HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-28-70 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 28, 1970
The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission
was held on the 28th day of December, 1970, ..~ the hour of
7:30 p.m., of said day in tke Council Chambers, 275 South "C"
Street, Tustin, California.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Edelstein.
The Invocation was %iven by Commissioner C~rtis.
%
ROLL CALL:
Present:
Larnard, Edelstein, Curtis, Mahoney
Absent: Sharp
Others
Present:
James G. Rourke, City Attorney
R. Kenneth Fleagle, Ass't. City Administrator
Community Development Direct:
Pat Brown, Ass't. Planning Director
Carol L. 'C~lver, Planning Commission Recording
Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
OF REGULAR MEETING OF
DECEMBER 14~ 1970
Moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Edelstein~ that the minutes of
December 14~ 1970, be approved as submitted.
MOTION CARRIED - 4-0
V-70-277 - UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
Authority is requested to erect a 90-foot high, 628-square foot
display are'a free-standing sign exceeding the maximum permitted
height and display area for a given service station site.
Location:
Subject property is located at the southwest corner of
Redhill Avenue and Nisson Road and is zoned 100-C-1-10,0
Mr. Brown stated that the property has an existing Union Oil station
located on it which was annexed to the City in 1969. He also stated
that this case was continued from the December 14, 1970, meeting due
to inclement weather prohibiting "flagging" tests, and since that time
no tests have been accomplished, due to continued poor weather.
- I -
12/28/70
PC Minutes-December 28, 1970 '
Mr. Brown further stated that this sign was originally proposed to
be 90 feet high and 628 square feet in area. After discussions with
the Staff, the applicants did reduce the area to 402 square feet and
have submitted revised plans. However, the height still remains at
90 feet, although the applicants have indicated that they would be
willing to drop the height to something commensurate with Mr. Up's
Shell Oil station sign located across 'the street.
Mr. Brown went on to say that there is also on the property an existi~q
free-standing sign approximately 35 feet high and 88 square feet in
area, which the applicants wish to retain. They have indicated that
they will drop that height to approximately 20 feet so that it will
provide advertising for motoring traffic on Redhill, but the area
will remain approximately the same. Also, the applicants have indi-
cated that they will adjust the sign so that it would not revolve.
Mr. Brown stated that this property is located 235 feet from the
freeway and, therefore, does not qualify under the Use Permit pro-
visions of the Ordinance which .do allow excess heights, areas, and
numbers of free-standing signs ~hen within'~00 feet -- thus, a Variance
had to be filed.
Mr. Brown stated that there are presently four service station sites
i~ thi6--area -- subject Union Oil station, a Shell Oil station, a
Mobilgas ~tation in the County,~ and a combination Shell Oil and
Mr. Up's Restaurant. He went on to say that the present sign exceeds
the heights and the area of both of these Shell Oil stations.
Mr. Brown pointed out that the Development Preview Commission, at
their December 2, 1970 meeting, gave preliminary review to this appli-
cation and felt that both the height and area requested were not com-
mensurate with the existing signing in the area nor appropriate to'the
area. Staff concurs with .this analysis, although the reduction in area
shown by the revised plans provides a better situation than that origi-
nally proposed. -~
Mr. Brown stated that based on the above factors, it would be recom-
mended that the Commission deny this request, as presented, by adopting
the attached Resolution, with the further recommendation that the
applicants submit a new application presenting a height and area more
commensurate with existing signing and more appropriate to the i~ediate
area.
Mn. Edelstein inquired if any flagging had taken place at all.
Mr. Brown replied "no" -- time was too short and there was inclement
weather for almost two weeks.
Mr. Flea~le stated that the Staff takes no exception to the Variance
for this site on the conditions that the application 'would read:
(1)
Not to exceed the height permitted of other uses within
the area, and the area not to appreciably deviate from
that which has been previously approved by this Co~,~ission,
and that the existing ground sign would be permitted no
higher than 20 feet without rotation; and,
(2)
The precise location of the free-standing sign be subject
to the Development. Preview Commissions' perusal.
