HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-14-71 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF TIIE
CITY OF TUSTIN P~ANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 14, 1971
The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was
held on the 14th day of June at the hour of 7:30 p.m. of said day
in the Council Chambers, 275 South "C" Street, Tustin, California.
The Pledge of Allegiance was given by Commissioner Shar~.
The Invocation was given by Commissioner Curtis.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Larnard, Curtis, Edelstein, Mahoney, Sharp
Absent: None
Others
Present:
James G. Rourke, City Attorney
Pat Brown, Ass't. Planning Director
Jean M. Smith, Planning Commission Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
OF REGULAR MEETING
OF MAY 24, 1971
Moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Sharp, that the minutes of
the May 24, 1971 meeting be approved, as submitted.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
PUBLIC HEARINGS -- CONTINUED
PZ-71-126 - General Plan Amendment No. 1 - Motion of the Planning
Commission, on initiation by the Irvine Company.
Location:
Area bounded by Santa Ana Freeway to the northeast;
Myford Road to the southeast; the Santa Fe Railroad
mainline and Moulton Parkway to the southwest; and
the Santa Fe Railroad spurline to the northwest.
Mr. Brown gave a summation of the Staff Report stating that this
prezone case was originally heard'on May 10, 1971, continued to
May 24, 1971, and then continued to this meeting.
As a result of a meeting held on June 7, 1971, with representa-
tives of the Irvine Company, School District, Marine Corps and
City Staff, it was disclosed that problems exist in the precise
location of development within the subject area. Air station
flight paths cover much of the area planned for development, thus
presenting a hazard for the proposed school sites, and also would
adversely affect other land uses.
The Irvine Company has requested that subject prezone request be
taken from the agenda until such time as development plans are
formulated and compatible with existing land uses.
Staff recommends that PZ-71-126 be stricken from the agenda, and
when precise development plan~ are submitted by the Irvine Company
in the future, it will be re-advertised for a public hearing.
· I~C 6/14/71
Mr. I,arnard op~,n~,d the pt~blic ,portion of the hearinq at 7:35 p.m.,
seeing and hearing no (one to :;l'(~ak for or against the issue, Mr.
..L_a.r. na.r.d__c.l, gp~,~j_l__t:l!_t'._I~ublic loor'ti~)n of tho .h_e...:%E.i.nq at 7:36 p:_m__.
Mr. Sharp ma_d(: a mol:ion to strike PZ-71-126 from t~e agenda;
seconded by Mr. l.l(l¢:].stein. At the suqgestion of Staff, the motion
was amended to include General Plan Amendment No. 1, as being
stricken from the agenda also.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
V-71-279 - Sol Zwirn - Authority to permit the construction of a
two-story office building with a 5 foot structural set-
back and less than the minimum required number of parking
spaces.
Location:
Site fronts approximately 120 feet on the north side of
First Street and approximately 118 feet on the east side
of "B" Street.
Mr. Brown presented the Staff Report, declaring that subject pro-
perty is presently zoned C-1 and is occupied by three old struc-
tures. The applicant is proposing to renovate the existing two-
story structure, remove the single-story structures to .the west of
the two-story building, and construct in their place, another two-
story building abutting the existing one, which is to be renovated.
Total gross floor area for both the new and renovated structures
would be approximately 9580 square feet, with approximately 4560
square feet for commercial use on the ground floor level and 5020
square feet for professional office use on the second floor level.
By Code, these combined uses would require a total of 40 parking
spaces (23 commercial -- 17 professional). The plans indicate
only 23 spaces to be provided.
The Development Preview Commission gave preliminary review to this
proposal at their May 6, 1971, meeting; their opinion, as well as
Staff's, being it was a well-designed project and would provide a
decided asset to the City.
Staff, however, feels much concern relative to the magnitude of the
two variance requests, and the possible future ramifications that
might be generated along this street. The proposed 23 parking
spaces in lieu of the required 40 could create traffic congestion
problems on First and "B" Streets, particularly in the residential
area north of kubject property on "B" Street. Also, the 5 feet
structural setback for the existing and proposed structures from the
ultimate right-of-way of First Street is not deemed either desirable
or necessary in view of the fact the Zoning Ordinance was recently
amended for First Street so as to provide a 10 feet setback. In
addition, inasmuch as all structures will be two stories in height,
a 5 feet setback would accomplish little aesthetically.
