Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-23-70 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 23, 1970 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 23rd day of November, 1970, 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 led by Commissioner Sharp. The Invocation was given by Commissioner Curtis. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Edelstein, Curtis, Mahoney, Sharp, Larnard None Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney R. Kenneth Fleagle, Ass't. City Administrator - Community Development Director Pat Brown, Ass't. Planning Director - Zoning Administrator Carol Culver, Planning Commission Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 9, 1970 Moved by Mr. Mahoney~ seconded by Mr. Sharp~ that the minutes of November 9, 1970, be approved as corrected. ~OTION CARRIED 5-0 UP-70-355 - MELVIN C. SHUBINr JR. (TUSTIN CAR WASH) Authority to permit auto tune-up and minor repairs, consisting of electrical and fuel systems and anti-smog devices, as acces- sory uses to an existing automobile car wash facility. Location: Site fronts apprmximately 160 feet on the north side of Main Street and approximately 154 feet on the east side of Centennial ('!H") Street. Mr. Brown stated that due notice had been given that this was the time and place for a public hearing on Use Permit 70-355. This facility was approved in 1965 as a car wash under a Use Permit. Mr. Brown went on to say that the applicant intends to use, if the application is approved, a portion of the existing car wash structure, which is presently used for car waxing and detailing for auto tune-up and minor repairs. This part of the structure is semi-enclosed being entirely open to the West. 1~/23/70 - 1 - PC Minutes-November 23, 1970 The Preview Commission at their November 12, 1970, meeting gave review to this case and felt that since the total operation on the site was essentially open, the use would appear to be appro- priate, along with the nature of the use, itself, which was essen- tially a very light repair-type work. They did recommend, however, that signing to advertise any tune-ups, if this is approved, should be limited to on-site customers, only. A synopsis of the Staff Report was presented stating concerns as to: (1) The open nature of the structure, itself; and (2) The possibility of future expansion requests for this use involving, perhaps, heavier repair uses, tire sales, etc. If the application is approved, then certain limits should be speci- fied as to operatiqns involved: (1) Ail repair work should be done within the "waxing" bay; (2) There should be no storage of dismantled vehicles; (3) Repairs should be limited to minor tune-ups involving only the ignition and carburetor systems; and (4) There should be compliance with the provisions of the Service Station Policy Guide. Chairman Larnard declared the public portion of the hearing open at 7:40: Mr. Melvin C. Shubin, Jr., owner of the Tustin Car Wash, stated there is hardly a day that goes by that they don't experience a problem with a customer's car. ~e further said that in order to correct this situation, he calls around five or six service stations trying to find a mechanic. When a mechanic is obtained, he will then come in with a large wrecker and park it in the center of everything and, thus, foul up their lines. Consequently, Mr. Shubin said he would like very much to have a mechanic present on the premises. He stated that he felt this would be quite a service to the customers. He went on to say he is seeking only a limited amount of work -- just enough to keep a mechanic busy. He would like to only tune up cars and, possibly, install anti-smog devices on customers' cars. Mr. Mahoney asked Mr. Shubin if he anticipates any flat tires, thus, installing a tire center later on? Mr. Shubin replied that he has nothing like this in mind. He further stated that all they want to do is keep the automobile operating for the customer, so that if they have a problem starting their auto- mobile, a mechanic will be on hand to help the customer. He is not interested in the extra revenue from the service or sales of anything-- he's strictly in the car wash business. Mr. Edelstein inquired of Mr. Shubin as to how many bays they would have operational for this type of use? Mr. Shubin said that they have room for three-plus large automobiles-- ample room. He further stated that they usually polish one car at a time, which allows for plenty of extra room. Mr. Edelstein further inquired if Mr, Shubin planned to advertise this service? 