Mr. Flea.gle went on to say that this proposed sign is located at the
southwestern property line. The Development Preview Commission had
some interest and concern in this location, in view of the adjoininq
residential uses, but felt that there was no reason to prohibit it,
but that it could be located with more freeway orientation.
12/28/70
PC Minutes-December 28, 1970
Chairman Larnard declared the public portion of the hearing open at
7:45.
Mr. Neal Irving, 1~820 Studebaker Road, Norwalk, appearing on behalf
of UNION OIL COMPANY, clarified one point with the Staff -- that they
had modified their application request to a sign of 202 square feet
to be consistent with other signs in the area and thmy would be wil~
to go no more than 80 feet in height.
Mr. Irving went on to say that there is a need for a freeway identifi-
cation sign for this particular service station. He went on to say
that generally St.ate Highway freeway signs are at a minimum of
one-quarter mile before an off-ramp, and, usually, they include several
major highways for the off-ramps, even so far as two miles in advance
of the off-ramp. He pointed out that the purpose of that would be to
allow traffic to change lanes to prepare for the off-ramp. He further
stated that the service stations would have that similar type of need
to have their identification so the freeway users can change lanes
and get off the freeway safely into the appropriate service station.
Each case will have to be considered, individually, due to curves in
the freeway, ~levations of the freeway, or landscaping. Mr. Irving
went on to say that they did complete a sign or "flag" test for this
site in question, prior to making the application. It was the deter-
mination of the applicant at that particular time, that 90 feet in
height would be the desirable height to have for this location to allow
automobiles to change lanes and get off at this intersection. The
State of California Division of Highways is in accord with having
service stations convenient to off-and-on-ramps, and also concurs with
proper identification signs so that the thousands of cars using free-
ways each day can safely get off the freeway for gas and service.
Mr. Irving pointed out that, in this particular case, automobiles
going south would have need for a higher sign to safely get off at
Redhill Road due to the fact that there is considerable landscaping
at this location. FOr t~affic g~ing north on the freeway, there is
clear visibility until a person comes close to Redhill Road where
there are some outdoor advertising signs that would obstruct the sign,
but generally, there is a safe distance for automobiles going north.
Due to the trees and curvature of the freeway, an 80-90-foot high
sign would be desirable for traffic heading south.
Mr. 'Irving further pointed out that the height of a sign is very
critical to any service station company. He stated that, in this
location, there are other signs higher and much larger than the mini-
mum standards set forth by the Sign Ordinance. After review with the
Staff, they have modified their request from over 650 square feet down
to 202 square feet in size. Mr. Irving stated that they would reduce
the height of the sign from 90 feet to 80 feet, comparable to Mr. Up's
and the Shell sign directly across from this location. He felt that
this request complies, in that they are within the standards 6f the
signs that were approved by Variances, previously, so that would
justify them having a substantial property right as they are a similar
business to the service station directly across from them. The appli-
cant is only asking for the same height and a much smaller sign than
was granted previousl~ on other Variance requests. He pointed out that
their sign would be consistent with good planning and zoning princiI ~s.
Mr. Irving went on to say that this is within the proper commercial
zone and it would comply with the City's General Plan.
Mr. Edelstein had two questions to ask of Mr. Irving -- First of all,
was he aware that his particular piece of property is beyond the
200-foot limit?
Mr. Irving, replied.#yes" -- it was beyond the 200-foot limit by at
~e~.~'.ome 30 feet.
12/28/70
- 3 -
PC Minu~es-December 28, 1970
Mr. Edelstein pointed out, secondly, that the applicant has been
using a double-column support; By lowering the sign down, would
they still be using that same support?
Mr. Robert B. Franks, Real Estate Representative of Union Oil Company,
then replied "yes" -- due to the diameter of the sign, it would be
necessary for a double column'.