It is Staff's opinion the proposal represents, basically, an over-
development of the property, and feels adherence to the 10 feet front
setback should be required, thus requiring a variance only for parking,
creating a lesser degree of exception.
Staff has not made a recommendation on this Variance, but requests
the Commissioners to weigh the "pros" and "cons" of the issue, and
for their guidance have submitted a draft of Resolution No. 1221
for guidance in formulating an action on this request.
Mr. Ldrnard opened the public portion of the hearin~ at 7:45 p.m.
6/14/71 PC - 2 -
PC 6/14/71
Mrs. G. ~. ,Toyce, 133 North "13" Street and Marr/aret Byrd, 158
North "13" .qtrc¢~t, both voi.ced..c~ncern over th(.~ parking and traffic
problems that might be cre'ated by allowing less than the required
number of parkinq spaces for this project. Inasmuch as there is
a pa~.~;ing problem existing at this time, they feel it will only
make the situation worse.
Sol Zwirn, 17361 Laurie Lane, Tustin, the applicant, spoke on his
own behalf presenting renderings of the proposed buildings, plus
p'lot and elevation plans, lie brought out the fact he is dedicating
17 feet of frontage on First Street at no cost to the City. tie also
mentioned that only one block away in the proposed downtown rede-
velopment area, there are "0" parking requirements and "0" setback
requirements, and it is his fe~ling a definite hardship is being
imposed on him with the stipulated setback and parking requirements
on First Street.
Mr. John Watz, President Of the Tustin Chamber of Commerce, declared
that all encouragement should be given to this project, as we are
looking for development along First Street, and if the parking pro-
blems can be solved, as far as the residents are concerned and the
City requirements, he would be very much in favor of approval of
this variance.
Mr. Larnard closed the public portion of the hearing at 8:00 p.m.
Following a lengthy discussion among the Commissioners, Staff and
the City Attorney regarding the parking requirements, the square
footage of the proposed building and the setback requirements, Mr.
Curtis moved to adopt Resolution 1221, modified, s~conded by Mr~
Edelstein, for approval of this Variance V~1-279, The modifications
and/or additions to read as follows:
Paragraph 3 of Resolution 1221 to read: "The Planning Commis-
sion hereby grants a variance, modified to permit a waiver of
on-site parking requirements to authorize the construction of
not more than 9,000 square feet of office and commercial build-
ings on the above described with with 23 on-site parking spaces,
subject to the following conditions:
a)
Dedication of 17 feet of right-of-way with standard
corner cut-off at "B" Street as determined by the City
Engineer all in accordance with the adopted Master
Plan of Arterial Highways.
b)
Reconstruction of the existing sidewalk along the "B"
Street frontage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
c)
Construction of new curb and gutter where the driveway
opening is proposed on "B" Street including construction
of a standard driveway apron, all to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
d)
Installation of street trees along the "B" Street frontage
in accordance with the Master Street Tree Plan.
e)
Installation of all utilities underground. No additional
overhead poles to be set within the property.
f)
Applicant to post a bond, as required and set forth by the
City Engineer, for the installation of a 39" storm drain,
as proposed under the E1 Modena-Irvine Area Master Plan
of Drainage.
g)
On-site parking provisions are to be resolved between the
applicant, the City Attorney, and City Staff, to the satis-
faction of all par~ies, to assure that parking for this
facility will not have a detrimental effect on the immediate
residential area. If this matter cannot be satisfactorily
resolved, subject ~ariance is to be returned to the Planning
Commission for reconsideration and a possible rehearing.'~
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
PC 6/] 4/7]
'--3--
PC 6/14/7i
I'UDI,TC III.',AR1N(i NO. 2
V-71-280 - The Metz Company on l)eha]f of Th~"".' Arbor(~tum, Inc., re-
questing a varlanc~ [:o ,':r(:et a 60 feet high, fr~:eway
oriented, freestanding sign, with approximately 577
square feet in total disp]~ay area. ~
Location:
Subject property is located southeast of the intersection
'of the Newport Freeway - Edinger Avenue northbound off
ramp and westerly of the AT&SF Railroad tracks, approxi-
mately 369 feet northwest of the center line of Del Amo St.