11/23/70 - 2 - PC Minutes-November 23, 1970 Mr. Shubin replied "no" -- that on the site he would probably have a mechanic on duty or something similar to that. Mr. Edelstein asked if they would do any newspaper advertising? Mr. Shubin replied that they are not interested in that. Chairman Larnard declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 7:45. Moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Edelstein (for discussion purRoses) that approval be ~lven to UP-70-355 with the condftions as outlined in the Staff Report. Mr. Edelstein stated that he woDld like to see the Planning Com- mission grant this Use Permit, but, further felt that some of the amenities of landscaping should be added as another criteria. Mr. Curtis stated that one of his main concerns about the proposed plan for the tune-up facility is the fact that the area they propose working in is.open completely on the northwest side and semi-enclosed, only, on the "wash" portion of the facility, being the southeast side. He further stated that there is a new development going in just behind the facility on the'Centennial Way that is going to pre- sent a "public nuisance" for the people over in that complex even if two or three cars are allowed to be in there for tune-ups. He went on to say that one of the problems they will run into, is that when a car will have a particular repair problem, certain repair parts possibly may not be able to be obtained that night and the car will have to remain at the car wash facility overnight. If this happens, they have no way of keeping cars overnight and, also, the tools and. equipment would be left in an unsafe condition, unless everything would be moved into one of the other rooms for safekeeping every night. This is just.a wide-open area. Mr. Edelstein stated he would like t~ see Item "E" under terms of approval, some kind of amenities to block off those bays. Mr. Edelstein moved to add that as an amendment to Mr. Mahoney's motion. Mr. Sharp seconded the amendment. Mr. Sharp said that it seemed to him that the Development Preview Commission had a good point on the signing of this matter; pointed out that this statement is not incorporated in the list of condi- tions. He felt that the signing of this function, if approved, should be limited to customers on site. Mr. Sharp said that he would be interested in seeing that added, also, as an amendment. Mr. Edelstein accepted this as an addition to his amendment. Mr. Edelstein made a motion to amend the main motion that as part of those items to be approved by the Development Preview Committee, would be the possible~landscape screening of some sort and the limita- tion or approval of any change in the signing. This motion was seconded by Mr. Sharp. Mr. Edelstei% repeated the motion -- he stated that the amendment to the main motion for approval is to add an additional item requiring that there be screening through landscaping or other means acceptable to the Development Preview Commission and that, further, the Develop- ment Preview Commission approve any addition or change in the signing rill:ed ~o :~lm addi:ion&l ule through ~hil UII Pe~ml:. - 3 - ll/Z3/70 PC Minutes-November 23, 1970 The above amended motion carried unanimously - 5-0. The main motion,'as amended, adopting Resolution No. 1193 (attached) was then voted upon by roll call: AYES: NOES: ..'~ ."..'~' Edelstein, Mahoney; Larnard, Sharp Curtis MOTION AS AMENDED - CARRIED - 4-1 UP-70-356 - ANDREWS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. (JAY ANDREWS) Authority to permit a Single-Family Residential Planned Community of 32 lots, limited to single-story structures 18 feet or less in height. Location: Site fronts approximately 283 feet on the west side of Prospect Avenue, approximately 283 feet on the east side of "B" Street, and is located approximately 267 feet north of the centerline of Irvine Boulevard. Mr. Fleagle stated that the developer, ANDREWS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., has complied with all those stipulations and recommendations of the Planning Commission and Staff. He further presented a synopsis of the Staff Report stating that they have met with the adjacent property owners within the area; have pre- sented alternative plans for house construction; have reduced the number of lots proposed and no exception is taken to their proposal by the Staff. It would, therefore, be the recommenda-- tion that the Planning Commission grant Use Permit as applied for to allow the development of the Single-Family Residential Planned Community of 32 lots, limited to single-story structures of 18 feet or less in height ia.accordance with the submitted Building Design Plans that are fi~ed and incorporated as part of the application subject to the condition that a Subdivision Map be filed and recorded, which map shall include the 32 lot sub- division encompassed by subject property, and shall further in- clude as another lot or parcels of the same subdivision that Pr zoned property extending southward from subject property and bounded by Irvine Boulevard, Prospect Avenue and "B" Street. If it were the