Mr. Edelstein stated that there is a new Union station east of Edinger
Avenue near the entrance to the Newport Freeway. He further stated
that that particular sign is a free-standing freeway-type sign which
is of a single-post nature and of an excellent size. He went on to
say that it would be more favorable from the applicant's standpoint
if the sign was similar to the one east of Edinger Avenue, due to the
single-column and rather small sign.
Mr. Franks stated that the station at Edinger and Trotter is under
construction, is a .single-Column sign, is.~n excess of 90 feet in
height, and is a smaller sign in diameter than the one in question.
Mr. Mahoney a~ked Mr. Irving if he was familiar with recommendations
of Staff that the existing sign of 35 feet be lowered to 20 feet and
that it no longer revolve.
Mr. Irving replied "yes" -- they would be in accordance with that
recommendation.
Chairman Larnard declared the public portion of the hearing closed
at 7:55.
Mr. Edelstein stated that, in this particular instance, he might be
inclined to overlook the height situation if the applicants would be
willing to have a single column, and possibly, a smaller-size sign.
He went on to say that'the sign on 'Edinger Avenue is so simple and
clean that he couldn't see where' it.would be objectionable to the
particular area. He did state, however, that this sign on Edinger
is beyond the 200-foot limit, and didn't know if the Commission
wanted to set a precedent, at this time, granting such a request.
Mr. Larnard asked Mr. Fleagle if he knew what the height was of
Mr. Up's sign.
Mr. Fleagle replied that the total height of Mr. Up's sign, with
the Shell Oil sign, is 80 feet.
Mr. Curtis stated that he would have to be inclined towards a maximum
height of 60 feet, regardless. He further stated that the traffic
from the north is going to be a real problem for any of the sites in
that area. Mr. Curtis felt that with the flagging and also with the
recent work done on the Shell sign, that the Commission came up with
what appeared to be an adequate size at that height for visual recog-
nition from quite a distance down the freeway.
Mr. Irving, through the Chair, stated that the higher the sign is
constructed, the more expensive it becomes for the applicants. He
further stated that they did flag this site before they submitted their
application. Mr. Irving noted~that the flagging is critical since it
might be 92 feet or 89 feet and they don't want to ask for any higher
than they need to. Due to the landscaping going south, it is not
possible, in his opinion, to see the Shell sign, adequately, although
Mr. Up's sign can be seen. This Union Oil station will do most of its
business from traffic going south.
12/28/70
- 4 -
PC Minutes-December 28, 1970
Mr. Mahoney stated that at a recent Planning Commission meeting,
on this same parcel but at the extreme southern end, there was an
application that c~me before the Commission for increased height
and sign area, and wanted to know what was granted on that matter.
Mr. Flea~le replied, through the Chair, that the Atlantic-Richfield
Oil Company in changing their identification from Richfield to Arco,
made application to exceed the size and height limitations of the
Code. He further stated that the Planning Commission did deny their
request for a Variance. The applicants then aDpealed to the City
Council and they, in turn, unanimously .upheld the findings of the
Planning Commission: That St would be more injurious to the neighbor-
hood than it would be of benefit to that particular proprietor.
Mr. Fleagle said that for that reason, the decision of the Planning
Commission to limit the height and size to that permitted by the Code
was upheld -- 20 feet plus 6 inches for every 30 feet removed from a
residential area -- about 21 1/2 feet.in h~ight and a No. 88 sign.
Mr. Mahoney inquired as to what the allowed square footage of this
sign would be.
Mr. Fleagle replied that the maximum, under the Sign Code, is 150
square feet, aggregate. However, the Sign Code for service stations
is written for those other than with a freeway identification.
Mr. Edelstein stated there is a difference here -- one was a neighbor-
hood sign that was strictly on street level, and the other one is a
freeway sign. He wanted to know where the limitations should be put
on the freeway -- The Code reads 200 feet and the applicant wants°
235 feet.