The Staff Report was presented by Mr. Brown, stating that The
Arboretum, Inc., under UP-70-3~8 was permitted to operate a retaJ:
garden nursery center with an outdoor sales area on M-zoned prope:
Prior to their opening this facility, Staff had advised the appli-
cants of the problems facing them for signing, due to the fact the
site is located at an appreciably lower grade level than the adjacent
grade level of the Newport Freeway. However, due to their opening
schedule, the applicant desired to establish signing in con-
formance with Code. The "M" (Industrial) District permits one free-
standing sign per site, with a maximum overall height of 12 feet and
a maximum area based on one square foot of display area for each
600 square feet of site area, but not more than 200 square feet/face
of sign. The Development Preview Commission, at their June 2, 1971,
meeting, gave preliminary review to this request, and it ~'as their
feeling the sign was appropriate for the area; feeling, however, that
17" high letters would be adequate and they they preferred a rec-
tangularly shaped sign, rather than the hexagonal sectional type. A
flagging demonstration was held on June 8, 1971, at which three
members of the Planning Commission were in attendance.
It was Staff's recommendation that as a result of the topography of
the surrounding area and the highway design in the immediate vicinity,
that subject Variance V-71-280 be granted, permitting a freeway
oriented, freestanding sign, with height and square footage of display
area to be determined by the Commission.
Mr. Larnard o~o_ened the public portion of the hearin9 at 8:37 p.m.
Gordon Elmore, reoresenting The Metz ~iqn Co., voiced the opinion
it was felt there was a definite need for a sign of this height and
dimension, for freeway identity. It was also felt that the 36" high
caps with the 26" lower case letters were necessary. He also stated
he did not agree with the Staff Report that 17" letters would be suf-
ficient. Furthermore, the type letters and the shape of the sign
(hexagonal) was a "logo" with The Arbgretum and this was the reason
for this sign shape.
Dale Kirchhoff, 2867 Angelo Drive, Los Angeles, California, Marketing
Director for The Arboretum, related that when their operation opened,
they did not know whether it would be necessary to have this large a
sign, but since that time, it has become apparent the sign is needed
based on the numerous phone calls they get every day, inquiring as to
where they are located on Edinger Avenue. As far as the shape and
design, we are dealing with our "logo" which we feel has been taste-
fully done and is very essential to our operation, as it is identified
with The Arboretum.
Public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:50 p.m.by Mr. Larnard.
The Commissioners discussed at length the necessity for a sign of
these dimensions; whether a definite hardship did exist, economic o:
otherwise, and the sign limitations in a "M" (Industrial) District
Vs. Planned Industrial Districts.
Mr. Sharp made a motion that Variance V-71-280 be denied on the basis
of lack of proof of sufficient hardship; seconded by Mr. Edelstein,
for reasons of discussion, stating he was not in agreement with Mr.
Sharp as to why it should be denied, but rather felt the sign would
be appropriate except for the size and dimensions, but did agree a
height of 60 feet was necessary.
PC 6/14/71 -4-
" PC 6/14/71
MOTION VOTED ON:
MOTION FAII,ED
AYI'iS - Sharp, Edelstein
NOES - Larnard, Curtis, Mahoney
Moti~.n:.made by. Mr. Curtis tha'['R6s61ution No. 1218~be adopted per-
mitting a 60 feet high sign and 400 square feet maximum display
area (200 sq. ft. each side); seconded by Mr. Mahoney.
MOTION CARRIED: 3-2
AYES: Larnard, Curtis, Mahoney
NOES: Sharp, Edelstein
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 3
PZ-71-128 - Planning Commission initiated at request of Jay Andrews,
requesting authority to prezone subject property from
County E-4 to City of Tustin Planned Community (Single-
Family Residential) District.
Location:
Subject property of approximately 6.7 acres is located
on the east side of Prospect Avenue, approximately 182
feet south of Theodora Drive.
