HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-25-68CALL TO
II.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEG1A,~;CE
III.
ROLL CALL
IV.
APPROVAI,
OF M1NUT~' S
VII.
BUSI~MSS
(OUT
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 25, 1968
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Chairm~zn I!alu~.;.
Chairman }!alus welcomed the representatives from Foothill and l.:ission
Viejo High Schools that participated in the "Youth for Govcr~m~'nt"
week. They were as follows: Brant Stanfield, Dave Hardy, Jul:re Gnaigejl,
Anne McI.h:l].in, Ed;~'u~d Barnum, Arvid Strand and Chris Wolski.
Led by Chainne. n Ualus.
Present: Commissioners: Oster, Webster, Ludwig, Halus, Mahoney, Larnard.
Absent: Commissioner: Sharp.
Others Present:
Harry E. Gill, City Administrator
James G. Rourke, City Attorney
James L. Supingcr, Planning Director
Jo Ann Turner, Planging Secretary
It was moved by Mr. Oster.~ seconded by Mrs. Ludwig, tha.t.~h_e_~inutes of.
the November 12~ 1968_me__et__iug ~.ap?rovcd as submitted. Carried 6-0.
It was moved bff Mr. Webster~ .s_,e_?_onded by Mr. Larnard that the rules be
.suspended to consider ite~:~.s 1 and 2 relative to ~Yew Business out of
order. Carried 6-0.
1. FIbIiL MAP TR.~CT NO. 6447 - R. H. G~\M£ - TUSTIN MEADOWS
Location: On the south side of Sycamore Avenue, east of Redhill
Avenue and north of the A.T. & S. F. Plain line.
Mr. Orville M3_9.rs., City Engineer, submitted a report stating that Tentative
Tract 6447, the entire Tustin Meadows development, was approved by the
Planning Co~?.ission, Resolution 909 on August 14, 1967 and an extension
was granted by the Coma~ission and Council to August 14, 1969. Final maps
have previously been approved on three quarters of the development. Tract
6447 is the final phase. %~is Final l.;ap conforms to the approved Tentative
Tract 6447. Mr. Myers recoz~?..mnded, that the Final Map of Tract No. 6447 be
approved subject to final approval by the City Cou~cil and the City Enginee=.
It was moved by l-:r. Oster, seconded b)i :.irs. I:udwi~_~__t.~,_~t the Final P~ap c!~
Tract No. 6-~47 be apj~roved subjcct to final approval by the City_ Council
and the Cit~i__E~in~er. Carried 6-0.
2. TUSTIN CITY AREA STUDY
A thirteen (13) page report was submitted to the Plannings, Co~.=~.ission
and other in~erested p:~rties for revSew prior to the meeting relative
to exist, in~ conditions, land use an:~ zoning, sewerage system, street
system, water systc~:~, building conditions and General Pl~,n along with
maps fo~ a better analysis.
M_r._:_S_5.?.~:_n..%9_r suggested that if the Co.;~,:?.iss~on did agree with thc; findinzs,
it would be appropriate to consider a p,blic bearing relative to subject
study with the possib~].itv of a ...... hug thc General Plan for this area~
which presently sl~ows thc land ~;e dcs~gpatJon of Single 1,'a::~i].y Residential.
-1-
t'C ~-~]n=.,:., - l;ov,'~ber 25, 196S
Ci_j~_a. irm:m t]~.lt, s exp]ain.:'d that thfs stud)' x.;as brougttt about ~y cc. rtain
rezoning appl3'cations. Ti~c' staff report cot,clusion.~; were th:t~ afL'er
¢o:npila~ion and analysis of ~nformation and discussion of devclu~,..m._
altern,.'ttivcs ~..'ith individuals fa~:dliar ~'it:h the area is that R-2 (Duplex-
Residential) District zoning should be permitted as requested by in.-
dividual or groups of property o~.mers.
Topics of discussion by the Planning Co::'.mission included R-2, R-3 a~:d
R-4 zoning along with the economic feasibility, land acquisition and
cost, ~.;ater, street, sewerage syste,ns along wi. th building ccono::tics.
Disruption of the neighborhood by rezoning to R-3 and R-4 was discussed
with all other aspects relative to medi. tmt and high rise in density.
