thirty (30) foot height
and twenty (20) foot setback distance of the existing parish hall for the Church which is
east of the proposed building.
The shade and shadow study for the Alternative 2 building (Attachment G) is
summarized as follows:
Square feet of single family parcels covered by shadow
Solar Angles 14702 Chari om a 14722 Charloma Drive 14732 Charloma Drive
Drive (Church rectory)
December 22
9:00 a.m. 220 s.f. - in south 2800 s.f. - covering the 0
side yard entire rear yard
12:00 p.m. 513 s.f. - southeast 850 s.f. - covering the 0
corner of rear yard first 19 feet of the rear
vard
March 22
9:00 a.m. 0 1086 s.f. - covering the 0
first 18 feet of the rear
yard
12:00 p.m. 0 0 0
June 21
9:00 a.m. 0 404 s.f. - covering the the 105 s.f. - northeast
first 8 feet of the rear yard. corner of rear yard
12:00 p.m. 0 0 0
* Shadow encroachment distances are provided without regard to trees on the property.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 (Attachment H) reduces the proposed building from two (2) to one (1)
stories. The same amount of square feet as Alternatives One (1) and Two (2) is
proposed for the building but the amount of parcel area covered by the building nearly
doubles. The building height would be reduced to approximately 18 feet. The building
would be located approximately ten (10) feet west of the parish hall, fifty one (51) feet
east of the Sycamore Avenue right-of-way, sixteen (16) to twenty three (23) feet north of
the Church, and ten and on-half (10.5) feet south of from the north property line
separating the Church property from the single family residences. The building would
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
December 13, 2004
Page 5
be in the line of the rear yards of 14722 Charloma Drive (Church rectory) and 14702
Charloma Drive. The location of the building would displace between 2,000 and 3,000
square feet of landscaping, a driveway, a curb cut, and four parking spaces.
The architecture of the one story building would be consistent with the architecture of
existing on-site buildings and utilizes the same colors and materials as proposed in
Alternatives One (1) and Two (2). The Church facing (south) elevation would consist of
cream-color rough plaster walls broken up by rows of orange brick that span from top to
bottom of the building and non reflective bronze glass encased in bronze anodized
mullions. The north elevation would consist of cream-color rough plaster walls in the
center of the building and orange brick in stack bond at the building ends. Non-reflective
bronze tint windows in bronze anodized mullions would be evenly spaced on the elevation.
The east facing elevation would consist of stack bond brick, cream color rough stucco
walls, non-reflective bronze glass with bronze anodized mullions, and an orange brick wall
with the upper portion provided in a Flemish bond with a protruding header. The west
elevation would consist primarily of cream color rough stucco walls, bronze windows,
bronze mullions, and some brick accents.
The shade and shadow study for the building in Alternative 3 (Attachment H) is
summarized as follows:
Square feet of single family parcels covered by shadow
Solar Angles 14702 Chari om a Drive 14722 Charloma Drive 14732 Charloma Drive
(Church rectory)
December 22
9:00 a.m. 1872 s.f. - south half of 2559 s.f. - covers nearly the 221 s.f. - northeast corner
entire rear yard entire rear yard. of rear yard
12:00 p.m. 504 s.f. - covering the 404 s.f. - covering most of 0
first 8 feet of the rear the first 8 feet of the rear
yard yard
March 22
9:00 a.m. 448 s.f. - first 13 feet of 910 s.f. - first 13 feet of 52 s.f. - northeast corner of
the south half of the entire rear yard. rear yard
rear yard
12:00 p.m. 0 0 0
June 21
9:00 a.m. 0 0 0
12:00 p.m. 0 0 0
* Shadow encroachment distances are provided without regard to trees on the property.
For all existing and proposed buildings in all alternatives, the total floor area ratio of the
site will be twenty three (23) percent which is within the acceptable twenty (20) to sixty (60)
percent range established in the General Plan Land Use Element for the zoning district.
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
December 13, 2004
Page 6
ANAL YSIS
In determining whether to approve the Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission
must determine whether or not the proposed use will be detrimental to the health, safety,
morals, comfort, and general welfare of the persons residing in or working in the
neighborhood or whether it will be injurious or detrimental to property or improvements in
the vicinity or to the welfare of the City.
A decision to approve Alternative 2 including the construction of a 5,950 square foot office
and meeting room for the Church and the temporary use of a modular building for
classroom instruction two (2) years can be supported by the following findings:
a)
The proposal is consistent with the Public and Institutional Zoning District standards
in that religious assembly, schools, and school administrative offices require a
conditional use permit and the development standards are determined through the
conditional use permit and design review process by the plans approved by the
Planning Commission. The uses are appropriate under General Plan Land Use
Element Public/Institutional designation in that the school and Church function as
quasi-public uses.
b)
The project maintains all legal non-conforming rights (establishment of the
Church and school without a CUP prior to annexation) and is consistent with prior
conditions of approval for the parish hall under CUP 75-18. While additional
square footage is being proposed, no new uses are being added to the site in
that a school currently exists on the property and the use of the modular
classroom will be temporary for two (2) years for the school. Church offices and
meeting rooms currently exist in the parish hall, and the proposed Church offices
and meeting rooms will continue to support the Church.
c)
As conditioned and described in section (h), the permanent building would be
compatible with existing on-site and adjacent uses and meet design review
criteria, the modular classroom building would be temporary for two (2) years, all
uses under the subject entitlements would occur inside their respective buildings.
d)
Sufficient parking would be available for the 5,950 square foot Church office and
meeting room use since, pursuant to Condition 5.6, Church assembly in the
worship or parish hall would not be operating at the same time as the school,
Church offices, and Church meeting room.
e)
The two (2) year temporary use of the modular classroom would not increase
parking/traffic demand because required parking spaces are currently provided on-
site, and no increase in students or teachers is requested or approved under CUP
04-011 and DR 04-009.
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
December 13, 2004
Page 7
As determined by the Public Works Engineering Division, the net increase in traffic.
at the project site during the weekday a.m. or p.m. peak hours and/or Sunday peak
hour is not anticipated to generate significant traffic impacts, and there is sufficient
roadway capacity to accommodate the proposed project.
f)
Increased pedestrian activity to the site as a result of the project will be
accommodated in that the applicant and/or property owner would be required to
provide sidewalk and drive aprons along Sycamore Avenue in front of the project
property that are constructed to meet current Federal Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) requirements.
g)
The location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the proposal
will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present
or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole, as follows:
h)
2.
1.
Height, bulk, and area of buildings: The thirty (30) foot height of the new
building is consistent with the maximum height allowed for a single family
dwelling and the modular classroom would remain at under twelve (12)
feet. In addition, the Church and parish hall are of corresponding heights
to the new building. Under Alternative 2, the shade and shadow that
would be projected onto adjacent properties would be primarily on the rear
yard of a single family dwelling currently owned by the Church (rectory)
with minimal intrusion onto the residences adjacent to the rectory. The
size of the buildings is less than existing on-site buildings and the overall
floor area ratio is twenty three (23) percent which is within the range
allowed by the General Plan.
Setbacks and site planning: Setbacks are adequate for the project in that
the new office/meeting room building is setback in excess of fifty (50) feet
from Sycamore Avenue, is setback eighteen (18) feet ten (10) inches from
the side property line, maintains approximately the same setback as the
existing parish hall, and the proximity of the second story to the property
line shared with the single family residences is mitigated with translucent
windows. The setback to the side property line results in minimal shade
and shadow effects on the residences that are adjacent the Church
rectory. The modular classroom is buffered from view from Sycamore
Avenue since it is behind the existing Church and the south elevation is
screened by a dense cluster of regularly spaced trees.