A synopsis of the Staff Report was given by Mr. Brown, declaring
that the applicant is proposing to develop this property as a 35-1ot
R-1 subdivision, under the Planned Community Concept, with lot widths
and areas less than those required by a standard R-1 subdivision.
Due to the'configuration and location of the land, it is proposed
to be a "self-contained" development, with the only entrance and exit
being a bridge crossing over the Orange County Flood Control District
Channel from Beneta Way.
It was brought out the applicant has also filed for a zone change
request with the County (ZC-71-35) for a change of zoning from the
County E-4 to the RS-6000 .(Residential, Single Family) District. A
hearing date has not been set by the County as yet. Of primary con-
cern to the Staff are the implications presented by the joint actions
of the applicant and the ramifications that might result. There is
also concern about the lack of vehicular access to Prospect Avenue,
particularly for emergency vehicles. It is felt some type of emer-
gency fire access should be provided to that street. Staff also
feels there should be a compelling reason to justify the creation of
substandard lots.
The Staff's recommendation would be to approve PZ-71-128, subject to
the submission and approval of a Subdivision Map, to conform with the
minimum lot width and area requirements of the R-1 District, with
precise plans of development for the individual lots of such a sub-
division (to be in conformance with minimum site development stan-
dards of the R-1 District), by adoption of Resolution No. 1222.
The public portion of the hearing opened at 9:17 p.m. by Mr. Larnard.
Jay Andrews, 6550 Caballero, Buena Park, California, owner and de-
veloper of the property brought up the fact that this property is
going to be very difficult to Develop due to its limited depth, as well
as the cost factor in developing the bridge across the Flood Control
Channel. tie stated he did concur with Staff's recommendation for
emergency vehicular access from Prospect and they would eliminate
one lot to provide an emergency corridor to Prospect, with the sur-
plus land to be turned over to the City for park area, in conjunction
with the development of the flood control property. Also, b~, elimina-
tion of one lot on the north row, all lots on the north row would have
a 65 feet frontage. He also pQinted out they have title to a piece
of property on the south side of the flood control channel which we
are willing to give to the City, and this, combined with the lot we
would lose on Prospect, would create a park area, which by coincidence
would be exactly equal to the proportion of acreage in Centennial Park
to the number of lots developed in Tustin Meadows.
PC 6/14/71 -5-
· ' PC 6/14/71
The following people spoke aqainst approval of this prezone action,
their main objections being the small lot size, the higher density,
close proximity to their property lines, traffic congestion on
Prospect, which is already heavily travelled, plus traffic from
Columbus Tustin School, and the need for "green sp~ce" rather than
roof tops.
Mr. Bill Erickson, 17932 Theodora Drive
Mr. Dennis Martinson, 17852 Theodora Drive
Jacqueline .Martin, 17912 Theodora Drive
David W. Killon, 14671 Livingston Way
Paul Renfree, 14482 Amberwick Lane
Winston E. Jewson, 17662 Sh~rbrook Drive
Mr. Larnard closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:37 p.m.
The Commissioners discussed this prezone action following the public
portion, bringing up how many lots could be utilized under the
County E-4 and RS6000 Zoning and the City R-1 zoning and Planned
Community; what the size of the lots would have to be; what would
result if the prezone action was denied.
Mr..Sharp moved that Resolution No. 1222 be adopted and recommended
to the City Council for approval; seconded by Mr. Mahoney.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 4
zC-71-225 - Alpine Professional Development Co. - request for re-
zoning on subject property from the E-4 (Residential
Estate) District to the Pr (Professional) District.
Location:
Site fronts approximately 970 feet on the south side of
Irvine Boulevard; is approximately 120 feet in depth and
extends between "B" and Prospect Streets.