Commission's approval to accept this recommenda- · tion, the motion filing public hearing would be to adopt followinq 'Resolution No. 1194, as proposed. Mr. Larnard asked Mr. Fleagle "Did the Staff consider the dimen- sions of the front setback?" He stated that it appears that there is one, in particular, with a 12-foot dimension from the garage. Wasn't sure if it was from the property line. Mr. Fleagle replied that it was 12 feet from the property line. He 'further stated that there is a different driveway approach-- there is the "swirl!' driveway coming through there, and said he believes this is one of the concepts in the Planned Community, and certainly one of the ideas frequently discussed in the DPC meetings is to have a variation of setbacks throughout that property and to provide some depth in the rear lots. Mr. Fleagle further stated that on the north property, particularly, it was the greatest advantage to have maximum rear yards. Mr. Larnard said that his only question was that it did appear that there was a front entrance driveway and something less than 20 feet, and as Mr. Fleagle indicated, there is a side driveway, so that answered his question. - 4 - 11/23/70 PC Minutes-November 23, 1970 Chairman Larnard declared the public portion of the hearing open at 8:10 p.m. Mr. Jay Andrews, Andrews Construction Company, Buena Park, said that he would be happy to answer any questions from both the Planning Commission and the audience of interested parties that may be in attendance. There were no comments from the Planning Co~mission at this time. Mr. Walt Wands, 17692 Westbury Lane, stated that the Staff Report, he feels, is fairly concise and accurately represents what was discussed at the last Development Preview Commission meeting that considered this proposal. He said they would hope in the next referral to the Development Preview Commission that they can complete these detailed plans--considerations of the number and quality of the .trees that would remain, the property setbacks, the fence arrangement, etc. He stated that he would.like some kind of assurance at the next Development Preview Commission meeting that these questions can be resolved and that the developer would come forward with definitive plans, now, rather than continually referring this back to Committee for piece-meal approval. Mr. Andrews said he believes Mr. Wands is referring to the loca- %ion of certain trees on the property. He said tha~ this data will be available at the next Development Preview Commission meeting. As stipulated in the Use Permit at the review by the Development Preview Commission, they will approve the trees that the Andrews Construction Company chooses to remain, and also any screening trees that they choose to remain on the pro-' fessional zone area~of the property. Mr. Larnard asked Mr. Andrews i'f he has any type of timetable ~n mind at this point, as far as the residential aspect of Mr. Andrews' project is concerned? Mr. Andrews said that they expect to commence construction on the reside'ntial portion between January 15th and the first of February of 1971. He further stated that they have a Subdi- vision Map that will come before the Commission on December 14th. He went on to say that there is'an area of great concern to him in the Resolution concerning this Use Permit. Under' Section II of the "next-to-the-last" paragraph of the Resolution, it stipu- lates that the professional area should be included as a portion of this subdivision and designated as an extra lot. Mr. Andrews stated that their plans on the professional area are 'not complete as of the present time, and he feels that this would be a hardship on them to have to define exactly what their plans are. He said .that he talked to Mr. Orville Myers on the after- noon of November~23rd'and he is very concerned about the improve- ments on "B" Street, that if they developed the residential and left a half-street on the .216 feet that remains in the profes- sional zone, then there would be a very substantial traffic and drainage problem. He further stated that he has no objection to a stipulation that the improvements on the entire frontage of "B" Street be included at the time that this subdivision goes on record which would relieve this traffic and drainage problem, but he did feel that it would be a hardship, at this time, if they are bound to improve all of Irvine in conjunction with this residential subdivision which represents only the rear 50 percent of the property. - 5 - 11/23/70 PC Minutes-November 23, 1970 Mr. Henry Cobb, 17732 Westbury Lane, stated that they have been going through this proposed development for a long time. He be- lieves that they,'as a unit of people, have tried to give Mr. Andrews every consideration in the final analysis to try and develop the property. However, Mr. Wands is their spokesman to