Mr. Curtis brought up ~e fact that the difference between this sign
and the Richfield sign is more 1.ike01,000 feet farther from the South
freeway.
Mr. Brown concurred that it was about 1,100 feet from the freeway
right-of-way.
Mr. Curtis asked Mr. Franks if the sign that is on Edinger Avenue
near the Newport Freeway is 235 square feet - both sides?
Mr. Frank~ replied "yes" - 233+ feet' (to be exact, 234 feet) -
total area, both sides.
Mr. Brown stated that Mr. Franks is talking about a sign slightly
over 12 feet in diameter and around 230-235 feet in total area - both
sides.
Mr. Brown questioned Mr. Irving relative to the proposed revised area
of the sign: "The 202 square feet you indicate is for one side, only?"
Mr. Irving stated: "~hat is correct".
Mr. Brown then stated that', for the clarification of the Planning
Commission, the total area for both sides is approximately 403 square
feet.
Mr. Edelstein asked if this sign could be read at 60 feet.
Mr. Larnard stated to Mr. Fleagle that his recommendation based on
the work done in the area, through flagging, was that they not exceed
the height of those signs in the immediate vicinity and the area, is
that correct?
Mr. Plea~le =eplied "yes" - it was his =e~ommendation tO be aonl~m%en~
with the other Variances granted by this Commission for the other
businesses in the area as to height limitation being 60 feet and the
area which could be approximately 300 square feet, maximum. They woul~
- 5 -
12/28/70
PC MinutesrDecember 28, 1970 ,
have 234 square feet under the 12-inch diameter sign by listing
maximum criteria, plus the precise location of that, subject to the
Development Preview Commission.
Mr. Mahoney stated that he would like to have this matter continued
for two weeks, and during this time to have a "flagging" demonstra-
tion.
Moved by Mr. Edelstein, seconded by Mr..Mahoney, that V-70-277 be.
adopted, based upon the following conditions:
(1) That the applicant use a single-column support;
(2) The sign diameter not exceed 12 1/2 feet;
The maximum height be 80 feet based on a flagging
determination by th~ Development Preview Commission --
Mr. Edelstein felt that we should not go over 80 feet,
maximum,, but if the Development Preview Commission
feels that this sign can be adequately seen from either
direction at less than 80 feet, then that would be the
determined height that would be established. If the
Development Preview Commission says 60 feet, then that
should be the determined height. He went on to say
that he didn't want it as high as 80 feet; however,
there might be a problem of seeing the sign at any
height below 80 feet. He further stated that this needs
serious consideration and that a "flagging" might be
appropriate; and,
The existing sign be reduced to 20 feet and that it be
non-rotating. .
The above motion was then voted upon by roll call:
AYES: Edelstein, Mahone~ .
NOES:
Curtis, Larnard
MOTION TIED - 2-2
Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Edelsteinr that Variance 70-277
be approved subject to the provisions that they:
(1) Use a single-column moun~ing not to exceed a diameter
of 12 1/2 feet;
(2)
An overall height not to exceed 60 feet (65 feet, maximum);
and,
(3)
Subject to review and approval of the location by the
Development Preview Commission with a right to increase
the height by not more than five feet subject to flagging
withou~ a:review by the Planning Commission, and subject
to the other conditions as outlined by the Staff.
The above substitute motion was then voted upon by roll call:
AYES:
Curtis., Larnard
NOES.:
Edelstein, Mahoney
MOTION TIED - 2-2
12/2a/7o
- 6 -
PC Minutes-December 28, 1970
Moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that V-70-277 be
continued until the Planning Commission Meeting of January 11, 1971,
with a fla.qging s.c.heduled for the Planning Commiss'ion to be in attend-
ance and take a viewing of such flagging. This was tentat'~v'eJy set
for Tuesday,. December 29, 1970, at 2:00 p.m.
MOTION CARRIED - 4-0
UP-70-357 - UNITED CALIFORNIA BANK
Authority to permit the addition of a drive-up window to an
existing bank structure.