Mr. Brown presented resume of the Staff Report, stating applicants
have requested subject rezoning in order to develop the property
with professional buildings similar to others located in this area
along Irvine Boulevard. A master plan for the development has not
been consummated, but the applicant has submitted a plan for a
12,600 sq. ft. two-story complex which is proposed to be developed
on the westerly 210 feet of the property at the southeast corner of
Irvine Boulevard and "B" Street. The requested rezoning of this
property is appropriate to the surrounding area and existing zoning'
along Irvine Boulevard. He brought out that the County Master Plan
of arterial highways, adopted by the City, designates Irvine Boule-
vard in this area as a major arterial highway, requiring 60 feet
half-width dedication from center line (for the City to benefit from
and receive certain gas tax funds, we must conform to this Master
Plan); however, due to the lot dimension factor, in this case being
120 feet deep, it would be staff's recommendation that inasmuch as
Irvine Boulevard is presently fully dedicated and improved to 50
feet, that the additional 10 feet dedication be required as a con-
dition of any approval of this request, but that any proposed struc-
ture shall be required to be set back only 10 feet from the existing
50 feet right-of-way line. Staff would recommend approval of subject
rezoning.
Mr. Larnard opened the public portion of the hearing at 10:00 a.m.
Mr. Louis Glasbrenner, architect for the applicant, stated he con-
curred with the Staff Report and did appreciate the cooperation he
had received from the various city departments in resolving their
problems.
The public ~ortion of the he~rino was closed at 10:03 p.m.
PC 6/14/71 -6-
PC 6/14/71
Mt-. Cul-t.i:; slated he felt Staff had covered all points on this
matt,,r, ,ln~t would move for adoption of Resolution 1220, and recom-
mend for al~proval to the City Council; seconded by Mr. Ed(;lstein.
MOTI %0~... CARRIEI): 5-0
PUBLIC IIEARING NO. 5
PZ-7]-127 - Planning Commission Initiated - requesting prezone
change from the Orange County P-A (Professional Adminis-
trative) District to the City'of Tustin Pr (Professional) District.
Location:
Site fronts approximately 100 feet on the southeast side
of Red Hill Avenue and approximately 140 feet on the
northeast side of.' Mitchell Avenue.
Staff Report was given by Mr. Brown stating that subject property
was recently rezoned by the County to its present classification.
A discussion with the Orange County Planning Department Staff indi-
cated the property was in escrow and being purchased by a real estate
firm, who intended to renovate the existing single family structure
on the property for use as a real estate office. Annexation pro-
ceedings to the City of Tustin have also been initiated and expected
to come before LAFCO on July 14, 1971. Based on the appropriateness
of the proposed prezoning and the indications of the Tustin Area
General Plan, it is recommended the Planning Commission recommend
approval of subject action for prezoning to the City Council by ~
adoption of Resolution 1219.
The~ou~lic portion of the hearing was opened at 10:07 p.m. by Mr.
Larnard.
Mr. Kennethwno ~ F~d,. Whidby Island, Box 440H, Rt. 1, Oak Harbor,
Washington, the owner of this property, stated subject pro-
perty · s not now in escrow, as the one time buyer has backed out.
He voiced his feelings as to the many problems thrust upon him
and created by the County of Orange, involving his.property. He
has tried to work with the County, but has ~een thwarted at every
turn. His question to the Commission, and his main concern is,
what will be required of him if the annexation does take place,
and if the prezoning is approved. ~
Dr. Albert Koentopp, 1010 No._Broadway, Santa Ana stated he was
present for only one reason, that being the notice of public hearing
was the only communication he had received concerning this meeting.
He said other residents had talked to him, and had received letters
from the City regarding the rezoning and annexation actions. As he
is presently in escrow on his property, he has no opinion for or
against the issue of annexation.
The public portion of the hearing was closed at 10:20 p.m. by
Mr. Larnard.
The Commissioners discussed the various actions that might be taken by
the Commission at this point, inasmuch as the property is not now in
escrow. In view of the many problems connected with the property as
rela~ed by the owner, and inasmuch as the City Engineer is not
available at this time, Mr. Larnard asked Mr. Ford what his pre-
ference would be, as to the Commission's action; to either table it
indefinitely, remove it from the agenda, or recommend the prezoning
action. This question was asked for the Commission's guidance. In
reply to Mr. Larnard's question, ,Mr. Ford stated he would like to
confer with the City Engineer'to find out what the City's require-
ments would be, and therefore~ would prefer a continuance on the
matter until the next Commissfon meeting.
Mr. Sharp made a motion to continue public hearing PZ-71-127 until
the June 28, 1971, meeting; s~conded by Mr. Mahoney.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
Mr. l.arnard declared a brief recess at 10:30 p.m.; meeting reconvened
at 10:40 p.m.
