HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 30161
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 3016
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING DESIGN REVIEW 91-048 A
REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES
AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS AND VARIANCE 91-019 A
REQUEST TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR
TWO FLAG LOTS TO 5 FEET AND TO REDUCE THE
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR ALL FOUR LOTS TO WIDTHS
BETWEEN 14 AND 45 FEET.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as
follows:
ae
That proper applications, Design Review No.
91-048 and Variance 91-019, were filed by J.
P. Greubel Company requesting approval of the
development plan for a four-lot subdivision
including a reduction in the required front
yard setback and minimum lot width.
Be
That a public hearing was duly noticed, called
and held on said application on March 23,
1992. The public hearing was closed on the
item on March 23, 1992, and continued to April
13, 1992, as a consent calendar item.
C.
Pursuant to the criteria listed in Section
9272 of the Tustin City Code, the Commission
finds that the location, size, architectural
features and general appearance of the
proposed development will impair the orderly
and harmonious development of the area, the
present or future development therein, and the
occupancy as a whole, evidenced by the
following:
·
The site plan will require the approval
of variances for front yard setback and
lot width resulting in lots that are not
compatible with adjacent single family
residential development. The adjacent
development has structures deeply setback
on lots which meet or exceed the minimum
lot width standards.
·
The site plan will require deviations
from the City's Private Street Standards
in order to meet the minimum lot size
which results in a substandard street and
shared driveways which is not
1
2
3
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
9.3
27
g8
Resolution No. 3016
Page 2
Do
characteristic of surrounding single
family residential development.
·
The site plan proposes to orient the
structures inward, which is inconsistent
with surrounding single family
development, which is oriented onto Holt
and Warren Avenues.
·
The size and scale of the buildings is
not compatible with surrounding single
family residential development which is
mostly made up of single-story, low-
profile structures.
·
The site plan proposes a six-foot high
perimeter wall along Holt and Warren
Avenues differing from surrounding single
family residential development and
disrupts the character of existing
development which has three-foot high
fences along Holt and Warren Avenues at
front property line.
That the variance authorized will constitute a
grant of special privileges inconsistent with
the limitations upon other properties in the
vicinity and district in which the subject
property is situated and because of special
circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings, the strict
application of the Zoning Ordinance is not
found to deprive the subject property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity and under identical zone
classification as evidenced by the following:
The subject property could be developed
under the current zoning classification
of E-4 (Residential Estate District)
without depriving the owner of a right to
develop similarly to surrounding
properties, therefore the granting of a
variance in this case is excessive and
would be considered a special privilege.
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
~8
i9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 3016
Page 3
·
The proponent for the project indicated
that the dwellings on Lots 2 and 4 could
be adjusted thereby eliminating the need
for a variance to encroach 15 feet into
the front yard setback.
·
The justification for the variances is
based upon the need to maintain the
minimum lot size stated for the R-1
(Single Family Residential District) Zone
therefore, the granting of the variance
would result in a special privilege not
enjoyed by similar properties.
There are no special circumstances
applicable to the subject property
related to size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings that would
prohibit development of the property
under the current zoning classification
of E-4 (Residential Estate District) in
that the existing lot configuration of
the subject property is similar to that
of adjacent single family development.
II. The Planning Commission denies Design Review 91-048
a request to construct four single-family homes and
related improvements and Variance 91-019 a request
to reduce the front yard setback for two flag lots
to 5 feet and to reduce the minimum lot width for
all four lots to widths between 14 and 45 feet.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin
Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of April, 1992.
KATHLEEN CLANCY ~
Recording Secretary
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
i9
21
22
23
25
27
28
Resolution No. 3016
Page 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, KATRLEEN CLANCY, the undersigned, hereby certify that
I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission
of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No.
3016 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of
the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of
April, 1992.
KATHLEEN CLANCY
Recording Secreta~ry