Location:
Site fronts approximately 1,100 feet on the southwest
side of Irvine Boulevard, southongt of Newport Avenue,
and is further described as the Yu'tin Heights Shopping
Center.
Mr. Brown stated that the Development Preview Commission, at their
December 18, 1970 meeting, gave preliminary review to this action,
and it was their feeling that the design and plans, as presented,
appeared to be appropriate and recommended approval of this use
by the Planning Commission. The Preview Commission also wished to
note that throughout the many meetings involving this drive-up
window and the parking area immediately adjacent to the east, the
applicant has been extremely cooperative with both their body and
the Staff. He went on to say that there have been several meetings
between the applicant , Staff, and the Development Preview Commission
relative to the circulation involved which is rather critical at
this center. The problems to the southwest of the bank and gener~ll~
east of the bank have been resolved; however, both the Staff and
City Engineer are concerned about the circulation and parking layout
to the west. With the addition of automobiles exiting from this
window, the situation could, under ~he present design, be quite
critical at times or even hazardous.
However, it is the recommendation of the Staff, in concurrence with
the recommendations of the Development Preview Commission, that
this Use Permit be approved subject to adoption of the attached
Resolution, conditional upon the following: That the design of the
traffic and parking to the west be subject to final review and approval
by the Development Preview Commission and the Staff, including the
City Engineer, prior to the issuance of any building permit for the
walk-up window or drive-up window, itself.
Chairman Larnard declared the public portion of the hearing open at
8:45.
Mr. Josef Ruzek, President of UNITED CALIFORNIA BANK, residing at
2679 West 230th Place, Torrance, stated that the drive-up window
will not bring any additional customers to the shopping center --
it's merely for the. convenience of present clients. He went on to
say that as far as th~ entrance at the western portion of the shopping
center, the applicant concurs with Staff that something must be done
but does feel that it is the responsibility of the shopping center,
and not just for the Bank, to be solely responsible, just because
there is the addition of the drive-up window. Also, the entire shop-
ping center would benefit by this addition.
Mr. Rex Link, 3810 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles,.Parking Consul-
tant for United ~&li~ornia Ban~ sta~ed that ~here t~ mu~h a long
part of the United California Bank parking or the rest of the shopping
center.
-- 7'--
12/28/70
PC Minutes=December 28, 1970
Mr. Link went on to say that thoy are willing to do their share, which
is to keep their cars going in a regulation pattern, without criss-
crossing into the exit at the signal. This could be done by simply
changing the stripiWg.
Mr. Ruzek stated that they must put in a remote customer unit which
is about $15,000 as compared to, possibly, $6,000 or $7,000 for just
a regular drive-up window. '
Mr. Fleagle stated that on the initial proposal s~bmitted by Mr. Link,
on behalf of United California Bank, if the Commission feels the
position of United California Bank is a logical one, their proposal
could be accepted with modifications.
Mr. Mahoney inquired as to whether concrete bqmpers could be installed
where people can't drive through.
Mr. Link indicated this would be done.
Chairman Larnard declared the p~blic p~rtion of the hearing be closed
at 9:05.
Mr. Mahoney felt it was not proper for the United California Bank to
have to correct the entire shopping center parking and circulation
problem; therefore, he recommended re-striping the west side of the
main entrance.
Moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Curtis, that Use Permit 70-357
(Resolution No. 1196) be approved subject to the conditions outlined
in the Staff Report.
Mr. Mahoney further stipulated in making the motion that the Com-
mission does not desire, nor is it their intention, that the entire
shopping center circulation plan be re-designed to satisfy the require-
ments of the Use Permit, but such'improvements as are feasible should
be made in stages in accordance with the design plan recommended by
the City Engineer.
MOTION CARRIED - 4-0
PZ-70-124 - C. J. BONNER and WALTER H. OPP
Pre-zoning to the City of Tustin Planned Community (Commercial)
District, to be effective upon annexation to the City of Tustin.