PC 6/14/71
-7-
.- PC 6/14/71
OLD I~US ~NES,q
Tentatiw~. Tract Ma~3 7427 - sout]lwest corner of Bryan and Red Hill
Applicant: Ken Rogers, 11451 Prado Road, Corona, ~alifornia
Mr. Brown stated that this matter had been continued from the pre-
vious meeting inasmuch as the.legal capability of the applicant
having authority and power to file the map had not been received
by the City Attorney.
Mr. Brown then turned the matter over to the City Attorney for his
report.
Mr. Rourke stated that as of this date, the applicant still has not
complied with the legal capability requirement for filing of the map,
nor have they corrected the insufficiencies of the map, of which
they have been advised. Considering that the map has been lodged
with the City for some time, and there are time limitations within
which the Planning Commission should act on a Map, it is his recom-
mendation, to avoid any possible conflict with the Code Requirements,
that the Planning Commission disapprove the map; thereafter, if the
subdivider wishes to resubmit the Map with the proper owner's certi-
ficate, it can be refiled and then considered by the Planning Commis-
sion on its new merits.
Mr. Sharp inquired as to whether the applicant was aware of the latest
findings on this matter, and he was advised by Mr. Rourke that the
applicant had been informed of the circumstances.
Mr. Shard made a motion to deny Tentative Tract Map 7427 for the
reasons stated; seconded by Mr. Curtis.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
NEW BUSINESS
FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 4587 - Treehaven Associates, 130 E1 Camino Dri'~ ..
Beverly Hills, California
Location:
Fronting 677 feet on the east side of Yorba Street,
being approximately 250 feet north of the centerline of
Seventeenth Street.
Mr. Brown presented a Staff Report from the City Engineer's office
covering this matter, stating the property was presently developed
as a 92-unit garden type apartment complex and that Tentative Tract
Map had been approved by the Planning Commission on December 14,1970,
subject to final approval by the City Council, City Engineer's re-
quirements, and also final approval of the Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions for a condominium development. Mr. Rourke has a copy of
the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, and as a Condition of
Approval, it is recommended that the City Attorney approve same.
Mr. Mahgney moved that Final Map of Tract 4587 be approved, subject
to approval of the City Council, the City Engineer and approval of
Covenants, Co~d~ons and Restrictions by the City Attorney; seconded
by Mr. Sharp.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
CORRESPONDENCE
1)
County Case - ZC-71-35 (Jay Andrews) - Rezoning of property located
on the east side of~Prospect Avenue, approximately
182 ft. south of Theodora Drive. Request to rezone
from County E-4 (Small Estates) District to the
County RS-6000 (Single Family) District.
Mr. Brown state(] this is essentially the same report and same property
~nvolved earlier this evening under the PZ-71-128 prezoning action,
6114/7].
.- PC 6/14/71
CORRESI~ONDENCE - County Case ZC-71-35 (Continued)
and a~ated that Mr. Andrews, however, did not intend to develop
the lots at the 6000 minimum, that most of the lot~ wohld run
from 6300 to 6500. In view of the same concerns and items dis-
cussed in the prezoning action, it is strongly suggested that the
Planning Commission recommend to the Orange County Planning Com-
m'ission that they move for either denial of ZC-71-35 to the Board
of Supervisors or sustain a motion for indefinite continuance,
pending the results of the City of Tustin prezoning and annexation
actions.
Mr. Sharp made a motion that a letter be submitted to the Orange
County Planning Commission from the Planning Commission Chairman
(City of Tustin) stating our position as noted by the Staff Report,
enclosing a copy of that Report and Resolution No. 1222 covering'
PZ-71-128; seconded by Mr. Curtis.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
2) C~unty Case - C-1427 - St. Jeanne DeLestonnac School - 16791
East Main Street - permission to construct a one
story, 4640 sq. ft. classroom addition to an
e~isting parochial schooL, at above location.
Mr. Brown advised the Commission there have been several county
actions on this property, all. of which the Commissioners have con-
curred with. This particular action ~as included in a previous
action, C-1353, and at that time, it was shown as being future con-
struction. At that time, again, your Body recommended approval.