}Ir. Webster was greatly concerned with thc rcco:?_?.endation of R-2 duplex,
feeling that it would reinforce thc area as it now exists, but more than
that it would really clmnge the character of the neighborhood. 'In most
cases it would not be econo~:ically feasible to the o'..mer to tear
and redevelop w~th a new duplex so consequently only a mini,:t%~n an'..ount of
improvement ~.:ould possibly be put on thc area for rental purposes. Be-
cause of the age aud nature of the area, so;:~e of the original el.mars
would find that this would be less attractive from an econo,nic viewpoint
and that duplexes are not good on incur, re properties. They are less de-
sirable than ho':~es because the privacy is lost and the maintenance factor
becomes involved.
}Ir. Webster felt that the problem here is multiplicity of o...:nership and
that the solution is finding a good usc that ~.:ould be of benefit to thc
entire area. He suggested developing so~:e criteria that will give s~ne
stability and possibly incentive to so:ne private investors to make it
work.
Chairman tie]us felt that more time was needed to study and review the
report before consideration of setting a public hearing date is made.
It was movcd b-Y blr. Larnard~ seconded bv Mr. ¥~ahqney. that this item be
tabled for further studZ. Carried 6-0.
Mr. Oster felt that the decision for the 2 public hearings thJt have been
continued to this meeting was contingent upon thc actiou taken on the
"Tustin City" Area Study and the "Study" should be acted upon tonight.
If the public hearings are not continued to a further date then it is, in
effect, making the Tustin City Area Study useless.
The above motion was a~endcd b}, l..'.r. Larnard, seconded by >ir. =X:ahonev~ that
the "Tustin Ci.ty" Are~ Studv be tabled to the December 23r._d.~ P..la__n_qj~ Cc'n-
mission meeting. Carried 6-0.
PUBIgC
HEARINGS
ZC-68-183 - G. L. I,E~,.~]S E~Iz~.RtkISES - Continued from 10/28/68
For rezoning of approxin'..?.tely 0.77 acres of land fro:n the R-1 (Sznole
Family Residential) D~strict to the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential)
District.
Location: Site fronts 150 ft. on the east side of .~;ountain View Drive,
approximately 300 ft. north of the centerlinc: of First Street.
Mr. Webster stated that he would abstain fro.~:.any co::,'.:'.ents or voting on
subject application.
Mr. St, p.j_n.~e__r_ stated that th'is hearing ~s open ant1 was cont,.'nued from the
October 28, raeePing to a~.:ait the results of the "Tustin City" Area Study.
Chair~;'an Halus continued the public portion of the hearing at 8:15 P.I.i,
Mr. Dick Ehlin2, 269 i,Iorth Fl.o'..,er, O~-ange, business p-.rtu~r of 2.1r. Lewis,
spoke in faro;- of the application, stating that R-3 zonins is the zoning
that is nece?~.~ary on st,'..,ject proi;arty in order fo:' the area to
to develop in thc pat[:ern th2t has been set so far.
-2-
PC Minutes - Now~b-ur 25, 196~
Mr. Bob l!all., 370 West 4th St., Tustin, spoke in favor of the appli-
cation stating that it would be a good use and the R-3 developmcu~t
would not hurt the area and possibly enhance the value of the area if
developed and designed properly.
Chairman llalus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at
8:20 P.M.
Mr. Oster did not feel that it would be to the good of the City to have
long, narrow apartment buildings lining the streets, tie felt that
probably each case would have to be determined i~dividually. He stated
that based upon the street that it is located on and the front footage
and the number of units, he would not be in favor of subjec.t request.
It was moved by Mr. Oster,. seconded by }~r. l,arnard~ that Resolution
No. 1021 be adopted~ reco.:'~'.n:endin~ denial for the fol.lowinf, reasons:
1. Subject proposal is for a dwelling unit deusity eight
times greater than suggested by the General Plan.
As additional grounds the minutes and evidence introduced
at this hearing and prior hearings be included by reference
and made a part of the motion.
The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Larnard, Ludwig, Oster.
Noes: Mahoney, Halus. Abstained: Webster. Absent: Sharp. Carried
3-2.
2. ZC-68-184 - T.V. A_~£EBERY/16 PROPERTY O~.,.,.."vl'~ .... _ Continued from 10/28/68
For rezoning of approximately 4°5 acres of land from the R-1 (Single
Family Residential) District to the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential)
District.
Mr. Supinger presented a brief staff report stating that this hearing is
open and was continued from the October 28th meeting to await the results
of thc "Tustin C~ty" Area Study. tie also called out that a letter from
Ben C. Torres and Josep!:ine I,. Torles, 695 W. Third, Tustin and Anthon)i
E. Torres and Barbara A. Torres, 225 S. Myrtle, Tustin, has been received
in the Planning Department withdrawing their names from the petition for
application.
Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:30 PoM.
Those verbally opposing the application were I.~r. Ray Bresec, 160 South
Pacific and Mr. Ernest A. B~ck~ '~-n Jr. 665 West Third Street.
Mr. Beckn~a__n, acting as spokesman fdr the 48 property owners that signed
a petition opposing subject application, stated that it would be a detriment
to the co~ununity adding problems that are not now existing, such as an over
abundance of children, added noise problems with the excess amount of traffic
that this would incur due to higher density and apartments, tie stated that
the people in the surrounding area do not want their privacy invaded. He
submitted a package of data on subject request to be reviewed.
Those verbally approving the applic$~tion were .I,[r. T. V. Attebcry, }!r. Bob
.Hall and Mr. Will~a;n C. Martin, 170 Myrtle. They felt that by upgrading
the property and putting it to good use would be a benefit to the co~ununity.
Mr. R~chard_KrL?2!, 12312 Newport, Tustin, o~..-ns property at &.40 West l.~ain,
Tustin, suggested that the City Council send letters out, asking opinions
of these applications on a b]ock-to-block basis before a decision is made.
Dave Uardy and Brunt Stanf~eld, participating students, did not feel that
R-3 zoning would ba in the best interest of the comr.~unity.
Chair~'u~n Un!u..~ declared the publ~.c portion of the bearing closed at
9: 07 P.~.:.
PC ~[inuC'c's - Nove,':ber 25, ].96S
Mr. Webs['e.r felt tibet there is a probler~ and uatil it is so!red, hc
~' ~ .... ',' ,,, th~ higltest density, ~.:herc it would be crca/:in~;
Ci{IIiIOL seo CI.CO~ lc.el.I,o
so,ne physical problc::u;, tic felt that this p::rticular applica~im~ %;ich
a grouping of lots has a unique problem and that thc stt,dy sub:M.[ted by
thc staff should be studied in depth to give a better insight of how to
approach requests such as this one. tlc stressed concern over any devel-
opment that might take place in this area and should be do:~e under a set
of criteria that will enable thc laud to be used to its fullest extent
without infringement or injury upon the people in thc area. }Ir. Uebster
stated that he was against subject application.
Chairman }lalt, s felt that there is a lack of a positive plan or devel-
opment and could turn out to be a poor devc!opz~ent if developed on a
one or two lot co.~lbination basis. He suggested a consideration to tho.
applicant for a R-3 or Plan:led Cor..:r~unity, where the applicant sub::~its
a total plan. tie did not feel that a straight R-3 zone would b.2 to the
best benefit of this property.
Mr. Oster felt that the risks in handling this type of develop.-;,ent with
narrow lots are much too great at this point for R-3 zoning and was
opposed to it.
It was moved by. !.ir. Oster, s.c_c.o_nd?.d__,bx_L, }i__r.... Larnard that Re~olution No.
1022 be adollt, i?d, re_conn:en_din..~ denia], of A:>pl~cation No. ZC-68-184 for
the follo~..'in~ reasop, s:
1. The General Plan calls for single family residential
density for the subject area.
As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced
at this hearing and prior hearings be included by reference
and made a part of the motion.
The above mot~on was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Ludwig, Halus,
Webster, Larnard, 14ahoney. Noes: None. Absent: Sharp. Carried 6-0.
Chairman Halus declared a 5 minute recess at 9:20 P..M. Reconvened at
9:30 P.M.
3. V-68-222 - GUI,F OIL CORPOiL\TIOi,; - (Continued from 11/12/68)
For a variance to permit the replacement of an existing nonconforming
pole sign (10' X 15' each side, total area 300 sq. ft.) with a pole
sign in the sa:~,.a location which is proposed to be circular, 81. sq. ft.
per side and 162 sq. ft. total area.
Location: Site fronts 180' on the northwest side of Ke:..-port Ave and
approxiznately 180' on the soutl~ side of KcFadden St. at the inter-
section of McFadden St. and Ney:port Ave.
}ir. Supf_n_gz~-qr stated that tho. applicant requested that this hearing be
continued to thc December 9, 1968 regularly schedt:led meeting.
It was moved bv }ir. I.:cbster, seconded by }.'.rs. Lud;..-i~2__tjL~:~.:,_,_~/~l]cation
No. V-68-279 be continued to the next: re~ul.,?,rlv scheduled P]:.n~,~ .... Co~::-
... - .... ' ~-' '.___~.. - . ,
missiop, r:~c. et~_n~..~ De.cem!~.r_~9, 1968. Carried unan~:ouslZ.