Location:
Northerly side of 17th Street, extending northerly ± 250
feet, bounded by Yorba Street on the west and the Orange
County Flood Control District ~ 870 feet easterly.
Mr. Flea~le stated that both of the above property owners gave letters
of consent to LAFCO, saying that TREE HAVEN ASSOCIATES has initiated
an annexation proposa~ to the City of Tustin, and that the applicants
wish to be included in' said annexation, thereby making it feasible
for the entire area, from the Flood Control District on the north,
and from Prospect Street on the south side of 17th Street, to be
within the City of Tustin. He went on to say that although, originally,
the applicants had asked that the zoning classification on this prope.--~.!
be a straight C-1 or C-2, they have consented willingly in the best
interests of the City to accept the development controls that the
Planning Commission and the Development Preview Commission put on wi~h ·
~re~i~e land uses as required under Planned Community (Commercial)
12/28/70
PC Minutes-December 28, 1970 '
Mr. Fleagle further stated that the land is now vacant, and there are
no immediate plans for development. Thus, it would be the recommenda-
tion of the Staff. that pre-zoning be applied to the property as Planned
Community subject to a Use Permit and submission of concrete, precise
development plans.
Chairman Larnard declared the public pgrtion of the hearing be open
at 9:10.
Mr. Keith Lyon, 4250 Long Beach Boulevard, Long Beach, California,
Vice-President of C. J. BONNER CORPORATION, stated that they are in
favor of this pre-zoning on the subject property, and feel it is con-
sistent with the zoning in the general area, and, also, is in the
best interests of the City with the development control as stated
by Staff.
Chairman Larnard declared the public portion of the hearing be closed
at 9:12.
Mr. Mahoney stated that he was in favor of Paragraph 2(b) in the
attached Resolution -- the exclusion of service stations and drive-in
and take-out establishments, which he felt was certainly appropriate
in this area. He went on to say that he thought it was necessary that
the Commission plan for the future.
Moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Curtis, that Resolution No. 1197
be recommended approvin~ PZ-70-124~ subject to the conditions as out-
lined by Staff.
MOTION CARRIED - 4-0
V-70-278 - LE D. NUTTER
Authority to permit the temporary use (for a period of up to
six months) of three, portable, automobile lifts not located
within an enclosed structure, and a portable, 64-square foot
sign exceeding the maximum Code permitted area and use time
period.
Location:
Site fronts approximately 193 feet on the northwest side
of Newport Avenue, approximately 67 feet on the east side
of E1 Camino Real, and approximately 92 feet on the north-
east side of the Santa Ana Freeway on-ramp.
Mr. Brown stated that the applicants have contacted Staff and indicated
that due to some esthetic modifications they are working on with these
hoists, they would appreciate a two-weeks' continuance be granted to
the January 11, 1971, Planning Commission meeting, and Staff hereby
concurs with this request.
Moved by Mr. Mahone¥, seconded by Mr. Edelstein that V-70-278 be
continued until the Planning Commission Meeting of January 11, 1971
as requested by the applicants and recommended by Staff.
MOTION CARRIED - 4-0
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE ~362, WHICH AMENDED ZONING ORDINANCE #157 -
TEMPORARY USE PERMITS
Mr. Brown stated that %he above is for Temporary Use Permits for
30 days or less in duration. He went on to say that %here is a
provision in the Ordinance which permits the Community Development
Department th~ authority to iSsu~ temporar~ ~le permits Of up to
buildings, etc. However, since this section of the Ordinance did not
state whether a fee was necessary (the normal fee is $100 for a Use
Permit) or whether a public hearing should be held before the Plannin~
- 9 -
12/28/70
PC Mi~te~-December 28, 1970 ,
Commission, it was recommended that that portion of the Ordinance
amended by adding the following paragraph:
"Such. action by the Planning Department for Temporary
Use Permits of less than thirty days may be granted, by
the Community Development Director and shall not require
a public hearing or notice.