the Development Preview Commission in attempting to work out the details in connection with this property. Mr. Cobb went on to say that in the meetings that have been attended, othat many of the "little" things have been sidetracked and the matters have been simply stated that "now is not the time to bring them up -- that they will fall into place as they develop". Consequently, Mr. Cobb and Mr. Wands had a discussion about this matter, and it is their strong feeling that these "little" things are not so insignificant. At the next Development Preview Commission meeting, he would like it stipulated that some of these things should be resolved, now. Chairman Larnard declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 8:15. ~' Mr. Mahoney asked the Staff that by the completion of "B" Street on the property on the front portion of Irvine and with the new construction that has just been put in on Prospect (widening of the street and putting in the curb), would that help alleviate some of the drainage problem that these people have been faced with or would that still hinge on Irvine? Mr. Flea~le stated that he believed that the public improvements on Prospect put in by the County would have relieved some of the drainage problem. Mr. Flea~le further stated that these are things that have to be resolved with the filing of the Subdivision Map and with the approw of the development plaDs. Before .any building permit can be issued, the Development Preview Commission.will have the responsibility to review the Plot Plan. Mr. Sharp wanted to know what all those "little" things were that were referred to above? Mr. Fleagle stated that these matters of concern are quite clear in the Staff Report as related to the Development Preview Commis- sion's consideration, such as final development plan approval when 'taking into consideration adequate Walls along the north and south property lines, entrance walls to the local interior street on Prospect Avenue, location map for those trees presently on the proD- erty which could be saved, both in the interior'of the project-and' o.. along the north property line of the existing row of eucalyptus trees, and tree screening along the southern perimeter of the prop- erty. Mr. Fleagle went on to say that these matters are the items of direct concern to the Development Preview Commission. Mr. Andrews replied that they would be removing, at this time, only the dead trees, which are primarily the orange trees on the western portion of the professionally-zoned property. He went on to say that concerning the drainage, their preliminary investigations indicate that there is a fall of approximately five feet from west to east on the 970 feet of property and this would give them proper drainage. Mr. Andrews stated that he could see no drainage problems on this property. Mr. Andrews stated that concerning the fencing, they will be required by FHA to install screen fencing around the pro~.O%, Hi ilit %~&b bhl¥ an:lalpItl pNob&bl~ in exdesl of Bix-foot high block walls on the southern portion o~ the p=ope~ty. He went - 6 - 11/23/70 ' ~?s-November 23 1970 Pc , on to say that they had discussed a seven-foot block wall on the southern portion of the residential to act as a screen against the second-story windows of the proposed professional building. Mr. Sharp inquired concerning the Resolution with regards to the last condition -- that the Pr zoned portion of the property be in- cluded as the 33rd parcel. He stated that he assumes this has been included there to correct whatever drainage problems that are a part of the development. Is it also included there ~o cause the developer to improve Fourth Street for the full extent of the property? Mr. Flea~le stated that the City Engineer's concern is that the frontage property on Irvine Boulevard may remain in an undeveloped state with no public improvements. By requiring it to be incorpor- ated within the subdivision, it would provide for a Master Drainage Plan for the total development of the property and would require the dedication and improvements of the frontage property. Mr. Flea~le went on to say that fro~ the City Engineer's viewpoint, he wants the.street improved, but from the developer's standpoint, it works a financial hardship to have to improve property that he is not about to use for some indefinite period. He stated that is probably a question of equity that is involved, here -- one way of resolving that is on the posting of bonds for street improvements that guarantees that the improvements will be put in upon the de- velopment, but that would be part of the subdivision approval. Mr. ~lea~le stated that if Resolution No. 1194 is adopted, the Com- mission Ks telling the developer he must submit a Subdivision Map conditioned to approval. His Subdivision Map must include not only the 32 residential building sites, but also the Pr property, either as one parcel or as several parcels, but the subdivision would be for the total. Now, as to when and how these are improved are de- tails that can be worked out, but the adoption of Resolution No. 1194 would make that stipulation that i~ would have to be a subdivision and the improvements could be delayed. Moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Curtis~ that Resolution No. 1194 (attached) be adopted approvin~ uP-70-356. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. PROPOSED IRVINE GENERAL PLAN Mr. Fleagle stated that the Commission has had the benefit of seeing the Resolution as it was adopted in the last Planning Commission meeting, pertinent to the Irvine General Plan. Mr. Fleagle further stated that he has listed his concerns in a memorandum to the City Administrator. He further said that the Commission's Resolution requested a 60-day delay. However, Orange County Planning Commis- sion is not favorably inclined to delay the approval of the General Plan until the first, of the year -- they would like to proceed with it -- they're having a lot of difficulties in proceeding in view of all the questions that have been raised. Mr. Flea~le went on to say that the Irvine Company submitted this plan in March and then on November 16th is when the Orange County Planning Staff has submitted for the first time their final analysis of it. He stated that the Commission wants the plan adopted and that the Commission had had six months or more to cdn- sider said Plan. Mr. Fleagle went on to say he thinks it is the ~1/23/70 PC Minutes-November 23, 1970 opinion of Orange. County Planning Commission that the Staff is using the Irvine General Plan as a vehicle to further the entire County General Planning Program. This fact is acknowledged by the Staff that it is a vehicle, mainly because it is of greater magnitude than they have ever before considered and of greater significance to the total County. Mr. Flea~le recommends that this Commission endorse General Plan of the City of Irvine with a proposal of specific amendments to it that the Commission feels are in the best interests of the City of Tustin. He further stated that he didn't think the Commission wanted to be in the position of "not acting" when this General Plan has been be- fore them as long as it has. He went on to say that we owe Irvine Company the courtesy and the responsibility of responding to it -- saying what we accept and what areas we feel should be modified. Mr. Edelstein inqu'ired of Mr. Fleagte th~ following: "By endorsing the General Plan with the specifics of recommendations that we would make and the changes, etc., is there any chance of the endorse- ment being misintrepeted as far as the Commissions' particular con- cerns are?" Are they going to look at our endorsement with just a minor look or with a very strong one? Mr. Flea~le stated that in the meeting with the Orange County Plan- ning Commission on the above date, the whole intent was to find out what our concerns are. He went on to say that it appeared to him they are giving a lot of credence to what we feel, what we want and what we need. He further stated that he felt the Orange County Planning Commission will honor what our Commission recommends if ' it is within the realm of reason. Mr. Edelstein asked'if, the Orange County Planning Commission made any specific comments to Mr. Fl~agle in terms of all of the recom- mendations made to them by 'our Planning Commission? Mr. Flea~le stated that he felt they showed an inclination to honor our Planning Commissions' concerns. He further stated that from a traffic standpoint, their engineer and the County Engineer could sub- stantiate that the re-alignment of that thru-way is a better traffic handling situation. From a Planning standpoint, Mr. Fleagle stated ~hat he couldn't be convinced that it would be good for the City and could see very well where it could be damaging. Mr. Curtis stated that he didn't see any real objections to providing some kind of a constructive response to the County and to the pro- posed City of Irvine with regard to Tustin's stand on it, but he did feel we have some specific matters that we need to comment on. Mr. Curtis referred to Page 9 of the Irvine General Plan which deals with three groupings of their recommendations: The first grouping covers the responsibility of local Government. This is definitely important before any'type of approval can be given because of the significant impact on the-rest of the County. He said we're talking about a development that is essentially 40% increase over the cur- rent County population over a large number of years, but we defin- itely have to have some type of a plan as to how this is going to fit into the overall County Plan. He further stated that he felt they should pursue this before any