Exterior materials and colors: The project colors and materials would be
consistent with existing on-site development as described in Item No.8.
Type and pitch of roofs: Both buildings exhibit flat roofs, which are
consistent with several of the other buildings on the site and appropriate to
the architectural style of the buildings.
Size and spacing of windows, doors, and other openings: The windows
3.
4.
5.
Planning Commission Report
CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009
December 13, 2004
Page 8
Attachments:
and doors of the proposed and existing buildings are appropriate for the
style of architecture proposed and would be constructed in compliance
with City building code standards.
Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the
neighborhood: The structures are located on the property to address the
need for privacy and minimal shade impacts on adjacent properties as
described in Item No.2.
Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing
structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public
thoroughfares: Design of the new building includes orange brick, cream-
colored rough plaster, bronze tint windows, and brown anodized window
frames, all of which are consistent with the building materials existing on
the Church and parish hall. The modular classroom building exhibits
cream color synthetic siding with a faux rough trowel finish. The building
color matches the stucco on the proposed building, accents on the parish
hall, and the existing school classroom buildings. The modular building's
bronze tint windows, brown framing, and brown doors are also consistent
with trim colors on the existing buildings.
Development guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council:
Pursuant to the zoning district standards, the project approval would
establish the setbacks and height limitations for the buildings on the
subject property.
6.
7.
8.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
)
I~L-( ~{-~vl
Karen Peterson
Senior Planner
Location Map
October 25, 2004 Staff Report
October 25, 2004 Minutes
November 24, 2004, Letter from St. Cecilia Church Pastor
Modular Building Plans
Alternative 1 Plans and Shade/Shadow Study
Alternative 2 Plans and Shade/Shadow Study
Alternative 3 Plans and Shade/Shadow Study
Resolution No. 3935
S:\CddlPCREPORT\2004\CUP 04-011 and DR 04-009 deflered.doc
ATTACHMENT F
Plans and Shade/Shadow Study
LEGEND
"¡",,, ",,',"" ",' " 0. "c"'" d,
"'~,,' ".do,"'" ',ie,
" ""no, ,.m.i. "'..c'"
,oc,:,':;,;; .' 7,," . "., (,'.i., :: ::':":~o::':,~,'::¡;,':: ::,:¡"~ ':'o~:::"'i"'"
31;:'~;"';'::';"~"¡;:;'::;"'¡;:¡';;:\~?';i,~d:,.. """ii"",...'01".""",i,"",
.,.ii,.""...",.."""".""". """"'9""",.i"i>"""""'.",,..
""dO'" P,."" ,¡'c.,. ., "" ",n P" CSe.
'5 """"01.,, .., ,. "",¡.
. 1"'"". """"," ".¡,h' . ,,' d.""
" ;~:"!,;~:;';;~ C,'¡C,~,': ,::;:,~~ 1 ;t;9:'~~~t"
Ai."i,." .i», Di,.""i" Ai',
5h,..""""""i",."""...,.,,...,,.p,
,,"'e,. '",;o.m.d"...bm...,,"'."'"
" egO ,,"i,." "338.7,
" ';"m'. ."" "'p'
, "c
~;:;o..
" "",7,
" ;~;::;: ;:':",~~,::','~~
lo.dio, '0" 5' . " ~",
..." '0, ."h o""'~ 'co""
"",""
., .,,".
~"" "'p'
., ,,:,ii., 00""""':"" "",.",.
""ii,, ,i " "". "'" .",.
, """"",,, "oM""'"
'0 No" y,.., >0",' .. ."", "0""0"' ""di',g
'. """'1 ',,"\
" """°9""""""""'("""'('<")
22~;,~ti~;"."'di09"""""""O""""'"
""tiog 00""" ,".,. " "~,i,,
w
::)
Z
W
>
<t:
w
0:::
0
::E
<t:
()
>-
(/)
:~t='-=
~L~
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
" ¡.",ti" "~," "O, '0""
¡~E~Foo1:1¥~~~\.'~ !;¿H'El"fS,!£~:::';
~j;~{J¡;1~i~JI#¿i~;' r~J~,i:¥~::,
".~"~~"",,,-"~"""H'
25. E'i""" """""',,' "0'
" ¡""", b,,' ,'",do,"
,., II.. '001 ,co',""d ""¡,,,,"" ""',""", >t,,' ,.
" "g'" ',po ", ,., ., ih. ",Ii
" L"", ."""", .""",.,,1
" ""'" .."",.g "',m, """ ",' ",,"'.. c,H,
"..",,"' P"""I" ",ti"'o,O',,,',
~l~\~~~r~~~~l1[~:¡~~1~~;
"""""~"".,,.~."~,.""""m~""'~"
~~;~,k ¡~~j"iE~~~~5:~~fi.J~~;1;;~;.
¡~F:~¡rJ .~: .¡¡¡:'=~~:: ,::i~~~iri:io:::?~:',~ .::"
r:~;r:,~£~:'.¡.l%f:i1::;? J}~:;¡:¡~¿:¥'~~;,Ì'h
¡:~c;¡:':J~~\::,~'.!::.::":.i"i::";~.~:,r,.,'"
"""e,"",
Coo . ,"',.,,"' ",,,,",
,," "0 "'°"' "ico' ""," (AI",", ">CO¡
;;;;:;; ~~;o:,:~;¡;:'~, ":;",';;::: ;:'C,~;: "
"",:"" "..., ""'pi",
"",., ""Ii", d.."..", "'P"" ",."""
""'Ii" '" C", .""d",ò,
.... ...""", "'",.-"..,~,-".,,"
-+
'<-
ALTERNATIVE THREE
.'"...
¡,-~.."..,.
S"'""" "'ro'.'
, ADG
I"""'::',
"".Nu-
¡Ac1,1CUP-3
9'- "
DONOT8CAl.EDRAw<NG' ---
DA TA
NEW OFFICE / MTG RM BLDG
DE"" REViEW '00-0<0
CONO""N^, U" RE'M" '0<-011
PROJECT
PARKING CALCULATION
"",ll/omCE,
AS"M"V, 458 OCC. ., "'" / , occ. .
STALLS
"nc" 2,391 S,f. . 1 S"" / 280 f'I, .
STAllS
TOTAL REOU'REO,
CHURCH BUIl"NG,
CHURCH"" OCC. . , STAll / 'OCC.' 220 STALLS
CHURCH DEMAND GOVERNS, 220 STALLS RED.
221 STALLS PROV. OK
TOTAL BUILDING AREA & OCCUPANT lOAD'
2,d f". 2,906 S,f.
h' flR. ',OOA S.f,
TOTAL. 5,9S0 5,f.
AS"M'" (A-", 107 OCCU"",5
om" ('I. 2A OCCUPANTS
TOTAl; '" OCCUPAHTS
160 STAllS
SITE COMPOSITION
PROPOSEO PERMANENT
ONE-STORY CLASSROOM
CON"TiO",l UBE PERM" ,OO-DO'
EXISTING CLASSROOM BU'LDING
2,A90 S,f" H DCC, 80 oec, m, V-N CONST.