Mr. Currie of the Tustin Elementary School District brought to our
attention this morning, as well as Mr. Gill and the City Engineer,
that they are quite concerned with adding a further inclusion to
the recommendation: that if approved by the County, sidewalks
should be installed on the front of this property as it is a dan-
gerous situation for the children walking to and from school.
Mr. Mahoney moved that the Commission inform the County we have no
objection to C-1427, but that any approval should include our recom-
mendation for installation of sidewalks; seconded by Mr. Edelstein.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
3) ~ounty_Case - UP-3159 - Red Hill Lutheran Church,
13200
Red
Hill
Avenue, to permit construction of two classrooms as
an addition to an existing church and school facility.
Mr. Brown stated that in all past actions concerning this facility,
your Body has gone along with the action of the Orange County Planning
Commission, and this again, would be Staff's recommendation on this
item.
Mr. Sharp made a motion that we send a communication to the Orange
County Planning Commission indicating our recommendation for
approval of this item; seconded by Mr. Mahoney.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
4)
County Case - ZC-71-34 - Request for zone change from County E-4
(Small Estates) District to the R-1 (Single-Family
Residence) District on property located on the
southeasterly side of Newport Avenue, approximately
300 feet southwesterly of the center line of
Skyline Drive.
PC 6/14/71
PC 6/14/71
CORRESPONI31'~NCE - County Case ZC-71-34 (Continued)
Mr. Brown related that Staff is not concerned with the density change
in the zoning proposed, but in view of the 100 fee~ frontage of the
proper%y, any split of this property, involving more than one lot,
would create sub-standard frontage for one of the parcels, and one
could become landlocked. There is also an existing landlocked parcel
behind the one in question. Also, this action would essentially be
spot zoning. Staff would recommend, in view of the facts delineated,
that the Planning Commission recommend to the Orange County Planninc
Commission denial of subject rgquest.
Mr. Curtis moved that we send a communication, under the signature
the Planning Commission Chairman, Mr. Larnard, to the Orange County
Planning Commission, recommending denial, for the reasons enumerated;
seconded.by Mr. Edelstein.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
5)
County Case - UP - 3136 Amendment - Request for a modification of
Condition No. 8, requiring a 6 feet high masonry
wall, to permit a combination masonry/wooden fence
for a private school in the R-1 (Single Family
Residence) District. Property is located on the
northwesterly side of Newport Avenue,. approximately
250 feet southwesterly of Vanderlip, in the northeast
Tustin area.
Mr. Brown advised the Commission this request is merely to amend one
of the conditions on this use permit, which had previously been
reviewed by your Body. Staff can see no serious complications arising
from such a modification, and would recommend your approval.
Mr. Mahone¥ moved we so advise the County that on UP-3136 we have no
objection; seconded ~y Mr. Sharp, who questioned whether the Devel.
ment Preview Commission had any objection to this modification. Mr.
Brown stated no plans had been received or a rendering, but it had
been brought up as a Staff Concern at the last meeting of the Develop-
ment Rreview COmmission, and there appeared to be no objection to it,
as long as it was controlled.
MOTION CARRIED: 5-0
STAFF CONCERNS - None
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Mr. Curtis made mention of seeing a couple of trailers on Irvine
Boulevard adjacent to a development firm, between a single, story,
multi-family development and a new professional building; they
haven't been there too long, but he did not recall them coming up
before the Commission for approval.
Mr. Brown advised that the trailers had been checked out by Mr.
Snyder and the Building Official, Mr. Waldo, and they were not in
violation of any ordinance.
Mr. Curtis also mentioned that since the Downtown Redevelopment Plan
has now been approved, he felt action should be taken on a precise
plan for Sixth Street, east of E1 Camino Real.
Mr. Brown replied that the City Engineer has this item on his agenda,
and will be working on it upon his return from vacation.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None
Mr. Mahoney made a moti.o.n to adjourn the meetinq at 11:10 p.m.
~~,.~ ..... r ' ~ ;-~ '
~'-IYf,~NN].NG COMMISS ION'~C~(AIRMAN
]'..~.~?~ r~Mi.~:~::.'''': .~'.~': ..,: .~.. ~..
I