final approval is given. M~. ~u~tis wen~ on to say ~ha~ ~he second g~oup~ng il dealing wi~h the General Area Plan. Here again, before final approval is given, they will have to have some fairly specific details. He asked if 11/23/70 - 8 - PC Minutes-November 23, 1970 there is some way that they can give "'philosophy-type" approval subject to some specific planning that would be accomplished by some given date and those plans reviewed and commented upon before the final plan is approved? Mr. Flea~le said there are four mandatory elements of the General Plan and they are intended to be a general guide, or a blue print or a plot plan: Land use, circulation, housing, and conservation. He further stated that these plans are implemented by specific plans, and under the Irvine program, under the Planned Community concept, so that the specific details are a matter of later submis- sion. The General Plan is supposed to be a general concept without rigid guidelines and without precise details, but you must show the way your land use, dividing it into major categories of industrial, residential and public and quasi-public, and what traffic systems are required to accommodate i~. Mr. Curtis stated Ghat their most reqent.proposal on circulation is contrary to the adopted highways and streets planned for the County, isn't that correct? Mr. Fleagle replied "no" -- they went back and amended their County Roadway System. Mr. Curtis inquired if this was since the new plan was drawn up? Mr. Flea~le stated that the new plan was drawn up in conformance with the amendment to the County Arterial. Said Arterial showed it going through the Base and the Marine Corps objected to it, so they changed their plan, then, when that section was deleted by the Boara of Supervisors in adoption of the Arterial Highway Plan. Mr. Curtis referred.to Page 47 of the Irvine General Plan with refer- ence to the County Planning Department regarding three additional statements of philosophy that they feel should be incorporated. He further stated that sub-paragraphs "g" and "h" should definitely be included --that's something between the County and the Irvine people, he felt. They read as follows: That the City of Irvine will contain residential environments characterized by variety rather than monotony, with wide dispersion of housing opportunity throughout the community; (h) That the City of Irvine will contain open space proportionate to the density of development and in locations convenient to the residents it is intended to serve. Mr. Sharp felt it was the Commission's job to salvage what they can out of this matter between Monday night's meeting and Wednesday when the Orange County Planning Commission would next meet rather than going back agaih and 'asking that we have 60 days or more to really add a lot of thought and a lot of additional criticism to that which the Irvine Company has done. He felt that the Plan shou be endorsed with some specific points that we would like to see cor rected. He further stated that it's not completely futile that which we're doing, but on the other hand, it's a matter of salvaging what we can and doing whatever we feel is best for the City between this meeting of the above date and the meeting of November 25, 1970. He brought out the fact th&t "time is of the essence" in this matter. 11/23/70 - 9 - PC M~tes-November 23, 1970 Mr. Sharp further stated that ~he Irvine Company has spent many, many man-months involving the talents and energies of a number of quite competent iDdividuals. Said he didn't feel we have time to counter-balance all what'has been done in the past few days, and those items which the Staff has outlined are good ones. Mr. Larnard agreed with Mr.'Sharp in that we are limited to time. He further stated it would seem to him this would be the most con- structive approach -- to work on those items which are'before the Commission. Mr. Larnard went on to say that he is in favor of moving in a positive direction. Mr. Curtis stated that the circulation pattern is the thing that gives us the greatest concern. Mr. Larnard agreed with Mr. Curtis, and sa~d that in his opinion, at this point and with the amount of time that we have available to us, that our comments indicating our concern in that area are, perhaps, all that we are going to be. abI~ to accomplish between now and Wednesday, in any event. M~. Sharp agreed with Mr. Larnard's statement and stated that if we must concentrate on one or two things, and he felt that the timing indicates that we must do that, the Staff has helped us already to concentrate on that portion of the Plan which is most important, he felt, and that.is the alignment of these major thru- ways and the alignment of the road systems. Mr. Sharp stated that we would need a Minute Order requesting Staff to develop a communication along certain