"The fee for an application for such Temporary Use Permit
shall be $25.00, payable at the time of 'submission of
application."
Mr. Brown stated that Staff requested at the last Planning Conunissicn
Meeting that this be set for a public hearing on this agenda, and it
%
thus, has been properly advertised and the Commission may now act
on this matter if so desired.
Chairman Larnard declared the 9ublic portion of the hearing be opene~
at 9:20. There being no comments from the audience,. Chairman Larnar~
declared the public portion of the hearing be closed at 9:21.
Mr. Flea~le stated that he would like to add an additional line to
the above Amendment as follows~
"Said fee may be waived~or modified in those instances
where a waiver has been granted or modified on a
Business License Fee."
Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Edelstein, that Resolution No.
1198 be adopted approvin~ Amendment to Ordinance #362 as recommended
by Staff.
MOTION CARRIED - 4-0
AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 157 - FIRST STREET SETBACK LINE
Mr. Fleagle stated that the above amendment has been duly advertised
for a public hearing at this time and place. He went on to say that
to change a bulding setback line from 15 feet from the ultimate
right-of-way to 10 feet from the ultimate right-of-way would be the
recommendation of the Staff, and that the Commission recommend to
the City Council Amendment to Ordinance No. 157 - the Zoning Ordinance
As prepared by the City Attorney to establish a 10-foot building front
setback line for properties located on the north and south sides of
First Street between the western City boundary and the eastern properh~-
line abutting Prospect Avenue.
Mr. Flea~e stated that this is a citizens' project to try and accg. uire
the dedication of right-of-way, and that, in this instance, this
could serve as an impetus for the dedication of right-of-way without
unnecessary hardship or burden upon the property owner, and would
conform in street design to Irvine Boulevard, so that it could be done
without injury to th~ City' and also to the property owner.
Chairman Larnard declared the public portion of the hearing open at
9:25. There being no comments from the audience, Chairman Larnard
declared the public portion of. the hearing closed at 9:26.
Mr. Curtis stated that this item had been previously reviewed in a
workshop session.
Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded ~y Mr. Edelstein, that First Street
Setback Line Amendment be reco~nended to the City Council~ as out-
lined by the Staff.
MOTION CARRIED - 4-0
~2/28/70
PC Minutes-December 28, 1970
OLD BUSINESS - NONE
NEW BUSINESS
PC MEMBER APPOINTMENT TO THE BEAUTIFICATION AWARDS COMMITTEE
Mr. Mahoney was unanimously elected to the abov~ Committee.
OTHER BUSINESS
PENDING APPLICATIONS
Mr. Brown stated that the first pending application would be a pro-
posed amendment to the City Code involving variances from the ,Master
Tree Plan, wherein instead of the Parks and Recreation Commission
having this authority, the Development Preview Commission would have
said authority. He went on to say that this has been discussed with
the Planning'Commission and will be set up as a Resolution proposal
for the next meeting and duly advertised. Also, the two cases which
were continued at this meeting, tonight -- the "flagging" case and
the temporary hoist case.
PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNS
Mr. Larnard presented to the other members of the Planning Co~=,~ssion
a letter he received from the Mayor. This letter was addressed to
the President of North Vietnam regarding restoring our Prisoners'of
War to their families.
Moved by Mr. Mahone¥, seconded by Mr. Curtis, that the Plannin? Com-
mission send a letter si~ned by' each of the Commissioners, and also,
to send as many individual letters as each would so choose.
MOTION CARRIED - 4-0
The above letter was signed by each of the Planning Commissioners,
with the exception of Commissioner Sharp, who was absent.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - NONE
There being no further business to come before the Commission, it
was moved by Mr. Mahoney that the meeting be adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
P~LA'NNING COMMISSION'
RECORDING SECRETARY
12/28/70 - 11 -