~. V-68-223 - GL~.,F Oil. CO'.IPOE..\TIOP[ - (Continued fro;n 11/12/68)
For a variaoce to permit the rcplacen:enl: of an existing nonconfo,'v,:ing
pole sign (10' X 15' each side, total area 300 sq. ft.) by a circular
pole s~gn 8]. sq. ft. each side and 162 sq. ft. to,:al area.
Location: Site fronts 120' on thc north side of First St. and approx.-
im~te].y 150' on the ea~;t side of Tm;tin Avcm,e at tho. inter~;ection of
First Street: and Tustin ,%vcnt,e.
F_lr_...})~.~.'.~3?_r... stated th..',:t tl::~ ap?licant reqt':~stod ti:::[ thi~ l,,eari:;3 be
continued to the D,...c¢.::'.ber 9, ].968 reg~,l, arly sch.~dt~!od
PC .~nu~es - Nov~'~bor 25, 1968
5. ZC-68-188 - MARY IL~K~Oi. II.:I,!, - For rczoning of a parcel tokallJ.ng 2.31
acres as follows:
Parcel 1 - Fronting 164' on the nor~l, side of 17th St. and 150' sa
thc west side of Yorba Street from thc PD-3500 (Planned Development '
3500 sq. ft. per unit and lot area) District to thc C-2 (Central
Co~.raercial) District.
.Parcel. 2 - Fronting 164' on the south side of Medford Ave. and Zt70'
on the wast side of Yorba Street from tile P.D-3500 (Planned Development
3500 sq. ft. p:,r unit and lot area) District to the R-3 (1900)
(Multiple Family Residential 1900 sq. ft. per unit and lot area) District.
M_r._Sup, i__qnge__r presented the staff report reco:'.n,.ending approval for the
following reasons:
1. The proposed com;i~.ercial zoning is in conformance with thc
General Plan.
2. The proposed multiple family zoning will provide a buffer
between commercial and lesser density residential uses.
Mr. Oster stated that he would abstain from any co;:',.n.~nts or voting on
subject application.
Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing at 9:35 P.M.
Mr. Melvin Cohen, 444 W. 10th Street, Santa Ana, representing Food
Makers Corp - operating Jack-In-the-Box Inc., described the proposed
building, stating that it will be a fa:~ily type operation with no sale
of liquor or beer. He felt that this property is better suited for
c~rmercial use.
.Mr. Oared..S!::.i.t.h, Architect, spoke of the proposed apartn'.ent buildings
relative to Parcel 2, stating that it would only be for 41 units and
felt that a one and t~.;o bedroom apartment development would act as a
buffer zone between the existing coimnercial that: is there and would be
a good usc for this property.
Those verbally opposing subject application were: }Ir. Kimble, 17441 Bonner,
ltr. George Brewer, 13791 Palace Way, Mr. Barsanti~Jr. 13772 Palace Way,
Mr. Roy Fletcher, 13832 Fairmont Way, }iiss One I,ee Elliott, 13631 Yorba and
Mr. V. J. Leggin, 13782 Palace I~y.
Those opposing voiced disapproval relative to higher density, traffic
hazards, no definite assurance that it would remain "adult" only apartment
development along with being opposed to the proposed Jack-In-The-Box
structure. ~hey felt that this would lower tile value of their property
and possibly incur vandalism as teenagers tend to use it as a hang-out.
Mr. Jack Thoner sub:ai, tted a report relative to cc~nparison of proposed
development to Treehaven apartm:nts with reference to coverage of land
by dwellings and carports, in conformance with exist'ing zoning, tax
revenues, assessed valuation and costs incurred by local school districts
on a "per pupil" basis bet~.~en the proposed -'~0 unit dcvcloF.:.'-ent and the
22 unit: - 3 bedroom develoi:mcnt.
Chairman Hvlus declared the public portion of thc hearing closed at: 10:10
P.M.
The Co~m:~ission discussed the pros and cons of the request, inc!%:cling the
traffic problems, vandalisn, high density and the overall use of the
property. Chair;::an }!al. us was opposed .to the C-2 request. }ir. We. bster
and Mr. I.a. rn,~rd agreed that this particular parcel, is a prob!en~, piece of
property and felt that to change to a C-2 zone would bc in the best
interest of the co::,munity.