lines. Moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Mahoney that a "letter" to the Orange County Plannin~ Commission re~ardin~ the Irvine General Plan be prepared by Staff'&'nd si~n.e~ by the Plannin~ Commission Chairman. MOTION CARRIED 5-0 NEW BUSINESS Mr. Brown stated that there is a provision in the Zoning Ordinance ~157 which essentially states'that the Planning Commission may · grant temporary Use Permits up to ~ix months and the Planning Depart- ment or its Director can grant one month temporary uses. Mr. Brown further stated that, unfortunately, this particular sec- tion of the Ordinance does not specify as to whether a public hearing is necessary -- it,is assumed it would be, or'that a full $100 normal Use Permit fee should be paid. Mr. Brown went on to say that it is the feeling of the Staff that {his is not essential -- either the public hearing or the full $100 fee, since, in m~s~ cases,'such requests are usually for only a very short period 6f time. ~lso, quite often these requests need an immediate answer. Mr. Brown felt that the charge was non- defensible. He stated that he would, therefore, recommend that the Commission adopt an addition to the Ordinance so that it would read: "Such action by the Planning. Department for temporary Use Permits of less than 30 days shall be considered on an administrative basis; shall not require a public hearing or the advertisement therefor; and, shall require payment of a $25.00 fee to the City of Tustin, payable at the time of submission of the application for such uses." 11/23/70 -10- PC Minutes-November 23, 1970 It is further recommended that the Commission consider this pro- posed amendment reasonable and appropriate and, by resolution, request the attorney to prepare the necessary Ordinance for con- sideration. Moved by Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Edelstein that the Commission on its own motion, initiate an amendment to the Ordinance as out- lined by the Staff. MOTION CARRIED 5-0 CONCERNS OF THE COMMISSION Mr. Brown stated that due to a time lag in a normal submission deadline date, there are two possible cases: One is for another sign for the Lucky Market facility and the other one is a church trailer -- temporary use of two trailers.on Redhill Avenue for school facilities. He went on to say that some problems have developE with the Building Department as far as safety is concerned and these haven't been resolved as yet. Mr. Sharp inquired as to what progress had been made with the Santiago Commercial Bank (plus the trailer) that was heard at the last Commission meeting. He further stated that as he recalled, the Commission did find that that was a compatible use, by a 4-1 vote, but there was a lot left to the Building Department to work out, in the way of detail. Mr. Fleagle stated that the applicant was advised that it would be necessary for him to satisfy the requirements of the Building Depa2 ment. He further stated that the trailer is still there, but unoc- cupied and not hooked .up and just parked there, now, as temporary storage. Mr. Mahoney asked if there is anything to prohibit the Santiago Bank from parking said trailer at this site. Mr. Fl~agle replied that there was. Mr. Curtis mentioned that about one year ago, the Planning Commission was going to consider a certain change to our Ordinance, regarding tome type of an Ordinance to cover abandoned service station sites requiring removal and safety protection for the public if they were abandoned over a certain period of time. Mr. Fleaqle stated that the Uniform Building Code does have a pro- vision for these abandoned service stations, declaring a building a dangerous building. Mr. Mahoney asked what the County's position is on this matter? Mr. Larnard states that the County has pretty much the same laws adopted as the City of Tustin has where this particular type hazard is concerned. Mr. Mahoney then inquired what the County is doing in their ter- ritory? Mr. Larnard replied that the County has had about the same exper- ience as the City. He went on to say that there are certainly pre- cautions to be taken -- there are ways that these abandoned tanks can be made safe without, necessarily, demolishing the buildings that are an "eye sore", PC ~g~es-November 23, 1970 STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Fleagle state~ that he desired a Minute Order in designation of the Recording Secretary as Mrs. Carol Culver, vice Jeannine Lindsey. MOTION CARRIED 5-0 Moved by Mr. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Sharp be adjourned to a workshop session. t~at the meetin~ MOTION CARRIED 5-0 The meeting was adjourned t~ a workshop se'ssion at 9:40 p.m. to formulate a letter to Orange County Planning Commission in reference to the Irvine General Plan. COMMIS. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY _ 12_ 11/23/70