'U,,",NG', ",O"" (""
LANDSCAPE, 32,'" S.F. (""
"V~G m.""F. (""
207,.X18F (100')
APPLICABLE COOES
200' CA'U'ORNiABU"""GCOOE(CÐC'
200' CAl"ORNiA MEC",,"'CAe COOE (CMe)
200' CAl"ORNiA PtUMBiNG CODE (C'"
2OO'CAl"ORNiAElECTRiCACCOOE(ŒC¡
200' CAl"ORNiA Tim 2A ACCŒ",",UTYREGULATiQNS
Tim2AENERGVREGU<AT"",,
CtTY ORDiNANCES
STATE' FEDERAe LAW, ANOREGULATI0N8
FLOOR AREA RATIO
CHURCH BUiLDHG, ". 16g Sf
CtASSRDDM BUilDiNG, 2,090 S.f.
HAll/OffiCE BUiLDI"" 7.85A S.f.
geHOOl BUIl"NG, ¡g,B" 5.1.
om" BUll""'. S.9S0 S.f.
TOTAL,
47,"0 5.1.
207,900 S.f,
flOOR AREA 'ATiO,
""
EXiSTING
GRASS
F'LAYAREA
SAND
OVERALL SITE PLAN
SCA" ". J(f.<J"
'" ><
S2 i!"
~ :¡¡
~ ~~!
(j~ ~~i
;L1í~~
t;;:,; tiJè~á
~ ~ ~ ù\ ~~
is'''':t:~:g u
~~~¡§~Õ
~ 'i: OJ ~:ß =
:'J~ §!!!~ã
"',<,,~
~
00
I,Q
I,Q
.....0\
~N
0 .1::1 oj
OIH/J 0
§ ....'¡::
... â3..s
0 .......
,,-,..:go;¡
O:--U
0> .
~ 0
0 ...... OJ)
g.... §
.... 00 .,
QNO
0
;::S
¡:::
00
>00
--<r--
oN
...0\
..r:: 0 oj
~ ~'a
;::S U I-<
..r:: >-...s
UCl);.::::
ro . oj
:':::~U
'ü en Ii
0 ....
Uõt;
. ('<) ;:S
c/5......¡-.
~
~
,,><U
cUPS""""'"
,:,....
CUPRESU"""'"
iI,"" '
CUP RESU"""""
I§
'>Ii
~~
~~
16'-,.
ëf
~
a.
if
"'"
I'T1
><
-i
I'T1
:.0
0
:.0
:z:
!6
:t
ëf
~
a.
œ
'"
~
'"
2
,'"
B'-"
l~
I'T1
r-
I'T1
'"
Þ
-i
0
:z:
C/)
8
~
~
i
i
1!~~!~ln1 i~1 \ i
20.
<'=Of §f~
m
~~~
~ ~
/
-~
~~~
~~,
---¡ F.
~ ~~
~ ~õ
) ~
n
~~
~o
~~
ã;
~¡
~
ì '00
n!~
~ I ~~
0 .~
~~
~õ
<
0
,,-,.
St. Cecilia Church
1301 S. E. Sycamore Avenue
'T'..~t;... (",1;4'""";,, O"7QO
C/)
0
c:
:t
8'
~
a.
~
,~
12'-"
B'-"n
n
i~
ã!
~;
xt-
~
I'
1-- ----
r- --
~
C/)
-i
8'
~
a.
!
J!.
!6
,,~
5¡
~i
~~
~
l~
Em
~ ~~~
~ ~~,
~ I¡;~
) .~
~~
~a
~
~
ì
'f"
~~~
----' ,,~
~~
u
~õ
r-
I'T1
G)
I'T1
:z:
0
C h 1. O. fO I7IGLESSARCHITECTS,INC,
at 0 IC lOcese 0 range U ARCHITECTURE & INTERIOR DESIGN
2811 Villareal Street ~:~~:B~~~ 92660
OramJt'.- f'.¡¡liforin¡¡ ?%6R :~-:'~2~~f:'.':Jj.~~:.~(FX)
."
....
0
0
:0
~
....
»
<:
8
~
i
i!
I
In.I~1 f 1 i
. ~ ~ 8 T~ I
¡¡:¡ I I I
¿, '.'
,,',B'
,-c".)
.,,' -.(
~"
Co
[--:j
ULill,c :J'~
ULUe -- u,:
u ¡, II !" lJ '.,j
l.ll' il r. ~ ..t~' I
',I: I! {' "- " .1 ,
I, I, I.., ~.I'
ULII[~_U¡:
u:J~,ULl U,J -"
~i~I~~ 'lieu
"~tl~~ll [' I] '-I'll
þ(ltTirJ,_:J. .,,'..lU
U I II ['~~' ,
i:J I Ii [:;:. ~~, I Illl ¡-I
HHih~ j~ 'w~-
III II r -- n,'
:~ I'~
~,
'"
11,
~ I~
~
":IP.IP~I ~ i
~~~~~~
iH ~n
~
~
St. Cecilia Church
1301 S. E. Sycamore Avenue
Tustin, California 92780
:0
0
0
."
~
....
»
<:
4
h'o
IW~I
I ç I
=
eN" ."~.
::: ~~~~
!¡H¡li
~ "
RlOGe
/,"
",,0
""""'
Diocese of Orange
2811 Villareal Street
Orange, Califorina 29668
!
I
i
?ë
o~
¡~
û¥~
~
/..",. II:
/oF ~~
~¡! ~¡I ¡ii!
"O''
-"LOIT
:
L -
"!!",,
,"'<
I I i I
~ GLESS ARCHITECTS, INC.
L:J ARCHITECTURE & INTERiOR DESIGN
4931 BIRCH STREET
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
949-852-0585 (PH); 949-852-0588 (FX)
EMAIL: GLESSARCH@soI.com
"1C"'/O'I!!JH:JI1~SS37Ð .7/~"'3
(XoJ) gggo-Z99-6.6 !(Hd) gggo-Z99-6.6
099Z6 ~:J 'H:J~3fJ ~I1OdM3N
13311.1S H:JI1/fJ IC6.
NÐ/S30 110/113~N1? 311n1:J311H:JI1~ ~I
DN/ 'S~:J311H:JI1\f SS37Ð ~..J
8996Z tmpOJ!IR;) ';}.oURlO
~;};}l~S IR;}.rnmA I 18Z
;}i3muo Jo ;}S;}:>°10 :>110q~R;)
c
<:
ø
LIJ
-'
ô
~
ô
(!)
~
(;j
~
:J:.
()
g¡
J::
()
(!)
<:
fO
'"
~
UISL<.,t> "~lUVJ~l"J U~~""J...
~~~l~S ~lomR:>ÁS '3 'S 10£1
q:>mq;) u~E:>~;) '~S
cp,
~,
. ~,
.~~i
;~,
fß
-'
ø
<:
«
a::
~
Ci)
N
N
¡:::-
fu
~
:x:
()
a::
~
"
'~
H
~~
~
0
~
0
~
t;
x
w
~
B
i!'
fß
-'
ø
<:
«
a::
:5
0
Ci)
N
N
a::
LIJ
~
()
LIJ
C
g¡~i
" () ;
~ ~. 8~ :~.' :-1
,-- <~8~ '
.= 11 .1 <C ]!
õ ~n~~';;;_~m'_~'
.~
¡~
!~
,~
'ð
I.
"
'0
I>
18
1
I
Ci)1
<:1
«I
-',
Qi
>-1
c'
:::J
....