-5-
No. ].023 be a(!oi)tx~d rucc:.':.:en,.]i~,.!; a x,rova], to tl~e City Cou' c~] fo,' '---'
adoption of an ordjtmnce raze:ti,:', sul)ioc[' Dl:O:~.?]:L¥ fi'el.' }q~-3503 t:o ['h:.
C-2 and R-3 ~900) l)istricts~ as rcc[uest-ed fo~' th:~ follo.:fn~, rear.;on~;:
1. The proposed co.'.::'.~arcial zoning is itt 'conforn.:mce ~..'ith the
General Plan.
2. The proposed multiple family zoning ~.:ill provide a buffer
between co~p. crcial and lesser density ~csidcntial use.
As additional grounds, tt,e rainutcs and evidence introduced
at the hearing are included by reference and made a part of
the motion.
%Rm above motion ~.:as voted by roll call. Ayes: Mahoney, Larnard,
Webster. Noes: Halus, Ludwig. Abstained: Oster, Absent: Sharp°
Carried 3-2.
6. UP-68-273 - G. W. BUTLER (BLq~NY IIUTC}!)
To permit live entertaim:aeut itt conjunction with a beer bar.
Location: Site fronts 60' on the east side of IIolt Ave. and is
the site of existing structure No. 14920 Holt Ave.
.Mr. Supinc, e.r presented a brief staff report, reco:r.,ne, nding approval.
Chairman tIalus opened the public portion of the hearing at 10:30 P.M.
Mr. Gerald W. But]er, 1845 Anahe~:~. Street, Costa Mesa, sl)o':ce briefly
on the typ.2 of entertair.::,ent that will take place describing the type
of costtu-.,.e to be worn by the "go-go" dancers and stated that it will
be well supervised.
Chairman }!alu~ declared the public portion of the hearing closed at
10:32 P.M. .'
After a brief discussion of subject application, It?__as moved by
Mr. Websterz_secondcd by Mr. Oster, that Resolution No. 1024 be a~]ooted
approvin?~_A,nolication ,No. L-P-68-273 for the followin.% reasons:
%~m Co~,uaission finds that the estal)lis~m~e, nt, maintenance
and operation of the use applied for will not, under the
circumstances of the particular case be detrir.~.ental to the
health, safety, morals, co:alert and general welfare of the
person:~ residing or working in tb.a neighborhood of the pro-
posed use and it will not be injurious or detri~..'~.ental to
the property and iL:provera,tits in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the City.
As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at
the hearing are included by reference and made a part of the
motion.
The above motion was voted by roll call. Ayes: Oster, Ludwig, I!alus,
Webster, I,arnard, Mahoncy. Noes: None. Absdnt: Sharp. Carried 6--0.
7 V-68-224 - FORES'I? E. O!,SO:'! R.,~\LiO,.,S I:.,.~.
To parn.;t a pole sign x.,hich is proposed to ba the third pole
sign in a co:r-narcial cc?.plex, x.:ithin the required front: set-
back and x.:hich exceeds the pc.r'r.:itted height for a pole sign
by 9-~2 ft.
To l~e~'i:'.$t sigr)s ~.:h$ch exceed the total sSgn area l~C. rmit't:c.d
on the site of 96 sq. ft. by 250 sq. fl.. Site front:.: 75' on. tha
southc, r.-';t si{l(: of X.?.,,.:port Av,~nt'a at tl,a intersect[on of N:;:p~'rt'
Avcntm a:t:l l',o].t Avantie.
-fi-
PC 1.[inures - l:ove:.:bc.r 25,
}Ir. Suji!'3~i preset, ted thc staff report staling that the. request is
for five signs, four wall signs anJ one pole sign, totalling 3f16 sq. ft.
Revised plans have been sub:::itted which modify the four wal]. signs,
eliminating the back-lighted fascia, and mount the signs on a stucco
facia. This increases the wall sign area proposed from 33 sq. ft. per
sign and 142 sq. ft. to 54 sq. ft. each and 2].6 sq. ft. ~thi~ revision
would increase the total area to ~20 sq. ft., 74 sq. ft. over the
amount advertised. ' He stated that a variance could not be granted for
signs exceeding 346 sq. ft.
Mr. Supingcr stated that because of recent actions on Kentucky Fried
Chicken which permitted signs totalling 318 sq. ft. in the vic~nlty of
this proporl'y, it is felt that a vargance is justified and rcconT.'.ended
that conditional approval be granted as follo',.:s:
A pole sign in thc required setback with an area of 102 sq. ft.
each side, 204 sq. ft. total area, and a height of 27'6" ex-
clusive of the decorative spire.