Ci)
LIJ
C
«
:x:
Ci)
Ci)
LIJ
-'
ø
<:
«
a::
:5
0
Ci)
Ñ
~
:::J
...,
w
w
0:
J:
I-
W
>
-
l-
e(
Z
0:
w
I-
...J
e(
0:
0
LL
>-
C
::)
I-
en
~
0
C
<C
J:
en
C
Z
e(
W
C
<C
J:
en
,..'", ^' B"" "'" ,'. '"
.,.",,""".'" "" ""'"
(,", . . ,"'"
", """'"
,"""~"'O"i'/'-""-"'"
".~..
--,---
'~-ì=-:~~I:~~
DESIGH ClimR..,
"0'" ',' ,w,
"." '0 W
RW
BU(lDI"" DATA,
DOC""",
co""",,,-' >c,-
"
"c,
\:-'0
I!J--
[/]
C]
[1
[=1
lJ
'NSU""""
I-' ",., .'"
, ,,»
ROO'
p,p, ,
'.' ,
--. "
D
I;
i
,
" "u,"'I"
..'M'
., "'-0'
." ,,~
¡::¡' I";"""ì 'J!'
""ASm mT'"
,"""
OR"" ",""'"
'" ¡c.
SO"".. "',",'
£~,-~E
'!<II ',f. II' \
loJ --1'1. I"~ r'---_U
3' L__J [-_J \
C:=], ' _n,_[~==]-f,~j'[,-"
l'J c;¡ Ij t:J: ~--
.."",
:\ ";.1.; "'SSROW .'
6";"""\ D ~I~~D ~
fZI fZI fZI fZI
"H" "".".""",
-..,c" "",.., ','.,H,
'""," .",c- .",
~ ~ i.
ii,:~
.!J.õ
up-
~,~;
a:'~q
~ â ~ .
:, -
úi
0
Fe""" Sf"'"'
"""'. ,
OfCw",
;': o;::,~;
'R"""'"
'-0,-"'" '
[o}-
WA" m""'
""","
""c,-".o""",.o 0'
'R"""," "" ",-,-".", "',""
; 0
II
CEI""" oTS'EM,
H"O,'
"N'S,'
"--D' "c'.",""
5,"'..0'""".,^,
ROOf SYSTEM,
R'DO'S".
",.,'",
,'.,'B'" ",ob"', ,n-,. 0','0<
C,B H'I- " ".. - -
(W"",-" ,-0,""""" ""'OEI
",'O";H"'"'"
.----.-..----..
.¡,]
"""~
[]
C~J
LJ l'J
D-~D
C:J c'ð.,';O~ " LJ
0
~ . I
,,¿ í ,I
;:~' ~Jn'
n,-
~~~
><VAG SYSTEM,
S'-NO
S ,cr
So"" .,'
RE'"""'"
,""'~'"
¡;:~:'""
'N""h'"" OR E"'"
0 '" hI" pu"p
DumD "'" <
DumD "TO"
----Œ
<CECTRI"".
""",P'"LDN
SuS ',N"
."" ""'"
."'NO
"..C_' """
'" "~
NCI.'
Cop", ,~",.
[:=J
".
z
<
[3J
",.~
¡~,~\
it:;;"
'¡;' [!: f¡--~
,Ij
,'.n' ¡ n."".-
.~=~==:.~~---=--':-:-=-
I NOTE' ,'-0' INTERIOR CEILINO HEI..,T I
51 GENERAL r-;on:s
,6, I -
~~!\~ ~
1.0'," '",'
z", ".
~ ~ ::;, 1 ~;
lLJ~ ;
0 .
EJ
ALL INTERIOR WALL PARTITIONS TO BE R-1t INSULATED
11 FLOOR PLAN
(i) :-:;~ ,;;::~o;~':;.~~':';~: ;;~; :~::,;,,-
.~-,-"
D ,".",.,,"""m"""~""'~"'I"""
0 :::",::':';;:;;;~,::.:':',~:~;~:,~';:,,::~' ,,~,,-
,..-,-"
[oj t~';';::'~,:~:,~~':;:;"~~.:':!~ ;:~7,... -"-,,
~ ;;'.."':,::~~;"'~:~,;.:;:::,:/:~rn.:~.::':":,: '"
["0] 'I'--"N" 'O"" ,... .""'-,~, C", ,~"
[0] M"~"-_-H""""'~""""""'~"""~"O"O
f~J "'" '"""""" ".~,,< ,,~.~,
'l '0 ,,",
ŒJ 0," 'N"~"
a ..,,"~ -'" ,~_"'N' ~~ ,,~,
Q) =.,,;:;~;~';;:;.,'~::;:O:'~::'::; ;;,:;:~~"'" "",,, ".~
u"""""""""""""""",,.
U""""""'~"N,",""~'~'
(v =.,,:,;:;:';;~,,:~~;:.:'~~":; ~,:;:",~'"' "~,, ".~
. ~.". ."", -".~ C"~"
n,""""'" "'"
...""..",..~.'"'""'~"-
t>J ",,' """,... ~""
U ",""",,",""'~""
P"- "'
"
0 c",."
0 o,P, 0' HOUS"'C
0 PROC"'-, 'O"
0 CROl' ""'AOfR
0 OUAl';Y co,nRal
0 "'OR'O"
0 ..",",,",,'0
0 ,,"
0 PURCHAS I "0
0 EST,,""NO,"'"
0 OTHeR
~':~.~, -0
c'.i ~"":¡"~'":';:::;"~.::::'~O,:::::, "'"" ~" ~m
(ú- '~'~""'('--"')
.E!illiLL <""<-"",,RE)
,~,. "'~ ~"" '"'" '"
,~,.'" ><....~ ".", .",
.,', "'
"~,:;f,';o
ŒJ
41DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE
31 ELECTR I CAL AND HVAC SCHEDULE
21FINISH SCHEDULE
0
;;
i
II
'I! ([
- -- - -- II i I[
II .
l~ :1
II~ I
f-- i\~ I
'.,- .
.?:,"
'",. :
~O< ' ~?o
" 'J 'I. ,,'
~ ii I ~
~ ,; . J
~ Ii ì I
~ II f'
- ---_J ~ "',
i ~ ~
~ ~ !
\!:,,~
, ~1~
~ j, ~ t
~ ~ ~]
~H
",t.
I~,
::1
::1
Ir"-
.Hi
" ~~ ~
~11 .
ti ~ "
,I ~'~
I r ",
~I" :
~~. "~
,~ -p
~ -~
u .~
,~
H
~~'
~
'7
~
j ,-
3 í:-<
J~
~~ ~ i
l. ,1
~~ h
If -'> . é},
,- (/
.
(:')~
"~
~
.
.¡
__n__-'
"a,"""
"
-;,
i
'0
!
,"O""""'¡ "'"oW""
. I
! 7
~ I ~ ..
.. ~
~; 4! ~
.: t i~ ~
4. ~',! =:
!
1/
1 L
~~
/
..
"
j
3
-Z
~
~
\II
~..)
¡:.
>II
~
~
~
~
.
~
1
II
Ii
\\
!\
II
II
j.
1
*'
'~ ~
I
/~
..
'4
f~~ 'Na
~ ," ~ ,
~:~~ -<1::
~ â ¿ ; i
¿ ¿ .:
" ~ .':¡.': ~.
;, : ì~, " ~~. !
'1,;>'> ! ¡>~~i:¡
:.'~',' -",'-"
¡:~~..,..., ~;:..,..h!'
":",. ",,'."ii¡'
,>.,,=~¡~ í'=;¡~i.-,
.,»,,", ,P"a...,
,,~. i"~,".'.'> t..",~ ~ '!.!
§;: :~::'; ~! :i~:1 ~ ~-H
- b,~ ~::.-- t~ .;~ "::.-- I ;i¡1
ol"'>".""".!""'<' ".
~ ih~ ,S ~ S ~ :;h ;;: ~ z;d
~
! ~
r- '"
i ! j
. . .¡
, f ;-
~ v"'!
l .~ ~
- " ..
~ .~ r;
'7 r f "
~ ~ J 1
; \~ i
'Z , t ¡¡
! I ~ ;
~ . ~ 'i'.
~ i t i
~ ~ é l
(:r@)i~ 'à
-~
"
:~
~
J
i
7.
"\
c
\u
¡--
~
\.'.
111
..J
«
1-
w
C)
:'1
,,'
iI
1
~
~
7.
1
"'-
ill
...
~
~
7:
<(
..j
-'1
ill
~-
~
:f
r
"j
.\J
7.
\)
\\
g¡}~~~~~'%;:~~æ~
~
~
i
I,
-
U
~~i
~i-
: t~~
I rrt=':;'1
¡ f' \1 ~ <-1:
i~IL;J', \,,'
,'-' '" ¡
!;~
:~
Ii:
Ii
IJ
: æ=c-
i ~/~~~
: r¡=-=-=
: Ii /',
ICJ[~", '=
,
,
,
i ~ ---0--
ioi:""~
",,:¡~~I~
:1 ',"" "
~.;JJ
~
.'
'I
,¡
."'::'~~U ,~" ,-
ON' '.';;' ~ ",.~:::..."':"" "".
'."nDN! 01 .... ,~o.
""d D",ON"5
~L
1\ :;!:
~!. .!?
~= "i.
~~~-:
:~
ll~'-: ,
z
0
t-
o(
>
W
-J
,w
-'
~
W
0
(J)
~!
H
~~
~:
~..
~
~
..
f
~
~
ã
~
<l
i Ie
I .!. .1
~--- i
i-
l =:J
r---~
¡___8¡
~
'--'
,
,
I
i .'
, I
;-----1
:;!:
,II
" .
,
~I
A TT ACHMENT G
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3935
RESOLUTION NO. 3935
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-011 AND
DESIGN REVIEW 04-009 TO ALLOW A 2,490 SQUARE FOOT
MODULAR BUILDING TO BE USED FOR TWO (2) YEARS AS A
CLASSROOM BUILDING AND TO CONSTRUCT A 5,950 SQUARE
FOOT, FREE-STANDING, ONE (1) STORY OFFICE AND MEETING
ROOM BUILDING FOR THE CHURCH LOCATED AT 1301
SYCAMORE AVENUE ALSO KNOWN AS THE NORTHWESTERLY
HALF OF LOT FIFTY IN BLOCK ELEVEN OF IRVINE'S
SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN, COUNTY OF ORANGE,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
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 for Conditional Use Permit 04-011 and Design
Review 04-009 was filed by St. Cecilia Church requesting approval to
temporarily use a 2,490 square foot modular building for two (2) years as a
classroom building and to construct a 5,950 square foot, free-standing,
one (1) story office and meeting room building for the Church.
B.
The proposed project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan
"Public/Institutional" designation which allows schools and churches. In
addition, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality
Sub-element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to
be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. The project complies with
the Public and Institutional (P&I) zoning district regulations because
schools and churches are conditionally permitted, as is requested. The
development standards would be established in the conditional use
permit.
C.
That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said
application on October 25, 2004, by the Planning Commission and the
meeting was continued to December 13, 2004, and subsequently to
January 10, 2005;
D.
That operation of additional Church offices and meeting rooms and the
temporary operation of a modular classroom for two (2) years, as
conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort,
or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood
of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and
improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the
general welfare of the City of Tustin, as evidenced by the following
findings:
a)
The proposal is consistent with the Public and Institutional Zoning
District standards in that religious assembly, schools, and school
administrative offices require a conditional use permit and the
Resolution 3935
Page 2
development standards are determined through the conditional use
permit and design review process by the plans approved by the
Planning Commission. The uses are appropriate under General
Plan land Use Element Public/Institutional designation in that the
school and Church function as quasi-public uses.
b)
The project maintains all legal non-conforming rights
(establishment of the Church and school without a CUP prior to
annexation) and is consistent with prior conditions of approval for
the parish hall under CUP 75-18. While additional square footage
is being proposed, no new uses are being added to the site in that
a school currently exists on the property and the use of the modular
classroom will be temporary for two (2) years for the school.
Church offices and meeting rooms currently exist in the parish hall,
and the proposed Church offices and meeting rooms will continue
to support the Church.
c)
As conditioned and described in section (h), the permanent building
would be compatible with existing on-site and adjacent uses and
meet design review criteria, the modular classroom building would
be temporary for two (2) years, and all uses under the subject
entitlements would occur inside their respective buildings.
d)
Sufficient parking would be available for the 5,950 square foot
Church office and meeting room use since, pursuant to Condition
5.6, Church assembly in the worship or parish hall would not be
operating at the same time as the school, Church offices, and
Church meeting room.
e)
The two (2) year temporary use of the modular classroom would not
increase parking/traffic demand because required parking spaces
are currently provided on-site, and no increase in students or
teachers is requested or approved under CUP 04-011 and DR 04-
009.
f)
As determined by the Public Works Engineering Division, the net
increase in traffic at the project site during the weekday a.m. or p.m.
peak hours and/or Sunday peak hour is not anticipated to generate
significant traffic impacts, and there is sufficient roadway capacity to
accommodate the proposed project.
g)
Increased pedestrian activity to the site as a result of the project will
be accommodated in that the applicant and/or property owner
would be required to provide sidewalk and drive aprons along
Sycamore Avenue in front of the project property that are
Resolution 3935
Page ~
constructed to meet current Federal Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) requirements.
h)
The location, size, architectural features, and general appearance
of the proposal will not impair the orderly and harmonious
development of the area, the present or future development
therein, or the occupancy as a whole, as follows:
1.
Height, bulk, and area of buildings: The eighteen (18) foot
height of the new building is twelve (12) feet less than the
thirty (30) foot maximum height allowed for a single family
dwelling on an adjacent property and the modular classroom
would remain at under twelve (12) feet. The Church and
parish hall are approximately ten (10) feet taller than the new
building but the new building will provide an appropriate
transition by reducing height between the existing on-site
buildings and the adjacent single family dwellings to the
north. The shade and shadow that would be projected onto
adjacent properties would occur primarily during the morning
hours of winter months into the rear yards of two adjacent
single family dwellings, one of which is currently owned by
the Church (rectory). The size of the buildings is less than
existing on-site buildings and the overall floor area ratio is
twenty-three (23) percent which is within the range allowed
by the General Plan.
Setbacks and site planning: Setbacks are adequate for the
project in that the new office/meeting room building is
setback in excess of fifty (50) feet from Sycamore Avenue, is
setback ten (10) feet six (6) inches from the side property
line, maintains approximately the same setback as the single
story portion of the existing parish hall, and no windows are
located above eight (8) feet on the north elevation which
faces adjacent residences. The single story height of the
building setback to the side property line results in minimal
shade and shadow effects during the morning hours in
winter months on primarily one residence adjacent the
Church rectory. The modular classroom is buffered from
view from Sycamore Avenue since it is behind the existing
Church and the south elevation is screened by a dense
cluster of regularly spaced trees.