2. Two wall signs, each having a maximum area of 54 sq. ft. and
the locations being at thc option of the applicant.
3. That the max~mmm area for the three (3) signs permitted
on the premises is 312 sq. ft.
Chairman Halus opened the portion of the public hearing at 10:35 P.M.
~r. Carl Olson, Vice President of the Company, stated that they were
willing to accept the staff's conditions as stated in the report.
There being no further cox~:nents or discussion from the audience, Chair-
man Halus declared the public portion of the hearing closed at 10:40
After a brief discussion, it was moved by.. 14r. 0ster_~_seconded by
Mr. Mahoney that Resolution ~:o. 1025 be adopted., conditionally approving.
_Application Xo. V-68-22z~ for the _f_o_llo~..:~.n.~ reasons: ~.
That because of exceptional circumstances applicable to the
subject property the strict application of the Ordinance is
found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by
other propertges in the vicinity and under identical circtra-
stances.
That the variance shall be subject to such conditions as will
assure that the adjustments thereby authorized will not con-
situte a grant of sp-~cial privileges inconsistent with the
l~mitations upon o~her properties in the vicinity and district
in which the subject property is located.
Reco~nended conditions of apz~rova! are:
That the height of the pole sign, exclusive of decorative
spire of approx~nately 6'6", be 27'6". Said pole sign will
have an area of 102 sq. ft. on each side and be located with-
in the required setback.
2. ~at two (2) wall signs, each having a nmximum area of 54 sq.ft.
be permitted with the location being the choice of the applicant.
3. That the maxim~m~ arcs for the three (3) signs permitted on the
prcm.~ses is 312 sq. ft.
The above, motion was voted by roll call.
Halus, Webster, Larnard, Mahonay. Noes:
Carried 6-0.
Ayes: Oster, Lu~!wf g,
None. Absent: Sharp.
-7-
/r.f"
PC ~.[[~m.'..es - Novc;:.!:.~r 25, 1968
VIII.
CORi.U.:S -
PO~'~DEXCE
1. CO,~%;[Y CASE UV-6153 - George TJ.ntle foc t'acese[:ter
To permit a 10' X 40' unlighted, single fac~.~d sign to d~rect
traffic to thc first sale of homes in Tract }~o. 6628 in [.hc~
R4 Dis L'rict.
Locatfon: ~ the northeast side of Laguua Road approximately
600 ft. no~th,.'cst of Bro,..,ning Awmu.~.
Mr. SuPiD2~i presented the staff report suggesting that thc Planning
Cor:uaissioa request compliance wit:h Plaiming Co::.~;ission Policy re:
"Tract & DJrcctiom:l Signs in Unincor. porated Territory Adjacent to
Tustin."
It was moved by l.:r. O.~;ter~__s. ccon~e~d~_b.~
Co ....z~s]on reo, uost~n~ co.:;-
directed to [']mOrange County Planning
~pliance wit!~ Tustin's Pla:mHp~ Co~:'?,issfon Policy re: Tract & Directiow~al
Sig. ns ~n Uuincorp~,:'ated TerritorM Adjacen[~ to Tustin." Carr'~ed 6-0.
IX.
(Yi'H E R
BUS]' N%]SS
Xa
AD J0 ~,..",-
2. COb%7£Y CASE ZC-65-49 - Initiated by County Planning C~:~mission
For rezoning from the R-3 (Apartment) District to the PA (Profes-
sional and Ad:ninistrativc Office) District°
Location: Northwest side of Newport Avenue at Wass Street.
~_~.r. Sup~_Rfn.~2e_r-presentcd the staff report .stating that the subject request
results from Planning Co~r. nission consideration of a request for C-1 zoning
on the southerly portion of the area now under consideration. Thc City
has previously opposed extension of co::~';.arcial uses north of Wass Street
along Newport. He recom:?.ended opposition for subject application.
It was moved by l.:r. Webster seconded bM Mr. Oster that a letter be
directed to the Orange Couuty PlanningCo::m~i. ssion voicing opposition.
Carried 6-0.
NONE
It was moved bv '~4rs. Lud,,.'i.5:' s_e_conded bv Mr. Oster that the
adjourned. C~rr~ed 6-0.
There being no further busbness before the Planning Cor:":.issiou,
Chairman Itel. us declared the meeting adjourned at' 10:55 P.!.~
CIb%IRMA:; 0i" TIlE PI,A?.:L.'.'.:G