Exterior materials and colors: The project colors and
materials would be consistent with existing on-site
development as described in Item No.7.
Type and pitch of roofs: Both buildings exhibit flat roofs,
which will architecturally integrate with on-site buildings.
Size and spacing of windows, doors, and other openings:
The windows and doors of the proposed and existing
2.
3.
4.
5.
Resolution 3935
Page 4
G.
6.
buildings are appropriate for the style of architecture
proposed and would be constructed in compliance with City
þuilding code standards.
Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing
structures in the neighborhood: The structures are located
on the property to address the need for privacy and minimal
shade impacts on adjacent properties as described in Item
Nos. 1 and 2.
Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures
to existing structures and possible future structures in the
neighborhood and public thoroughfares: Design of the new
building includes orange brick, cream-colored rough plaster,
bronze tint windows, and brown anodized window frames, all
of which are consistent with the building materials existing
on the Church and parish hall. The modular classroom
building exhibits cream-color synthetic siding with a faux
rough trowel finish. The building color matches the stucco
on the proposed building, accents on the parish hall, and the
existing school classroom buildings. The modular building's
bronze tint windows, brown framing, and brown doors are
also consistent with trim colors on the existing buildings.
Development guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City
Council: Pursuant to the zoning district standards, the
project approval would establish the setbacks and height
limitations for the buildings on the subject property.
7.
9.
The project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3) of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
II.
The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 04-011 and
Design Review 04-009, to temporarily use a 2,490 square foot modular building
for two (2) years as a permanent classroom building and to construct a 5,950
square foot, free-standing, one-story office and meeting room building at 1301
Sycamore Avenue also known as the northwesterly half of Lot Fifty in Block
Eleven of Irvine's Subdivision, in the City of Tustin, County of Orange, State of
California, subject to conditions contained in Exhibit A attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held
on the 10th day of January, 2005.
JOHN NIELSEN
Chairperson
ELIZABETH A BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
Resolution 3935
Page 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE)
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, ELIZABETH A BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Secretary of the
Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3935 was duly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the
10th day of January, 2005.
ELIZABETH A BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-011 AND DESIGN REVIEW 04-009
JANUARY 10, 2005
GENERAL
(1 )
1.1
(1 )
1.2
(1 )
1.3
(1 )
1.4
(1 )
1.5
The proposed use shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for
the project date stamped January 10, 2005, on file with the Community
Development Department, except as herein modified, or as modified by the
Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The
Director of Community Development may also approve minor modifications
to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with the
provisions of the Tustin City Code and other applicable codes.
The conditions contained within Resolution No. 3935 must be complied with
prior to building permit issuance unless otherwise stated in a specific
condition.
The subject project approval shall become null and void unless permits for
the proposed project are issued and substantial construction is underway
within twelve (12) months of the date of this Exhibit. Time extensions may
be considered if a written request is received by the Community
Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration.
Approval of Design Review 04-009 and Conditional Use Permit 04-011 is
contingent upon the applicant returning to the Community Development
Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the
property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk-Recorder a
notarized "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of
Approval" form. The forms shall be established by the Director of
Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to
the Community Development Department.
The applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and
consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party
against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack,
set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the
Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff,
concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of
any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the
defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense,
elect to participate in defense of any such action under this condition.
SOURCE CODES
(1) STANDARD CONDITION
(2) CEQA MITIGATION
(3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S
(4) DESIGN REVIEW
(5)
(6)
(7)
***
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT
LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
PC/CC POLICY
EXCEPTION
Exhibit A - Resolution 3935
DR 04-009 and CUP 04-011
Page 2
(1 )
1.6
(1 )
1.7
(***)
1.8
(***)
1.9
Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to the payment of a
civil penalty of $100.00 for each violation, or such other amounts as the City
Council may establish by ordinance or resolution, and for each day the
violation exists, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal
process as established by the City Council ordinance.
The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary
code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable
notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by
ordinance.
The property owner shall submit written authorization to allow the Building
Official and representatives of the Orange County Fire Authority to perform
annual inspections of the modular building. The applicant shall pay costs
associated with said inspections.
The 2,490 square foot modular building is temporarily allowed for a period
of no more than two (2) years until January 10, 2007, and shall be
removed by the expiration date. Upon removal, the area shall be
landscaped, unless an alternative treatment is approved in writing by the
Director of Community Development.
PLAN SUBMITTAL
(5)
2.1
At the time of building permit application, the plans shall comply with the
2001 California Building Code (CBC), 2001 California Mechanical Code
(CMC), 2001 California Plumbing Codes (CPC), 2001 California Electrical
Code (CEC), California Title 24 Accessibility Regulations, Title 24 Energy
Regulations, City Ordinances, and State and Federal laws and regulations.
Building plan check submittal shall include the following:
.
Seven (7) sets of construction plans, including drawings for
mechanical, plumbing and electrical.
.
Structural calculations, two (2) copies.
.
Title 24 energy calculations, two (2) copies.
.
Elevations that include all proposed dimensions, materials, colors,
finishes, and partial outlines of adjacent buildings on-site and off-
site where applicable.
.
The location of any utility vents or other rooftop equipment shall be
provided on the roof plan and must be shown to be located a
Exhibit A - Resolution 3935
DR 04-009 and CUP 04-011
Page 3
(5)
2.2
minimum of six inches below the roof parapet wall, or as otherwise
approved by the Director of Community Development.
.
Details of all proposed lighting fixtures and a photometric study
showing the location and anticipated pattern of light distribution of all
proposed fixtures. All new light fixtures shall be consistent with the
architecture of the building. All exterior lighting shall be designed and
arranged as not to direct light or glare onto adjacent properties,
including the adjacent streets. Wall-mounted fixtures shall be
directed at a 90-degree angle directly toward the ground. All lighting
shall be developed to provide a minimum of one (1) foot-candle of
light coverage, in accordance with the City's Security Ordinance. No
lights may be installed on the exterior of the north elevation of the
5,950 square foot building.
.
A note shall be provided on the plans that "All parking areas shall be
illuminated with a minimum of one (1) foot-candle of light, and
lighting shall not produce light, glare, or have a negative impact on
adjacent properties."
.
Note on plans that no field changes shall be made without prior
approval from the Building Official and architect or engineer of
record.
.
Plans shall show that all ground- and wall-mounted mechanical and
electrical fixtures and equipment will be adequately and
decoratively screened. The screen is considered as an element of
the overall design of the project and must be shown on the plans to
blend with the architectural design of the building. All telephone
and electrical boxes need to be indicated on the building plans and
must be completely screened. Electrical transformers need to be
shown on the plans as located toward the interior of the project,
maintaining sufficient distance to minimize visual impacts from the
public right-of-way.
Any alteration, modification, or addition to a manufactured structure requires
a permit from the Division the State Architect (DSA). At the time plans are
submitted for plan check for the 5,950 square foot building, the modular
building must be shown to be accessible to persons with disabilities as per
State of California Accessibility Standards (Title 24) and shown to have
sufficient footings and tie-downs. This approval is subject to and
conditioned upon the applicant obtaining written approval from the DSA
within thirty (30) days of the date of approval for the use of the existing
modular unit as a permanent classroom.
Exhibit A - Resolution 3935
DR 04-009 and CUP 04-011
Page 4
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
2.3
The plans submitted at plan check shall indicate that restrooms are
accessible to persons with disabilities as per State of California Accessibility
Standards (Title 24). Plumbing fixture units are required to comply with the
2001 California Plumbing Code Chapter four (4) Table 4-1 as per type of
group occupancy, or as approved by the Building Official.
2.4
The plans submitted at plan check shall indicate that openings in exterior
walls are not less than five (5) feet from property lines, 2001 California
Building Code (Table 5A).
2.5
The plans submitted at plan check shall indicate that exterior walls are one
hour fire resistive of construction where exterior walls are less than twenty
(20) feet from property lines, 2001 California Building Code (Table 5-A). All
openings need to be protected when walls are less than ten (10) feet from
property lines.
2.6
The plans submitted at plan check shall indicate that each corridor has
walls and ceilings of not less than one-hour construction.
2.7
The plans submitted at plan check shall indicate that corridors serving an
occupant load of 30 or more are one hour fire resistive and all openings into
the corridor are protected as specified in section 1004.3.4 and 1004.3.4.3 of
the 2001 CBC.
2.8
The plans submitted at plan check shall indicate an area analysis for all
buildings and show compliance with allowable floor areas based on 2001
California Building Code Chapter 5, Table 5-B.
2.9
The plans submitted at plan check shall indicate that a level floor or landing
is provided at all doors. This area shall have a minimum length of 60 inches
in the direction of the door swing and 48 inches in the opposite direction of
the door swing.
2.10 Prior to building permit issuance, clearance from the Orange County Fire
Authority is required.
2.11 The plans submitted at plan check shall indicate that vehicle parking,
primary entrance to the building, the primary paths of travel, sanitary
facilities, drinking fountain, and public telephones shall be accessible to
persons with disabilities.
2.12 The plans submitted at plan check shall indicate that parking for disabled
persons is provided with an additional five (5) foot loading area with striping
and ramp and that disabled persons are able to park and access the
building without passing behind another car. At least one (1) accessible
Exhibit A - Resolution 3935
DR 04-009 and CUP 04-011
Page 5
(5)
space shall be van accessible served by a minimum 96-inch wide loading
area.
2.13 Prior to grading permit issuance, the applicant shall provide four (4) sets
of final grading plans consistent with the site and landscaping plans as
prepared by a registered civil engineer. The plans shall include the
following:
.
Technical details and plans for all utility installations including
telephone, gas, water, and electricity.
.
Three (3) copies of precise soil report provided by a civil engineer
and less than one (1) year old. Expanded information regarding the
levels of hydrocarbons and ground water contamination found on-
site shall be provided in the soil report. All pavement "R" values
shall be in accordance with applicable City of Tustin standards.
.
All site drainage shall be handled on-site and shall not be permitted
to drain onto adjacent properties.
.
Drainage, vegetation, circulation, street sections, curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, and storm drains shall comply with the on-site Private
Improvement Standards.
.
Two (2) copies of Hydrology Report.
(5)
2.14 The engineer of record shall submit a final compaction report to the
Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
(5)
2.15 The engineer of record shall submit a pad certification to the Building
Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
(5)
2.16 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide
information to ensure compliance with requirements of the Orange County
Fire Authority, including fire flow and installation of fire hydrants subject to
approval of the City of Tustin Public Works and/or Irvine Ranch Water
District.
(5)
2.17 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit for approval
by the Community Development and Public Works Departments, a Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on site to control
predictable pollutant run-off. This WQMP shall identify the: structural and
non-structural measures specified detailing implementation of BMPs
Exhibit A - Resolution 3935
DR 04-009 and CUP 04-011
Page 6
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
whenever they are applicable to the project; the assignment of long-term
maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner,
maintenance association, lessee, etc.); and, reference to the location(s) of
structural BMPs.
2.18
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the property owner shall record
CC&Rs or another legal instrument approved by the City Attorney that
shall require the property owner, successors, tenants (if applicable), and
assigns to operate and maintain in perpetuity the post-construction BMPs
described in the WQMP for the project.
2.19 The Community Development and Public Works Department shall
determine whether any change in use requires an amendment to an
approved Water Quality Management Plan.
2.20
Prior to grading or building permit issuance a note shall be provided on final
grading and building plans stating that that a six (6) foot high chain link
fence shall be installed around the site prior to building construction stages.
A nylon fabric or mesh shall be attached to the temporary construction
fencing. Gated entrances shall be permitted along the perimeter of the site
for construction vehicles.
2.21
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, pursuant to the City of
Tustin's Security Ordinance and the Uniform Fire Code, street numbers
shall be displayed in a prominent location on the street side of the building.
The numerals shall be no less than six (6) inches in height and shall be of
contrasting color to the background to which they are attached and
illuminated during hours of darkness.
(5)
2.22 No outdoor storage shall be permitted except as approved by the Tustin
Community Development Director.
(5)
2.23 The applicant shall comply with all City policies regarding short-term
construction emissions, including periodic watering of the site and
prohibiting grading during second stage smog alerts and when wind
velocities exceed 15 miles per hour.
ARCHITECTURE
(4)
3.1
All exterior treatments for the 5,950 square foot building shall be
consistent with the approved color/material samples and noted on all
construction plans and elevations, subject to review and approval by the
Community Development Department at final inspection. The colors and
materials for the exterior of the building shall be consistent the materials on
existing buildings and shall include the following:
Exhibit A - Resolution 3935
DR 04-009 and CUP 04-011
Page 7
(4)
(4)
3.2
3.3
Location
exterior wall
exterior wall
exterior windows
Material
Norman brick
rouQh plaster
qlass with anodized framinq
Color
IiQht oranqe
cream
bronze framinq and qlass tint
A high quality of features, materials, and colors shall be used throughout
the site and maintained on an ongoing basis. Any changes to colors or
materials during construction or operation shall be approved in writing by
the Community Development Department prior to installation.
Sandblasted windows on the elevation facing single family residences
shall continue to be provided and shall not be replaced with transparent
windows without approval of the Planning Commission.
All exposed metal flashing or trim shall be painted to match the building.
No exterior down spouts or roof scuppers shall be permitted. All roof
drains shall utilize interior piping but may have exterior outlets at base of
buildings, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community
Development.
LANDSCAPING
(1 )
4.1
(1)
4.2
USE
(1 )
(1 )
5.1
5.2
Complete landscape and irrigation plans that comply with the City of
Tustin Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines shall be submitted at plan
check. The irrigation plan shall show the location and control of backflow
prevention devices at the meter, pipe size, sprinkler type, spacing, and
coverage details for all equipment.
All plant materials shall be installed in a healthy and vigorous condition,
typical to the species, and shall be maintained in a neat and healthy
condition. Maintenance includes, but is not limited to, trimming, mowing,
weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, regular watering, and replacement of
dead or diseased dying plants. All trees and landscaping within the site
and the perimeter of the site shall be maintained in a healthy and vigorous
condition. Unhealthy or dead trees shall be replaced within seventy-two
(72) hours upon notification by the City.
Use of the modular building shall be limited to classroom instruction.
Previously approved and active entitlements, including Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1462, shall remain in effect and apply in
conjunction with Resolution No. 3935.
Exhibit A - Resolution 3935
DR 04-009 and CUP 04-011
Page 8
(1 )
5.3
(1 )
5.4
(1 )
5.5
(*)
5.6
The property owner shall be responsible for the daily maintenance and
upkeep of the facility, including but not limited to, trash removal, painting,
graffiti removal, and maintenance of improvements to ensure that the
facilities are maintained in a neat and attractive manner. All graffiti shall
be removed within 72 hours of a complaint being transmitted by the City to
the property owner/tenant. Failure to maintain said structure and adjacent
amenities will be grounds for City enforcement of its Property
Maintenance Ordinance, including nuisance abatement.
If in the future the City determines that parking, traffic, or noise problems
exist on the site or in the vicinity, the Community Development Director may
require that the property owner prepare an analysis and bear all associated
costs. If the study indicates that there is a parking, traffic, or noise impact,
the applicant/property owner shall provide interim and permanent mitigation
measures to alleviate the problem.
All activities approved under CUP 04-011 shall be conducted entirely
within the subject buildings.
The uses indicated in Groups One (1) and Two (2) of the parking
summary may not occur simultaneously without prior approval in writing
from the Community Development Director. At plan check and prior to
building permit issuance, the applicant shall add the parking summary to
the site plan.
1/3 seats for 659 seats 219.67
Pursuant to previous entitlements, the parish hall is and has always been
considered an accessory use to the Church. No additional parking spaces are
required, but the parish hall may not operate at the same time as the uses in
Grou 2.
Pursuant to previous entitlements, the existing Church offices are and have
always been considered an accessory use to the Church. No additional parking
spaces are required, but the existing Church offices may not operate at the
same time as the uses in Group 2.
Total Re uired 219.67
Total Provided 221
Existin Church
Existing Parish Hall
With Offices
Existing Church Offices
Sur Ius 1.33
Exhibit A - Resolution 3935
DR 04-009 and CUP 04-011
Page 9
1/250 square feet based on 2,423
square feet.
1/3 persons based on occupancy
maximum of 107
1/250 square feet based on 1,924
square feet
53.06
1/1 instructor and 1/8 students based
on 18 instructors and 330 students
112.31
221
108.69
9.69
Proposed Meeting
Room
Proposed Office
Support
35.67
7.70
Subtotal
Existing School
59.25
Total Re uired
Total Provided
Sur Ius
If Group 1 and 2 uses are proposed to occur at the same time, a parking
study and, if determined necessary by the City, a traffic study, shall be
submitted to demonstrate that adequate on-site parking and off-site traffic
capacity is available to accommodate the proposed uses. The study shall
be prepared by a professional experienced in parking and/or traffic studies
and submitted for review and approval by the Community Development
Department and Public Works Department.
5.7
(5)
The Church building shall be limited to a total of 659 seats and must
maintain 221 on-site parking spaces.
5.8
(5)
The property owner shall maintain the modular classroom building in good
exterior physical condition as determined by City code enforcement staff.
5.9
(5)
5.10 The Church school is limited to 330 students and 18 instructors.
(5)
ENGINEERING
The applicant shall replace the existing curb cut at the north of the
property with sidewalk and curb to City standards. Prior to final
inspection, the applicant shall remove and replace any missing or
damaged public improvements (i.e. driveways, curb and gutter, sidewalk,
etc.) along Sycamore Street adjacent to the project.
6.1
(5)
Existing sewer and domestic water shall be utilized whenever possible.
(5) 6.2
(5) 6.3
(5) 6.4
Any damage done to existing street improvements and utilities shall be
repaired prior to final inspection.
Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, an Encroachment Permit shall
be obtained and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department.
Exhibit A - Resolution 3935
DR 04-009 and CUP 04-011
Page 10
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
FIRE
(5)
(5)
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.1
7.2
On the plans provided at plan check, current Federal Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements shall be shown at the drive aprons
and pedestrian walkways.
This development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City of
Tustin Water Quality Ordinance and all Federal, State, and Regional
Water Quality Control Board rules and regulations.
Project Recycling Requirement - The City of Tustin is required to comply
with the recycling requirements contained in the California Integrated
Waste Management Act of 1989. To facilitate City compliance with this
law, the Project Applicant is required to comply with Section 4327 of the
Tustin City Code, which details the requirements for developing and
implementing a Waste Management Plan. The plan specifically requires
the following:
.
The Applicant, Property Owner and/or tenant(s) need to participate
in the City's recycling program.
.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a
solid waste recycling plan identifying planned source separation
and recycling programs to the City of Tustin Public Works
Department.
At the time plans are submitted for plan check, the applicant shall submit
a water permit application to the East Orange County Water District and is
responsible for all applicable water connection fees. Release/approval
from the East Orange County Water District shall be obtained prior to
receiving water service.
The developer shall be responsible for all costs related to the installation
of new potable and fire-related water services.
Pursuant to the "Orange County Fire Authority Plan Submittal Criteria
Form," prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit
architectural plans for review and approval by the Fire Chief. During the
plan review process, the Fire Chief will determine if any addition to and/or
modification of an automatic fire sprinkler system is required. The
Community Development Director may approve modifications to the
approved site plan, building elevations, and floor plans to ensure
compliance with Orange County Fire Authority regulations.
Plans submitted through the City for Orange County Fire Authority review
Exhibit A - Resolution 3935
DR 04-009 and CUP 04-011
Page 11
FEES
(1 )
8.1
must be delineated with lines demonstrating compliance with 150 foot fire
hose pull requirements.
Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all
applicable fees, including but not limited to, the following. Payment shall be
required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are
subject to change.
a)
Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development
Department based on the most current schedule.
b)
Orange County Fire Authority plan check and inspection fees to the
Community Development Department based upon the most current
schedule.
c)
New development fees in the amount of $.10 per square foot of floor
area to the Community Development Department.
d)
School facilities fees of $.36 per square foot of new or added gross
square floor area of construction or improvements to the Tustin
Unified School District.
e)
Payment of the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fees to the Tustin
Public Works Department is required at the time a building permit is
issued. The current fee is $3.44 per square foot of the new building.
If the applicant provides proof of exemption from property tax, the
project is exempt from payment of the major Thoroughfare and
Bridge Fees.
f)
Payment of the Orange County Sanitation District No.7 Sewer
Connection Fees shall be required at the time a building permit is
issued. The current fee is $1,600.00 per 1,000 square foot of the
building area. A credit amount up to the prior category of use may
be obtained when applicant provides proof of previous sewer
connection receipts.
g)
Water connection fees to the City of Tustin Water Division at the time
a building permit is issued.
h)
Transportation System Improvement Program (TSIP) Benefit Area
liB" fees in the amount of $3.31 per square feet of new or added
gross square floor area of construction or improvements to the
Community Development Department.
Exhibit A - Resolution 3935
DR 04-009 and CUP 04-011
Page 12
i)
Prior to submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the
applicant shall submit a deposit of $2700.00 for the estimated cost of
review of the WQMP to the Building Division. The actual costs shall be
deducted from the deposit, and the applicant shall be responsible for
any additional review cost that exceeded the deposit prior to issuance
of grading permits. Any unused portion of the deposit shall be
refunded to the applicant.
j)
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a surety/cash bond will be
required to assure work is completed in accordance with approved
plans prior to permit issuance. The engineer's estimated cost of the
grading, drainage, and erosion control shall be submitted to the
Building Official for determination of the bond amount
(1 )
8.2
Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the
applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a
cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of forty-
three dollars ($43.00) to enable the City to file the appropriate
environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight
(48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community
Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of
limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental
determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act could be significantly lengthened.